Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), the distinguished secretary of our caucus.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, some have argued that requiring HHS to report a data breach that is known to have resulted in a loss of personal identifiable information within 2 days is too burdensome for the Department. In fact, the administration opposes this legislation for ``paperwork requirements.'' I am frankly shocked that any Member of this body would put workload concerns of HHS ahead of their constituents' right to know if their data has been breached when many of our constituents are essentially being forced to shop through these exchanges. In addition, CMS has stated that States and other nonexchange entities are required to report data breaches to the Department within 1 hour to HHS. If HHS believes 1 hour is enough time to report, then they should certainly be able to tell our constituents within 2 days after knowing an individual's information was breached through an exchange. Our constituents deserve to know if their personal information has been breached. That is all the underlying bill requires. Our constituents have a right to know. They should have peace of mind, and we should be protecting them, the victims, not the bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 50 years since President Johnson declared war on poverty. I don't doubt that President Johnson had good intentions, but intentions don't win wars, and poverty is a stubborn opponent. Fifteen percent of Americans still live below the poverty line, after trillions spent by the government. In December, I brought together community leaders and national experts to discuss how we can reinvigorate the city of Reading and other cities in the 16th District of Pennsylvania. From this conference, we are moving forward to get institutions to work together strategically and think differently about attacking the problem. Government at every level and communities leaders need to cooperate and make sure there are opportunities to start new businesses and attract more development. Perhaps most importantly, we need smart strategies to help kids get a good education. This has to include building strong families, since statistics show that children raised by only one parent are far more susceptible to temptations of drugs and gangs and other problems. It is time we rethought our strategy and rededicate ourselves to try helping needy Americans by removing barriers for wealth creation.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3527) to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the poison center national toll-free number, national media campaign, and grant program, and for other purposes, 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 the bill.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3527, the Poison Center Network Act, introduced by Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska, reauthorizes important activities related to poison control centers. Specifically, the bill reauthorizes the National Poison Center toll-free number, the Poison Center's national media campaign, and the State grant program which funds 56 poison control centers around the United States. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that in any given year, there will be between 3 million and 5 million poison exposures. Sixty percent of these exposures will involve children under the age of 6 who are exposed to toxins in their homes. Poisoning is the second-most common form of unintentional death in the United States and accounts for 285,000 hospitalizations a year. According to a report from the Institute of Medicine, every $1 spent on Poison Control Center services saves $7 in medical spending. I would urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the prime sponsor of the bill.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers. I would urge all Members to support this bill, H.R. 3527, in order to save lives. It's a bipartisan, good bill that deserves every Member's support. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, despite U.S. officials continuing to celebrate the alleged ``opening'' of Burma and planning projects such as bringing electricity to the entire country, we need to stop and listen to the people of Burma. The ethnic groups have a different story to tell, one which does not support U.S. agencies' narrative. Ethnic minorities are not celebrating this alleged ``opening.'' Instead, they continue to be forced to defend themselves from offensive attacks by the Burma army and regime. Some officials in Washington act as if democracy has suddenly infused all levels of government and all policies in Burma, including by welcoming and feting Shwe Mann, the 3rd ranking official in the ``former'' dictatorship who is now serving as the Speaker of the Combined House of Parliament. The people of Burma are still fighting for freedom of speech, conscience, belief, and association. Political prisoners still languish in prison, the Muslim minority has been brutally attacked by factions of the Buddhist majority with nary an outcry by Aung San Suu Kyi or other democratically elected leaders, and Kachin women and girls are still raped by soldiers bent on purifying minority bloodlines. How can a government that continues to implement policies that directly contradict democratic principles be so embraced by the international community, including by U.S. officials? What is wrong with this picture? The Administration is supporting those in favor of removing a dictatorship in one country while embracing a brutal dictatorship in another country. How is it that in one area of the world, our government has provided training and weapons to groups working against a dictatorship--even as some members of the opposition may have direct links to Al Qaeda--while in Burma, we have turned our backs on a population that has longed for democracy, freedom, and the protection of basic rights? These inconsistent policies are deeply disturbing. ``Former'' dictators who truly desired to establish a democracy would stop using forced labor in military projects; would end horrific attacks against the Kachin, Northern Shan and Taang communities; would cease rearming, rebuilding, and resupplying their bases in ethnic territories; and would discontinue using bait and switch