Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment. Polls have repeatedly shown that the public does not support Federal funding of abortion, yet that is exactly what is in this bill. Current law actually prevents any Federal health care plan from paying for abortion. It also prevents taxpayer subsidies from flowing to benefit packages that include abortion. However, the Capps amendment included in this legislation would have the opposite effect. Under this bill, funds will flow from premium payments and affordability credits into the U.S. Treasury account, and that account will then reimburse for abortion services. Every dollar in the public option is a Federal dollar. Let me be clear, if the government plan covers abortion, that amounts to Federal funding for abortion. It's that simple. Our amendment would maintain the principles of the Hyde amendment, something that the large majority of Americans support. I urge my colleagues to stand with the majority of the American people, to oppose establishing a Federal Government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, to keep the government out of the business of promoting abortion as health care, and support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Mike Pence.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there has been some recent confusion surrounding the inclusion of abortion coverage in H.R. 3962, but the issue is actually quite clear. The Capps amendment in the bill, which some have argued is neutral on abortion, explicitly authorizes the Federal Government to directly fund elective abortions using Federal funds drawn from a Federal Treasury account. The provision has been billed as a so-called compromise amendment. But this bill will radically expand current and longstanding Federal policy with respect to abortion. Currently, there is not a single government health care program that provides coverage for elective abortion; not SCHIP, not Medicaid, not DOD, Indian Health or the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, all because of congressional action to explicitly prohibit coverage of abortion under each of these programs. But such an explicit exclusion is missing from this bill. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support, when it comes up later, the Stupak-Pitts-Chris Smith-Ellsworth-Dahlkemper-Kaptur amendment that would prevent Federal funding of abortion in this bill.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 30 seconds to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the Members of the status of the pro-life amendment on the bill today. Last night, there were lots of negotiations. There were a couple of compromises discussed. I went with my colleagues, Bart Stupak, Chris Smith, Marcy Kaptur, and Kathy Dahlkemper, before the Rules Committee after midnight. The final outcome is this: There will be only one pro- life amendment offered on the floor today. It will be the Stupak- Ellsworth-Pitts-Smith-Kaptur-Dahlkemper amendment that will prevent Federal funds from funding abortions in both the public plan or with affordability credits. It just codifies the Hyde Amendment for the two new programs. This actually preserves the status quo of our law today. No Federal Government funding for abortions, just like SCHIP, Medicaid, DOD, FEHBP, Indian Health. This is a bipartisan amendment. The pro-life groups National Right to Life, Catholic Bishops, and family groups all support this. I urge the Members to support this amendment when it comes to the floor today.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this morning we received grim news. More Americans have lost their jobs, and we now see the unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, the highest in over 25 years. The stimulus bill has done little to prevent rising unemployment, only creating a handful of jobs in each of our congressional districts. Only 67 in mine, in the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Now, instead of concentrating on how we can restart our economic engine, we start to consider a health care bill that could cost millions of more Americans their jobs in the next decade. Ways and Means Committee staff, working with the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee figures, estimate that Speaker Pelosi's bill could cost 5.5 million American jobs over the next 10 years. It is inconceivable that this House will consider killing jobs during a recession. A government takeover of health care will only employ more tax collectors and bureaucrats. We need real health care reform, the kind that focuses on reducing costs, improving quality of care and expanding access.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the health care bill we will consider this week spent 3 months behind closed doors. It started out with 1,000 pages and came out with 2,000 pages. While you might think that nothing had been removed in those closed door sessions, you may be surprised to find out that bipartisan amendments already adopted at the committee level have been gutted or tossed out. Now Speaker Pelosi is saying that we don't need amendments on the floor since we already had that opportunity at the committee level. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we adopted one amendment to ensure that the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would not be used to ration health care. We also adopted another amendment that would have prevented the center from dictating to doctors what type of treatments they can offer. Why would these amendments be gutted or removed from the bill? The only conclusion is that the authors of the bill want to move us in the direction of government-rationed care. In Canada and Britain, similar boards are used to ration care and dictate how doctors treat their patients. Americans do not want government bureaucrats determining their treatments. They want those decisions left to doctors that they trust.