Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the subcommittee chairman of O&I, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), another valued member of the Health Subcommittee, the author of the GAIN Act, the section dealing with antibiotics, and a valued participant in all these negotiations.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I address the Congress today with deep concern over the Administration's lifting of sanctions against the dictatorship of Burma. We are working to get support, assistance and even proposing the transfer of weapons to the opposition in Syria, but yet, in Burma--a place where there are at least 500,000 displaced people in one area and some report over 70,000 new displaced people due to attacks against the Kachin perpetrated by the actions of dictators--this Administration is rewarding the regime and their brutality. Why do our policies give value to the lives of the opposition in Syria while denying the value of the lives of ethnic minorities and democratic activists in Burma? The Administration's actions expose a shameful approach--one that allows U.S. businesses to invest in a land still drenched in bloodshed and where some prosper through the oppression of others. We should not be lifting any sanctions against dictators in Burma until they prove over time that they will stick to their word and they actually end their attacks against the people of Burma. It is absurd to be lifting sanctions while a well-known brutal dictatorship continues to attack, displace, and even kill the people within its country.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman's concerns and want to assure him that these issues deserve the attention of my Health Subcommittee. And as we continue the legislative process, I will gladly work with the gentleman and Governor Fortuno to address the needs of our most vulnerable citizens in the territories.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The reconciliation package we bring to the floor today sensibly reduces spending so that we can continue to adequately defend our Nation. The first responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep our Nation safe from foreign threats. By cutting wasteful spending and reforming programs, we can continue to maintain a military that keeps us secure at home and makes the world a more peaceful place. I am proud to report that the Energy and Commerce Committee exceeded the budget instructions by $17 billion to save a total of $114 billion over 10 years. In three titles, we cut wasteful programs created by ObamaCare, reform the Medicaid program, and reform our broken medical liability system. With the Nation struggling with trillion-dollar deficits, the President chose to increase government spending by more than another $1 trillion with his health care law. This wasn't reform; it was a government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy that will increase dependency and bankrupt the Nation. We continue to push for full repeal, but also do everything we can to stop wasteful and unwise spending immediately. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a classic example of how government bureaucrats fail to spend public funds wisely. The health care law provided an advance appropriation of $16 billion and called for a permanent annual allotment of $2 billion per year for this fund. That's $2 billion a year in perpetuity. So, in 2036, 2037, and 2057, the Secretary of HHS has complete authority over this $2 billion to spend on whatever he or she wishes without coming back for appropriations authorization from Congress. Let's call this what it is: It's a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Almost any program can make a claim that it is preventative. The Secretary has the sole role of control of the fund and, so far, has found some quite interesting ways to spend it. For example: In Pitt County, North Carolina, a recipient used the money to fund signage for parks and bike lanes; In Boston, they spent $1 million on urban gardening; One of the vaunted successes of the program was getting the city of Baldwin Park, California, to put a 9-month moratorium on construction of fast food restaurants. Government should be encouraging job creation, not finding ways to stop it for a few months; New York spent $3 million to lobby for a soda tax issue; Philadelphia spent money to push for higher State cigarette excise taxes. Why on Earth is the Federal Government paying for campaigns to lobby State governments? These are all examples from just the last 2 years. Who knows what projects will get money in the future. We have numerous public health and prevention funds that can be managed through the yearly appropriations process. A permanent slush fund with limited oversight guarantees that money will be wasted every year. We also repealed the unlimited authority to fund the implementation of State health insurance exchanges. ObamaCare gave the Secretary a credit card with no limit, a bottomless direct appropriation. This is unprecedented and unwise. Again, we need oversight in order to make sure that the public's money is being wisely spent. Congress never should have abdicated its authority in this area, and now we need to reclaim it. We defund the CO-OP program before billions of public dollars can be lost. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that a significant portion of the funds given to unproven CO-OPs would never be returned to the Treasury. We would stop this funding before HHS creates its own Solyndra. The President's health care law places a dramatically increased burden on State Medicaid programs. The maintenance of effort provisions restrict States from making commonsense reforms to stop fraud and abuse. We know that Medicaid is rife with fraudulent claims. In 2011, there were $15 billion in improper payments. We need to give States the flexibility to run these programs efficiently and to help the truly needy. We also repeal an unwise bonus program that encourages States to undermine the integrity of the program. We should not place unnecessary barriers to qualifying for Medicaid, but neither should we encourage States to oversimplify reviews of eligibility. We do not have unlimited funds. Again, Medicaid coverage needs to be open only to the truly needy. Finally, we include real medical liability reform in this reconciliation package. The President's health care law gave a pitiful $50 million for liability reform demonstration projects.

