[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 11, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H10096-H10117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOWER DRUG COSTS NOW ACT OF 2019
General Leave
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower
Drug Costs Now Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 758 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1818
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3) to establish a fair price negotiation program, protect the
Medicare program from excessive price increases, and establish an out-
of-pocket maximum for Medicare part D enrollees, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Payne in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours equally divided
among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Committee on Ways and
Means, and Committee on Education and Labor, and 1 hour equally divided
and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Neal), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the
majority leader or a designee, and the minority leader or a designee
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this week, we will fulfill a promise we made to the
American people to make prescription drugs more affordable. No American
should be forced into choosing between putting food on the table for
their family and taking a lifesaving drug, but, all too often, that is
exactly what is happening.
The American people are getting ripped off because drug companies
have a monopoly on their drugs until generics come to market. They can
charge Americans whatever they want, and they do.
H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, finally
gives the Federal Government the power to negotiate lower prescription
drug prices for the American people. Other developed countries
negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, and prices in those
countries are four or five or ten times less for the exact same drugs.
This simply isn't fair, and the American people are rightfully fed up.
It is time that we finally level the playing field and empower the
Federal Government to negotiate a better deal. These negotiations will
not only lead to lower prices for consumers, it will also result in
significant savings to the Federal Government. H.R. 3 takes the
resulting $500 billion in savings and reinvests it in the American
healthcare system and the search for new cures.
We cap out-of-pocket costs for seniors in the Medicare Part D program
for the first time, giving seniors the peace of mind of knowing that
their drug cost will not bankrupt them or empty their retirement
accounts.
We make transformational investments in the Medicare program--adding
for the first time benefits for dental, hearing, and vision coverage.
These new benefits are going to make a huge difference in the lives of
our Nation's seniors.
We invest $12 billion in the search for new cures and treatments by
boosting funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Food and
Drug Administration. NIH, as we know, plays a critical role in the
research and development of new drugs, and this investment will ensure
that these cures and treatments become a reality. We also invest in
combatting the opioid crisis, community health centers, and maternal
healthcare. And finally, beyond the negotiation, we are holding
pharmaceutical companies accountable for when they jack up prices,
bringing much-needed transparency to the process.
Mr. Chairman, the status quo is simply unacceptable and
unsustainable. It is time to negotiate a better deal for the American
people. It is time to pass H.R. 3.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, let me be clear: Drug costs in America are too high.
Republicans believe this, and so do Democrats. We all should work
together, though, to lower drug costs for consumers. We all
[[Page H10097]]
should work together to stop anticompetitive actions of pharmaceutical
companies that try to game the system and delay access to lower cost
alternative medicines. And we should all work together--together, Mr.
Chair--to pass legislation that both lowers drug costs, without killing
off medical innovation.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3 fails on this count. And that is not just my
conclusion, Mr. Chair. The great American innovators who are working
day and night to find cures to Alzheimer's, to cancer, to ALS, to
Parkinson's, and the hundreds of other diseases and life-changing
therapies are pleading with us for a ``no'' vote to H.R. 3--the
Democrats' plan.
Mr. Chair, 138 different biotech companies signed a letter to
Congress 5 days ago. After reading the bill, they wrote: ``This extreme
proposal will upend the ecosystem of U.S. biomedical innovation,
destroying our ability to attract private sector investment.''
These are the companies who develop the new innovations in medicine.
They said H.R. 3 will shatter the dreams of patients hoping for
lifesaving cures.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the letter in support from those
companies.
December 5, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Republican Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader McCarthy: We
represent the community of emerging biotechnology companies
whose researchers and scientists strive daily to develop
innovative life-changing therapies and cures for patients. We
take pride that we are providing hope to patients and their
families and changing the world through medical
breakthroughs. These dreams will be shattered if H.R. 3, the
Lower Drug Costs Now Act, if passed.
