Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

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. 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. I do, yes.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, the vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I stand in support of another bipartisan bill this evening. The HIV Organ Policy Equity Act, or the HOPE Act, would lift a ban dating back to the 1990s on acquiring HIV-positive organs so that the Department of Health and Human Services can conduct research on the safety and effectiveness of transplants between HIV-positive individuals. As HIV treatments have advanced over the last 30 years, many HIV- positive individuals are living longer lives, but they are also more likely to experience conditions, such as kidney and liver failure, which necessitate a transplant. This bill provides a potential path to a separate organ donation pool for HIV-positive organs, hopefully increasing the overall number of organs available for transplantation. The HOPE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent in June and is supported by the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, among others. I would encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill and would like to commend Dr. Harris, Dr. Burgess, Mrs. Capps, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their leadership on this bipartisan bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, one of the leaders on this issue.

Mr. PITTS. Yes, I am.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 698, the House companion bill to S. 330. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, July 22, 2013. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing with respect to H.R. 698, the ``HIV Organ Policy Equity Act,'' which the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported favorably on July 17, 2013. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 698 that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 698 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 698, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 698. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of another bipartisan bill. S. 252, the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Reauthorization Act, or the PREEMIE Reauthorization Act, would take important steps to protect and improve children's health, particularly the health of the nearly 500,000 children born prematurely in the United States every year. Since its passage in 2006, the PREEMIE Act has sponsored important research that has led to improved prevention and care of children born too early. This bill reauthorizes research and activities at the CDC related to the causes of preterm birth, improving data collection, and preventing preterm births. It also creates an Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private programs that address preterm birth and infant mortality. With one in every eight infants born in the United States prematurely, this is a pressing issue. S. 252 also authorizes the creation of the National Pediatric Research Network, a proven way to support pediatric research by coordinating multicentered research activities, including those in rural areas. I would like to commend Congressman Lance, Congresswoman Capps, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their leadership in this bipartisan effort, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, again, this is reform. It is not a repeal of the sugar program. It is a very modest reform, simply going back to what the Secretary had before 2008 with the ability, the flexibility to allow sugar imports, when necessary, to meet domestic demand. It allows sugar farmers to retain their price supports. It helps save American taxpayers and consumers money, about $3.5 billion per year. It helps protect hundreds of thousands of good American manufacturing jobs. It does not require the import of a single additional pound of sugar, and it reduces market manipulation. Madam Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the resolution and call on the House to support reforming the sugar program in upcoming negotiations on the farm bill. Just a few months ago, I offered a reform amendment to the farm bill that gained unprecedented support and which made modest, but essential, reforms to our government's sugar program. Today, we debate this resolution, one that is even more modest but just as critical to bringing stability and balance to our sugar market. As a matter of fact, my resolution is even more timely. Following our debate on this program, the government began shoveling out money to support sugar growers--$250 million worth in 4 months. We were told by the opposing side that it operated at no cost. We need to address this wasteful practice. Mr. Speaker, every single one of us has a small food business in his district. Sugar is an essential ingredient even in many foods that aren't necessarily sweet. We all know how hard it is on small businesses right now. We know how critical these jobs are to our economy. Shouldn't we do everything we can to help them grow strong? Today, millions of American families are on tight budgets. They watch their spending carefully, especially when it comes to buying food; and when they walk down the grocery aisle, they may not realize the costs that go into the products that they buy for themselves and their children. Very few of them know that they are paying significantly more for these products in order to ensure the profits of a small handful of sugar producers. They don't realize that, altogether, Americans are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year because of a government sugar program that makes little sense. Tens of millions of Americans are looking for jobs. Many don't understand why there isn't more work available right now. What they don't know is that a nationwide industry is suffering because we have a sugar program that favors the few over the many. There are more than 600,000 jobs in sugar-using industries today. However, that industry has seen tough times. More than 127,000 jobs have been lost since the late 1990s. The Department of Commerce estimates that, for every one job the sugar program saves, three are lost in sugar-using industries. The sugar program is a bad deal for businesses, for consumers, for job seekers, and for taxpayers. When the House passed a farm bill this summer, every single commodity program was reformed except for one--the sugar program. The sugar program is probably more in need of reform than any other commodity. The program controls prices to ensure that at all times sugar farmers and producers profit. When prices are high, as they were for 4 out of the last 5 years, producers do very well. When prices are low, the government buys sugar and makes sure that farmers and producers make their money back. This isn't a functioning sugar market. It is a nonstop bailout. Meanwhile, the world price for sugar is typically much lower than here in the United States, and this is a big advantage for foreign competitors. In fact, Canada even advertises their access to the world sugar market as a reason for American companies to relocate or to build new facilities in their nation. Mexican food companies also have lower and more stable prices and the advantages of importing products to the U.S. under NAFTA. Simply put, we are handicapping our food industries at a time when they face intense competition. Good jobs are flowing out of the U.S. into other nations. In the farm bill we sent over to the Senate, every single commodity program was reformed except for sugar. Dairy farmers, peanut growers, cotton growers, and many more will all see changes to their programs. The resolution on the House floor today proposes a modest change to the sugar program. Currently, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to manage imports of sugar for 6 months out of the year. The other 6 months of the year, he can do nothing even if prices spike unreasonably high. The Secretary basically has to make an educated guess about how much sugar should be imported. The way the statute is written, the Secretary must err on the side of the growers and producers. This means that, if the guess is wrong, Big Sugar benefits and consumers get fleeced. It is time that we put an end to a policy that makes little sense--a policy that didn't even exist until the 2008 farm bill. This is a failed experiment that has hurt lots of people and has helped only a handful. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this resolution is on the floor today. I believe that the House should make a strong statement--that our conferees should work to get good reform to the sugar program in this year's farm bill. I am also grateful for the bipartisan support for this measure. At a time when it seems like Democrats and Republicans can't agree on much, we have a very strong bipartisan group working across the aisle to stand up for consumers, for job seekers, for businesses, and for taxpayers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a leader in sugar reform.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), another leader in sugar reform in our Nation.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Jackie Speier.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule to consider my resolution to reform the sugar program. At the time we passed the farm bill this summer, opponents of sugar reform were telling us that the program didn't cost taxpayers a dime. Now, just a few months later, the program is costing taxpayers $250 million. Sugar is the only commodity program in the farm bill that had no reform. Even as other commodities were modified to put more risk on farmers, sugar continues to get its sweet deal. Cotton, peanuts, dairy farmers will all see changes in the coming year, but not sugar farmers. It is a sweet deal that is sour for consumers, for taxpayers, and for businesses across the country. For consumers, those who use sugar, high prices mean they are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year. For taxpayers, low sugar prices mean bailouts rising to hundreds of millions of dollars. For businesses, for those who use and consume sugar in the food industry, high sugar prices place them at a distinct disadvantage to foreign competition. The Department of Commerce estimates that 127,000 jobs were lost in food industries between 1997 and 2011. There are 600,000 jobs across the country at risk. My resolution does not repeal the sugar program. It is very modest reform, modest reform that would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to stabilize the price of sugar. Stabilizing the price isn't just good for consumers, it is good for farmers who can rely on a more constant price and not be subject to wild swings in the market. With the truth about the sugar program even more clear now, it is time we had an honest debate about fairness in our agriculture programs. This does not require the import of a single additional pound of sugar. It gives the Secretary flexibility to meet domestic demand. So I urge Members to support the resolution and support the rule.