[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 152 (Friday, September 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7853-H7857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my 
friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate, 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 
p.m.
  I remind Members that is Tuesday, not Monday. We will not be in 
session on Monday.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, 
including H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act of 2019, as amended. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business today.
  The House will consider H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement 
Act, and H.R. 3525, the U.S. Border Patrol Medical Screening Standards 
Act. These bills will improve how the Department of Homeland Security 
oversees border issues in a humane and responsible manner, including 
the care of children.
  Members are of course advised that there is additional legislation 
that may come forward.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going through the 
schedule.
  I know the gentleman joins me in extending our sincere condolences to 
our friend, my counterpart as the majority whip of the House,  Jim 
Clyburn, on the loss of his wife, Emily. They were married for 58 
years, and were a wonderful family.

                              {time}  1115

  I know she had been battling for awhile and she is in a better place, 
but for our friend, I know it is a tough time.
  I got to know his daughter Mignon, who served on the FCC for a number 
of years during the Obama administration, and she definitely learned 
from her mom and dad, just a wonderful person.
  So, I am sure my friend would join me to extend our sincere 
condolences and our heartfelt prayers to our friend  Jim Clyburn and 
his whole family during this difficult time with the loss of his wife.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Clyburn and the Clyburn family very much 
appreciate his condolences and his remarks.
   Jim Clyburn and I have known each other for over half a century. His 
wife, Emily, he met during the course of the civil rights struggle. 
She, too, was a drum major for justice, as  Jim Clyburn has been.
  She has, as the gentleman pointed out, been facing health challenges 
for some period of time. And, yes, she is in a better place. But as one 
who has lost his spouse, I know what a difficult time this is for  Jim 
Clyburn.
  I would let all the Members know that there will be a service in 
Columbia, a wake, on Sunday at 5 o'clock, and the funeral will be in 
Charleston at 11 a.m. I intend to be in attendance. Any Member, I know, 
would be welcome to be there as well.
   Jim Clyburn has been a giant in this body. He has been a leader on 
our side of the aisle now for almost 20 years, and before that, a 
leader of the Congressional Black Caucus and somebody who has been a 
strong voice, particularly for rural communities and for people who are 
challenged either because of the color of their skin or their economic 
status.
  I know that Emily was his partner in those efforts, as the gentleman 
knows. She was a wonderful, warm woman and will be greatly missed. But 
the gentleman's observation that she is in a better place is one with 
which I agree, and I know that  Jim Clyburn agrees as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know that all 
Members join us in sending  Jim Clyburn and the family our deepest 
sympathy and condolences.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, our hearts will be with him during that 
ceremony and service, and we will all be there for him to lean on us 
during these next months. At times it is going to be difficult, but we 
appreciate the fact that he is going to continue to be with us, but 
probably be leaning on us even more.
  A wonderful, wonderful family.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to shift gears and ask the gentleman about 
the USMCA trade deal. I know there have been some more negotiations 
with Ambassador Lighthizer, and just last week, he had sent a letter in 
response to some of the issues that were raised by the Speaker and her 
team that is working on USMCA. I know he worked in those weeks after 
the initial requests were made to try to see how each of those can be 
addressed, hopefully in a way that allows us to move forward with an 
actual vote on the House floor on USMCA.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to inquire if the gentleman has any 
timetable or update on where we are in those talks.

