Share Joe Pitts
Joe Pitts for Congress Blog
Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
March 31, 2010
Campaign Staff
Most at session with congressman oppose reforms in new law
By Darrin Youker
Reading Eagle
Marsha Barth believes her tenuous hold on medical insurance might fade away as the government's changes to the nation's health care system kick in.
Barth, who owns the Stouchsburg Garden Center in western Berks County, said she fears her insurance company might push health care costs for her and her employees up so far that they will no longer be able to afford coverage.
Marsha Barth believes her tenuous hold on medical insurance might fade away as the government's changes to the nation's health care system kick in.
Barth, who owns the Stouchsburg Garden Center in western Berks County, said she fears her insurance company might push health care costs for her and her employees up so far that they will no longer be able to afford coverage.
U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts speaks with a group Tuesday night at Phoebe Berks Village in Wernersville. Pitts, a Chester County Republican, also represents part of Berks.
Barth pays $25,000 a year for health insurance, and she believes that cost will go up.
Barth was among about 65 people who attended a town hall meeting Tuesday night with U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts at Phoebe Berks Village in Wernersville. Like Barth, most who attended were opposed to the government's health care reforms.
"The bill is not going to work," Barth said. "The reason people are against it is you don't know how it will be paid for."
Pitts, a Chester County Republican who represents part of Berks, said he believes the federal government should have taken a different approach to reforming health care.
Instead of putting the government in the middle of Americans' health care, it should have opened up the free market to give consumers better access to care, he said.
While President Barack Obama has signed health care reform into law, federal lawmakers are trying to overturn some provisions, Pitts said.
That was welcome news to Bill Morgan of Wernersville, who said Congress adopted health care reform that the majority of Americans do not support.
"There seems to be an aristocratic arrogance in Congress," he said. "They did not listen to what the public wants."
Pitts supports provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But he believes consumers could find better health care options if the federal government dropped restrictions that prevent them from joining insurance pools through churches, civic organizations and trade associations.
"Rates would come down and you would have more options," he said. "That is what I call real reform."
But Carol Orts, a resident of Phoebe Berks, said Congress did the right thing by passing the health care reform measures. For too long, health insurance companies were denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, she said.
"This bill is moving us in the right direction," she said. "There has been too much made of this being socialism."
Contact Darrin Youker: 610-371-5032 or dyouker@readingeagle.com
Barth, who owns the Stouchsburg Garden Center in western Berks County, said she fears her insurance company might push health care costs for her and her employees up so far that they will no longer be able to afford coverage.
U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts speaks with a group Tuesday night at Phoebe Berks Village in Wernersville. Pitts, a Chester County Republican, also represents part of Berks.
Barth pays $25,000 a year for health insurance, and she believes that cost will go up.
Barth was among about 65 people who attended a town hall meeting Tuesday night with U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts at Phoebe Berks Village in Wernersville. Like Barth, most who attended were opposed to the government's health care reforms.
"The bill is not going to work," Barth said. "The reason people are against it is you don't know how it will be paid for."
Pitts, a Chester County Republican who represents part of Berks, said he believes the federal government should have taken a different approach to reforming health care.
Instead of putting the government in the middle of Americans' health care, it should have opened up the free market to give consumers better access to care, he said.
While President Barack Obama has signed health care reform into law, federal lawmakers are trying to overturn some provisions, Pitts said.
That was welcome news to Bill Morgan of Wernersville, who said Congress adopted health care reform that the majority of Americans do not support.
"There seems to be an aristocratic arrogance in Congress," he said. "They did not listen to what the public wants."
Pitts supports provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But he believes consumers could find better health care options if the federal government dropped restrictions that prevent them from joining insurance pools through churches, civic organizations and trade associations.
"Rates would come down and you would have more options," he said. "That is what I call real reform."
But Carol Orts, a resident of Phoebe Berks, said Congress did the right thing by passing the health care reform measures. For too long, health insurance companies were denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, she said.
"This bill is moving us in the right direction," she said. "There has been too much made of this being socialism."
Contact Darrin Youker: 610-371-5032 or dyouker@readingeagle.com
-
0
March 29, 2010
Campaign Staff
By Congressman Joe Pitts
The Democrats’ health legislation has now been forced through Congress and into law despite bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread public opposition. Three dozen House Democrats opposed it. Every Republican opposed it. Only slightly more than a third of the public supports it.
The Democrats’ health legislation has now been forced through Congress and into law despite bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread public opposition. Three dozen House Democrats opposed it. Every Republican opposed it. Only slightly more than a third of the public supports it.
By Congressman Joe Pitts
The Democrats’ health legislation has now been forced through Congress and into law despite bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread public opposition. Three dozen House Democrats opposed it. Every Republican opposed it. Only slightly more than a third of the public supports it.
Democrats were barely able to pass the bill, even though there are 75 more Democrats in the House than Republicans, and an unusually lopsided majority in the Senate as well. Only a year’s worth of cajoling, back-room deals, demonizing of industry, and cooking of the numbers made it possible.
What will the consequences be? It won’t be pretty.
Not counting the new law, the nation’s unfunded liability for entitlements is already $104 trillion dollars. That is seven times the size of the U.S. economy. That’s according to Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The unfunded liability is the difference between promised benefits and the money that will be collected in taxes to pay for them.
The entitlement crisis has arrived. This year, many years before it was projected to, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it will collect in payroll taxes. Former President Bush, with my support, proposed a plan to change the way Social Security is paid for to put it on a sound footing. After a shameful campaign of scaring seniors, Democrats defeated this plan without ever offering their own. Now, Social Security is well on its way to insolvency.
