Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman. As a member of the select investigative panel, I rise in support of H. Res. 933. Madam Speaker, after the release of the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood, one little known tissue procurement company became a household name: StemExpress. They are one of the biggest players in the sale of aborted-baby body parts in the United States. In clear violation of the intent of Federal law, they promise profits to abortion clinics in return for otherwise discarded--and I will use their quote--products of conception. The select panel learned that in order to make as much tissue available for sale as possible, and thus rake in huge profits, StemExpress sought to contract with the National Abortion Federation. Contracting with this network of abortion clinics would mean access to thousands of baby body parts, which StemExpress could procure, then turn around and sell at huge markups. Our investigation found that they had created a drop-down menu--here is a copy of part of it--on their Web site, such as one might find on Amazon.com, to facilitate their sales. Their buyers could select the gestational age, the type of tissue, and the number of specimens. For example, you could select three 12-week-old baby scalps, twelve 14- week-old baby brains, one 15-week pair of baby eyes, or seven 16-week baby livers, to name just a few of the combinations. For crying out loud, this is the Amazon.com of baby body parts. It is outrageous. It is disgusting. It is a very disturbing practice that has been tucked away and out of sight for too long. The CEO of StemExpress told one undercover journalist over lunch and a glass of wine that some of the buyers' lab techs ``freak out and have meltdowns'' when they see little baby hands and little baby feet attached to an order of limbs. So she makes sure her techs cut off the hands and the feet before shipping off boxes of these body parts. It is this callous, dark talk that has so many Americans concerned with the state of research in our country. The select panel is proud to support lifesaving ethical research, but, like the rest of America, my colleagues and I know that ethical boundaries do exist, and I hope StemExpress' research will cease to come at the expense of unborn children who have had no say in the so- called donation of their body parts. Many years from now, we will look back on this practice as a dark and horrible time where humanity and human dignity lost to financial profits. We must end this horrific practice. I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the 21st Century Cures Act, a momentous innovation package which will help advance the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments and cures for patients and will foster private-sector innovation here in the United States. Additionally, the package includes provisions of H.R. 2646, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, as well as provisions to increase choice, access, and quality health care for Americans. Arriving here today has been a long journey full of lots of steps and twists and turns along the way. I especially want to thank legislative counsel for their tireless efforts in helping translate our legislative aims into legislative language. Together with our health team staff, they worked nights and weekends and were consummate professionals throughout the process. Additionally, I want to thank the healthcare staff of the Congressional Budget Office for all of their help in recent months. In addition to their role in estimating the budgetary effects of numerous policies in the bill, they were instrumental in helping us shape a number of proposals the committee considered. I would be remiss if I did not thank again the outstanding team on Energy and Commerce and most especially the health team led by Chief Health Counsel Paul Edattel, supported by Josh Trent, John Stone, Carly McWilliams, J.P. Paluskiewicz, Adrianna Simonelli, Adam Buckalew, Sophie Trainor, and Jay Gulshen; and Heidi Stirrup and Monica Valenti on my staff, without whose expertise, wisdom, and counsel this legislative work would not be possible. This landmark medical innovation package includes provisions designed to help almost every American family, whether it is leading to the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments and cures, or advancing the President's Precision Medicine Initiative or the Vice President's Cancer Moonshot, or the BRAIN Initiative to advance Alzheimer's research. This package is an innovation game changer and will truly bring our health innovation into the 21st century. I urge support for this bipartisan effort.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to congratulate and welcome my good friend, Dwight Evans, to the floor of the House. Before I served here in Congress for the last 20 years, I served in the statehouse of Pennsylvania for 24 years. In the last 8 years of my service in the Pennsylvania Legislature, I was the appropriations chairman. All 8 of those years, Dwight Evans was my ranking member. I served with him and worked with him very well. We worked in a bipartisan manner to accomplish a lot of things. And so this is a little bittersweet for me. I won't get to serve with Dwight here in Congress. I will miss that. I am sorry about that. I am sure he will be a good voice, an eloquent voice for the people of Philadelphia, and will be someone who will want to work in a bipartisan manner concerning the issues that face our country. With that, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans).