[[Page H7854]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
  I don't have a timetable, but I share his view that we want to move 
this along. As I told him, and the Speaker was on the floor, we were 
trying to get to ``yes'' on this.
  Again, we appreciate Ambassador Lighthizer's good faith. We think he 
has been dealing in good faith on behalf of the administration and on 
behalf of getting to an agreement, so we appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we are eager to update and 
improve NAFTA so that it functions better for the American businesses 
and workers. However, for House Democrats, as the gentleman knows, 
getting NAFTA 2.0 done right means doing more than just changing its 
name. We need to make sure it changes actually its work, and by that, 
we mean enforcement.
  Both the Speaker and I voted for NAFTA. We were concerned and 
disappointed that the sidebars were not carried out, so we are pursuing 
that.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as the gentleman knows, has said: ``The 
commitments in the trade pact aren't worth the paper they are written 
on if they can't be enforced.''
  Not only do we agree with that, but that has been our experience, so 
we are hoping that we get mechanisms to accomplish that objective.
  In 25 years, we have only had one successful enforcement action under 
NAFTA--dispute resolution procedures--and none in the past 20 years, so 
that is why we believe enforcement is so very important.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman--and I know he will find this 
as a positive--there is a meeting today with the task force that was 
set up by the Speaker, headed by Mr. Neal, with Mr. Lighthizer, so this 
process is under active and vigorous consideration.
  We hope we get to a place where the administration will be able to 
submit, pursuant to the statute, the proper agreement so that we can 
proceed on it, but we want to get this done.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would just encourage those talks to move 
as quickly as they can, because as we share the interest of making sure 
that not only do we have better agreements, which this USMCA deal that 
was negotiated with Mexico and Canada does have better provisions for 
the United States, we need to make sure that there is proper 
enforcement, because if somebody doesn't follow through, then we need 
to make sure we can hold them accountable.
  While I am confident that there are already enforcement provisions in 
the agreement, if they can be made stronger, I know Ambassador 
Lighthizer is working to find a way to do that, but also in a way that 
doesn't start the whole process over, where we don't have to open the 
entire agreement up and then Mexico, which has already ratified it, 
would have to go back. Canada stands waiting to move on it as well, but 
right now, we are the holdup.

  There are a lot of jobs at stake, over 160,000 jobs. Our farmers are 
counting on this. So many other manufacturing sectors in our economy 
are counting on this.
  So, hopefully, we can move quickly to work through these and then 
ultimately get it passed and move to the next countries that want to 
enter into agreements with the United States, and ultimately to 
confront China, to resolve the differences that we are having with 
China.
  But I know the gentleman is working on his side. And, again, I would 
just encourage that we do that as quickly as possible and expedite it 
and then get it passed, but we will continue working on that.
  Something else we would like to work on in a more bipartisan way is 
drug pricing.
  The President has been very clear that he wants a bipartisan bill 
that is worked out here in Congress to lower drug prices. There have 
been many efforts made and, in fact, positive steps taken by the Energy 
and Commerce Committee to pass a package of bills out of committee 
unanimously to lower drug prices.
  Unfortunately, the Speaker took a different turn and, yesterday, had 
a press conference and then ultimately filed a bill last night, H.R. 3, 
which was written in secret. Many Democrats don't even know what is in 
it.
  But no Republicans were consulted and involved in the process, and it 
ended up becoming a very partisan bill, much to the socialist left, 
which wouldn't solve the problem and, more importantly, wouldn't get to 
the President's desk because it is not an effort that involved any 
bipartisan cooperation.
  Again, I point out there was a package of bills that passed 
unanimously out of Energy and Commerce that would lower drug prices. 
Both parties agreed. Every single member on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee agreed. Unfortunately, that was shelved in lieu of this 
partisan approach.
  I would hope that we take it more seriously than that and actually 
work together to get a bill that the President can sign to lower drug 
prices as quickly as possible. The approach that was taken yesterday 
does not answer this call, and I would hope we would do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say, if the gentleman wants to pursue 
bipartisanship--I know that they all want to use the word 
``socialist,'' which was egregiously misidentified in an ad that I 
wrote to Mr. Scalise about, which was a hateful ad. My suggestion is 
``liberal,'' this, that, and the other.
  The drug bill that we have is going to be dealing with private sector 
producers, privately owned, of prescription drugs.
  This is not anything about socialism, but I know the gentleman wants 
to use that word. I know his advisers apparently have told him that is 
going to be a catchword that politically will be great for the next 
election. But if the gentleman wants to seek bipartisanship, let's just 
not try to color everything we say in terms that clearly reek of 
partisanship, not bipartisanship.
  Now, as to the bill itself, very frankly, we introduced a bill 
yesterday. The committee has been working on it. When I say ``the 
committee,'' the Energy and Commerce, the Education and Labor, and the 
Ways and Means Committees have all been working on this bill. There has 
been no secret about it. We have been discussing it.
  It has three components, essentially, as the gentleman knows. It has 
a component of negotiation, which, of course, as the gentleman knows, 
the Veterans Administration does so right now.
  I don't know whether the gentleman thinks that is socialism in the 
Veterans Administration--maybe he does--but in any event, it is not a 
unique proposal. It puts inflation limits on drug prices so we can't 
have drug prices that people need to maintain their health and their 
lives increase 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 700, 800 percent in a very 
short period of time. We don't think that is really what ought to 
happen.
  Lastly, it restructures the medical part D benefit to cap out-of-
pocket spending for seniors, somewhat as the Republicans did with their 
part D under President Bush.
  So this is a proposal that is doing what we said we would do in the 
last election, and that is to try to look at bringing down the cost of 
prescription drugs, lifesaving, life-enhancing, health-enhancing drugs, 
so that people are not priced out of the market or have to make a 
choice between food, mortgage, rent, and the prescription drugs which 
they need to be healthy.
  Now, I agree that we do need a bipartisan solution, but so does the 
President of the United States. When the gentleman says ``done in 
secret,'' let me give a quote that the President of the United States 
says: ``I like Senator Grassley's drug pricing bill very much. . . . `'
  I will say, I do not know the depths of Senator Grassley's bill, but 
it is Senator Grassley's bill, the Republican chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee.
  Now, continuing to quote the President: `` . . . and it's great to 
see Speaker Pelosi's bill today.''
  That is the ``socialist'' bill to which the gentleman referred just 
now.
  Let's get it done in a bipartisan way. In other words, what the 
President of the United States is saying is the Republican chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee has introduced a bill;