Mr. PITTS. This is paying lip service to a $200 billion problem. I recently heard from a doctor who has been practicing in my district for decades. He bemoaned defensive medicine but was even more concerned that doctors being trained in today's climate don't even realize that they are prescribing unnecessary tests. Defensive medicine is simply becoming the norm. Medical liability reform means saving for consumers, for doctors, and for the government. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the job we've done in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support the reconciliation package. I would now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee approved bipartisan legislation to reauthorize and reform the Food and Drug Administration user-fee program. This bill will smooth the process of reviewing medical devices and drugs, increasing transparency and predictability. It's a big step in the right direction for helping American companies continue to lead the world in medical research. Unfortunately, the medical device industry faces a huge setback starting next year. Last week, Senator Toomey and I visited Precision Medical Products in Denver, Pennsylvania. In a roundtable meeting, we heard from a dozen medical device companies about how the new ObamaCare medical device tax will destroy jobs and stall research. This new 2.3 percent tax is on all revenue--and not just profits--meaning even if a company is struggling to break even or even losing money, they have to pay this hefty tax bill. This new tax is over and above the new user fees that they have agreed to pay. Already, some companies have cut back. Yesterday, we took a big step forward. But if this new tax becomes reality next year, we could still lose the edge on medical device equipment. It should be repealed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on the back of today's Wall Street Journal, which I have in my hands, is featured a shocking story about pills coming from China containing human flesh. South Korean authorities intercepted tens of thousands of capsules and confirmed that they were composed of ground up pieces of aborted fetuses and were marketed as ``stamina boosters.'' This horror again reiterates why we should be concerned with pharmaceuticals coming from mainland China. These human flesh capsules are both abhorrent and a threat to health, possibly containing superbacteria. It is revolting to discover that there are individuals in China who will attempt to pass off such an abomination as medicine. The Journal goes on to note that it was just last month that regulators cracked down on pills from China containing high amounts of chromium, a known carcinogen. Today's grim news reminds us to be vigilant in protecting the safety of our drug supply chain and to carefully monitor health products coming from China. These pills are a terrible affront to human dignity and a serious danger to health.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week, liberal MSNBC host Ed Schultz found himself agreeing with the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. What issue could possibly unite liberals and conservatives? The answer is: sugar reform. You see, sugar farmers and sugar processors benefit from a Federal sugar program that fixes prices and guarantees their profits. Indeed, Schultz noted that one of the biggest processors, American Crystal Sugar, makes $1.5 billion in revenue and pays its CEO $2.4 million a year in compensation. While Schultz is, probably, mostly concerned about a labor dispute between American Crystal and its workers, I hope he will also consider the many other workers in sugar-using industries. The Federal program inflates the price of sugar in the U.S., placing American sugar users at a severe disadvantage to their foreign competition. In the last 15 years, more than 100,000 workers in sugar-using industries have lost their jobs. I've been proud to work with Congressman Danny Davis to reform this program and to make it fair for everyone. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives agree that the government shouldn't be guaranteeing corporate profits at the expense of workers and consumers. I hope the Ag Committee will reform the sugar program as we deal with the farm bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, Chuck Colson, a former Nixon administration lawyer, founder of Prison Fellowship, and a good friend, passed away. I first got to know Colson through his incredible ministry. I knew of his time serving in Maxwell prison in Alabama, and after he was released, I invited him, as a young State legislator in Pennsylvania, to come and speak to a dinner in my district. I had 535 people show up. He spoke and shared the concept that he had gotten as he served in prison of this idea of Prison Fellowship. He asked me and another fellow to go up to a couple of Federal prisons in Pennsylvania and select four prisoners to bring to Washington for the first time of this group, and I did. I went to Lewisburg and Allenwood, met over six weekends with the little Christian fellowship in those prisons, and they selected two from each prison. One was a bank robber, a hijacker, a labor union racketeer, and a drug dealer. And without guards, the prison officials permitted me to drive them to Washington. We dropped them off here, left them for a week, and then I came and picked them up and took them back. But this idea of Prison Fellowship started back then. Chuck, when he would speak to me many times, would call me his first prison volunteer. It was a wonderful ministry. Chuck is going to be greatly missed. Chuck Colson's story is really one of grace, grace that was given to him, that he worked tirelessly to spread across the Nation and across the world. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, imagine you come to a fork in the road. You look on your GPS, and you see that the path to the left leads to an old bridge that is falling into the river. The path on the right leads to a brand-new bridge that is guaranteed to get your car over the river. Obviously, everyone would go over the new bridge. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Medicare, we have a GPS provided to us by the Medicare trustees. They clearly say that if we stay on the same road, Medicare will be broke by 2024. Republicans want to provide a new bridge that protects and preserves the program for current and future retirees, a program that gives future seniors the option to stay in traditional Medicare or to choose a new plan that best fits their needs. Unlike current Medicare, the Republican plan provides greater benefits for low-income and sick seniors and requires more from wealthy seniors. The Medicare trustees have put up a bright orange sign saying: ``Bridge Out Ahead.'' We can either heed their warnings and turn down a new path or plow right through and end up in the river.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today, the Supreme Court began its deliberations on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Clearly, with 3 days of deliberations, this is the most important case the Court has considered in decades. I had the pleasure of being able to attend this morning's deliberations considering whether the Court should rule immediately or wait until the penalties are assessed a few years from now. Tomorrow, they will consider the heart of the matter, whether the Constitution allows the government to compel individuals to purchase health insurance--the so-called ``individual mandate.'' At this time, it is critical to remember that the Supreme Court is not the only body charged with protecting and defending the United States Constitution. This Congress, we've been working to restore rights to the American people. We have passed legislation to fully repeal this law, to eliminate many of its harmful provisions, and to defund irresponsible spending. No matter how the Court rules, we must continue the fight to restore our constitutional liberties.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, on Sunday in the Yemeni city of Tah-izz, al Qaeda terrorists viciously gunned down American Joel Shrum. Joel grew up in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in Mount Joy and was a football star at Donegal High School. He leaves behind a wife and two young sons who lived with him in Yemen. Joel worked as a teacher at the International Training Development Center, which focused on giving vocational training to the poor. Joel was a Christian, but he was not in the country to proselytize. According to his father, Joel was there to teach and break down barriers. The organization he worked for is staffed by both Christians and Muslims and has worked in the country for over 40 years. The people of Yemen are appalled at this violence. Hundreds of activists took to the streets yesterday to demand justice for the killers. They carried photos of Joel and chanted: ``Yemen is not a place for terrorism'' and ``We love you, Joel.'' Joel Shrum selflessly served the poor in a country far from home. He will be dearly missed by his family and by the people he came to serve.