We are at an incredible inflection point in science and
technology that is bringing forth transformative treatments
and even cures for cancer, infectious diseases, and a myriad
of other serious and rare diseases. These advancements are
benefiting lives of millions of patients and alleviating
human suffering, while helping to reduce other more expensive
parts of our health care system, such as hospital spending.
Our continued success depends on maintaining an environment
that supports investment in tomorrow's discoveries.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3 is an unprecedented and aggressive
government intervention in the U.S. market of drug
development and delivery that will limit patient access to
these extraordinary advancements in health care. This extreme
proposal will upend the ecosystem of U.S. biomedical
innovation, destroying our ability to attract private
investment dollars that allow us to develop new treatments
and change the course of healthcare delivery for so many
patients.
We strongly urge you to abandon H.R. 3. Further, in order
to keep pace with this biomedical revolution and ensure
America remains the world leader in innovation, we hope that
you will pursue bipartisan, holistic policies that modernize
our health care payment system and lower drug costs for
patients.
Sincerely,
Adelene Perkins, Chair & CEO, Infinity Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Adrian Gottschalk. President & CEO, Foghorn
Therapeutics; Alden Pritchard, CEO, Kaio Therapy, Inc.; Alex
Nichols, PhD. President & CEO, Mythic Therapeutics; Amit
Munshi, President & CEO, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Andre
Turenne, President & CEO, Voyager Therapeutics. Inc.; Aprile
Pilon, PhD, President & CEO, Trove Therapeutics, Inc.;
Armando Anido, Chairman & CEO, Zynerba Pharmaceuticals; Axel
Bolte, Co-Founder, President & CEO, lnozyme Pharma; Barry
Quart, President & CEO, Heron Therapeutics; Bassil Dahiyat,
President & CEO, Xencor, Inc.; Bill Enright, CEO, Vaccitech,
Ltd.; Bill Newell, CEO, Sutro Biopharma; Blake Wise, CEO,
Achaogen, Inc.; Bonnie Anderson, Chairman & CEO, Veracyte,
Inc.; Bradford Zakes, President & CEO, Cerevast Therapeutics;
Brandi Simpson, CEO, Navigen, Inc.; Brian Windsor, CEO, Lung
Therapeutics, Inc.
Briggs W. Morrison, MD, CEO, Syndax Pharmaceuticals; Bruce
Clark, PhD, President & CEO, Medicago, Inc.; Casey Lynch,
CEO, Cortexyme; Cedric Francois. Co-Founder, CEO & President,
Apellis Pharmaceuticals; Chris Gibson, Co-Founder & CEO,
Recursion; Christopher Barden, CEO, Treventis Corporation;
Christopher Burns, PhD, President & CEO, VenatoRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Christopher Schaber, President & CEO,
Soligenix, Inc.; Ciara Kennedy, PhD, CEO, Amplyx
Pharmaceuticals; Clay Seigall, President, CEO & Chairman,
Seattle Genetics, Inc.; Craig Chambliss, President & CEO,
Neurelis; David Baker, President & CEO, Vallon
Pharmaceuticals; David Bears, Founder & CEO, Tolero
Pharmaceuticals; David de Graaf, PhD, President & CEO, Comet
Therapeutics, Inc.; David Donabedian, PhD, Co-Founder & CEO,
Axial Biotherapeutics; David Lucchino, President & CEO,
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.; David Mazzo, President & CEO,
Caladrius Biosciences.
David Meeker, CEO, KSQ Therapeutics; Doug Kahn, Chairman &
CEO, TetraGenetics, Inc.; Douglas Doerfler, President & CEO,
MaxCyte, Inc.; Dr. Elizabeth Poscillico, President & CEO,
EluSys Therapeutics, Inc.; Eric Dube, PhD, CEO, Retrophin,
Inc.; Eric Schuur, President & CEO, HepaTx Corporation; Erika
Smith, CEO, ReNetX Bio; Franciso LePort, Founder & CEO,
Gordian Biotechnology; Gail Maderis, President & CEO, Antiva
Biosciences; Gary Phillips, President & CEO, Orphomed, Inc.;
Geno Germano, President & CEO, Elucida Oncology, Inc.; George
Scangos, CEO, VIR Biotechnology; Gil Van Bokkelen, Founder,
Chairman & CEO, Athersys, Inc. Greg Verdine, President & CEO,
LifeMine Therapeutics, Inc., FOG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imran
Alibhai, CEO, Tvardi Therapeutics; James Breitmeyer,
President & CEO, Onctemal Therapeutics, Inc.; James Flanigon,
CEO, Honeycomb Biotechnologies.