Medicare’s problems are far worse. Medicare’s unfunded liability is five times that of Social Security. Obamacare doesn’t solve this crisis. It adds to it.
Instead of finding ways to make these programs solvent, Congress and President Obama have hastened their collapse. By adding an entire new entitlement program we cannot afford, the solvency of the government itself is now severely threatened. The math just doesn’t add up. It is no wonder, then, that Moody’s has announced it is likely to downgrade the government’s bond rating soon. The cost of that alone will be dramatic.
What, then should we have done instead?
On my website, I have a detailed memorandum outlining affordable ways to help the uninsured, to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and to achieve the other worthy goals of Obamacare.
The fundamental problem behind our entitlement crisis is the lack of free market forces involved. Already, nearly half of all Americans are on government healthcare programs that compete with no one. Even private insurance sees only limited competition, since the government will not allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
Beyond economics and business models, however, we need an entirely new way of looking at healthcare. Early in this debate a Republican said, “We don’t have healthcare in this country—we just have sick care.” Americans wait until they are sick to pay attention to their health. The point is, as Ben Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Chester County’s John Emmons works for a company called Mannington Mills. The company is self-insured, so every dollar spent on employee health comes out of the company’s bank account. John is the leader of the company’s wellness initiative.
The program offers free health screenings for early detection, a fitness center, offers health classes, a Weight Watchers program, a smoking cessation program, sports leagues, and wellness coaches.
John reports that “Mannington’s health care costs have fallen both in 2008 and 2009. We’re going for three in a row in 2010.” Clearly, Mannington Mills is doing it right.
John says, “Unfortunately, our president and the Democratic-led Congress just wasted a year, further dividing the country and burdening taxpayers with a new source of debt. … If they are serious about solutions, perhaps they should come and talk with some of us who have done it, rather than twist arms, make deals and mislead the American people.”
Health reform is possible. John Emmons’ company has done it. If Washington had listened to John and the millions of Americans who think like he does, real reform might have happened this year. Real reforms would protect patients while lowering costs. Instead, our problems are now worse.
The Democrats’ health legislation has now been forced through Congress and into law despite bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread public opposition. Three dozen House Democrats opposed it. Every Republican opposed it. Only slightly more than a third of the public supports it.
Democrats were barely able to pass the bill, even though there are 75 more Democrats in the House than Republicans, and an unusually lopsided majority in the Senate as well. Only a year’s worth of cajoling, back-room deals, demonizing of industry, and cooking of the numbers made it possible.
What will the consequences be? It won’t be pretty.
Not counting the new law, the nation’s unfunded liability for entitlements is already $104 trillion dollars. That is seven times the size of the U.S. economy. That’s according to Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The unfunded liability is the difference between promised benefits and the money that will be collected in taxes to pay for them.
The entitlement crisis has arrived. This year, many years before it was projected to, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it will collect in payroll taxes. Former President Bush, with my support, proposed a plan to change the way Social Security is paid for to put it on a sound footing. After a shameful campaign of scaring seniors, Democrats defeated this plan without ever offering their own. Now, Social Security is well on its way to insolvency.
Medicare’s problems are far worse. Medicare’s unfunded liability is five times that of Social Security. Obamacare doesn’t solve this crisis. It adds to it.
Instead of finding ways to make these programs solvent, Congress and President Obama have hastened their collapse. By adding an entire new entitlement program we cannot afford, the solvency of the government itself is now severely threatened. The math just doesn’t add up. It is no wonder, then, that Moody’s has announced it is likely to downgrade the government’s bond rating soon. The cost of that alone will be dramatic.
What, then should we have done instead?
On my website, I have a detailed memorandum outlining affordable ways to help the uninsured, to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and to achieve the other worthy goals of Obamacare.
The fundamental problem behind our entitlement crisis is the lack of free market forces involved. Already, nearly half of all Americans are on government healthcare programs that compete with no one. Even private insurance sees only limited competition, since the government will not allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
Beyond economics and business models, however, we need an entirely new way of looking at healthcare. Early in this debate a Republican said, “We don’t have healthcare in this country—we just have sick care.” Americans wait until they are sick to pay attention to their health. The point is, as Ben Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Chester County’s John Emmons works for a company called Mannington Mills. The company is self-insured, so every dollar spent on employee health comes out of the company’s bank account. John is the leader of the company’s wellness initiative.
The program offers free health screenings for early detection, a fitness center, offers health classes, a Weight Watchers program, a smoking cessation program, sports leagues, and wellness coaches.
John reports that “Mannington’s health care costs have fallen both in 2008 and 2009. We’re going for three in a row in 2010.” Clearly, Mannington Mills is doing it right.
John says, “Unfortunately, our president and the Democratic-led Congress just wasted a year, further dividing the country and burdening taxpayers with a new source of debt. … If they are serious about solutions, perhaps they should come and talk with some of us who have done it, rather than twist arms, make deals and mislead the American people.”
Health reform is possible. John Emmons’ company has done it. If Washington had listened to John and the millions of Americans who think like he does, real reform might have happened this year. Real reforms would protect patients while lowering costs. Instead, our problems are now worse.
-
0
March 26, 2010
Joe Pitts
Obamacare is not reform. It takes our existing entitlement crisis and makes it worse. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Medicare and Social Security already are committed to spend $107 trillion more than they are projected to collect from taxes. That is a crisis, and not one that is somewhere down the road. This year, much earlier than once predicted, Social Security will spend more than it collects. This threatens the retirement and health of every American.