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, President Obama promised Americans that under his health care reform bill they would be able to keep the coverage they currently have. Unfortunately, the Pelosi health care bill we will consider later this week effectively eliminates the popular Medicare Advantage health plans that millions of seniors rely on for medical, vision, and dental care. In my district, nearly 30,000 seniors are enrolled in one of these plans. The average enrollee saves $800, they have a lower hospitalization rate, and they report greater satisfaction with their plan. The Congressional Budget Office maintains that these cuts could ``lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.'' There are a total of $500 billion in cuts to various Medicare programs. I don't think seniors would call reducing their benefits health care reform. I don't think seniors would call cutting home health care, cutting hospice care, cutting nursing home care health care reform. We don't need to destroy Medicare Advantage to reform health care. This week, Republicans will offer a simpler, better proposal which offers real health care reform without taking benefits away from our Nation's seniors.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in just the last few weeks, we have seen the FBI and local law enforcement thwart five separate terrorist attacks. Clearly, radical Islamic terrorists continue to be a serious threat to the safety and security of all Americans. In one FBI sting, Hosam Smadi thought he was about to blow up a 60- story office tower in Dallas. When asked whether he wanted ear plugs, he declined saying that he wanted to hear the blast clearly. Not only was Smadi willing to take thousands of lives, he wanted to revel in the experience. To facilitate the arrest of Smadi and other terrorists, the FBI used surveillance enabled by the PATRIOT Act. By the end of this year, three key surveillance provisions in the act will expire. If we want to ensure that the FBI is able to continue their critical mission of identifying and arresting terrorists before they strike, we must not take away these critical tools. Our law enforcement agencies are working hard to keep America safe, and the PATRIOT Act ensures that they are able to track and follow individuals who are working toward violent ends.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week the Iranian Government handed down death sentences to three activists who protested this year's stolen election in Iran. There are at least 140 other demonstrators who will be subject to these sham trials, and unfortunately, there may be more executions as the regime seeks to restore their iron rule. The charges were phony, the trials were held in secret, the outcome rigged, and now the Iranian Government is only identifying condemned men by their initials. The Iranian Government is clearly on shaky footing; and according to some reports, they imported Hezbollah and Hamas radicals who wore face masks and who couldn't speak Farsi to harass and beat the demonstrators. Unfortunately, we continue to negotiate with this brutal regime, legitimizing their autocratic rule, even though they are so weak they must resort to hiring brutal thugs from other nations. The President should act swiftly, without regard to Russian objections to institute international sanctions that will support freedom for the Iranian people and undermine the vicious rulers who persecute them.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of talk about choices and competition recently. We're hearing now that some on the other side of the aisle want to rename the ``public option'' the ``competitive option.'' Will the competitive option negotiate with doctors like private insurance? No. Will the competitive option be subject to thousands of different State mandates on coverage? No. Will a competitive option be subject to State and local taxes? No. Will the competitive option face an endless assault of lawsuits costing billions of dollars? No. Senate Leader Reid has brought forth a bill that would allow individual States a choice to opt out of the competitive public option. What we're not sure of is whether people in these States will be able to opt out of the billions of new taxes mandated by the bill. Like most Federal programs, the States will either accept the program or watch their citizens' tax dollars go to other participating States. The government option offers few choices, and its competitive advantages will mean that in a very short time, millions of Americans will end up with no option, just the government.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honor to celebrate with Fang Zheng, a man from China who recently walked for the first time in 20 years. Twenty years ago, I remember the whole world was watching on TV with such hope as peaceful demonstrators poured into Tiananmen Square in China, calling for freedom. Fang was among those brave activists. When the tanks rolled in to break up the demonstration, one of them rolled over him, causing him to lose both of his legs. This young man, who had been an Olympic hopeful, was now wheelchair-bound. Last year he finally was able to travel to the United States and seek asylum. Moved by his story, the owners of a prosthesis center that worked with wounded war veterans offered to design him new legs; and yesterday here in the Capitol, these new legs allowed him to dance with his wife for the first time ever. That celebration was a powerful symbol that the American people have not forgotten the Chinese struggle for freedom and the courage of people like Fang Zheng who speak out and who long to enjoy the same freedoms we hold so dear. You can see his story on YouTube.