James Sapirstein, President & CEO, AzurRx BioPharma; Jay
Evans, President & CEO, Inimmune Corporation; Jeb Keiper,
CEO, Nimbus Therapeutics; Jeff Cleland, PhD, Executive Chair,
Orpheris, Inc.; Jeff Jonker, President & CEO, Ambys
Medicines; Jeff Kindler, CEO, Centrexion Therapeutics; Jeremy
Levin, Chairman & CEO, Ovid Therapeutics, Inc.; Joe Payne,
President & CEO, Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc.; John Crowley,
Chairman & CEO, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.; John Jacobs,
President & CEO, Harmony Biosciences; John Maraganore, CEO,
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; Julia Owens, President & CEO,
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc.; Justin Gover, CEO & Executive
Director, Greenwich Biosciences; Keith Dionne, CEO, Casma
Therapeutics; Keith Murphy, Founder, CEO & President,
Viscient Biosciences; Ken Mills, CEO, REGENXBIO, Inc.; Ken
Moch, President & CEO, Cognition Therapeutics; Kent Savage,
CEO, PhotoPharmics, Inc.
Kevin Gorman, CEO, Neurocrine Biosciences; Kiran Reddy, MD,
CEO, Praxis Medicines; Lawrence Brown, CEO, Galactica
Pharmaceuticals; Lorenzo Pellegrini, Founder, Palladio
Biosciences; Marc De Garidel, Chairman & CEO, Corvidia
Therapeutics; Marilyn Bruno. PhD, CEO, Aequor, Inc.; Mark
Leuchtenberger, Executive Chairman, Aleta Biotherapeutics;
Mark Pruzanski, MD, President & CEO, Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mark Timney, CEO, The Medicines
Company; Markus Renschler, MD, President & CEO, Cyteir
Therapeutics; Martin Babler, CEO, Principia Biopharma;
Melissa Bradford-Klug, CEO, Mayfield Pharmaceuticals; Michael
Clayman, MD, CEO, Flexion Therapeutics; Michael J. Karlin,
Co-CEO, Ibex Biosciences, LLC; Michael Raab, CEO, Ardelyx,
Inc.; Mike Narachi, President & CEO, Coda Biotherapeutics;
Ming Wang, PhD, President & CEO, Phanestra Therapeutics,
Inc.; Morgan Brown, Executive VP & CFO, Lipocine.
Nancy Simonian, CEO, Syros Pharmaceuticals; Olin Beck, CEO,
Bastion Biologics; Pam Randhawa, President & CEO, Empiriko
Corporation; Pat McEnany President & CEO, Catalyst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Paul Bolno, MD, CEO, Wave Life
Sciences; Paul Boucher, President & CEO, Parion Sciences,
Inc.; Paul Hastings, CEO, Nkarta Therapeutics; Paul Laikind,
President & CEO, Viacyte; Peter Savas, CEO & Chairman,
LikeMinds, Inc.; Rachel King, Founder & CEO, GlycoMimetics,
Inc.; Randy Milby, Founder & CEO, Hillstream BioPharma, Inc.;
Rashida Karmali, PhD, President & CEO, Tactical Therapeutics,
Inc.; Richard Markus, CEO, Dantari Pharmaceuticals; Richard
Pascoe, Chairman & CEO, Histogen, Inc.; Richard Samulski,
President, Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, Inc.; Rick Russell,
President, Minverva Neurosciences; Rick Winningham, Chairman
& CEO, Theravance Biopharma; Rob Etherington, President &
CEO, Clene Nanomedicine.