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Burma is still terrible for many of the people there, particularly the ethnic minorities. While the Administration is moving quickly to remove sanctions, our government should slow down and assess what real, sustainable change has actually occurred--many of the same people who were part of the dictatorship are still in power. While there have been some positive changes, ethnic minorities are still being brutally attacked by the Burma Army. Any assessment of Burma's steps toward democracy and human rights climate must take this into account. I encourage my colleagues to read the message from Kristine Gould and Larry Dohrs of U.S. Campaign for Burma. U.S. Should Mandate Change in Exchange for Sanctions Relief It is time for the United States to stop agonizing about economic sanctions against Burma. However, the answer is not simply to remove all sanctions, but to keep targeted sanctions in place while providing a constructive pathway forward to later eliminate those remaining as Burma continues its process of democratic reform. While there has been significant progress toward such reform--particularly since the November 2015 elections that brought the National League for Democracy into power--it is not complete, and significant challenges must be overcome before a genuine, federal, democratic Union--as well as true peace--can be established. The Obama administration started to restructure sanctions against Burma in May 2012, when it relaxed a prohibition on new investment, relieved stringent visa bans and allowed exportation of most financial services. In general, three classes of sanctions remain: 1. Export of financial services and provision of security services to individuals and organizations related to the Ministry of Defense, state and non-state armed groups, and businesses that are more than 50 percent owned by military organizations. 2. Import of jadeite and rubies or their finished products. Investment and business dealings with individuals and organizations identified as Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, commonly referred to as the SDN list. Armed conflict between Burma's defense services and the country's ethnic armed organizations continues. Even during the recently convened 21st Century Panglong Conference, the government and the Burma Army refused to issue a temporary ceasefire, and battles raged on in Kachin and northern Shan states while stakeholders discussed peace in Naypyidaw. Exploitation of natural resources continues, with both private individuals and elements of the armed forces profiting significantly from the unrestricted exportation of jade and other natural resources. The military-drafted 2008 Constitution gives the Burma Army significant political power, regardless of the 2015 election results and its clear message from voters that the armed forces should step aside from politics. Perhaps most significantly, human rights violations by the armed forces and security services organizations continue unabated. Until these issues and challenges are resolved, the United States should keep targeted sanctions in place, as most recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Congress in May 2016. Just last month, a Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) parliamentarian proposed that Burma's government should attempt to pressure the United States to lift sanctions. The USDP was formed in 2010 by elements of the former military junta, and it ruled the country under former President U Thein Sein from March 2011 to March 2016. While the proposal was defeated by a vote of 219 to 151, its discussion by lawmakers indicates the importance and value of lifting sanctions. The key here is not to offer blanket relief but to establish a clear pathway forward to eliminate sanctions tied to reform objectives: 1. As long as the Burma Army continues its attacks on ethnic armies and human rights violations, the United States should continue restricting export of defense services, including sales of defense articles and military-to-military assistance. The armed forces receive more than 20 percent of the country's annual budget, and control two enormous business conglomerates (the Myanmar Economic Corporation and the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings), which are not accountable to the government. While these assets continue to support attacks against the people and perpetuate gross human rights abuses, the United States should not provide military equipment. The United States has already initiated limited high-level military-to-military contacts focusing on the role of the nation's military forces under a democratic government, the terms of the Geneva Convention and the military's role in protecting its citizens. This should continue, and the United States should relax funding restrictions that interfere with scheduling and executing these events. However, participation in International Military Education and Training, Joint Chiefs of Staff exercise programs, and other developmental programs must hinge on ending the country's armed conflict and developing a military force that is accountable to an elected civilian government. 2. The Tom Lantos Block Burma JADE Act of 2008 must stay in place until the government cleans up its jadeite and ruby mining practices. An October 2015 report by the London-based NGO Global Witness titled ``Jade: Myanmar's Big State Secret'' described a US$31 billion jade industry controlled by a network of military elites, drug lords and crony companies. Entire mountains in Kachin State housing some of the world's largest jade deposits have disappeared, with only minimal tax revenue and profits reaching Burma's citizens. Only after the government reforms this massive theft of natural resources should the United States consider the recension of the JADE Act. 3. The United States should review and update the SDN list, as there are individuals and organizations on this list that have demonstrated that they are committed to the reform process. This may prove challenging to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, as there is no definitive and prescriptive legal guidance for removing individuals and organizations from the SDN list. However, there are individuals and organizations that continue to profit from their past relationships with the military junta, access to confiscated property, the questionable ``ownership'' of natural resources, or the narcotics trade, which significantly hampers economic reform and equitable distribution of profits from the country's natural resources. It is up to the United States to clean up its own administrative system and determine who needs to remain on the SDN list. Advanced reporting on State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's visit to the United States later this month already indicates that the United States is considering further easing or lifting of sanctions. Above all, the United States should ensure that it protects all of Burma's citizens in the ongoing reform process by mandating change in exchange for sanctions relief The United States should avoid a mere emotional gain associated with rewarding Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for incomplete reform.