Obamacare is not reform. It takes our existing entitlement crisis and makes it worse. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Medicare and Social Security already are committed to spend $107 trillion more than they are projected to collect from taxes. That is a crisis, and not one that is somewhere down the road. This year, much earlier than once predicted, Social Security will spend more than it collects. This threatens the retirement and health of every American.
Instead of fixing this problem, Obamacare adds to it. Instead of ensuring that every American has the healthcare they need, the new law makes it much harder to keep the entire system from collapsing into bankruptcy. It is hard to overstate how irresponsible this is.
Please read these articles to learn more. Every American should read these!
National Center for Policy Analysis: "Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009"
New York Times: "Payback Time: Wave of Debt Payments to Hit U.S. Government" (read the multimedia sidebar, too)
Newsweek: "An Empire at Risk" (cover story)
Forbes: "The 81% Tax Increase"
New York Times: "Moody's Says U.S. Debt Could Test Triple-A Rating"
Instead of fixing this problem, Obamacare adds to it. Instead of ensuring that every American has the healthcare they need, the new law makes it much harder to keep the entire system from collapsing into bankruptcy. It is hard to overstate how irresponsible this is.
Please read these articles to learn more. Every American should read these!
National Center for Policy Analysis: "Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009"
New York Times: "Payback Time: Wave of Debt Payments to Hit U.S. Government" (read the multimedia sidebar, too)
Newsweek: "An Empire at Risk" (cover story)
Forbes: "The 81% Tax Increase"
New York Times: "Moody's Says U.S. Debt Could Test Triple-A Rating"
-
0
March 25, 2010
Campaign Staff
Amidst great controversy regarding health care reform, it is imperative Congress focus on repairing the economy. Ten things Congress should be doing include keeping taxes consistently low, balancing the budget, regulating wisely, making energy cheaper, building infrastructure, opening new markets, encouraging saving, improving education, reforming health care and encouraging strong families.
Ten Things Congress Should Do to Help the Economy
1. Keep Taxes Consistently Low
2. Balance the Budget
3. Regulate Wisely
4. Make Energy Cheaper
5. Build Infrastructure
6. Open New Markets
7. Encourage Saving
8. Improve Education
9. Reform Healthcare
10. Encourage Strong Families
1. Keep Taxes Consistently Low – Every dollar you spend grows the economy. Every dollar the government takes away in taxes removes money from the economy. High taxes cost jobs. Seesawing tax rates discourage business investment, making businesses unsure of what the future will bring. That also costs jobs.
• In 2001, Congress cut taxes for every American. That law will expire next year. Congress should make it permanent.
• Permanently reducing the capital gains tax will encourage personal and business investment.
2. Balance the Budget – For the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2009, the federal government recorded a deficit of $1.4 trillion, the highest in history and almost $1 trillion more than the previous year. In November, The New York Times reported that because of the huge $12 trillion debt, the government “faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.” The deficit is a severe threat to our future prosperity.
Congress must stop spending more than it has.
3. Regulate Wisely – If the economy were a football game, it would be government’s job to be the referee. We need clear and consistent rules that rein in greed and foolishness without stifling creativity and the free market.
• Congress was to blame for abuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress must do a better job of minding the store.
• Bankruptcy laws must be fixed so that no bank or business is “too big to fail.” Corruption and greed must face real consequences. I support legislation to do this, the Consumer Protection and Regulatory Enhancement Act, H.R. 3310.
4. Make Energy Cheaper – Every part of our economy consumes gas, electricity, and other forms of energy. High energy costs mean less growth and fewer jobs.
• The SAFE Nuclear Act, HR 3448. I introduced this bipartisan bill to spur the construction of safe and clean nuclear power plants. This will increase our supply of American-made energy and protect the environment.
5. Build Infrastructure – Better highways and bridges will make a better economy. “Time is money,” as the saying goes, and Americans spend too much time waiting in traffic. This slows down the delivery of goods and services, and that slows our economy down and costs jobs.
• Unfortunately, only 6 percent of the “stimulus” passed last year was spent on infrastructure.
6. Open New Markets – The recession hit farmers and manufacturers especially hard with a 50 percent drop in international demand for our exports. Congressional inaction on pending trade agreements with friendly nations like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia is hurting our economy and inflating unemployment.
7. Encourage Saving – Saving and investing is not only good for the investor, it’s good for the businesses we invest in. Americans need to save more and invest more.
• The Savings for Working Families Act, H.R. 1234 – I introduced this bill to help low income families save for the future with matching contributions from financial institutions, non-profits, and Indian tribes.
• Help Kids Save for College Act, H.R. 2500 – I introduced this bill to make it easier for families to save money for their children’s college tuition by allowing matching contributions from employers.
8. Improve Education – Education levels are directly connected to individual and national prosperity. America’s colleges and universities are the best in the world, but many of our grade schools and high schools are failing.
• The Dollars to the Classroom Act. I have long promoted this bill to guarantee that 95 cents of each federal education dollar will be spent in the classroom instead of on bureaucracy. I will be reintroducing it this month.
• Encourage innovation and competition in public education through charters schools, school choice, and merit-based tenure and promotion.
9. Reform Healthcare – Families, employers, and the government are all spending too much on healthcare. This robs money from other parts of the economy. Real health reform will reduce, rather than increase, what we pay as a nation for health insurance.