[[Page H7855]]

Speaker Pelosi and others have introduced a bill. Let's try to work 
together on those bills. That is what President Trump said just the 
other day. That is what I expect we are going to do.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We hope we can work in a 
bipartisan way, because this is a very critical challenge that the 
American people face. They know they need these prescription drugs to 
stay alive, to stay well, to be able to continue to work. But if they 
are priced out of the market, they suffer; and, therefore, our economy 
suffers; and, therefore, we all suffer.
  So I share the gentleman's view that I hope we can get this done in a 
bipartisan way. Senator Grassley has a proposal; we have a proposal. 
Let's see what we can do together to assist the American people in 
having something that they absolutely must have.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items to address 
there.
  First, clearly, there is kind of a recoil that seems to happen by Mr. 
Hoyer and a number of others on the other side when the term 
``socialism'' is used to identify the policies that are being--
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the gentleman a letter. Did he 
believe that that ad that I complained about and that I thought was so 
egregious, so disgusting, does he agree with me that that ad totally 
misrepresented what socialism is? It deluded the American people. It 
was a big lie. Does the gentleman agree with me?

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SCALISE. First of all, I haven't seen the ad the gentleman is 
referring to. But if he wants to start going through ads and he wants 
me to send him some ads where people on his side lie about positions 
that Members on our side have taken, I will be happy to give him a 
litany of false ads, misleading ads, then we can go back and forth on 
that.
  But if he is trying to hide from the term ``socialism'' when he 
promotes socialist policies, we can have a debate about what socialism 
is. It is an ideology, it is not a word that is thrown around, and it 
involves government control of your life.
  So when you move bills like the Green New Deal or when you see a 
Presidential candidate on your side running around saying he is going 
to go to people's houses and take their guns--that is a candidate for 
President of the United States on your side--those are socialist 
policies. If the gentleman doesn't want the term applied, then don't 
promote that ideology, don't embrace that ideology, reject the 
ideology. But he won't.
  You want to try to play it both ways. You want to try to act like you 
are going to impeach the President, but say you are not going to 
impeach the President. You want to promote the Green New Deal, but you 
don't want to bring it to the floor, so your Members don't have to be 
exposed to the vote.
  But, ultimately, as long as the gentleman is going to embrace and 
allow socialist ideas to come forward, people are going to call it for 
what it is. And if the gentleman doesn't agree with socialism, then 
just stop embracing the ideology and the actual policies.
  So when the gentleman talks about a bill where the President said--
and he read it and I will read it again--let's get it done in a 
bipartisan way; the bill that was filed by Speaker Pelosi yesterday was 
not a bipartisan bill, it was a hyperpartisan bill. So we are talking 
about the House bill. The Senate bill is still a work in progress. And 
we all know how the Senate works. Maybe they produce a bill and maybe 
they don't, but it is not a final product.
  The bill that was filed on your side, yesterday, is a bill that most 
of your own Members haven't even seen, because it was written in secret 
only from a very far left approach. When Speaker Pelosi, yesterday, was 
asked if she is willing to negotiate a bill that doesn't allow the 
government to negotiate prices, she said, ``no, absolutely, positively 
no,'' so she is not even willing to negotiate.
  That is not bipartisan. That is not an approach that is going to get 
a bill signed into law to lower drug prices. You want to lower drug 
prices. We worked together.