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, day in and day out our soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting a resurgent Taliban that directs its activities out of the lawless regions of Pakistan. They are fighting bravely but are consistently undermined by the poor direction of resources meant to aid Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is deeply disturbing to hear that the Taliban are successfully diverting our own U.S. aid money to fund their insurgency. According to recent reports from GlobalPost, the Taliban has extorted as much as $80 million from American aid contractors in just the last year. Taliban insurgents insist on getting a cut before projects are built in areas under their control, and then they turn around and use these funds to fight coalition forces. Further reports out of Pakistan indicate that billions of dollars in military aid from the U.S. was diverted to nonmilitary purposes over the course of the last 6 years. This region must not become a haven for worldwide terrorism. Supporting our troops means that we must do everything in our power to root out this corruption and stop our tax dollars from being diverted to our enemies or misused by our allies.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, last week at the United Nations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a powerful address, challenging those who would deny the Holocaust. Speaking from the podium, he held up the documents recording the Nazis' plan for the eradication of the Jews. He held up the original blueprints of the Auschwitz concentration camp, signed by Heinrich Himmler, the infamous head of the Gestapo. He called out those nations who sat by idly as President Ahmadinejad put forth vague insinuations that the Holocaust was just a phony pretext for the establishment of Israel. Ahmadinejad at other times has called the Holocaust ``a lie based on an unprovable and mythic claim,'' and he's called Israel ``a cancerous tumor that must cease to exist.'' I applaud our diplomats and those of many other freedom-loving nations for showing no tolerance for his hate speech by walking out during the Iranian president's tirade. Any nation that denies one of the most horrific and barbaric acts of hatred and murder cannot be trusted to peacefully develop nuclear capabilities.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the recent shift in missile defense strategy weakens both our allies in Eastern Europe and our position with Russia and Iran. The announcement that we would abandon the ballistic missile defense infrastructure in Poland and the Czech Republic could not have come on a worse date, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. A Polish spokesman called the decision ``catastrophic for Poland.'' Only Russia has expressed satisfaction with the announcement. This shift in strategy comes as Russia has been increasingly willing to project its power in the region either through military force or by withholding natural gas. This decision undermines every pro-Western politician in Poland and the Czech Republic, our allies. Their careers are ruined. People are saying you can't trust U.S. commitments. We pleased the Russians with nothing to show in return. Now is not the time to appease. Our actions are seen as weakness and dangerous. It undermines our national security.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, American dairy farmers are struggling, and expanding markets around the world could help them greatly. The President's placing of a 35 percent tariff on imports of Chinese tires last Friday is likely to start a trade war. This time of recession is no time to shut down rural trade or spark wider trade wars. Instead, we should look for opportunities to open up new markets for American products. We have three free trade agreements currently sitting on the table, South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which the administration has virtually ignored since the President took office. Combined, these agreements represent more than 100 million new customers for American products. New markets could go a long way in increasing demand for American products and saving family farms that have operated for generations. I believe American agriculture and industry can compete worldwide, but we need to break down barriers, not create new ones.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in Gaza and the West Bank, the U.N. Relief Works Agency operates hundreds of schools, many of them controlled by Hamas-approved teachers' unions. When the U.N. considered adding the Holocaust to the history curriculum, Hamas wrote a vicious letter, denying the events and refusing to let their children hear about one of the most well-documented, horrific events of the 20th century. Sadly, in typical fashion, U.N. officials have backed off their pledge, effectively ceding control of curriculum to Hamas. It is hard to imagine that there can be a lasting peace agreement in the Middle East when the party that controls the Gaza Strip steadfastly denies even well-known facts. Hamas teaches the children of Gaza outrageous lies about Israel; and, unfortunately, the U.N. does little to combat this disinformation and hate speech. It is far past time for the U.N. to take a stand against the hatred of Hamas extremists by ensuring that history is no longer distorted. Peace will only come when the children of Gaza are no longer taught that Israel has no right to exist.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday the so-called ``green jobs czar'' resigned from his post after it was revealed that he supported 9/11 Truth organization statements insinuating that the government permitted the attacks to happen. This official was just one of the many czars the administration has appointed this year. There's a car czar, a pay czar, a science czar, a Great Lakes czar, plus 30 other czars. Typically, high-ranking officials go through a Senate confirmation process to ensure their fitness for the position, but none of President Obama's czars went through this process required by the Constitution. The Constitution calls for the Senate to give advice and consent for the appointment of its principal officers, a fitting definition for the power wielded by these czars. It is not too late for the President to properly vet his next green jobs czar and to willingly submit all of these high officials to a transparent process that can only strengthen his administration. When he was Senator, Obama said, ``The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the United States.'' Mr. Obama, it's time to keep your word.