Mr. PITTS

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

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

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to another doctor, the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. PITTS. I'll yield to myself at this time, then, such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, the PATH Act, not only fixes our broken medical liability system; it also repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, one of the most ominous provisions in the President's sweeping overhaul of health care. Medical liability reform will preserve access to quality health care in States like Pennsylvania by allowing doctors in high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and neurosurgery, to practice without the fear of frivolous lawsuits and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to reduce the Federal deficit by $48.6 billion over the next 10 years. According to the President's health care law, the purpose of IPAB is to reduce Medicare's per capita growth rate. The board is made up, as we've heard, of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who will be paid $165,300 a year to serve 6-year terms on the board. If Medicare growth goes over an arbitrary target, the board is required to submit a proposal to Congress that would reduce Medicare's growth rate. These recommendations will automatically go into effect unless Congress passes legislation that would achieve the same amount of savings. In order to do so, Congress must meet an almost impossible deadline and clear an almost insurmountable legislative hurdle. The board has the power to make binding decisions about Medicare policy with no requirement for public comment prior to issuing their recommendations. Individuals and providers will have no recourse against the board because its decisions cannot be appealed or reviewed. In other words, the board will make major health care legislation essentially outside the usual legislative process. The board is also limited to how it can achieve the required savings. Therefore, IPAB's recommendations will be restricted to cutting provider reimbursements. In many cases, Medicare already reimburses below the cost of providing services, and we're already seeing doctors refusing to take new Medicare patients--or Medicare patients at all-- because they cannot afford to absorb the losses. Any additional provider cuts will lead to fewer Medicare providers. That means that beneficiary access will suffer. Seniors will be forced to wait in longer and longer lines to be seen by an ever-shrinking pool of providers or will have to travel longer and longer distances to find a provider willing to see them. Clearly, Medicare growth is on an out-of- control trajectory that endangers the solvency and continued existence of the program. IPAB, however, is not the solution. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), another valued member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. PITTS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the gentleman who just spoke signed a letter to former Speaker Pelosi on December 17, 2009, that says the IPAB provisions severely limit the congressional oversight of the Medicare program and eliminate the transparency of congressional hearings and debate. Moreover, the creation of a Medicare board would effectively eliminate State community input in the Medicare program, removing the ability to develop and implement policies expressly applicable to different patient populations. So IPAB or an equivalent commission, they said, could not only threaten the ability of Medicare beneficiaries but of all Americans to access the care they need. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another health care professional--a nurse--the gentlelady from North Carolina, Renee Ellmers.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another doctor, the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, they said PPACA would cost less than $1 trillion. The CBO's new estimate says it's going to cost over $1.7 trillion. Stay tuned. I now yield 2 minutes to the author of the IPAB repeal, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.