  By the way, Ranking Member Walden was not even consulted, but Ranking 
Member Walden worked with Chairman Pallone to bring bills out of Energy 
and Commerce, for example, to stop a process that currently is legal 
that allows drug companies, right before the patent expires, when the 
drug is about to become available for generics, companies, of course, 
go and make the generic drug. And, right now, the process of the FDA is 
for a period of time, usually a rolling 6 months, one company is given 
the exclusive rights to provide the generic for a period of time. 
Ultimately, other companies are allowed in. But for the first period of 
months and months, it could be years, only one company has the 
exclusive right to do the generic. And the drug companies are allowed 
to pay the generic company not to sell the product. So you only have 
the original drug. You don't have the generic available because the 
companies can pay the company not to make the generic.
  We have a bill called No Pay for Delay. We make it illegal for the 
drug companies to pay the generics not to make generics. That will 
lower drug prices.
  We also improve the process where you can get the drugs to the 
generic companies earlier so they can make the product. For the 
companies to actually make a generic, you have to have available the 
details of what is in the drug so you can make the generic. And, a lot 
of times, the companies don't give that information to the generic 
company, so it is harder to get generics, which are lower prices.
  It is not the government coming in saying, if you think you know what 
a drug price should cost, or any product should cost, good luck out 
there in the marketplace. But if you want to stifle innovation, if you 
want to stifle the ability to actually go and invest and have companies 
come up with lifesaving drugs, it costs billions of dollars. If you 
want to lower drug prices, work with us to reform the FDA process so 
that it doesn't take 10 years and $5 billion to develop a drug.
  There are real things that can be done in a bipartisan way to address 
that, and yet the gentleman's party won't do that. They want to sit in 
a room and come up with a bill that nobody else has seen, that no 
Republicans were allowed to be a part of, that is not going to become 
law. So there is a way to lower drug prices.
  And, again, there was a package of bills passed out of Energy and 
Commerce, every single Member, Republican and Democrat, voted for it. 
That is the path right there to get something done and you shelved the 
bills. You threw poison pills on the bill, so they won't become law.
  Why not work with people who have the expertise and come to an 
agreement? That bill could be signed by the President today. People 
could be paying lower prices for drugs today, but you won't bring that 
bill to the floor. Why not bring that package of bills to the floor?
  If you want to come up with other ideas to lower drug prices in other 
ways, great, let's work on that, too. But, at a minimum, bring the 
bills that already came out of committee unanimously, that absolutely 
everybody agrees, Republican and Democrat, will lower drug prices, and 
you refuse to bring that bill to the floor, that package. Why not do 
that?
  Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman consider bringing that package of 
bills that was unanimous out of committee to lower drug prices? Every 
Republican and every Democrat agreed on the committee of jurisdiction 
that these things will lower drug prices, and we can't get a vote on 
that.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill to the floor that the 
gentleman spoke about that prohibited pay for delay, prohibited drug 
companies from paying generics not to bring their drugs to the market 
so that drug prices would be lower for consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, of the 194 Republicans, maybe even 98 Republicans--I 
don't know how many were elected at that point in time--5 of them voted 
for it, 190 voted against it.
  Mr. Scalise also said that we wanted to protect that no one with a 
preexisting condition would be denied healthcare. Five Republicans 
voted for