• The Small Business CHOICE Act, H.R. 859 – I introduced this bill with Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a Democrat from New York, to make it cheaper and easier for small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees.
10. Encourage Strong Families – Strong and stable families produce more productive citizens and use fewer government services.
• Permanently end the “marriage penalty” in the tax code.
• Preserve the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform law.
1. Keep Taxes Consistently Low
2. Balance the Budget
3. Regulate Wisely
4. Make Energy Cheaper
5. Build Infrastructure
6. Open New Markets
7. Encourage Saving
8. Improve Education
9. Reform Healthcare
10. Encourage Strong Families
1. Keep Taxes Consistently Low – Every dollar you spend grows the economy. Every dollar the government takes away in taxes removes money from the economy. High taxes cost jobs. Seesawing tax rates discourage business investment, making businesses unsure of what the future will bring. That also costs jobs.
• In 2001, Congress cut taxes for every American. That law will expire next year. Congress should make it permanent.
• Permanently reducing the capital gains tax will encourage personal and business investment.
2. Balance the Budget – For the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2009, the federal government recorded a deficit of $1.4 trillion, the highest in history and almost $1 trillion more than the previous year. In November, The New York Times reported that because of the huge $12 trillion debt, the government “faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.” The deficit is a severe threat to our future prosperity.
Congress must stop spending more than it has.
3. Regulate Wisely – If the economy were a football game, it would be government’s job to be the referee. We need clear and consistent rules that rein in greed and foolishness without stifling creativity and the free market.
• Congress was to blame for abuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress must do a better job of minding the store.
• Bankruptcy laws must be fixed so that no bank or business is “too big to fail.” Corruption and greed must face real consequences. I support legislation to do this, the Consumer Protection and Regulatory Enhancement Act, H.R. 3310.
4. Make Energy Cheaper – Every part of our economy consumes gas, electricity, and other forms of energy. High energy costs mean less growth and fewer jobs.
• The SAFE Nuclear Act, HR 3448. I introduced this bipartisan bill to spur the construction of safe and clean nuclear power plants. This will increase our supply of American-made energy and protect the environment.
5. Build Infrastructure – Better highways and bridges will make a better economy. “Time is money,” as the saying goes, and Americans spend too much time waiting in traffic. This slows down the delivery of goods and services, and that slows our economy down and costs jobs.
• Unfortunately, only 6 percent of the “stimulus” passed last year was spent on infrastructure.
6. Open New Markets – The recession hit farmers and manufacturers especially hard with a 50 percent drop in international demand for our exports. Congressional inaction on pending trade agreements with friendly nations like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia is hurting our economy and inflating unemployment.
7. Encourage Saving – Saving and investing is not only good for the investor, it’s good for the businesses we invest in. Americans need to save more and invest more.
• The Savings for Working Families Act, H.R. 1234 – I introduced this bill to help low income families save for the future with matching contributions from financial institutions, non-profits, and Indian tribes.
• Help Kids Save for College Act, H.R. 2500 – I introduced this bill to make it easier for families to save money for their children’s college tuition by allowing matching contributions from employers.
8. Improve Education – Education levels are directly connected to individual and national prosperity. America’s colleges and universities are the best in the world, but many of our grade schools and high schools are failing.
• The Dollars to the Classroom Act. I have long promoted this bill to guarantee that 95 cents of each federal education dollar will be spent in the classroom instead of on bureaucracy. I will be reintroducing it this month.
• Encourage innovation and competition in public education through charters schools, school choice, and merit-based tenure and promotion.
9. Reform Healthcare – Families, employers, and the government are all spending too much on healthcare. This robs money from other parts of the economy. Real health reform will reduce, rather than increase, what we pay as a nation for health insurance.
• The Small Business CHOICE Act, H.R. 859 – I introduced this bill with Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a Democrat from New York, to make it cheaper and easier for small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees.
10. Encourage Strong Families – Strong and stable families produce more productive citizens and use fewer government services.
• Permanently end the “marriage penalty” in the tax code.
• Preserve the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform law.
-
0
March 25, 2010
Campaign Staff
Following the passage of the Senate healthcare bill and reconciliation bill Rep. Joe Pitts said:
“Tonight was a very disappointing loss for the American people. America needs healthcare reform, but this adds to our problems instead of solving them. This bill represents the largest ever transfer of power from the private sector to the government.
“Tonight was a very disappointing loss for the American people. America needs healthcare reform, but this adds to our problems instead of solving them. This bill represents the largest ever transfer of power from the private sector to the government.
Following the passage of the Senate healthcare bill and reconciliation bill Rep. Joe Pitts said:
“Tonight was a very disappointing loss for the American people. America needs healthcare reform, but this adds to our problems instead of solving them. This bill represents the largest ever transfer of power from the private sector to the government.
“The greatest challenge facing this country is the more than $100 trillion in entitlement spending the government has committed to but has no way to pay for. This legislation not only fails to address this crisis, it makes it significantly worse. That is shockingly irresponsible.
“Despite the President’s promise, the reconciliation bill failed to remove many of the terrible special deals placed into the bill by the Senate. Instead, there were actually more backroom deals added in at the last minute.
“This bill will use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion for the first time in decades. It will raise taxes by half a trillion dollars on individuals and businesses, and to enforce all these new tax requirements, the IRS will hire more than 16,000 new agents and auditors.
“This isn’t reform; this is merely a government takeover of 17 percent of the American economy. It will not reduce costs, and instead will only add to our debts.”
