Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, we should be aware that not a single penny will be cut for women's health care under this bill. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentlewoman that abortion is not health care. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a great leader in the Pro-Life movement.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), another leader on this issue.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have heard lots of arguments here on the floor. We have heard about abortion being a healthcare issue. Abortion is not a healthcare issue. Abortion is the most violent form of death known to mankind: death by dismemberment and decapitation. It is horrific. These video clips that we have seen show the graphic nature of what they are doing to these little unborn babies in Planned Parenthood clinics and the harvesting of their body parts. You call that humane? It is horrific. It is barbaric. Why is this bill necessary? Currently, CMS is bullying States, telling them they must include providers of elective abortions in their Medicaid programs. This bill empowers States with the needed flexibility to design their Medicaid programs in a manner that is consistent with pro-life values in a State. The gentleman talked about patients. Well, a lot of unborn babies are treated as patients in their mother's womb. One lady talked about, what about individual rights? Well, what about the rights of these little patients in the womb? Madam Speaker, this bill merely gives States the flexibility to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its Medicaid program of entities or persons who perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions. Under this bill, low-income women and men will still have access to more than 13,000 federally qualified health centers in rural health center sites, in addition to at least 1,200 private and free charitable clinics. In contrast, Planned Parenthood has some 665 clinics. They can find health care near them because these federally qualified and rural health centers are 20 to every 1 Planned Parenthood clinic. We have the list of the Members here. Some of the Members who have spoken may have one Planned Parenthood clinic. They may have 56, 44-- the list varies--community health centers who would get that redistributed money and provide real health care, as Dr. Harris said. This bill gives States the flexibility to design their Medicaid programs in a manner they choose to serve their Medicaid patients. So I strongly urge support for H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 3495 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, today, under the Obama administration's interpretation of Federal statute, States are forced to include in their Medicaid program providers who perform elective abortions, whether they like it or not. The Women's Public Health and Safety Act is a commonsense measure that would allow a State to choose to establish criteria regarding the participation in its Medicaid program of entities or persons who perform or participate in the performance of elective abortions. Unlike what some Members on the other side of the aisle have said, this bill will not harm women's access to health care. Rather, this gives States more tools to design a Medicaid program that fully serves low-income women and men. The Women's Public Health and Safety Act would put States back in the driver's seat and let each State design their Medicaid program in a manner that best meets the needs and respects the choices and values of the people within their States. This bill should be supported by every Member who believes the States should be strong, full partners in the operation of the Medicaid program. If State taxpayers do not want to include abortion providers in their Medicaid program, they should not be forced to include them. I urge the Members strongly to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1624) to amend title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to revise the definition of small employer, as amended.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 1624.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bipartisan bill before us today is a much-needed fix for small- business owners and employees struggling to comply with the healthcare law. H.R. 1624 is a bill to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Public Health Service Act to revise the definition of small employer. The bill would allow the States to continue defining the small group health insurance market as employers with 1 to 50 employees. Section 1304 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act changed the Federal definition of the small group market to include employers with 1 to 100 employees. The States, however, have been allowed to continue defining the small group market as employers with 1 to 50 employees until January 1, 2016. But beginning on or after January 1, 2016, plans sold or renewed for employers with 51 to 100 employees will be subject to the various small group health plan regulations established by PPACA. These more restrictive rating rules will increase health insurance premiums for these employers and reduce flexibility in benefit design. The new requirements could also lead some employers with 51 to 100 employees to self-insure to avoid higher premiums. If that happens, this could result in adverse selection in the small group pool and higher premiums for employers with 1 to 50 employees. Unless this current law is reversed, the disruption in the marketplace will be significant. For example, it is estimated that, under current law, more than 3 million employees will experience a double-digit percent increase in their healthcare premiums. Ultimately, cost increases for small employers will change their choices regarding offering coverage, could change their business model, and will ultimately be felt by millions of workers. Because the impact of current law will vary by State, defining the small group market should be left to the States, which is a policy envisioned in H.R. 1624. I am pleased to say there is considerable support for this legislation in the House and the Senate. The flexibility that would be given to States with immediate passage of H.R. 1624 would help ensure stable, small group health insurance markets that reflect the unique characteristics in each of the States. If Congress passes H.R. 1624, premiums will be lower and allow millions of employees and employers to keep the plan they have and like. This is a commonsense policy that deserves our bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1624. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is an important bill. It is a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1624. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, this morning we are debating, actually, two bills. One is the delay of funds to Planned Parenthood until the investigation is over and redistributing that money to the rural and federally qualified community health clinics of which there are over 13,000--only 656 Planned Parenthood clinics--and they actually do women's health, like mammograms, as we have heard, and other issues, not just refer. I would urge support for that. The other bill we are debating, which is sometimes infants are born alive after an abortion. We had two witnesses last week before the Judiciary Committee who were survivors. One of them said she was in contact with 203 other abortion survivors. All we are doing is putting enforcement language, some penalties in there because born alive is the law, but it is not enforced, and this would permit that to be enforced. Finally, with Pope Francis coming next week, he said: ``The defense of the unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable in any situation, every stage of development.''

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the President's proposed agreement with Iran. Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism. They support the murderous Assad regime in Syria, they support Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and they support the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Iran-backed militias have killed American troops in Iraq. Negotiation is founded upon trust, and there can be no trust for the mullahs who run Iran. To quote Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel: ``Regimes rooted in brutality must never be trusted. And the words and actions of the leadership of Iran leave no doubt as to their intentions.'' In March, I joined with 366 of my fellow Members of Congress, including 130 Democrats, in a letter to President Obama. We agreed that any deal with Iran must last for multiple decades and include full disclosure of Iran's past nuclear pursuits with anytime, anywhere inspections for verification. This agreement does not meet these standards. For these and many other reasons, we must not support it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1599. There are real sensitivities around GMOs and all issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and grandchildren. It is our job as policymakers, particularly as it relates to the public health, to establish a factually and scientifically sound foundation prior to taking any action that would impact consumers in our economy. The bill before us today, H.R. 1599, does just that by ensuring national uniformity regarding labeling of foods derived from genetically engineered plants by preventing a patchwork of conflicting State or local labeling laws which inherently interfere with interstate and foreign commerce. Genetic engineering in agriculture has occurred for centuries. Ingredients from genetically engineered plants have been a part of the U.S. food supply for decades. In fact, as much as 90 percent of our corn, sugar beet, and soybean crops are now genetically engineered, and more than 70 percent of processed foods contain ingredients derived from such crops. The FDA oversees the safety of all food products from plant sources, including those from genetically engineered crops. These products must meet the same safety requirements as foods from traditionally bred crops. The FDA currently has a consultation process in place in which developers of the underlying technologies address any outstanding safety or other regulatory issues with the agency prior to marketing their products. The FDA has completed approximately 100 of such consultations. No products have gone to market until FDA safety-related questions have been resolved. FDA officials have repeatedly stated that the agency has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in a meaningful way, and the World Health Organization has confirmed that ``no effects on human health have been shown as a result of consumption of such foods.'' In fact, they can grow faster, resist diseases and drought, cost less, and prove more nutritious. Nonetheless, there recently have been a number of State initiatives calling for mandatory labeling of food products that contain GMOs. I am concerned that a patchwork of State labeling schemes would be impractical and unworkable. Such a system would create confusion among consumers and result in higher prices and fewer options. Mr. Chairman, I commend Representatives Pompeo and Butterfield for their leadership on this legislation. I thank my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee for working through any issues and reaching consensus between the sponsors, committees of jurisdiction, implementing agencies, and impacted stakeholders. I commend the legislation to the House and urge its adoption.