[[Page H7856]]

that bill. Six years, the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, were in charge, 
totally. There was no effort to bring a bill to this floor to bring 
drug prices down. And, in fact, Americans know drug prices didn't come 
down. The President was a Republican, the House was Republican, the 
Senate was Republican. They didn't bring a bill to the floor, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Two of the three proposals in our bill are also in the Grassley bill.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have regular order. We have 
introduced a bill, it is going to go to committee, it is going to be 
subject to amendment, it is going to be subject to debate, it is going 
to be subject to hearings.
  Now, we will see whether it is a bipartisan process. Because, very 
frankly, the record of bipartisanship when the Republicans were in 
charge is pretty absent.
  Of the 19 major bills that we passed, we got 618 Republican votes, so 
they weren't too partisan. Now, admittedly, about 400 of those votes 
were on four bills that went through this place in a very bipartisan 
fashion.
  So I would hope that we see bipartisanship when the committee marks 
up this bill, and we will do what the President says he wants to do. We 
will see whether he supports that.
  They have the Grassley bill and now you have a Democratic bill in our 
House. They are going to have hearings in the Senate, led by 
Republicans, Mr. Speaker. We will have hearings here, led by Democrats. 
But Republicans and Democrats will both participate in those hearings, 
and it is going to be bipartisan, and we will see whether we can come 
up with bipartisanship.
  But the gentleman continues to want to make some political patina 
with this, some partisan patina, Mr. Speaker. I asked him, but he 
didn't respond. He says he hasn't seen the ad. I wish he would look at 
the ad. It is an egregious piece of political diatribe. But I would 
hope that he would also urge his Members to work together.
  And this business we negotiate for drugs right now, Mr. Speaker, 
through the Veterans Administration to ensure that our veterans get the 
best cost they can get. Apparently, that is okay, but doing the same 
thing, Mr. Speaker, for American consumers of prescription drugs who 
are not veterans is somehow characterized by the gentleman as 
government control.
  I urge the gentleman to proceed, as he speaks, on a bipartisan basis 
and see whether or not we can get to an agreement in this House. But we 
are going to pass something to bring drug prices down for the American 
consumer because that is what we promised to do, and we are going to do 
it. We hope we can do it in cooperation with everybody in this House, 
but we are going to do it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman is not going to try to 
use the VA as the standard of care that every American should get. We 
saw the scandals at the VA, veterans dying waiting to get care.
  We actually passed legislation this Congress that got signed into law 
last Congress to allow veterans to go to another hospital that can 
actually treat them if the VA is not doing the job. And I know a number 
of people in the gentleman's party oppose that, but our veterans 
appreciated it. While you might be able to get good care at some VA 
hospitals, there were--and the scandals, you have seen the ads, those 
aren't false ads--veterans literally dying waiting to get into VA 
hospitals, and the VA was telling us there was no secret list when, in 
fact, there were secret lists that were not allowing these veterans to 
get proper care.
  So the VA CHOICE Act was passed specifically to address that problem 
and, ultimately, allow our veterans to be able to go to another 
hospital if the VA isn't properly taking care of them. Our veterans 
deserve the best care. If a VA hospital can't provide it, then someone 
else should, and, in fact, now other hospitals are. Our veterans have 
asked for that and now have that ability.
  But if the gentleman wants to talk about bipartisanship, again, I go 
back to the bills that passed out of committee unanimously. When those 
bills came to the floor, they were changed to make them partisan. And 
if he thinks 5 Republicans out of 197 is bipartisan, I think he needs 
to go and look back at what, ultimately, is going to allow a bill to 
become law. To become law, it is going to have to have a lot more 
support than that, which means the games have to stop being played. The 
poison pills can't be put in a bill and then expect that to become law. 
You can pass it out of the House, and it will never become law.