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the President has appointed over 30 new czars in the Federal bureaucracy, and I'm concerned about the President's new science czar. John Holdren detailed and advocated draconian population control methods in a 1977 textbook that he coauthored. In it, they state, ``Some coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed.'' They go on to speculate that a program in India to vasectomize fathers of large families could have been successful with ``massive assistance from the developed world.'' The same chapter later promotes readily available abortion services as one of the milder methods governments can promote to reduce family size. Some of their ideas are quite bizarre. This is the same man who has the ear of the President on some of the most important decisions of the day. Clearly, we need to watch the office of the science czar carefully with an eye toward whether Dr. Holdren will promote policies that maintain our cherished liberties or policies that call for the heavy hand of government in our private lives.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, with Congress deep in negotiations over the substance of health care reform, I'm increasingly concerned about the President's recent unhelpful remarks. In his remarks last week, he maintained that a pediatrician treating a child with a recurring sore throat may recommend removing tonsils merely to increase the reimbursement from an insurance company. To insinuate that doctors are ordering unnecessary surgeries on children for a few more dollars in reimbursement is deeply offensive to millions of doctors who work each day to help us raise healthy children. Over the weekend, I was approached by several constituents in the health profession who said those remarks were insulting to them. I worry that the President may have an unrealistic view of the medical community and the overwhelming and vast number of hardworking doctors and nurses that are concerned first with the health of patients. While we're not trying to do nothing, we're not arguing for the status quo. As we reform our health care system, we should be careful. We're not trying to fix some things that aren't broken and in the process break other things that currently work for millions of American.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, everywhere I go people tell me they're worried about the direction our country is headed. So far in this Congress, all we've seen are bailouts and government takeovers. We've taken over or nationalized huge sectors of our economy. We've nationalized the banking industry and the financial sector. We've nationalized the home mortgage industry. We've taken over the auto companies. We've nationalized the energy sector with cap-and-trade. And now our friends on the other side want to nationalize the health care sector, 17 percent of our economy, a government takeover with new government mandates. And one of those hidden mandates is for abortion coverage in every insurance plan, public or private, in America. At a time when the number of abortions is declining, doctors performing abortions are declining, the number of abortion clinics is declining, the Congress and White House want to mandate abortion coverage in every insurance plan, public or private; another bailout in this bill, this one for the abortion industry. What would the result be? Less jobs, more taxes, massive government spending, and a mountain of debt on our kids and grandkids.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. The bill before us today will open up the funding spigot for abortions in the District of Columbia. The Dornan amendment has, for years, helped to reduce abortions in D.C. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about abortion reduction, and the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that public funding for abortion increases the number of lives lost to abortion. Even the Guttmacher Institute has found that significantly more women choose abortion when the government subsidizes it. Unfortunately, the bill before us today will only serve to increase abortion. The District of Columbia has a sordid history with abortion funding. In 1994, when the funding ban was lifted, D.C. took $1 million away from the Medical Charities Fund which was created to help AIDS patients to instead pay for abortions. And the District had to request additional funds to make up for the funds used on abortion. Then, when the funding ban was reinstated, the city disregarded the law and continued to fund abortion for two additional years. The bill will again open the door for D.C. to abuse taxpayer dollars to expand abortion, and it completely disregards the views of the majority of Americans who do not support public funding for abortion. The bill thrusts upon hardworking taxpayers the values of the Washington elite. Nearly 180 Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, made a simple and reasonable request: maintain existing pro-life policies in appropriations bills; and if you don't, allow us the opportunity to vote up or down. Yesterday, the Rules Committee unilaterally acted to deny Members and, consequently, the constituents they represent, the opportunity even to vote on whether this bill should be used to expand public funding for abortion. Such actions are an offense to the democratic process, to the American taxpayers, and to the sanctity of human life. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. They know, in response to the gentleman, they know that if the bill is silent on the issue of abortion, they will control who's appointed to the Benefits Advisory Committee. And they have expressed their intent, from the President on down to all the organizations who have lobbied for this health care bill, that they intend that abortion will be a basic essential service. And so they're relying on that advisory committee, on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the courts, on the administrators to guarantee that this will be provided. Friends, this is the big battle for our time. This is the greatest civil rights issue of our generation. And if we lose this battle, it's over. Now is the time for all citizens to weigh in if they don't want their tax dollars used to set up this massive abortion scheme that's coming through this bill.