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support for H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act which will help advance the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments and cures for patients and will foster private sector innovation here in the U.S. Arriving here today has been a long journey--full of lots of steps and some twists and turns along the way. I especially want to thank Legislative Counsel for their tireless efforts in helping translate our legislative aims into legislative language. They worked nights and weekends and were consummate professionals throughout the process. Specifically, I want to thank the following: Warren Burke, Ed Grossman, Jessica Shapiro, Michelle Vanek, Jesse Cross. I also want to thank the health care staff of the Congressional Budget Office for all their help in recent months. In addition to their role in estimating the budgetary effects of numerous policies in the bill, they were instrumental in helping us shape a number of proposals the Committee considered. I specifically want to thank Holly Harvey, Tom Bradley, Chad Chirico, and all their colleagues for their diligence and assistance through the process. And I would be remiss if I did not again thank the outstanding team on Energy and Commerce, and most especially the Health team, led by Chief Health Counsel, Clay Alspach, supported by Josh Trent, Paul Edattel, John Stone, Robert Horne, Carly McWilliams, Michelle Rosenberg, Katie Novaria, Adrianna Simonelli, Traci Vitek and Graham Pittman--without whose expertise, wisdom and counsel, this legislative work would not be possible. H.R. 6 was reported from Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 51-0 and advances conservative fiscal and regulatory reforms. Every dollar of advanced appropriations in the bill (which will sunset at the end of FY 2020) is offset with other permanent reforms--including billions of dollars in mandatory entitlement savings in Medicare and Medicaid. But this is no ordinary mandatory spending--like the kind we usually see in entitlement spending such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. This mandatory spending is for five years only and then stops or sunsets. This mandatory spending is fully paid for with mandatory spending cuts elsewhere that will not stop in five years, but are permanent reforms resulting in real savings. By comparison, the Ryan-Murray budget deal for health care savings yielded much less. This innovative hybrid approach allows us to cut mandatory spending (entitlement spending) and use the savings to fund what would otherwise be a discretionary project--but in this case is 5-year dedicated spending on medical research. Congressional Budget Office determined that H.R. 6 will reduce the deficit by $500 million over the first ten years, and at least another $7 billion over the second decade. The funds provided to the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be subject to explicit review and reprogramming through the annual appropriations process. Congress can review the dedicated funding and allocate it for specific initiatives. Additionally, all the important policy riders that accompany federal funding through appropriations will be included--such as the Hyde Amendment and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. This bill also includes a policy that excludes authorized generics from Average Manufacturers' Price. This is a common sense policy from the President's budget proposal, intended to ensure the appropriate calculation of Medicaid brand name rebates paid by manufacturers. The policy is not intended to effect Medicaid programs' pharmacy reimbursements. Instead, the provision, which many states support, will result in an increase in manufacturer rebates under Medicaid and thus save money for states and the federal government. H.R. 6 will help America to innovate its way out of our entitlement crisis. The regulatory reforms included in H.R. 6 will accelerate the pace of discovery, development and delivery of new treatments and cures, thereby providing significant health care savings to the federal budget that will only grow over time. By modernizing clinical trials, eliminating duplicative administrative requirements, and perhaps most importantly, making FDA less bureaucratic by advancing the voice and needs of patients in the drug and device approval process--H.R. 6 will make lasting, positive changes to the entire ecosystem of Cures. Over 250 patient groups have enthusiastically said ``yes'' and endorsed Cures. I urge all of my colleagues to think of the patients and vote ``AYE'' in support of H.R. 6.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support for H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act which will help advance the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments and cures for patients and will foster private sector innovation here in the U.S. Arriving here today has been a long journey--full of lots of steps and some twists and turns along the way. I especially want to thank Legislative Counsel for their tireless efforts in helping translate our legislative aims into legislative language. They worked nights and weekends and were consummate professionals throughout the process. Specifically, I want to thank the following: Warren Burke, Ed Grossman, Jessica Shapiro, Michelle Vanek, and Jesse Cross. I also want to thank the health care staff of the Congressional Budget Office for all their help in recent months. In addition to their role in estimating the budgetary effects of numerous policies in the bill, they were instrumental in helping us shape a number of proposals the Committee considered. I specifically want to thank Holly Harvey, Tom Bradley, Chad Chirico, and all their colleagues for their diligence and assistance through the process. And I would be remiss if I did not again thank the outstanding team on Energy and Commerce, and most especially the Health team, led by Chief Health Counsel, Clay Alspach, supported by Josh Trent, Paul Edattel, John Stone, Robert Horne, Carly McWilliams, Michelle Rosenberg, Katie Novaria, Adrianna Simonelli, Traci Vitek and Graham Pittman--without whose expertise, wisdom and counsel, this legislative work would not be possible. H.R. 6 was reported from Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 51-0 and advances conservative fiscal and regulatory reforms. Every dollar of advanced appropriations in the bill (which will sunset at the end of FY 2020) is offset with other permanent reforms--including billions of dollars in mandatory entitlement savings in Medicare and Medicaid. But this is no ordinary mandatory spending--like the kind we usually see in entitlement spending such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. This mandatory spending is for five years only and then stops or sunsets. This mandatory spending is fully paid for with mandatory spending cuts elsewhere that will not stop in five years, but are permanent reforms resulting in real savings. By comparison, the Ryan-Murray budget deal for health care savings yielded much less. This innovative hybrid approach allows us to cut mandatory spending (entitlement spending) and use