  So the ultimate goal, I would hope, would be for us to come together 
to get a bill to the President's desk. The bills that came out of 
committee unanimously could have absolutely gotten to the President's 
desk and would be lowering drug prices. Once you start adding things to 
them--maybe you get a few Republicans here and there--but ultimately 
you took an unanimous bill and made it a partisan bill and it is not 
going anywhere.
  So there is a path, if you want to get it back on track, to get a 
bill to the President's desk. You can make statement, or you can make 
law, and I would hope we do both. I hope we actually work together to 
make something come together that not just can pass the House and 
barely get it across the finish line, but where we can get overwhelming 
support. The ability is there.
  And those bills, by the way, took years to come together, just like 
the 21st Century Cures Act, a bill that took a long time to put 
together when we were in the majority, but, ultimately, got to the desk 
of Barack Obama, and he signed it. It is great law. It is something 
that, ultimately, is going to help us cure major diseases, and we came 
together to get that done. It is law. It wasn't just a bill that we 
passed out of the House in a partisan way. We worked with Democrats and 
we got it done. It is on the books now.
  So I would hope, if we are looking at models to use, that we look at 
the models of those bills that have actually made it all the way 
through the process where we worked with people on both sides and 
solved real problems. That should be the objective. Not to make a 
statement and just work with a few people here and there when you have 
a roadmap for something that can be overwhelmingly passed out of this 
House and then get to the President's desk.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman didn't answer my question, of course.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman: What was the question? 
I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the standard of 
care at the VA, managed by the administration, which, of course, has 
had the Presidency for the last 3 years.
  Whether you pay $5 for prescription drugs or $50 for prescription 
drugs, that is not the standard of care. That is how much you are 
paying for the drug that you think helps either a veteran or a 
nonveteran.
  But let me say this: The gentleman keeps talking about, Mr. Speaker, 
these bipartisan bills. The reason they weren't bipartisan in passing 
this House is because we added ACA protections.
  We added preexisting condition provisions to those bills, and the 
Republicans, therefore, voted against. Why? Because they have been 
against the Affordable Care Act and its adoption, against it in the 
campaigns.
  When they had the opportunity to change it, they couldn't do it. They 
came up with a goose egg, Mr. Speaker.
  The President said, during the course of the campaign, that he was 
going to present a bill that included coverage for every American at a 
lower cost and a higher quality. I tell the press, as soon as he sends 
that bill down, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for it. He has been 
President now for 3 years, a little short of that. No bill has come 
down.
  The bill that the Speaker and majority leader went down to the White 
House and cheered about, look, we passed this bill, and they sent it to 
the Senate. The President was there at the White House. It was a great 
bill, and within 14 days, he called it a ``mean'' bill.
  Let me tell you what the President further said, Mr. Speaker, and the 
characterization differs from the characterization that my friend, the 
Republican whip, exhibited. The President