Robert Goodwin, PhD, CEO, Vibliome Therapeutics, Inc.;
Robert Gould, PhD, President & CEO, Fulcrom Therapeutics;
Robert Bernard, President & CEO, Ichor Medical Systems;
Robert Wills, Chairman, CymaBay Therapeutics. Inc.; Roger
Tung, President & CEO, CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals; Ron Cohen,
Founder, President & CEO, Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.; Russ
Teichert, PhD, CEO, Scintillant Bioscience; Russell Herndon,
President & CEO, Hydra Biosciences, LLC; Samantha S. Truex,
CEO, Quench Bio; Sandy Macrae, President & CEO, Sangarno
Therapeutics, Inc.; Scott Koenig, President & CEO,
MacroGenics, Inc.; Sean McCarthy, President, CEO & Chairman,
CytomX; Sharon Mates, Founder, Chairman & CEO, Intra-Cellular
Therapies; Shawn K. Singh, CEO, VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.;
Stan Abel, President & CEO, SiteOne Therapeutics, Inc.;
Stanley Erck, President & CEO, Novavak.
Stephen Farr, PhD, President & CEO, Zogenix, Inc.; Stephen
R. Davis, CEO, ACADIA Pharmaceuticals; Stephen Yoder, CEO, &
President, Pieries Pharmaceuticals; Sue Washer, President &
CEO, AGTC; Sujal Shah, President & CEO, CymaBay Therapeutics,
Inc.; Ted Love, CEO, Global Blood Therapeutics; Terry Tormey,
CEO, Kibow Biotech; Thomas Wiggans, Founder, President & CEO,
Dermira, Inc.; Tia Lyles-Williams, Founder & CEO, LucasPye
BIO; Tim Bertram, CEO, inRegen & TC Bio; Timothy Walbert,
President & CEO, Horizon Therapeutics; Todd Brady, CEO,
Aldeyra Therapeutics; Vipin Garg, PhD, CEO, Altimmune;
[[Page H10098]]
Wendye Robbins, MD, President & CEO, Blade Therapeutics; Will
DeLoache, CEO, Novome Biotechnologies; Zandy Forbes, CEO,
MeiraGTx.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, the Congressional Budget Office, they also
looked at H.R. 3, Speaker Pelosi's bill, and they said it would kill
off more than 38 new medical innovations--38.
The Council of Economic Advisers, they looked at it and said they
thought it would be more like 100 new medicines that would be lost. It
is no wonder that President Trump, the country's strongest advocate for
lowering drug prices, said even he could not support H.R. 3, and would
have to veto it.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy.
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 3--the elijah e. cummings lower drug costs now act--rep. pallone,
d-nj, and 106 cosponsors
The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 3, which
contains several provisions that would harm seniors and all
who need lifesaving medicines. Nevertheless, as Congress
follows the President's lead on reducing prescription drug
costs, the Administration welcomes bipartisan efforts to
enact legislation that provides additional prescription drug-
cost relief for American families.
In its current form, H.R. 3 would likely undermine access
to lifesaving medicines. The bill creates a statutory scheme
for ``negotiation'' between the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding the price
of prescription drugs, but the penalty for failing to reach
agreement with the Secretary is so large that the Secretary
could effectively impose price controls on manufacturers.
Moreover, this price-fixing mechanism places price controls
on drugs available under Medicare and commercial plans, and
imposes devastating fines on manufacturers, raising serious
concerns under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and
Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.
This bill would also compromise the health of Americans by
dramatically reducing the incentive to bring innovative
therapeutics to market. The preliminary Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) analysis indicates that the bill would reduce
the number of new medicines coming to market. The Council of
Economic Advisers (CEA) finds that H.R. 3's price controls
would affect as much as one third of drugs under development,
meaning that out of 300 projected new medicines that would
otherwise be approved over 10 years by the Food and Drug
Administration, 100 could be severely delayed or never
developed. As a result, CEA estimates H.R. 3 would erase a
quarter of the expected gains in life expectancy in the
United States over the next decade.