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill before us today. It is an urgent and necessary legislative fix. The Conscience Protection Act would simply make the protections of the Weldon conscience amendment more effective and permanent. The Weldon amendment has been the law of the land and approved by Congress as part of the appropriations process every year since 2004. Sadly, just 3 weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights ruled that the California Department of Managed Health Care did not violate the Weldon amendment when it unilaterally required abortion in all health insurance plans. Due to this governmental discrimination against plans that previously excluded abortion, conscientious objectors are being forced to cover abortion through their health plans against the dictates of their conscience. This bill protects those who do not wish to participate in, provide for, or pay for abortions by opting out. It is this right to decline involvement in abortion that requires these protections, and the protections simply allow an aggrieved party to seek judicial review through a civil right of action. I urge support of the bill. Energy and Commerce Conscience Protection Act Forum Testimonies Part II, Statement by the Hon. Dave Weldon MD Retired Fl-15, Congressional Forum on Conscience Rights July 8, 2016 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. The stories shared today by the people around this table underscore the very reason I authored the Weldon amendment. You can imagine my outrage to learn that this administration has gutted my amendment and is allowing ongoing discrimination in California. Over a decade ago, I became aware of the Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project. This disturbing initiative was designed to force abortion into every hospital in Maryland. In response to this and similar threats, I drafted my appropriations amendment. It is intended to bring a stop to the abortion industry crusade to force this gruesome procedure into every aspect of society. Recognizing that the abortion lobby's relentless campaign knows no limits, we drafted the amendment to cover a wide universe of entities. Nurses, doctors, hospitals, even health plans themselves are covered entities under my amendment. Covering individual health plans ensures that insurance companies that are ambivalent about abortion can still offer plans that exclude abortion to meet the needs of purchasers. We never limited the protection to those with religious, moral or conscience objections. In fact, in my experience as a physician the majority of health professionals who claim to support Roe v Wade always say to me that they would never want to be affiliated with doing an abortion. They too would be protected if the administration would do their duty to enforce the law. I authored this amendment to protect FREEDOM for people to provide health care free from abortion and FREEDOM for people to access health care and coverage free from the scourge of abortion. FREEDOM for people like the pastors here today to purchase insurance plans that exclude abortion--a freedom the existed just two years ago before California took the draconian step of mandating abortion in ALL plans under the authority of the California Department of Managed Health Care. The origins of the directive are as insidious as the directive itself. When the abortion lobby found out that Catholic Universities in California did not cover abortion in their insurance plans, they sprang to action, initiating a meeting with the Department of Managed Health Care. Less than a year later, the Department did the bidding of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. They unilaterally inserted abortion into each and every insurance plan under their authority--even plans purchased by CHURCHES and Catholic Universities. My amendment anticipated this very scenario by defining a health insurance plan as a protected health care entity. This allows an insurance company to offer multiple insurance plans--some with abortion coverage and some without to meet the conscience needs of their clients. After the Department of Managed Health Care issued their directive, the plans excluding abortion were changed to include abortion. This is clear discrimination against the plan that excluded abortion, since such plan was no longer permitted to exist. As I explained in my floor statement in 2004, ``This is a continuation of the Hyde policy of conscience protection. . . . The right of conscience is fundamental to our American freedoms. We should guarantee this freedom by protecting all health care providers from being forced to perform, refer or pay for elective abortions.'' Unfortunately, the current administration has even twisted this statement to suit their political agenda. They take this reference to conscience protection and argue that it must mean that I meant to include a religious or moral test in my amendment. This is far from the truth. There is no reasonable way to read my statement as an excuse to airdrop a religious or moral test into my amendment. The Hyde amendment stops ALL federal funding for elective abortion. Similarly, my amendment stops ALL discrimination against entities that do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion. Both amendments protect conscience broadly by protecting the freedom of Americans to offer and access health care that does not include abortion. Neither limits it's protections to cases where someone raises a religious or moral objection. In the June 21, 2016 letter announcing their gutting of the Weldon amendment, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) also feebly attempted to twist several more of my comments in their effort to ignore the plain reading of the text. One begins to wonder, what's next. How far will the abortion lobby and their allies in the administration go to force abortion into our health care system? I am deeply concerned that this administration added words to my amendment where they do not exist and ignored other words clearly articulated in the text. We simply can no longer rely on the administration to enforce the law and must offer a private right of action that allows the Weldon protections to be enforced by the Courts.