tactics in negotiations. In recent negotiations between the Burma Government and the ethnic groups, the Government acts as if the ethnic groups should prove that they are trustworthy in terms of any ceasefire agreement. I would strongly posit that it's the other way around: the Government of Burma must prove its trustworthiness to the ethnic groups by ending its aggression before any ceasefire occurs. The ethnic minorities have simply defended their people and states when under attacks initiated by the Burma government. It is time for those attacks to stop, it is time for the Burma Army to withdraw from the ethnic areas, and it is time for the international community to stop indirectly facilitating the blatant racism in Burma by normalizing every relationship with the regime Burma and instead express exceptional disappointment with the failure to move forward towards honest political dialogue and true democracy. I call on the Government of Burma to prove its commitment to democracy and peace by unconditionally and immediately ending the horrific attacks against ethnic minorities and fully withdrawing from their territories. Earn the trust of the people by showing, over the long term, that you truly have turned 180 degrees and will implement democratic principles instead of imposing a dictatorship on the population. I call on the Obama Administration to embrace the reality in Burma. Listen to what the people who live inside Burma say they desire. They want to live in peace, but that will not happen until the Burma Government and Army stop their attacks against the ethnic groups and enact a nationwide ceasefire. The U.S. Administration needs to stop its direct and indirect support for the Burma Government and Army by discontinuing assistance until specific benchmarks are met, by delaying any Pentagon training until all attacks against minorities cease, and by ensuring the ethnic nationality groups are given a full and equal place at the table to help decide the future of their country. To the ethnic nationalities of Burma--stand your ground. You deserve to have your rights and freedoms protected and you deserve an equal place at the table to decide the future of your country.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that this administration is desperate to enroll young, healthy Americans in new exchange plans. A recent ad campaign from Progress Now Colorado shows just how low some groups are willing to go to catch young people's attention. The ads depict young men drinking right out of kegs of beer and objectifying young women. They try to encourage people to sign up for health care by making light of unhealthy behaviors. I recently received a letter from Dr. Julie Welch, which I'll submit for the Record, an emergency room physician in Indianapolis, specifically concerned about how the ads promoted risky sexual behavior. The ``Let's Get Physical'' ad depicts a young woman thanking Obamacare for the words ``for providing birth control pills.'' Dr. Welch writes ``As a taxpayer, I am puzzled at why advertising campaigns for health insurance appear to promote high-risk behaviors.'' Promoting health coverage by condoning binge drinking and promiscuity is not a step toward a healthier America. What good is it to enroll young people in plans if their actions make them unhealthy? It's just another way that Obamacare just doesn't work. McCordsville, Indiana, December 1, 2013. Dear Mr. President: I am writing to bring to your attention a recent advertising campaign for the new Obamacare government health insurance marketplace through ProgressNow Colorado. The ad campaign was launched by ProgressNow Colorado and the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative for the online marketplace called ``Connect for Health Colorado'' in October 2013. The ads are housed on the website of Progress Now Colorado (http://doyougotinsurance.com). The campaign is titled ``Got Insurance'' and is a play on the ``Got Milk'' phrase. But unlike the health benefits of milk, the ``Got Insurance'' ads do not universally advertise healthy choices; rather, many celebrate the unhealthy, high- risk behaviors of young adults. The ads of concern are referred to as ``Brosurance,'' ``Brosurance for the Ladies,'' or ``Hosurance,'' by the media and depict keg-stands, alcohol consumption, and women picking up guys. Many of the ads have gone viral on the Internet and social media. Although I have heard numerous comments from the public, I have not seen your administration take a stand one way or another on the messages being presented in this ad campaign. Silence can only be interpreted as complacence and acceptance. I, however, am neither complacent nor acceptant of the ads that overtly objectify women and promote high-risk behaviors. And as an emergency medicine physician, medical educator, woman, mother, and taxpayer I would like to express my concerns. Although the ad campaign has expanded to pertain to a broader audience, I am concerned about the message conveyed in several specific ads. One of the ads, titled ``Let's Get Physical,'' depicts a woman holding birth control pills and contemplating how she will get a guy to have sex with her. Five of the ads depict or blatantly celebrate alcohol consumption, titled ``Brosurance,'' ``Club Med,'' ``Friends with Benefits,'' ``Keg ER,'' and ``Get Your Shots.'' What message are these ads sending to our young people and our children? As these ads go viral on social media, young people may think that keg stands and one-night stands are okay. Especially since they are being advertised in association with healthcare, Obamacare specifically. Being an emergency department physician, health insurance ads should not glorify alcohol consumption, doing keg stands, drinking shots, or promiscuous sex. In the emergency department, cases of trauma, physical assault, sexual assault, and motor vehicle crashes are commonly associated with substance abuse, including alcohol consumption. In addition, alcohol consumption, for some patients, becomes a lifelong disease of alcohol addiction leading to serious health effects including hepatitis, cirrhosis of the liver, bone marrow dysfunction, esophageal varicosities, intestinal bleeding, and death. And it typically begins with partying as a young adult, a time when the message is ``it's cool to drink'' and ``you have to drink to