The preliminary CBO analysis of H.R. 3 does not account for
the additional costs that would burden families and the
Federal Government due to the unavailability of lifesaving
and cost-reducing medicine that would otherwise exist. For
example, an Alzheimer's cure, or new treatments for site
specific cancers or diabetes, may be delayed or never
developed under the regime imposed by H.R. 3. Thus, the cost
of caring for a growing and aging population with direct
care, skilled nursing, and home health could be substantially
greater than the drug-cost savings estimated by CBO. More
importantly, the effects of these cost increases on
individuals and their families will be significant, personal,
and long-lasting.
This legislation does include important policies championed
by the Trump Administration to lower prescription drug costs.
These include establishing a cap on out-of-pocket expenses
for all beneficiaries in Medicare Part D and simplifying and
improving that program. H.R. 3 also would limit annual price
increases of certain drugs in Medicare to the rate of
inflation, protecting beneficiaries and taxpayers from
excessive price hikes. These provisions reflect the
Administration's priorities, although modifications should be
made to strike a better balance in protecting beneficiaries,
taxpayers, and innovation.
The Administration strongly prefers the Prescription Drug
Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, which was reported out of the
Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. This
legislation offers a sound approach to delivering relief to
seniors from high prescription drug costs while safeguarding
the ongoing development of life-saving and sustaining
medicines.
Additionally, H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act,
shares many of the same bipartisan elements of the
Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act and is also a far
better approach to lowering drug prices and discovering life-
saving cures than H.R. 3.
The President believes there is a path forward to enacting
bipartisan legislation that lowers prescription drug costs
for American families. The Administration remains committed
to working with both parties to pass legislation that will
lower drug costs while encouraging innovation in the
development of lifesaving medicines.
If H.R. 3 were presented to the President in its current
form, he would veto the bill.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, my friends on the other side, the Democrats,
ignore these facts. Some have even said--can you imagine this--that it
is ``worth it'' to forego cures.
Seriously? That it is worth it to never have a cure for Alzheimer's?
Is it worth it to never have a cure for ALS?
What about Huntington's Disease, or Parkinson's, or rheumatoid
arthritis? The answer for me is ``no,'' because one lost cure is one
too many.
The Independent Congressional Research Service also read through H.R.
3. They said it is unconstitutional, most likely because of the huge
and punitive club that it hands the government. You see, if an
innovator, under the bill on the floor today that the Democrats have,
if an innovator does not agree with the price that the government
demands, then the government can take 95 percent of that company's
revenues for the sale of that drug--95 percent.
Oh, by the way, it is actually higher than that because you can't
deduct it and they have to pay tax. Democrats call that a negotiation.
I call that a mugging, Mr. Chair, a mugging.
Their scheme is based on what happens with drugs in six other
countries. And they ignore that in these referenced countries and other
countries around the world, people are actually denied access to
lifesaving medicines that Americans have access to. So this is the
tradeoff here.
If you remember nothing else, it is that we first get access to
medicines, and in the countries the bill would emulate and copy and
bring the process here, you don't get access to some of these
lifesaving drugs that Americans do here. That is your trade.
Let me tell you about the family of Katie Stafford:
She is a child living with cystic fibrosis in the United Kingdom. She
was told by officials she cannot receive the medicine that her doctor
determined would be the best chance at treating her life-threatening
condition, because they don't cover it in the United Kingdom under
their system.
Let me tell you about Andre and Joshua: They are Canadian brothers,
tragically both suffering from cystic fibrosis. Their parents had to
beg the Canadian Government to cover treatment for their sons as they
slowly lose their lung function. Now, their oldest son is enrolled in a
clinical trial that the youngest son is ineligible for. So they must
watch as one child gets help and the other child's health declines.
Fortunately, Mr. Chair, American children have access to this new
medicine. We cannot allow this to happen in the United States. Denial
of care is not an American value.