“Tonight was a very disappointing loss for the American people. America needs healthcare reform, but this adds to our problems instead of solving them. This bill represents the largest ever transfer of power from the private sector to the government.
“The greatest challenge facing this country is the more than $100 trillion in entitlement spending the government has committed to but has no way to pay for. This legislation not only fails to address this crisis, it makes it significantly worse. That is shockingly irresponsible.
“Despite the President’s promise, the reconciliation bill failed to remove many of the terrible special deals placed into the bill by the Senate. Instead, there were actually more backroom deals added in at the last minute.
“This bill will use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion for the first time in decades. It will raise taxes by half a trillion dollars on individuals and businesses, and to enforce all these new tax requirements, the IRS will hire more than 16,000 new agents and auditors.
“This isn’t reform; this is merely a government takeover of 17 percent of the American economy. It will not reduce costs, and instead will only add to our debts.”
-
0
March 17, 2010
Campaign Staff
By Rep. Joe Pitts
The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to decide how taxpayer money is spent. It may come as surprise, therefore, that House Republicans voted almost unanimously on March 11 to declare a moratorium on the practice of earmarking funds for specific projects.
I not only voted for the moratorium, I was among the Republicans who called for the move. I stopped asking for earmarks myself more than three years ago.
The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to decide how taxpayer money is spent. It may come as surprise, therefore, that House Republicans voted almost unanimously on March 11 to declare a moratorium on the practice of earmarking funds for specific projects.
I not only voted for the moratorium, I was among the Republicans who called for the move. I stopped asking for earmarks myself more than three years ago.
By Rep. Joe Pitts
The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to decide how taxpayer money is spent. It may come as surprise, therefore, that House Republicans voted almost unanimously on March 11 to declare a moratorium on the practice of earmarking funds for specific projects.
I not only voted for the moratorium, I was among the Republicans who called for the move. I stopped asking for earmarks myself more than three years ago.
Why? Because earmarks are out of control. Ronald Reagan once vetoed a highway bill because it contained 152 earmarks. Today, it is not uncommon for one bill to contain thousands. Last year’s omnibus spending bill funded more than 8,000 of them. Most fund good and useful things.
Many, however, do not. Earmarks have been directed for things like migratory loons in Nevada, a museum to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock concert, and a golf school. One earmark spent over $1 billion to reintroduce salmon to a river that had run dry.
The reason for such silly earmarks is that the earmark process seems designed to avoid accountability. Most of the money Congress spends is argued for in hearings, debated in committee, authorized by legislation, and voted on by the House and Senate. Earmarks, on the other hand, are often added to legislation long after most of this process is complete. Some are even added during final House-Senate negotiations when it is too late for the individual chambers to alter the bills. This, of course, is intentional.
Members of Congress have been caught requesting earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions. Members of Congress have been caught earmarking funds for organizations run by friends and family members. Some have even created non-profit organizations through which to funnel money and mask the true beneficiaries of their earmarks.
The process of requesting earmarks is deeply flawed, highly controversial, and clearly prone to abuse. Earmarks have become not only a symbol of what’s wrong with Washington and the current Democratic Congress, but also a symbol of how many Republicans lost their way during the last half of our twelve-year stretch in the majority.
More than anything else, I urged my colleagues to declare this self-imposed moratorium on earmarks because I believe it is an essential step for Republicans as we seek to regain credibility on one of the party’s core goals: limited, frugal government.
When I first got to Congress I asked to serve on the House Budget Committee. Four years in a row, I helped write balanced budgets that actually paid off some of the government’s debt. This was done through sometimes difficult negotiations with the Clinton White House—but it was done. Real bipartisanship works. Balancing the budget is possible. I have done it, both in Washington and in my time in Harrisburg.
But in the latter years of the Republican majority (1995 – 2007), the GOP lost its way. I found myself voting against fully one-third of my party’s annual appropriations bills. I found myself voting against some of President Bush’s top priorities, from No Child Left Behind to the Bank Bailout. Since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, I have voted for three appropriations bills, but opposed the rest because they spent too much.
When Congress spends beyond its means, it is stealing from our children. Today, Congress is stealing on a scale that would make even Bernie Madoff blush. Most Americans are aware of the government’s $13 trillion debt. Most Americans are not, however, aware that the government has made commitments to spend well over $100 trillion that it does not have and has no prospects of ever being able to raise. Medicare, Social Security, and even our national defense infrastructure will all collapse if Congress does not rein in spending very soon. Some, in fact, say it is too late already.
The Republican earmark moratorium will not balance the budget. It will, however, save far more money than the largely phony earmark moratorium Nancy Pelosi announced the same week. It is a first step, but a crucial one.
Rep. Joe Pitts (R) represents Pennsylvania’s 16th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Click here to read the original article.
The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to decide how taxpayer money is spent. It may come as surprise, therefore, that House Republicans voted almost unanimously on March 11 to declare a moratorium on the practice of earmarking funds for specific projects.
I not only voted for the moratorium, I was among the Republicans who called for the move. I stopped asking for earmarks myself more than three years ago.
Why? Because earmarks are out of control. Ronald Reagan once vetoed a highway bill because it contained 152 earmarks. Today, it is not uncommon for one bill to contain thousands. Last year’s omnibus spending bill funded more than 8,000 of them. Most fund good and useful things.