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Murphy for his leadership and his persistence in getting this historic legislation to the floor. When a person struggles with mental illness, he or she may lose her job, her friends, even her family, which can make the mental illness worse. And help for this person may be available, but she may not be able to navigate available resources alone or drive to her doctor's appointments regularly without help. Therefore, organizations providing mental health assistance must not only provide resources, they must make sure they actually connect people with people in need. When the Federal Government distributes mental health funding, it needs to go to programs that are doing this, and Congressman Murphy's bill is a step in the right direction. His bill will increase accountability so that we can better understand how Federal mental health and substance abuse treatment funds are used in each State. It would summarize best practice models in the States and do many other things, and this way we can highlight mental health programs that are most effective. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan bill, H.R. 5210. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the distinguished Budget Committee chairman.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan bill before us accomplishes several important objectives. Since 2003, the durable medical equipment, DME, competitive bidding program has required DME suppliers in certain large, densely populated areas to compete for contracts to serve Medicare beneficiaries in those areas. This market-based competition has saved the Medicare program and beneficiaries billions of dollars in saving and reduced cost sharing. Since 2009, CMS has had the authority to expand the program to additional areas, and in 2014 the agency published a final rule that will expand competitive bidding to all areas of the country. Beginning January 1, 2016, CMS began phasing in new regional reimbursement rates for noncompetitive bid areas using a 50-50 blend of old and new rates. Starting July 1, rates will be based on the new calculations. To ensure we have a full appreciation of the impact of the phase-in, the bill continues the 50-50 blend payment for an additional 3 months. It also requires HHS to report to Congress on any access issues caused by the blended rate before the full rate change can go into effect. The bill also improves access to quality healthcare providers for vulnerable Medicaid patients and includes legislation that recently passed the House 406-0. In this legislation, we again reiterate the House's support to address two important issues that plague Medicaid beneficiaries: first, State Medicaid programs too often suffer from waste, fraud, and abuse; and, second, too many Medicaid patients may have a hard time finding a doctor. The bill would ensure healthcare providers terminated from Medicare or one State's Medicaid program for reasons of fraud, integrity, or quality are also terminated from other State Medicaid programs. The Office of Inspector General at HHS has previously found that 12 percent of terminated providers were participating in a State Medicaid program after the same provider was terminated from another State Medicaid program. It is critical that fraudulent providers are not allowed to defraud taxpayers or harm patients across the board. The bill also requires State Medicaid programs to provide beneficiaries served under fee-for-service or primary care case management programs an electronic directory of physicians participating in the program. This important effort will address a critical challenge of Medicaid patients in accessing certain types of care, such as obtaining specialty care or dental care. Medicaid patients would now have better information by simply applying requirements similar to those in place for Medicaid-managed care plans to fee-for-service and/ or primary care case management programs. Finally, the bill includes legislation by Mr. McHenry and Mr. Butterfield that ensures that payments made under a State eugenics compensation program cannot be considered as income in determining eligibility for any Federal public benefit. Simply put, the bill prevents any funds from such a compensation program to be counted as income for purposes of receiving any Federal benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 5210, as amended, would be completely offset over the budget window. We will provide more time to understand the impact of DME payment changes on Medicare beneficiaries. We will also enact commonsense reforms that help protect Medicaid beneficiaries, improve access to care, and enact an important clarification for those eligible for certain State compensation programs. I want to thank Ranking Member Pallone and his staff as well as the Committee on Ways and Means for their work on this compromise, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5210, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, June 21, 2016. The Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing concerning H.R. 5210, the ``Patient Access to Durable Medical Equipment Act of 2016,'' on which the Committee on Ways and Means was granted an additional referral. In order to allow H.R. 5210 to move expeditiously to the House floor, I agree to waive formal consideration of this bill. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration on H.R. 5210 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 this bill or similar legislation moves forward. 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 your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would request that you include a copy of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kevin Brady, Chairman.