But I want to be clear: We all agree that Americans do pay too much
for prescription drugs, and we need to come back together as
Republicans and Democrats to help solve this issue. There is a better
way, because we can reduce the cost of drugs. We can improve
healthcare, and we can lower long-term costs, but we don't have to do
it at the expense of great American innovation while restricting
patient's access to lifesaving medicines.
There is a way to do this. In fact, Members will have an opportunity
to support, really, the only bipartisan legislation to come to the
floor, H.R. 19. You will see it as a substitute, the Lower Costs, More
Cures Act, which we will offer as a substitute amendment, is the
bipartisan solution. It can be signed into law this year--this year--
not vetoed, not never gain attention in the Senate like H.R. 3 will
find itself, if it gets there, but this can become law.
This is where we can join together and immediately begin to provide
relief to patients and seniors from high prescription drug costs. This
bill lowers out-of-pocket spending, protects access to new medicines
and cures, strengthens transparency and accountability, and champions
competition and innovation. And most importantly, every single
proposal, Mr. Chair, every single proposal in H.R. 19, the substitute,
is bipartisan work--Democrats and Republicans. We give you this option.
{time} 1830
This is a serious proposal. It has been described that way. It could
be signed, would be signed into law by the President by the end of this
year. So let's not force a partisan plan that, frankly, puts politics
over progress, that kills medical innovation and cures.
Instead, can't we come together and pass meaningful bipartisan
legislation,
[[Page H10099]]
get it across the finish line and actually find lower costs and more
cures for Americans?
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), our majority whip.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings
Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
Martin Luther King, Jr., once said: ``Of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.'' I believe
my dear friend, Elijah Cummings, would agree that H.R. 3 is a giant
step toward addressing injustice in healthcare.
This landmark legislation gives Medicare the power to negotiate
directly with drug companies and extends those negotiated prices to
Americans with private insurance, also. This is a huge win for the
American consumer.
In the United States, our drug prices are nearly four times higher
than in similar countries. This legislation provides real price
reductions that would put significant money back in consumers' pockets.
A portion of those savings will be reinvested in researching new cures
and treatments.
These cost savings will also extend Medicare benefits to cover
dental, vision, and hearing, and caps out-of-pocket prescription drug
costs at $2,000 for those on Medicare.
In addition, these savings will allow $10 billion to fund provisions
that are in my community health center's legislation to enhance those
facilities that serve 28 million Americans, half of which are in rural
communities.
The bill includes a $5 billion funding boost for capital improvements
and construction to expand the footprint of community health centers,
and an additional $5 billion in funding over 5 years for community
health center grants.
Providing consistent funding for and building on the success of
community health centers is critically important to making quality
healthcare more accessible and affordable.
In my district, where four rural hospitals recently closed, there are
eight federally funded community health centers working to serve almost
190,000 patients.
Mr. Chair, I urge strong bipartisan support for H.R. 3, a piece of
legislation that will contribute to the ending of injustice in
healthcare and help move us closer to making the greatness of America
accessible and affordable for all.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chair, I rise today, agreeing with Americans that drug
prices are too high. Congress must act, and we have done so in the
Energy and Commerce Committee by passing bipartisan solutions.
H.R. 3 is bad policy, a partisan sham, and will result in more than
100 fewer cures. Plus, it is dead on arrival in the Senate.
What if that one new drug is the cure for Alzheimer's or cancer?
Under the leadership of Ranking Member Walden, we have solutions that
deliver lower costs and more cures to Americans. Our bill is entirely
bipartisan.
H.R. 19 lowers the costs of prescription drugs and caps seniors' out-
of-pocket costs. It encourages innovation and will increase
competition, while enhancing transparency and getting more generic
medicines to market faster.
The American people deserve solutions that will be signed into law. I
encourage my colleagues across the aisle to deliver the American people
more cures, not fewer, and to support H.R. 19.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), who is the chairwoman of our Subcommittee on
Health.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Elijah E. Cummings
Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
This is in your name, Elijah, and I think that you are listening.
