Share Joe Pitts
Joe Pitts for Congress Blog
Featured Blogs
Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
The bill passed the House anyway. So why did Pitts vote against it? In a statement, the Republican lawmaker said this: “It is critically important that Congress focus on getting Americans back to work, I just don’t think that this bill will help. This bill contained a permanent tax increase to pay for temporary tax relief. I think we can help small businesses with real and permanent relief that they can count on, not a temporary break that will disappear after a year.”
Pitts’ office also pointed out the 35 Democrats voted against this bill despite the fact that Democratic leadership was calling it a “jobs bill.” It only passed by a handful of votes. “That’s pretty significant opposition considering the subject matter,” a spokesman said. “We didn’t even know the content of this bill until 10:30 [Thursday] morning when it appeared at the Rules Committee. There was no attempt to let members, Republican or Democrat, contribute to writing this bill. The bill gets written behind closed doors, it’s sent to the floor, and we either take it or leave it.”
Story Originally Posted Here
Process likely to start next week
Originally Posted: February 27, 2010
The decades-long effort to open a federal courthouse in Lancaster is expected to take a crucial step forward next week....
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts announced Friday that the GSA, an agency of the federal government that owns property and leases it to the federal courts, will begin seeking "expressions of interest" for property in the city.
The decades-long effort to open a federal courthouse in Lancaster is expected to take a crucial step forward next week.
The federal government plans to launch a site-selection process for a $27 million facility that would be built downtown, judicial and congressional sources said Friday.
Finding and acquiring a suitable property likely will take months, but the feds expect to have a one- or two-courtroom building constructed within three years.
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, a former county judge who lives in Lancaster and commutes to Philadelphia, likely would preside at the new courthouse.
In an interview, he said all branches of the government are committed to moving forward the much-anticipated project.
"It's clearly a priority of the East District, and it's clearly a priority for the General Services Administration," said Stengel, 57. "There's a push to get this done. The process of site selection and acquiring and hiring of an architect — once those things are done, construction should proceed rapidly."
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts announced Friday that the GSA, an agency of the federal government that owns property and leases it to the federal courts, will begin seeking "expressions of interest" for property in the city.
The agency will post the request online at FBO.gov, the government's procurement clearinghouse. FBO stands for Federal Business Opportunities.
The request is a sort of open invitation to the private sector, namely property owners and real estate firms who can help identify a suitable site. The government has appropriated $6.5 million for site acquisition and design.
The remaining $20.5 million would go toward construction of the facility.
The U.S. Senate has authorized spending the $27 million for the courthouse; the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also must authorize the spending.
Congress must approve of the proposal in the financial services and general government appropriations bill, said Tom Tillett, district chief of staff for Pitts.
Elected officials, local law enforcement and attorneys have been seeking a federal courthouse in Lancaster for more than 20 years.
"A federal courthouse here will aid in the prosecution of gang-related offenses, illegal firearms and other serious criminal cases since police officers will no longer have to travel to Philadelphia in order to testify," Pitts said in a statement.
"I'm going to work closely with my colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to move the project forward," said Pitts, a Republican who represents Lancaster County. "Lancaster has waited decades for a federal courthouse, and today's action is a concrete step toward beginning construction."
Lancaster's facility is expected to be modeled somewhat after smaller satellite federal courthouses, such as the one in Reading.
It is expected to consist of one or two courtrooms, two judges' chambers, a U.S. Marshals Service office and other offices for court personnel.
Craig Stedman, Lancaster County's district attorney, said the latest development was "encouraging news from a law-enforcement perspective."
"We have a long-standing partnership with the U.S. Attorney's Office in prosecuting some of the worst criminals in the county in federal court," he said. "One of the only drawbacks so far has been the distance police officers, witnesses and prosecutors have to travel in order to take advantage of more serious federal sentencing guidelines.
"Anything which will cut the travel time will lessen the burden on witnesses and give the police more time to work cases rather than sitting in a car to and from Philadelphia," Stedman said.
In April, federal officials confirmed they were looking at sites for a satellite courthouse in Lancaster city.
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray said there are several possible locations in the city: the vacant Bulova building on Lancaster Square, at North Queen and East Orange streets; the former Sovereign Bank office building at 23 E. King St., owned by the Girard Estate; and the site of the former Gunzenhauser Bakery at 811 N. Prince St.
Gray, who has been involved from the beginning with the plan to bring a federal courthouse to Lancaster, said such a facility would save city police a lot of money they now spend driving to other courthouses.
"Even if you have a pretrial conference, you have to go to Philly or go to Allentown or Reading," Gray said. "It would certainly serve the community of Lancaster — not just the city, but the county — by way of providing an easy, accessible way to get to the federal courts, whether criminal or civil."
Stengel said the courthouse could also handle bankruptcy cases, so litigants wouldn't have to go to Philadelphia.
It said:
“CORRECTIONS/ CLARIFICATIONS A letter to the editor in Tuesday's edition stated U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts voted against extending unemployment benefits. Pitts voted against an earlier bill but supported the extension on final passage. The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era wants to correct substantive errors of fact.”