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, including an exchange of letters between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5210) to improve access to durable medical equipment for Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this perfecting amendment to my colleague's amendment. This is amendment is very simple. It would merely state that, as the Federal Government spends money with regard to contracting, the administration must not run afoul of the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, or Article I of the Constitution. The President's executive order referred to in the Maloney amendment defines a law that was never defined by Congress. It violates the equal protection rights of individuals who are merely seeking work from the government. With this amendment, this Congress can help ensure that, while funds may be going out the door to implement this policy, he must respect Congress' authority to write the law, respect an individual's right to exercise his or her religion, and respect their rights to work. Does anyone in this Chamber seriously oppose Article I of the Constitution, the First Amendment, or the 14th Amendment? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Constitution and limiting the damaging effects of this executive order. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, and I thank the chairman for including it in the next en bloc amendment, one that brings accountability to countries granting consent to Russian naval vessels calling into port. The aggressive posture and actions of the Russian Federation over the last few years has profoundly changed the global landscape. Russia has invaded Crimea, and currently still occupies that region. And Russia directly intervened militarily to shore up the Assad regime in Syria. The common thread that runs through these two interventions is that of warm water ports for the Russian navy. Crimea's port in Sevastopol and Syria's port of Tartus provide Russia with access to the warm waters of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, waters that are essential to Russia's reach of aggression. Despite these aggressive actions, some countries are accommodating the Russian navy by allowing warships and submarines to call into their ports. Spain, although a cherished NATO ally, grants Russia access to the ports in its enclaves across the strategically important Strait of Gibraltar, where the United Kingdom has a Permanent Joint Operating Base that hosts U.S. ships. Furthermore, Greece and Malta have hosted Russian warships last year. The recent high-profile visits to Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua by Russia's navy in recent years are also cause for concern. Mr. Chairman, governments across the globe should be isolating the Russian navy, not accommodating it. The Russian navy must constantly compete with geographic and strategic disadvantages of lacking access to warm blue waters of the world, but these disadvantages are forfeited when we lack a cohesive, unified effort to deny Russian vessels the ability to call into foreign ports. With the inclusion of this amendment, the Secretary of Defense will have to report to Congress and, thus, the American people on these instances. And I hope governments will think twice before offering up their ports to Putin's navy. I urge support of the underlying bill as well.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine for being a finalist in the 2015 McGaw Prize for Excellence in Community Service. Lancaster General was the only Pennsylvania health system to be recognized for this honor. Lancaster General was singled out for its work on community programs for the chronically ill, the Amish community, and those dealing with tobacco and obesity issues. Recently, the health system launched a community-led effort called Lighten Up Lancaster that works to increase obesity awareness and weight loss. For the Amish, Lancaster General offered a special free immunization program for children in the rural areas. The Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania said Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine has fully recognized that a relationship with the community is invaluable and key to improving health and wellness. It is well-deserving of this national recognition. Lancaster General used the $10,000 prize money to pay for technology to track and coordinate its social services. Congratulations, Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the research that the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives is conducting. I encourage everyone to examine the exhibits from the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives' investigation on their Web site: energycommerce.house.gov/select-investigative-panel. On April 20, 2016, Chairman Marsha Blackburn held a hearing on the ``Pricing of Fetal Tissue'' and found broad consensus among witnesses that Federal law may have been violated when abortion clinics profited from the sale of baby body parts. This grave circumstance has caused considerable concern because one of the underpinnings and so-called safeguards of the statute that allowed for the donation of fetal tissue for transplantation and research was that this tissue would not be sold. The author of the statute, former Congressman Henry Waxman, stated during floor debate in 1993: This amendment would enact the most important safeguards to prevent any sale of fetal issue for any purpose, not just the purpose of research. It would be abhorrent to allow for a sale of fetal tissue and a market to be created for that sale. Yet this is what is happening today. As seen on Exhibit B2, the ``Procurement Business''--the name is redacted--markets itself in its brochure as a way for clinics to make additional income by allowing procurement business technicians to collect fetal tissue and organs from aborted babies immediately after an abortion is completed. The brochure uses the words ``financially profitable,'' ``fiscally rewards,'' and ``financial benefit.'' The Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives' investigation revealed that the procurement business technician performs every conceivable task in the harvesting process immediately after an abortion occurs. However, procurement businesses--essentially the middlemen between the abortion clinics on the one hand and the end