the savings to fund what would otherwise be a discretionary project--but in this case is 5-year dedicated spending on medical research. Congressional Budget Office determined that H.R. 6 will reduce the deficit by $500 million over the first ten years, and at least another $7 billion over the second decade. The funds provided to the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be subject to explicit review and reprogramming though the annual appropriations process. Congress can review the dedicated funding and allocate it for specific initiatives. Additionally, all the important policy riders that accompany federal funding through appropriations will be included--such as the Hyde Amendment and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. This bill also includes a policy that excludes authorized generics from Average Manufacturers' Price. This is a commonsense policy from the President's budget proposal, intended to ensure the appropriate calculation of Medicaid brand name rebates paid by manufacturers. The policy is not intended to effect Medicaid programs' pharmacy reimbursements. Instead, the provision, which many states support, will result in an increase in manufacturer rebates under Medicaid and thus save money for states and the federal government. H.R. 6 will help America to innovate its way out of our entitlement crisis. The regulatory reforms included in H.R. 6 will accelerate the pace of discovery, development and delivery of new treatments and cures, thereby providing significant health care savings to the federal budget that will only grow over time. By modernizing clinical trials, eliminating duplicative administrative requirements, and perhaps most importantly, making FDA less bureaucratic by advancing the voice and needs of patients in the drug and device approval process--H.R. 6 will make lasting, positive changes to the entire ecosystem of Cures. Over 250 patient groups have enthusiastically said ``yes'' and endorsed Cures. I urge all of my colleagues to think of the patients and vote ``AYE'' in support of H.R. 6.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Representative Fitzpatrick. The Fitzpatrick amendment would put forward a sense of Congress that our healthcare system should find ways to incorporate information from medical devices into the care of our Nation's patients. I believe that such information can prove a valuable tool advancing quality health care in this country, but it must be done carefully to ensure that the value to patients, healthcare providers, industry, and the government is realized.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Lee amendment. If passed, this amendment would allow the National Institutes of Health to use taxpayer dollars to conduct experiments involving abortion or to hone abortion techniques. Let me be clear. The underlying bill simply applies current Federal health policies that have been approved by both Republican and Democrat majorities for decades to new funds appropriated in the Cures bill. It is nothing more than the status quo applied to new funding. There is a reason why these policies are the status quo. Americans do not want their tax dollars used to destroy unborn lives. A poll conducted just this January showed 68 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, is about finding cures and protecting the health and well-being of Americans. It would be a terrible injustice if a bill designed to save lives were to become a conduit for the destruction of the most vulnerable, the voiceless unborn who are still too young to be heard crying out for help. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Pallone, Congresswoman DeGette, and Ranking Member Gene Green of Texas for their outstanding support and leadership on this. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, which will help advance the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments and cures for patients and will foster private sector innovation here in the United States. I have a whole list of people I would like to thank. I will provide that for the Record. I especially want to thank legislative counsel for their tireless efforts, the healthcare staff of the Congressional Budget Office, and the outstanding team on Energy and Commerce. They have been fantastic, working 24/7. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 was reported from Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 51-0 and advances conservative and fiscal and regulatory reforms. Every dollar of advanced appropriations in the bill, which will sunset at the end of FY 2020, is offset by other permanent reforms, including billions of dollars in mandatory entitlement savings in Medicare and Medicaid. This is no ordinary spending, like the kind we usually see in entitlement spending such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare. This mandatory spending is for 5 years only, and then it sunsets. This mandatory spending is fully paid for with mandatory spending cuts elsewhere that will not stop in 5 years, but are permanent reforms resulting in real savings. By comparison, the Ryan- Murray budget deal for healthcare savings yielded much less. This innovative hybrid approach allows us to cut mandatory spending and use the savings to fund what would otherwise be a discretionary project, but in this case, it is a 5-year dedicated spending on medical research. The Congressional Budget Office determined that H.R. 6 will reduce the deficit by $500 million over the first 10 years and at least $7 billion over the second decade. The funds provided to the NIH and FDA will be subject to explicit review and reprogramming through the annual appropriations process. Congress can review the dedicated funding and allocate it for specific initiatives. Mr. Chairman, by modernizing clinical trials, eliminating duplicative administrative requirements, and perhaps, most importantly, making FDA less bureaucratic by advancing the voice and needs of patients in the drug and device approval process, H.R. 6 will make lasting, positive changes to the entire ecosystem of Cures. Over 250 patient groups have enthusiastically said ``yes'' and endorsed this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to think of the patients and vote ``aye'' in support of H.R. 6.