have fun.'' The message I want my patients and medical students to understand is the opposite message I see in these ads. In fact, many of these ads could be used to educate patients (including our teenagers) to the potential negative health consequences of high-risk behaviors. For instance, if you go to a party and do keg stands, then hook up with a girl because she is on birth control pills, what are all of the negative outcomes you can foresee? Having health insurance will be the least of your worries the next morning. The ad I am most concerned about is ``Let's Get Physical.'' (I have included a copy with this letter.) It depicts a young woman hold a packet of birth control pills standing next to a young man and reads: ``OMG, he's hot! Let's hope he's as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance. Now you can too. Thanks Obamacare!'' There is an *asterisk at the bottom of the ad that reads in tiny print: ``The pill doesn't protect you from STDs, condoms and common sense do that.'' The message from this ad is alarming in several ways and sends the wrong message to women, men, girls, and boys. 1. This ad objectifies women, making her the object of sex. This alone is the most damaging consequence of advertising such as this. This ad seriously harms the progress we have made in women's rights and the way in which women are depicted in the media. It is degrading and offensive. 2. Promiscuous sexual behavior has serious risks for a woman including increased risk of cervical cancer, transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STI), unintended pregnancy, as well as psychological aftermath. 3. Birth control pills do not protect against HIV, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, or other sexually transmitted diseases. And the small asterisk message at the bottom of the ad does not outweigh the message put forth in the ad. In fact, using a condom does not eliminate the risk of STD transmission via other routes. 4. Birth control pills are not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. 5. Birth control pills and reproductive health rights do not equal healthy sexual choices. This ad does not depict responsible reproductive rights. In fact, this ad seems to say that women with birth control pills are sexually promiscuous and just take them to hook up with a guy. This ad also seems to insinuate that now that she has birth control pills, the barriers to a having a sexual relationship are nearly gone. Just getting the guy into bed is all that's left. 6. Finally, what message does this ad send to men? Or teenage boys? That a female just wants to get ``him between the covers''? I fear this ad could promote aggressive behavior towards women, especially if combined with the people in the ads doing keg stands and drinking alcohol. In 2013, we are in an age when women make up 51% of the workforce and 50% of medical students. Women cannot be silent as advertising emerges that sends the wrong message about our healthcare choices and us. As a taxpayer, I am puzzled at why advertising campaigns for health insurance appear to promote high-risk behaviors? Do I as a taxpayer have to cover the consequences of these high-risk behaviors? Does the government agree with this? In an age when many insurance companies risk stratify your premiums based on smoking, obesity, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, where does the government stand on the high-risk behaviors in these ads? Will Americans have to share the costs? The new health care plan is an opportunity to teach our populations about health responsibility, avoidance of risky behaviors, and promotion of good choices, because our country is shouldering it. Health insurance advertising should promote responsible behavior, no matter the source of the advertising. Please take a stand. Sincerely, Julie Welch, MD, Emergency Medicine Physician and Educator.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that this administration is desperate to enroll young, healthy Americans in the new exchange plans, and the recent ad campaign from ProgressNow Colorado shows just how low some groups are willing to go to catch young people's attention. The ads depict young men drinking right out of kegs of beer and objectifying young women. They try to encourage people to sign up for health care by making light of unhealthy behaviors. I recently received a letter from Dr. Julie Welch, an emergency room physician in Indianapolis, specifically concerned about how the ads promoted risky sexual behavior. The Let's Get Physical ad depicts a young woman thanking ObamaCare, with the words: Oh my God, he's hot. Let's hope he is as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance. Now you can too. Thanks ObamaCare. Dr. Welch writes: As a taxpayer, I am puzzled at why advertising campaigns for health insurance appear to promote high-risk behaviors? Promoting health coverage by condoning binge drinking and promiscuity is not a step towards a healthier America. It is just another way that ObamaCare just doesn't work.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, every year for the last decade, doctors have faced an ever-increasing cut to their reimbursement under the sustainable growth rate, or SGR. And every year, Congress intervenes with a doc fix to stop the cut from going into effect--15 times since 2003. The Pathway for SGR Reform Act will postpone the cut, providing a 0.5 percent update to physicians for the next 3 months. While this is a necessary and important bill, I am disappointed that legislation to permanently repeal the flawed SGR formula will not be considered before the end of the year. Doctors deserve to know that they will be fairly compensated, and this annual uncertainty about reimbursements could lead to access problems for Medicare beneficiaries. The Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee worked for 2 years and produced a bipartisan bill that successfully moved through the full committee with unanimous support. I regret that this bill is not on the floor today. However, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 59 to prevent this devastating cut from going into effect on January 1. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlemen from Texas, Kevin Brady, subcommittee chairman.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each side?