users, the experimenters or researchers, on the other--still pay abortion clinics a fee, even though the clinics are not incurring any additional costs in the process. Exhibit D1 shows the abortion clinic charged the middleman $11,365 for harvested baby parts--called POCs--and blood. Exhibit D2 shows the abortion clinic charged the middleman, again, this time $9,060 for harvested baby parts, or POCs, and blood, even though the clinic did not incur any additional expense in the harvesting process. After obtaining the organs from the clinic, the middleman then made it easy for end users to purchase baby body parts. Exhibit C3, the procurement business order form, or drop-down menu, for baby organs, illustrates just how easy this is. On the left side of the menu, one can choose: What type of tissue would you like to order? And under a multitude of options--a few of which are listed on the right--one could choose up here at the top, brains. These are little baby brains. Next you must select the number of specimens. And I suppose one could say six baby brains. Continuing down the list of questions, gestational range from start to end? One can select 16 to 18 weeks. Then it asks: Add another tissue type? One could answer yes and scroll through the numerous options and have the opportunity to pick, for instance, female reproductive system and ovaries. You could then ask for five of those at 15 to 16 weeks. Then you could add, down at the bottom here, tongue. So these are the options. For crying out loud, this is the Amazon.com of baby body parts, a market for baby body parts. It is repulsive, outrageous, and I urge you to go to the Web site to see the exhibits. This is a market for baby body parts where you get what you pay for. This is utterly repulsive. Absolutely outrageous. Each one of these baby tongues or baby brains belongs to a little human baby. This business is nothing more than a fetal corpse market. How can anyone defend such an abhorrent practice? These exhibits illustrate that, in both intent and practice, these clinics make money well above any actual costs they incur. They are making a profit. Go to the Select Panel's website energycommerce.house.gov/select-investigative-panel and see for yourself the revealing exhibits that show how these organizations may have broken the law and profited from this gruesome, inhumane practice of baby body part harvesting and trafficking.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the National Association of Community Health Centers stated: Federally-Qualified Health Centers do not provide abortions to any of their patients, and we are not aware of any that have ever done so. Remember last year we said we wanted to give community health centers more money because they assured us that they didn't do abortions? However, on Tuesday, April 26, this week, we learned that some health center clinics in New York have been performing abortions. The National Association of Community Health Centers has egregiously violated our trust. The fact that abortions are performed at these federally funded community health center clinics is astonishing. We put our confidence in them, as providers of life-affirming women's health care, based on their commitment to not entangle such care with abortion. Abortion is not health care. Mr. Speaker, we need an investigation into Community Health Centers to determine how many of their clinics are providing for, referring, or performing abortions, and the National Association of Community Health Centers should expel this network of New York clinics from their association.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today takes an important step in protecting our nation's small businesses from unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act provides for flexibility for the food service industry to ensure they can comply with the regulatory requirements as issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Sadly, the rule issued by the FDA was declared to be the third most burdensome regulation proposed in 2010 and could cost American businesses $1 billion to comply and 500,000 hours of paperwork. The 400-page rule establishes one-size-fits-all nutritional disclosure requirements. H.R. 2017 is necessary to help small business owners, franchisees, as well as consumers who want easy access to accurate nutrition information in a common sense way. Without HR. 2017, covered establishments, including pizza delivery businesses and grocery stores, would be subject to a cumbersome, rigid and costly regulatory compliance process to avoid violations and possible criminal prosecution. H.R. 2017 improves and clarifies the final rule promulgated by the FDA implementing the menu-labeling requirements of Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The concern is that without the relief and flexibility provided for in H.R. 2017, the final rule goes well beyond what was intended by the ACA. The obligations are imposed not only on chain restaurants--including delivery establishments, but also on any other chain retailer that sells non-packaged food, such as grocery store salad bars, and convenience stores' meals to go. Small businesses that are not chain restaurants but are indeed subject to the rule will face a dramatic increase in regulatory compliance costs. Consumers most assuredly will see higher food costs, and perhaps fewer choices. Some retailers may find it more advantageous to stop selling restaurant-type food altogether. So instead of purchasing fresh sandwiches, consumers may have to buy pre-packaged sandwiches since those will not require the retailer to comply with labeling requirements. Fixing this burdensome regulation will benefit tens of thousands of restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores and small business owners that otherwise would be burdened with regulations that are costly and hurt job creation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides clarity, flexibility, and certainty for these companies, and also ensures consumers have access to the information they need to make informed nutritional decisions. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2017.