Many, however, do not. Earmarks have been directed for things like migratory loons in Nevada, a museum to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock concert, and a golf school. One earmark spent over $1 billion to reintroduce salmon to a river that had run dry.
The reason for such silly earmarks is that the earmark process seems designed to avoid accountability. Most of the money Congress spends is argued for in hearings, debated in committee, authorized by legislation, and voted on by the House and Senate. Earmarks, on the other hand, are often added to legislation long after most of this process is complete. Some are even added during final House-Senate negotiations when it is too late for the individual chambers to alter the bills. This, of course, is intentional.
Members of Congress have been caught requesting earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions. Members of Congress have been caught earmarking funds for organizations run by friends and family members. Some have even created non-profit organizations through which to funnel money and mask the true beneficiaries of their earmarks.
The process of requesting earmarks is deeply flawed, highly controversial, and clearly prone to abuse. Earmarks have become not only a symbol of what’s wrong with Washington and the current Democratic Congress, but also a symbol of how many Republicans lost their way during the last half of our twelve-year stretch in the majority.
More than anything else, I urged my colleagues to declare this self-imposed moratorium on earmarks because I believe it is an essential step for Republicans as we seek to regain credibility on one of the party’s core goals: limited, frugal government.
When I first got to Congress I asked to serve on the House Budget Committee. Four years in a row, I helped write balanced budgets that actually paid off some of the government’s debt. This was done through sometimes difficult negotiations with the Clinton White House—but it was done. Real bipartisanship works. Balancing the budget is possible. I have done it, both in Washington and in my time in Harrisburg.
But in the latter years of the Republican majority (1995 – 2007), the GOP lost its way. I found myself voting against fully one-third of my party’s annual appropriations bills. I found myself voting against some of President Bush’s top priorities, from No Child Left Behind to the Bank Bailout. Since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, I have voted for three appropriations bills, but opposed the rest because they spent too much.
When Congress spends beyond its means, it is stealing from our children. Today, Congress is stealing on a scale that would make even Bernie Madoff blush. Most Americans are aware of the government’s $13 trillion debt. Most Americans are not, however, aware that the government has made commitments to spend well over $100 trillion that it does not have and has no prospects of ever being able to raise. Medicare, Social Security, and even our national defense infrastructure will all collapse if Congress does not rein in spending very soon. Some, in fact, say it is too late already.
The Republican earmark moratorium will not balance the budget. It will, however, save far more money than the largely phony earmark moratorium Nancy Pelosi announced the same week. It is a first step, but a crucial one.
Rep. Joe Pitts (R) represents Pennsylvania’s 16th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Click here to read the original article.
-
0
March 17, 2010
Campaign Staff
By U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, guest columnist
We all know how difficult it is to run a family farm. Sometimes there are not enough hours in the day to do everything that needs to be done. From a young age, farm sons and daughters pitch in to help, driving tractors and other farm equipment once they have the skills.
Running a family farm is hard, but now the federal government wants to make it even harder. New regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation are about to come down on all Pennsylvania farms at the worst possible time.
We all know how difficult it is to run a family farm. Sometimes there are not enough hours in the day to do everything that needs to be done. From a young age, farm sons and daughters pitch in to help, driving tractors and other farm equipment once they have the skills.
Running a family farm is hard, but now the federal government wants to make it even harder. New regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation are about to come down on all Pennsylvania farms at the worst possible time.
By U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, guest columnist
We all know how difficult it is to run a family farm. Sometimes there are not enough hours in the day to do everything that needs to be done. From a young age, farm sons and daughters pitch in to help, driving tractors and other farm equipment once they have the skills.
Running a family farm is hard, but now the federal government wants to make it even harder. New regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation are about to come down on all Pennsylvania farms at the worst possible time.
The new regulations would put a number of new requirements on farmers whenever their vehicle travels along, or even just across, a public road. When you think about Pennsylvania farms, you realize that many of them, especially in our area, have roads running through them. Here are just some of the new regulations farmers would have to comply with if they want to drive on a road:
Anyone under 18 years of age would not be able to drive on the road.
Drivers would need to be medically tested and certified as physically qualified.
Drivers would have to keep extensive logs of driving hours and break times.
Also, Drivers would have to complete reports before and after using the vehicle.
Finally, drivers would be required to begin and end their work at the same location.
The new regulations would keep licensed teenage drivers from operating equipment on their family farm. Family farmers across the state would lose important members of their workforce, the very people that they would like to hand the farm down to one day. There won't be a farm to hand down if the work doesn't get done. With many farms just scraping by, the loss of help could be the breaking point.
All the new logs and reporting required would eat up time that would be better spent doing the actual work of farming. Do we want farmers to plant and harvest or do we want them to shuffle paperwork? As I stated before, there are only so many hours in a day. Time is money on a farm and all these new reporting requirements will cost farmers money that they may not have.
The USDOT is forcing PennDOT to accept these regulations or give up federal funds. PennDOT is complying for now since these are important funds used to keep all of our roads and highways safe. I know that they have responsibility for roads and not farms, which is why I'm working with my colleagues to prevent USDOT from forcing our state to take action that will hurt our farmers.
Farming is the number one industry in the state of Pennsylvania. It's also an important part of our history and culture. These regulations would apply specifically to Pennsylvania and not necessarily other states. This would place our state and our farmers at a competitive disadvantage when we can least afford it.
Much of this goes to the broader issue of government regulations promoted by the present administration. I don't think that government does a good job of creating jobs, but I most certainly think that government can hurt job growth.