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate your overview and scheduling this hour over this so-called health reform and the abortion connection because this health care reform plan contains a hidden abortion mandate that the American people don't even realize is there. It will mean that health care insurers will be forced to cover abortions. It will mean that taxpayer money will be used to subsidize abortions. Both a mandate and a subsidy against the moral objections of millions of pro-life Americans under the proposed health care reform bill which we're considering now in the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I sit. And we began opening statements today. We will begin markup tomorrow. And it will continue next week for 3 more days. Virtually under this bill every individual would be required to have health care that meets what they call minimum benefit standards. Now, the bill does not design these minimum benefit standards, but instead it establishes a new government health board called the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. This committee is chaired by the Surgeon General and, in concert with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will issue binding decrees on what is and is not considered a minimum Federal benefit standard. There is absolutely no doubt, as the gentleman from Louisiana stated, that this process will result in mandated coverage of abortion, along with Federal subsidies for such coverage, unless Congress explicitly excludes abortion services. When talking about health care reform, the gentleman mentioned President Obama himself stated that reproductive care is essential care, basic care. And Secretary Clinton just recently clarified that, ``Productive health includes access to abortion.'' History has demonstrated, as he pointed out, that unless abortion is explicitly excluded, administrative agencies and the courts will mandate it. We have seen this time and time again. The Federal Medicaid statute was silent on the issue of abortion, but the administration and the courts deemed abortion on demand to be mandated coverage. And, as a result, over 300,000 abortions a year were paid for with taxpayer funds before it was stopped. In 1979, Congressman Henry Hyde asked the Indian Health Services where they found their authority to pay for abortions. They responded, ``We would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions.'' In both of these cases, explicit exclusions had to be added to ensure that taxpayers would not have to continue to pay for abortions. And so every year when Labor and HHS that covers Medicaid is adopted, we have to adopt the Hyde amendment. It's an annual event. Under this bill, any individual who does not have a plan that meets the minimum benefit standards, they will be forced to pay an additional 2\1/2\ percent penalty. Tax penalty. Any employer who does not provide coverage to his employees that meets these standards will pay up to an additional 8 percent tax penalty. And so that means all premium payers and taxpayers in America who do not want a plan that pays for abortion will be penalized for it. In addition to mandating this coverage for abortion, the bill will also provide massive subsidies for abortion. The bill both authorizes and appropriates funding for premium subsidies. So we won't have to appropriate money in the future if we pass this bill. And without explicit language to clarify that taxpayer dollars cannot and should not fund abortion, massive subsidies for premiums and cost-sharings will be used to pay for abortions against the moral objections of, as I have said, millions of pro-life Americans. The issue here is simple: Americans should not be forced to have their tax dollars pay for abortion. And that's why I'm going to offer amendments in the Energy and Commerce Committee in the markup to eliminate the mandate, to eliminate the subsidies, and also to keep the bill from preempting State laws. This bill is basically an end run to establish FOCA--Freedom of Choice Act. All the pro-life community knows what that is. This bill would preempt all State laws that would interfere with this bill and access to abortion. We should not be forced to be unwitting participants as the abortion industry uses this law to mainstream the destruction of human life into Americans' health care industry. Health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life. Abortion is not health care. And this bill seeks to establish that. The majority of Americans, as was pointed out, do not support public funding for abortion, use of their taxpayers dollars for abortion, and they should not have this abortion coverage forcefully thrust upon them. And so with that, I thank the gentleman for scheduling this hour. It's very important that we alert the public as to what is coming down the pike in the next couple of weeks so they can get involved and express their views to their Members so that they reflect their views here on the floor.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week's New York Times Magazine featured an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Some of her comments were absolutely astonishing coming from a sitting Supreme Court Justice, but the most disturbing comment came in reference to abortion. In reference to Roe v. Wade, the infamous Supreme Court case, she said this: ``Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.'' I cannot imagine any acceptable context where a serious person could refer to ``populations that we don't want too many of.'' This eugenic way of thinking debases the value of all human life. All people are created equal and deserve the most fundamental right to life no matter what race, religion, or socioeconomic background. I am shocked that a member of the Supreme Court believes that a compelling reason for the legality of abortion is because our society wants to reduce the growth of specific populations. Justice Ginsburg's comments are an assault and insult to the values of the American people.