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Coach Glenn Robinson of Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster. For 45 years, since he was only 25 years old, Coach Robinson has been leading the F&M Diplomats to victory. Coach Robinson is the winningest coach in the history of Division III basketball. He is now only the third college basketball coach ever to win 900 games, behind only legendary Bobby Knight of Indiana and Philadelphia's Bob Magee. Four times he has broken his own school record for best record in the season, 12 times he has been named Region Coach of the Year by the National Association of Basketball Coaches, 12 times he has been Conference Coach of the Year, he has once been Division Coach of the Year, and he has won 93 postseason victories, 42 NCAA tournament victories, including 16 trips to the Sweet 16, 10 trips to the Elite 8, five trips to the Final 4, and one national championship appearance. True leadership is servant leadership, the kind that finds people's strengths. Coach Robinson is an exemplary leader, and the proof of that is that he brings out the best in his players, 25 of whom have gone all-American. Coach Robinson is one of the greatest coaches in college history, and Lancaster will always be rightly proud of him.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the millions of families across the country who have had their health insurance disrupted by the President's health law and in support of the millions more Americans who don't want the government giving their tax money to abortion providers. Some 6 million households across the country have lost the health plans they liked or have lost their doctors even though President Obama promised 37 different times that this would not happen. Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me to tell me about higher premiums, higher deductibles, and coverage lost outright: Michael Cain of Lancaster contacted me recently to tell me that his premiums have nearly doubled just in the 2 years since the implementation of the President's health law; Jennifer Hoy of Ephrata wrote to me that her family lost three out of four of her children's doctors. Imagine the stress of a mother in that situation; Deborah Kennedy of Columbia contacted me to tell me that, in November, she spent countless hours trying to operate the broken healthcare.gov Web site. She lost her insurance and had to buy insurance nearly 50 percent more expensive while she lives on a fixed income. These are hardworking Pennsylvania families who have done nothing wrong but who have been victimized by the arrogance of a Federal Government that thinks it knows better than the people and that tries to bully hardworking American families. The legislation we are considering today saves taxpayers money and treats them with respect. Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of this country supports restrictions on abortions. However, this administration is giving their tax dollars to organizations that kill innocent babies. Today's legislation channels taxpayer money away from organizations that provide abortion and toward something that all Americans can support--federally qualified health centers. These centers are focused on caring for the poorest in our communities, and they actually care for women's health. Unlike Planned Parenthood, they actually do mammograms. A vote for this bill is a vote for the millions like Deborah Kennedy, Jennifer Hoy, and Michael Cain, who have borne the consequences of an out-of-control Federal Government. Vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the most ancient Christian communities of all are in the Middle East where faith has been handed down in unbroken succession since the Apostles. It is there that terrorists are attempting to commit genocide against Christian believers. To an alarming extent, they are succeeding. For the first time in 16 centuries, there is no Catholic Mass offered in Mosul. Christians were once 15 percent of the population in Syria. Now, they are less than 5 percent. The percent in Egypt has been cut in half. ISIS has over 100 Christians captive, even as we speak. Christian refugees are often afraid to stay at United Nations camps due to the threats of violence even there. As a result, there are disproportionately few Christians among those granted refugee status by the United States. Only about 3 percent of Syrian refugees admitted into the United States are Christians. While Christians are perhaps the most threatened group of all in Syria, the United States must not allow another genocide to happen on our watch, and we must ensure that we are helping those who are most vulnerable.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2820) to reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, and for other purposes.

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

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, I rise today in support of H.R. 2820, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act, introduced by my colleagues, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and Representative Doris Matsui of California. This bill is another example of the Energy and Commerce Committee's ongoing effort to work together in a bipartisan manner to strengthen public health and solve problems in our Nation's healthcare system. H.R. 2820 reauthorizes the National Cord Blood Inventory program and the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program through fiscal year 2020, which provides Federal support for cord blood donation and research essential to increasing patient access to transplants. The National Cord Blood Inventory, the NCBI, is a program to collect, store, and distribute umbilical cord blood to those in need of a cord blood stem cell transplant. These cord blood units must meet specific criteria, and are available through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program to treat patients who need a transplant. The blood-forming cells from cord blood have unique qualities that help some patients who would otherwise be unable to have a potentially lifesaving transplant. NCBI is the largest and most diverse marrow registry in the world. The C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program provides support to patients who undergo a transplant and helps match donors to patients who are in need of an unrelated marrow donor. Seventy percent of all patients who need a transplant don't have a match donor in their family, and this program gives them somewhere to turn. I support H.R. 2820. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.