Regulations coming down from Washington can make it much more difficult for businesses to hire new employees, raise costs like healthcare benefits or energy bills and, in some cases, cause a business to shut down all together.
Just in the past year we've seen the Consumer Product Safety Commission shut down factories producing children's toys and the Environmental Protection Agency move to regulate all carbon dioxide sources. In the next few years, I believe we'll see many more job killing regulations come from Washington.
Government certainly has responsibility to ensure safety and clean air, but I believe many new regulations go too far and are not supported by elected officials. I don't want to see government regulators shut down our farms. We need to focus on growing our economy and getting Americans back to work, hurting Pennsylvania farmers is no way to get us there.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
Click here to read the original article.
We all know how difficult it is to run a family farm. Sometimes there are not enough hours in the day to do everything that needs to be done. From a young age, farm sons and daughters pitch in to help, driving tractors and other farm equipment once they have the skills.
Running a family farm is hard, but now the federal government wants to make it even harder. New regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation are about to come down on all Pennsylvania farms at the worst possible time.
The new regulations would put a number of new requirements on farmers whenever their vehicle travels along, or even just across, a public road. When you think about Pennsylvania farms, you realize that many of them, especially in our area, have roads running through them. Here are just some of the new regulations farmers would have to comply with if they want to drive on a road:
Anyone under 18 years of age would not be able to drive on the road.
Drivers would need to be medically tested and certified as physically qualified.
Drivers would have to keep extensive logs of driving hours and break times.
Also, Drivers would have to complete reports before and after using the vehicle.
Finally, drivers would be required to begin and end their work at the same location.
The new regulations would keep licensed teenage drivers from operating equipment on their family farm. Family farmers across the state would lose important members of their workforce, the very people that they would like to hand the farm down to one day. There won't be a farm to hand down if the work doesn't get done. With many farms just scraping by, the loss of help could be the breaking point.
All the new logs and reporting required would eat up time that would be better spent doing the actual work of farming. Do we want farmers to plant and harvest or do we want them to shuffle paperwork? As I stated before, there are only so many hours in a day. Time is money on a farm and all these new reporting requirements will cost farmers money that they may not have.
The USDOT is forcing PennDOT to accept these regulations or give up federal funds. PennDOT is complying for now since these are important funds used to keep all of our roads and highways safe. I know that they have responsibility for roads and not farms, which is why I'm working with my colleagues to prevent USDOT from forcing our state to take action that will hurt our farmers.
Farming is the number one industry in the state of Pennsylvania. It's also an important part of our history and culture. These regulations would apply specifically to Pennsylvania and not necessarily other states. This would place our state and our farmers at a competitive disadvantage when we can least afford it.
Much of this goes to the broader issue of government regulations promoted by the present administration. I don't think that government does a good job of creating jobs, but I most certainly think that government can hurt job growth.
Regulations coming down from Washington can make it much more difficult for businesses to hire new employees, raise costs like healthcare benefits or energy bills and, in some cases, cause a business to shut down all together.
Just in the past year we've seen the Consumer Product Safety Commission shut down factories producing children's toys and the Environmental Protection Agency move to regulate all carbon dioxide sources. In the next few years, I believe we'll see many more job killing regulations come from Washington.
Government certainly has responsibility to ensure safety and clean air, but I believe many new regulations go too far and are not supported by elected officials. I don't want to see government regulators shut down our farms. We need to focus on growing our economy and getting Americans back to work, hurting Pennsylvania farmers is no way to get us there.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
Click here to read the original article.
-
0
March 16, 2010
Joe Pitts
After weeks of arm-twisting, back-room deals and outright threats, Nancy Pelosi still doesn’t have the votes to force Obamacare through the House. While the lobbyists who support the bill are out in force, there are far more regular Americans speaking out. The halls of the House office buildings are filled with regular Americans who have traveled to Washington to oppose the bill and urge their Members of Congress to vote “no.” We will know soon if Congress has listened. I will vote no. Please urge anyone you know who lives in the district of an “undecided” Democrat to call their Member of Congress right away! It’s still not too late!
-
0
March 11, 2010
Campaign Staff
Earlier this week, Congressman Joe Pitts (PA-16) signed on to a letter with 18 other House Republicans calling for a one-year moratorium on earmarks.
Earlier this week, Congressman Joe Pitts (PA-16) signed on to a letter with 18 other House Republicans calling for a one-year moratorium on earmark requests by Republican members, stating that:
"Out of control earmarks are a symptom of our larger inability to balance the federal budget and we cannot wait any longer to control spending. We need to come together as a conference and take a stand for fiscal responsibility," said Pitts.
Congressman Pitts has a proven track record of opposing excessive government spending. He voted against one-third of appropriations bills when Republicans controlled Congress because of the burden it placed on tax-payers. Congressman Pitts has not requested earmarks since 2007.
"Out of control earmarks are a symptom of our larger inability to balance the federal budget and we cannot wait any longer to control spending. We need to come together as a conference and take a stand for fiscal responsibility," said Pitts.
Congressman Pitts has a proven track record of opposing excessive government spending. He voted against one-third of appropriations bills when Republicans controlled Congress because of the burden it placed on tax-payers. Congressman Pitts has not requested earmarks since 2007.
-
0
March 10, 2010
Campaign Staff
The federal government doesn't have the best track record when it comes to projecting the cost of new government programs, according to U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts. In 1967, government officials predicted that Medicare would cost the country $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost of the program in 1990 was $98 billion, said Pitts, of Chester County, who represents the 16th Congressional District.