[[Page H7857]]

endorsed Medicare drug price negotiations in his campaign and put 
forward a proposal to use international prices as a guide to limit out-
of-control U.S. prices. That is what the gentleman's President said.
  The administration has endorsed the other two concepts of inflation 
limits on drug prices and improving Medicare part D as part of the 
legislation put forward by Senator Grassley.
  I guess everybody has their own definition of bipartisanship.
  Mr. SCALISE. Well, clearly, as the gentleman talks about the Grassley 
bill that is moving through the Senate, let them do their work. Let 
them find a way to come together with their 60-vote rule and produce a 
bipartisan bill. I encourage them to do that. They haven't yet, but I 
encourage them to do that.
  When the gentleman talks about the ACA, let's be clear, because the 
vast majority of people on the gentleman's side now--especially in the 
Presidential campaign, the Democratic candidates for President--are not 
talking about the ACA anymore. They are talking about what is referred 
to as Medicare for All.
  I will yield in a moment, but if the gentleman read the bill, 
Medicare for All, number one, it gets rid of the private insurance 
marketplace. Over 180 million people lose that healthcare. Then, if you 
look at Medicare Advantage, an incredibly popular and successful part 
of Medicare is gone. It goes away.
  So 200 million people lose what they have now that they like, and 
everybody is placed in Medicare, which, as we all know, pays below-
market rates. Most rural hospitals said they will close. If that bill 
passes, they can't even operate. They will close because they can't 
continue to run and make any kind of profit. They lose money, and they 
ultimately close down. They have said it.
  People know, people understand, how the healthcare marketplace works. 
Know that if you get rid of the private insurance market, that is what 
is paying for Medicare and Medicaid today.
  Medicare for All, which, again, is the catchphrase that is being used 
by every Presidential candidate on the gentleman's side, and maybe they 
all want to have their own version of it, is a far different place than 
even the ACA.
  We can continue and will continue to have a debate about the best way 
to fix our broken healthcare system, and focus on lowering prices and 
protecting people with preexisting conditions, but in a way that you 
can actually let people choose their own plans and buy whatever they 
want from wherever they want it.
  That is how people get all other products. Healthcare, for various 
reasons, doesn't work that way. But, clearly, on the drug-pricing side, 
there have been a lot of good ideas that came together that would be 
proven to lower drug prices.
  If we want to get into the high cost, which I agree is a problem, 
let's look at the fundamental reasons why it costs billions of dollars, 
instead of maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, to create a new 
lifesaving drug.
  There are reasons that the cost is so high to bring a drug to market. 
Thank goodness there are companies that are out there that are willing 
to invest billions of dollars. Sometimes they don't succeed, by the 
way, and they have to eat that cost. But if they do succeed in finding 
a new drug that will save lives, it typically costs billions of dollars 
and years and years of bureaucratic red tape and other processes that 
they have to go through to finally bring that drug to market.
  That is where we should focus our energies, on compressing that 
process so it can happen quicker, addressing other problems within the 
way that a drug comes to market so that it doesn't cost billions of 
dollars, and we can have more lifesaving drugs at lower costs.
  If we are going to ignore that side of the equation and say: Here, we 
are just going to set the price without addressing the fundamental 
problems that are leading to such high costs, then all that is going to 
happen is that nobody is going to make the investment to go find the 
next lifesaving drug.

  You will never know what could have happened. We see every day there 
are amazing breakthroughs in medical technology, and we want to 
continue encouraging that.
  Something like the 21st Century Cures Act actually achieves it. 
Again, we came together to put that bill into law to now allow for 
lifesaving drugs, especially in areas like cancer, Alzheimer's, and 
ALS. We are going to get real big breakthroughs. There are already some 
big breakthroughs because of that.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I know we will have more debates next week 
over the limited number of items coming to the floor. Hopefully, some 
of these other items can get addressed in a bipartisan way, but I know 
there are other battles ahead, and we will do our part to try to come 
together to address these problems.
  If the gentleman has nothing else, then I yield back the balance of 
my time.

                          ____________________