Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Section 4002 of PPACA establishes a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which my bill, H.R. 1217, would repeal. The section authorizes the appropriation of and appropriates to the fund from the Treasury the following amounts: $500 million for FY 2010; $750 million for FY 2011; $1 billion for FY 2012; $1.25 billion for FY 2013; $1.5 billion for FY 2014; and for FY 2015 and every fiscal year thereafter, $2 billion. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the full authority to use this account to fund any programs or activities that she chooses under the Public Health Service Act without having congressional input, approval or oversight. HHS has already made disbursements from the fund, spending $500 million last year, and she has $750 million available for her to spend this year to fund prevention activities, the Nation's public health infrastructure, workforce expansion, increasing immunizations, and preventing a variety of diseases. The goals of some of these disbursements are laudable, but we must remember that this funding is over and above the amount that Congress has already authorized and appropriated for these activities. There have also been questionable projects that have been financed with these funds, including ``placing signs directing people to bike paths.'' When Secretary Sebelius testified before my subcommittee, I asked her whether she needed further congressional approval to spend the money from the section 4002 fund, and she answered no. I then asked her if she could fund activities above and beyond the level Congress appropriated, and she stated yes. This should concern every Member that we have created a slush fund from which the Secretary can spend without any congressional oversight or approval. No one here can tell us how this funding will be used next year or 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years from now. We can't predict how the money will be spent--and worse, we can't even influence it. I would suggest to my colleagues that, if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or to any other program, the health care law should have contained an explicit authorization, because you are not guaranteed that a dime of the money in this fund will go to your particular activity. By eliminating this fund, we are not cutting any specific program or activity. I am not against prevention and wellness. This is not what this is about. This is about reclaiming our oversight role of how Federal tax dollars should be used. I urge support for my bill, H.R. 1217. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, it's time for a fiscal reality check. The Federal Government is now borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Washington is spending more than $1 of every $4 this country produces and we are facing a third straight year with a $1 trillion deficit. Yet, when the subcommittee voted on this straightforward bill to strip billions in unaccountable spending from the health care law based on the simple premise that Congress should fund prevention and wellness activities by prioritizing them in the regular annual spending process, the response from the other side of the aisle was to say, we're not broke. Madam Chair, I beg to differ. Our debate today is not about the virtue of preventive health care and wellness programs. I support prevention. The real question is whether our Nation can afford to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to spend nearly $18 billion over and above what Congress appropriates over the next decade on programs of the administration's choosing. H.R. 1217 does not cut a single program because this fund does not guarantee funding for any particular program. Every Member who supports this fund on the assumption that it provides additional money for a project they deem worthy should understand that no one knows where this money will be spent. Perhaps it could be used to combat obesity, or for cancer screenings, or perhaps it will be used to post signs about the location of bike paths. The point is, Congress abdicates our authority and responsibility for investing in prevention by handing a perpetual blank check to the Secretary. Governing and solving our fiscal problems is difficult; it requires hard choices. It is easy to spend. The easy choice was to assign mandatory advanced appropriations to these initiatives rather than making them a budget priority. But it's only easy until the bill is due and the credit card is maxed out. Well, the bill is due and the credit card limit is approaching fast. Congress needs to reassert its role and set spending priorities rather than give the executive branch unfettered power to spend as it wishes. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, the simple fact is everything the gentlelady just mentioned she doesn't know will be funded. There is no guarantee to fund any of those things. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation and rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, the amendment before us directs the GAO to pontificate on the effectiveness of unspecified prevention, wellness, and public health activities financed by funds under section 4002 of PPACA. As we have pointed out, section 4002 gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend the slush fund with little limitation. Any program within the Public Health Service Act, regardless of its merit or effectiveness, is eligible for funding under section 4002. How can we ask the GAO to determine the effectiveness of spending dollars when we simply don't know how those dollars will be spent? Is GAO supposed to assume that funds will be used to train doctors or build jungle gyms? Will their report make the assumption that the money will be used to advocate for soda tax increases in States or build signs that direct people to bike paths? All of these activities can be funded through this slush fund. According to the Energy and Commerce minority views, Pitt County, North Carolina, received a grant from the fund that will be in part used to ``place signage within communities to point out public parks, other recreational opportunities, and the availability of bike lanes.'' This amendment underscores the major problem with section 4002. Rather than letting Congress weigh the relative value of programs through the annual appropriations process, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to throw dollars to a political appointee at HHS to spend billions of dollars on any program with no oversight. The amendment also places an unrealistic timetable on the GAO to issue a report within 90 days of enactment. It is simply a waste of money to ask GAO to conduct a study with little time to complete what is clearly an impossible task. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who is on the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I have the copy of the law the gentlelady referred to. She says the trust fund refers to spending for fresh food and vegetables and other things. There's none of that in the language. I would welcome her to point it out. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, once again the gentlewoman made my point. She has no guarantee that in the year 2015 the Secretary will fund programs like cessation of smoking or obesity. She has not a clue. What if the Secretary decided to use the whole $2 billion for abstinence education in 2015? She has no clue what it will be used for. I urge the Members to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, the Castor amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to make assumptions on the economic impacts of providing prevention, wellness, and public health activities under section 4002 of the PPACA. However, section 4002 gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend this slush fund with little limitation. The amendment asks the GAO to determine the economic impact of spending when no one except the Secretary knows how those dollars will be spent. What will GAO base their assumptions on? Does placing signage for bike paths produce economic activity or does advocating higher soda taxes benefit the economy? These activities have been financed by programs eligible for funding under section 4002. Members and the GAO cannot determine the economic impact of the fund because the Secretary controls how it is to be spent. Will GAO be charged with determining whether borrowing 42 cents of every dollar this fund spends has a positive economic impact? This amendment underscores the major problems with section 4002. Rather than letting Congress weigh the relative value of programs through the annual appropriations process, my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided to throw dollars to a political appointee at HHS to spend billions on any program with no oversight. The amendment also places an unrealistic timetable on the GAO to issue a report within 90 days of enactment. Like the previous amendment, we are not spending our resources wisely when we ask the GAO to conduct a study with little time to complete what is clearly an impossible task. I urge Members to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, we heard the House minority leader say that ``elections shouldn't matter as much as they do.'' I strongly disagree. Members were brought here to get runaway spending under control; but rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis, House Democrats have brought forward an MTR that guts the underlying bill and continues the runaway spending that the American people have rejected. As we have pointed out, section 4002 gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend the slush fund with little limitation. Any program within the Public Health Service Act, regardless of its merit or effectiveness, is eligible for funding under section 4002. Will section 4002 help train doctors, or will the money be used to build jungle gyms? Will the Prevention and Public Health Fund be used to advocate for soda tax increases in States or build signs that direct people to bike paths? All of these activities can be funded through this slush fund. This MTR underscores the major problem with section 4002. Rampant spending on the Federal credit card cannot continue. The Federal Government will be borrowing 42 cents of every Federal dollar spent from this fund. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit. The President's irresponsible budget will double the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion. This endless spending is fiscally irresponsible and morally bankrupt. Spending today is debt that our children and grandchildren will pay tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on the underlying bill so we can help get our fiscal house back in order. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, at this point I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1217 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, where do we get the gasoline to power our cars and jet fuel to power our airplanes? We all know that it comes from oil and that its price is dictated by supply and demand. President Obama realizes this. In fact, his advisers have considered opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to stabilize supply. But if we are willing to open up this emergency supply, then why are we not taking advantage of the natural reserves that we have throughout our Nation? Following BP's careless accident in the gulf, six deepwater drilling rigs left for foreign shores, some even moving to Egypt. Deepwater drilling will continue, but off foreign shores. America will continue to need oil, but it will increasingly come from foreign nations. Rather than reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, the actions of this administration are increasing them. With instability in the Middle East, our gas prices naturally rise. Let's open our natural reserves off our shores and throughout our country. Let's create energy jobs here and stabilize the price of gasoline in the United States.