The federal government doesn't have the best track record when it comes to projecting the cost of new government programs, according to U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts.
In 1967, government officials predicted that Medicare would cost the country $12 billion by 1990.
The actual cost of the program in 1990 was $98 billion, said Pitts, of Chester County, who represents the 16th Congressional District.
When the government in the early 1980s launched the idea of establishing a burial ground for nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain, the projected cost of researching the initiative was $6.3 billion.
According to Pitts, the actual cost of the work was $79 billion.
So when President Obama's team estimates that his proposed health care plan will cost $950 billion per year, Pitts wonders what the real bill will be.
"The lesson is clear," he told a group of about 100 people gathered for a town hall meeting Monday night at Cocalico Middle School in Denver. "Government programs rarely come in at projected cost, and this new proposal for government health care intrusion into the market is the same thing.
"It is going to bankrupt our system."
Government spending highlighted the topics Pitts discussed with audience members Monday.
In no uncertain terms, Pitts said, the government is living well beyond its means these days, sending the federal deficit into the stratosphere.
This year alone, he said, the government is expected to generate a $1.6 trillion deficit.
"This is immoral, and it should stop," Pitts said. "It must stop, or we're going to go over the cliff."
Ralph Cook, owner of Integrity Plastics in Denver, told Pitts he's not surprised that government spending is out of control because, he said, the cost of the necessities of life are spiraling out of control.
Cook's business spends $30,000 per month on electricity.
"I'm probably just a medium-sized guy, and this really hurts our business," he said.
Weber suggested that the government promote cheaper energy, primarily by pushing for the building of new nuclear power plants.
Pitts is the co-sponsor of House Resolution 3448, which seeks to spur the construction of new nuclear plants.
No nuclear plant has been built in the U.S. in the past 30 years.
Denver resident Myron Weber asked Pitts to deliver a message to his fellow lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
"Government should not run health care," Weber said. "They can't run any other type of business."
Weber suggested there are ways to improve the nation's health care system — such as allowing consumers to buy insurance from providers anywhere in the country, pushing for tort reform and cracking down on fraud — that leave health care in the hands of the private sector.
"My feeling is the administration is not interested in health care reform," he said. "This is about socialism."
Originally Posted on March 9, 2010
By: P.J. REILLY, Staff Writer
Click Here for Full Article
In 1967, government officials predicted that Medicare would cost the country $12 billion by 1990.
The actual cost of the program in 1990 was $98 billion, said Pitts, of Chester County, who represents the 16th Congressional District.
When the government in the early 1980s launched the idea of establishing a burial ground for nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain, the projected cost of researching the initiative was $6.3 billion.
According to Pitts, the actual cost of the work was $79 billion.
So when President Obama's team estimates that his proposed health care plan will cost $950 billion per year, Pitts wonders what the real bill will be.
"The lesson is clear," he told a group of about 100 people gathered for a town hall meeting Monday night at Cocalico Middle School in Denver. "Government programs rarely come in at projected cost, and this new proposal for government health care intrusion into the market is the same thing.
"It is going to bankrupt our system."
Government spending highlighted the topics Pitts discussed with audience members Monday.
In no uncertain terms, Pitts said, the government is living well beyond its means these days, sending the federal deficit into the stratosphere.
This year alone, he said, the government is expected to generate a $1.6 trillion deficit.
"This is immoral, and it should stop," Pitts said. "It must stop, or we're going to go over the cliff."
Ralph Cook, owner of Integrity Plastics in Denver, told Pitts he's not surprised that government spending is out of control because, he said, the cost of the necessities of life are spiraling out of control.
Cook's business spends $30,000 per month on electricity.
"I'm probably just a medium-sized guy, and this really hurts our business," he said.
Weber suggested that the government promote cheaper energy, primarily by pushing for the building of new nuclear power plants.
Pitts is the co-sponsor of House Resolution 3448, which seeks to spur the construction of new nuclear plants.
No nuclear plant has been built in the U.S. in the past 30 years.
Denver resident Myron Weber asked Pitts to deliver a message to his fellow lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
"Government should not run health care," Weber said. "They can't run any other type of business."
Weber suggested there are ways to improve the nation's health care system — such as allowing consumers to buy insurance from providers anywhere in the country, pushing for tort reform and cracking down on fraud — that leave health care in the hands of the private sector.
"My feeling is the administration is not interested in health care reform," he said. "This is about socialism."
Originally Posted on March 9, 2010
By: P.J. REILLY, Staff Writer
Click Here for Full Article
Dan
1
- Great Article Joe! I agree 110%
March 08, 2010
Campaign Staff
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who says Congress has been distracted from what should be its No. 1 priority right now (jobs), voted against the so-called jobs bill this week. The $15 billion measure would give employers an exemption from their 6.2 percent Social Security payroll contribution for every new employee hired through the rest of the year, so long as that employee had been out of work for at least 60 days.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who says Congress has been distracted from what should be its No. 1 priority right now (jobs), voted against the so-called jobs bill this week. The $15 billion measure would give employers an exemption from their 6.2 percent Social Security payroll contribution for every new employee hired through the rest of the year, so long as that employee had been out of work for at least 60 days.
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
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
-
0
March 02, 2010
Campaign Staff
Site sought for federal court
Process likely to start next week
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.
Process likely to start next week
By TOM MURSE, Staff Writer
Originally Posted: February 27, 2010
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.
-
0