The truth is, Joe voted against an early version of the bill because it simultaneously raised taxes on job-creators, making it at least marginally harder to actually solve the unemployment problem. The bill then went to the Senate. Joe led a group of ten House members in urging the Senate to pay for the bill using stimulus money instead. While they didn’t take that advice, the Senate did improve the bill by adding other job-creating measures Joe had been calling for, and Joe then voted for the Senate version on final passage. This was the second extension of unemployment compensation benefits Joe voted for.
At a time when the economy is forcing more people to seek nutritional aid, and fewer people are in a position to help, U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-16, of East Marlborough Township is seeking some answers.
To that end, he is visiting food cupboards in the area to try to determine how they are doing and what he can to do help.
On Tuesday morning, armed with 36 pounds of butter, he and several staff members stopped at the Oxford Area Neighborhood Services building, and talked with case manager Carla Brown. As he hauled the box of butter to the table, he said he had heard that it, along with eggs and milk, are among the greatest needs.
Pitts said he hopes to undertake a survey of stakeholders the food cupboards and find out what their priorities are and if there are certain regional differences in what people consume based on their cultural backgrounds.
He also said he is aiming to modify the Good Samaritan Act, a law that holds blameless someone who is attempting to help but might cause harm in the process. He used as an example enabling food cupboard administrators to place out for consumption canned goods that are past expiration date, but only by a month.
Pitts said food cupboards get some foodstuffs from the federal government and money from the state. He added that Chester County has a large warehouse that acts as a distribution point for federal food.
Another project he spoke of was the Chester County gleaning program through which farmers and gardeners plant extra fresh produce and pass it on to feed those in need.
Brown said the Oxford Neighborhood Services food cupboard gives out food boxes to an average of 66 families a month, or more than 786 a year.
She said that the requests for help have increased dramatically in the past year by almost 40 percent. In the same period of time, fewer people have been able to give, she said.
She added that April, May and June (before the state budget is passed) are the leanest months for the food cupboard. Still, she added, many individuals drop off non-perishable foods that help stock the facility.
For more information on the food cupboard, call 610-932-8557.
Not content to just criticize, I issued a memorandum to my constituents on the day Congress passed that bill. I called for tax reduction, increased energy production, and trade promotion as the three things that would genuinely stimulate the economy.
A year later, in Wednesday’s State of the Union Address, the President finally called for these three things in what appears to be a serious way. While I disagree with much of what he called for in his speech, we at last agree on some of the areas we should be focusing our efforts.
It’s a year late. But I’m glad to see the President finally realize that tax cuts are the quickest and surest form of stimulus. I’m glad to see him recognize that we need to expand energy production, not constrict it as his “cap and trade” proposal would do. I’m glad to see him realize that we must open new markets for manufacturers to sell their wares to.
If he had acted on these things a year ago, unemployment might really have stayed under eight percent. It remains to be seen if he will actually act on them even now.
The number-one issue in American right now is unemployment. In Chester County, the unemployment rate is 6.5 percent. In Lancaster County, it’s 8 percent. In Berks County, it’s 9.1 percent. Those are serious numbers. But unemployment isn’t about numbers. It’s about people, and we have to remember that we’re not talking about statistics. We’re talking about real people who are struggling to put food on the table.
What can we do about it? Jobs don’t come from the government. Jobs come from businesses and entrepreneurs who act on good ideas, take risks, and invest in people. Government can make this easier, or government can make this harder.
Government can make it easier by leaving more money in private hands. High taxes take money out of the economy, hampering job creation. Government borrowing also hampers economic growth, as money that might be invested in job-creating enterprises goes to government bonds instead.
This Congress is breaking records when it comes to taxing and borrowing. Letting the 2001 tax cuts expire amounts to the largest tax increase in history, and it will apply to every taxpayer. The Democrats' health legislation includes large tax increases. The “cap and trade” national energy tax will amount to a massive tax increase.
What is driving this? Spending. Under this Congress, government spending is simply out of control.
I can remember, as a child, when I first heard the word “trillion.” It was a word kids used the way they say “zillion” or “kabillion.” It may as well have been a made-up word. Like “googolplex” it was a real number, but too big to be used for anything but exaggerating.
Unfortunately, that’s no longer true.
Back in January, the Congressional Budget Office said the federal deficit would total $1.2 trillion this year, and $3.1 trillion over the next decade. Those are shocking numbers. If you started spending $1 million a day—every day—on the day Jesus was born, and kept spending until now, you still would not owe even three-quarters of $1 trillion.
But as shocking as those January numbers were, they didn’t account for the return of tax-and-spend big government liberalism. This summer, CBO estimated this year’s deficit at $1.6 trillion—the biggest since World War II. Over the next decade, they say the deficit will grow by $7.1 trillion. If President Obama gets his entire legislative agenda into law, that number increases to $9 trillion, more than doubling the already huge debt he inherited.