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week, 13 Coptic Christians in Egypt were killed in clashes with Muslims. Recently, a church in the town of Sol was burned to the ground, leading many Christians to flee the village in fear of their lives. This comes only 2 months after 24 Christians were killed in a church bombing. For thousands of years, Coptic Christians have lived and worshiped in Egypt, but some extremists want to use the chaos in the country today to drive them out of their homes and places of worship. Egypt is in the process of developing a democratic government, one in which all the Egyptian people will have a say. These attacks undermine freedom and democracy. Democracy without protection of minority rights is mob rule and not true freedom. I invite all my colleagues to join me on a letter to the commander in chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces calling on him to protect the Egyptian citizens during this critical period in his nation. We are glad to see the Egyptian people building a better government, and we must remind them that fundamental respect for human rights must be protected.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize pharmacy's contribution to the American health care system. This week, over 300 members of the pharmacy community--including practicing pharmacists, pharmacy school faculty and students, state pharmacy leaders and pharmacy company executives--are here on Capitol Hill for the Third Annual National Association of Chain Drug Stores RxIMPACT Day. These important health care providers are here to urge Congress to recognize the value of pharmacists and promote access to these medication experts throughout our health care delivery system. Nearly all Americans live within five miles of a community pharmacy, making pharmacists one of our most accessible health care provider groups. As my colleagues know, one of the most important functions of local pharmacies is to assist individuals in the communities where they operate with their health care needs. While the convenient, safe and efficient dispensing of prescription medicines is a core function of the modern neighborhood pharmacy--and one they take very seriously-- pharmacies do much more that positively impacts the lives of their customers and patients. Today's pharmacies offer a variety of preventive health care services including immunizations and vaccinations, health screening services, disease management services and routine advice on the best and most effective over-the-counter products for patients' specific needs. Americans trust their neighborhood pharmacies to provide these services, which is one reason pharmacists have ranked in the top three each of the past eight years in Gallup's annual survey of integrity across all professions. As the face of neighborhood health care, pharmacies across the nation offer these and other cost-saving programs and services to help patients take medicines they need to achieve positive results from appropriate use of their medications. Today, I celebrate the value of pharmacy and support efforts to protect access to neighborhood pharmacies and utilize pharmacies to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Federal deficit for the month of February was $223 billion, more than the total yearly deficit in 2007. Yet Republicans have been labeled as irresponsible for looking to cut a mere $61 billion from the rest of this year's budget. Our cuts only amount to 30 percent of the monthly deficit. Additionally, these cuts are only made in the discretionary portion of our budget. Tomorrow, in the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, we're going to look at new ObamaCare programs that have been locked away in the mandatory budget. One of these programs allows the HHS Secretary to spend unlimited sums of money. We have given the Secretary a credit card with no limit even though our national debt threatens the economic health of our Nation. It is time that we cut up the credit card and restore to Congress the power to set fiscal priorities. Slush funds and unlimited spending are just two more reasons why ObamaCare needs to be repealed.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the coming years the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will have to find $2 billion additional to pay for ObamaCare's mandated Medicaid increases. There is little flexibility in State budgets this year, and Pennsylvania, like many States, will have to make up a significant budget gap this year. The entire State budget is only $29 billion. Adding $2 billion more means significant cuts in services or significant tax increases. Pennsylvania is not alone. According to a new report released yesterday, this expansion will cost States $118 billion additional. That is twice what was just recently estimated by CBO. We want to provide good health care, but we also want to educate our children, keep citizens safe, and maintain our rails and roads. Our State governments must be more than just health care providers. We must provide governors with the flexibility to determine the needs of their States. Under ObamaCare, Medicaid is more rigid and more expensive, and an even greater burden on States struggling to balance their budgets.