At the end of the Carter presidency (tough economic times!), the national debt was equal to one-third of the nation’s gross domestic product. The White House predicts the debt will be larger than 100 percent of GDP by the end of President Obama’s four-years in office.
It is hard to comprehend numbers this large. Imagine, for instance, that you tried to count to a billion. If you counted one number per second—and that’s pretty fast—it would take you almost 32 years to do it. How long would it take to count to a trillion? Almost 32,000 years. You would have had to start in the Paleolithic Age!
Elections have consequences. Americans voted for “change” last year. Unfortunately, the change we got was not the kind we need.
Polling data show that majorities as large as 71 percent do not believe the government should run or subsidize programs that perform or pay for the procedure. That was reflected in a recent vote in the House of Representatives to bar new programs in the Democrats’ proposed health overhaul from paying for abortion. The amendment passed with broad bipartisan support. Every pro-choice Republican and a great many pro-choice Democrats voted for it. One fourth of all Democrats voted “yes,” including most of the twelve Democrats from Pennsylvania. The amendment reflects the mainstream of American opinion. It reflects the conviction of decent Americans who recognize that however much people may disagree on this issue, we should respect each other enough to not publicly fund something many of us find abhorrent.
There is, however, a small minority in America and in Congress that insists on using this legislation to fund abortion through major government health programs. Much like those on the right who have claimed the health bill sets up “death panels,” the simple facts don’t seem to matter much to them. Politifact.com has posted three “truth-o-meter” studies debunking the claims made by left-wing members of Congress on this issue. National Public Radio and other respected sources have done the same. Nevertheless, the wild claims continue. One of the organizers of a Saturday rally to protest my co-sponsorship of the amendment told the Daily Local News that I oppose birth control—something that is absolutely not true.
All of this reflects the unfortunate side of American politics today. It has become harder and harder for elected officials and activists on opposing sides of the issues to have grown-up, respectful conversations with each other. Lincoln-Douglas debates have been replaced by the Rachel Maddow show. After the House vote, a liberal activist from Lancaster (who intends to run against me next year) wrote on a blog: “Everybody's angry. And everybody wants to punish someone—anyone!—for this travesty!” and then asked readers to give her money.
Given the heated rhetoric, I believe it is important for everyone to remember what this debate is about. It has nothing to do with the legality or availability of abortion. It is purely, and only, about whether or not the government will pay for abortion in the so-called “public option” and through new “affordability credits” if the legislation now in Congress becomes law.
Because the vast majority of Americans do not want public money spent that way, those who do want it spent that way are faced with two options. Either accede to the will of the majority, as Speaker Pelosi has done, or use budget gimmicks to pay for abortion while claiming not to. (Unfortunately, the new Senate bill includes exactly that kind of gimmick.)
There is a saying that “politics is the art of compromise.” That is almost always true. It is not true here. You simply can’t compromise on an either/or scenario. Either we are going to use public funds to pay for abortion or we aren’t. Giving money to a government contractor who then pays for abortions isn’t a compromise. It’s deception. Likewise, pretending that money isn’t fungible, as Senator Reid has done, is not a compromise. Either the government is going to pay for abortion or it isn’t, and Congress needs to be honest about what it is doing.
Democracy relies on the honesty and the good will of elected officials and activists alike. We should compromise when we can and let the majority rule when we can’t. Mudslinging, dishonest “spin,” and Saul Alinsky-style tactics undermine democracy and hurt our country. For decades, the government has not paid for abortion services and it should not start now. That is the overwhelming will of the American people. The House has listened to the people, and the Senate should too.
# # #
- A trillion is a thousand times a billion.
- A trillion is ten times the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.
- It takes 12 years for a million seconds to pass. It takes almost 32,000 years for a trillion seconds to pass.
- A trillion is just over half the size of this year's federal deficit, if the entire Obama legislative program is passed into law.
“Pat Toomey is the right candidate. No one else comes close.
“I worked with Pat in Congress for six years. He is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known. He’s also one of the most caring and passionate people I’ve served with. A lot of politicians have lost credibility in recent years. Pat Toomey isn’t one of them. Pat has good ideas that he actually believes in, and he will work hard to make people’s lives better.
“Pat Toomey is a bona fide fiscal conservative at a time when Washington desperately needs more of them. Pat knows where jobs and prosperity come from, and he knows they don’t come from Washington.
“Pat has strong convictions, but they are convictions with bipartisan appeal. Pat proved during his three terms in Congress that he has the ability to inspire Democrats and Republicans alike.
“Pat Toomey is going to win this race. He is principled, thoughtful, caring, and qualified.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have the power to decide which bills get voted on and which ones don’t. Unfortunately, that power is being abused to prevent Republicans from even offering amendments to key bills that are on the floor. More and more bills are going through the House with no amendments allowed unless they are pre-approved by the Democratic leadership. There have always been some limits on amendments. But it has never before been done on the all-important appropriations bills that decide how your money is spent. This week, for the first time ever under the modern appropriations process, Republicans had to get our appropriations amendments pre-approved by Democratic Leaders. The reason? They’re scared Democrats will vote with us and our good ideas will become law.