This bill is the most transformational change to Medicare since
President Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965. Why? Because it
allows Medicare to directly negotiate the price of the most expensive
drugs in our country, including insulin. The lower price will not only
apply to seniors who are enrolled in Medicare, but across all private
insurance policies.
Manufacturers will no longer be able to hike prices faster than the
rate of inflation. And, very importantly, it caps the out-of-pocket
cost to seniors for their prescriptions at $2,000 a year. That is going
to be a godsend to seniors.
Something else that will be a godsend to seniors is, with the savings
in this legislation, seniors in Medicare will have additional benefits
that they have been clamoring for for a very long time: coverage for
vision, dental, and hearing, as well as colonoscopies and lymphedema
treatment.
Very importantly--very importantly--I hear a lot about innovation
here. This legislation increases funds for the National Institutes of
Health to research and develop new cures. It provides almost $3 billion
for the FDA to ensure the safety of our drugs--very important that all
the committee members know that.
It invests in our community health centers, and it directs $10
billion to address the opioid crisis in our country.
So what is the difference between what the Republicans are saying and
what the Democrats are saying? At the core of this bill, H.R. 3, is
that there will be direct negotiations with the drug manufacturers to
bring the price of drugs down. Our Republican friends do not support
that.
And we know it works, direct negotiations in the VA, direct
negotiations in TRICARE, which is the healthcare system for all of our
fellow Americans that wear a uniform and their families.
So this legislation is sensible. Millions of Americans are not only
going to save money, they will finally, finally, finally have the peace
of mind that they will be able to afford the prescription drugs that
they need for treatment, or those treatments that keep them alive.
I am so proud of the work that the committee has done, and I
recommend this bill to every single Member of the House--Republicans,
Democrats--because of the substance of it and what it will bring into
people's lives.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I include a list of the drugs not covered
by the VA into the Record. They only cover 24 of the top 50 nonvaccine
Medicare part B drugs on the VA formulary. I also include a list of
available medications in H.R. 3 reference countries.
Top Medicare Part B Drugs NOT Covered by the VA (excluding vaccines)
brand name/generic name
Remodulin/Treprostinil Sodium
Provenge/Sipuleucel-T/Lactated Ringers
Soliris/Eculizumab
Synvisc/Hylan G-F 20
Tyvaso/Treprostinil
Abraxane/Paclitaxel Protein-Bound
Actemra/Tocilizumab
Advate/Antihemophil.FVIII, full Length
Aloxi/Palonosetron HCL
Brovana/Arformoterol Tartrate
Budesonide/Budesonide
Entyvio/Vedolizumab
Erbitux/Cetuximab
Faslodex/Fulvestrant
Injectafer/Ferric Carboxymaltose
Kadcyla/Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine
Neulasta/Pegfilgrastim
NPlate/Romiplostim
Orencia/Abatacept
Prolia/Denosumab
Remicade/Infliximab
Simponi Aria/Golimumab
Xolair/Omalizumab
Yervoy/Ipilimumab
____
Availability of Medications in H.R. 3 Reference Countries
medications currently unavailable in all reference countries
Aliqopa--relapsed follicular lymphoma
Balversa--advanced or metastatic bladder cancer
Calquence--cell lymphoma
Copiktra--third-line follicular lymphoma
Daurismo--acute myeloid leukemia
Elzonris--blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell cancers
Exondys--Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Gamifant--hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
Idhifa--elapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia
Libtayo--metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
Lumoxiti--hairy cell leukemia
Luxturna--Leber's congenital amaurosis (severe vison loss)
Nerlynx--breast cancer
Pigray--advanced breast cancer
Polivy--diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
[[Page H10100]]
Surfaxin--infant respiratory distress syndrome
Talzenna--breast cancer
Tibsovo--relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia
Trogarzo--HIV/AIDS
Australia
Percent of new medicines available (compared to the United
States):
All new medicines: 41%
Cancer medicines: 50%
Diabetes medicines: 70%
Respiratory medicines: 50%
Cardiovascular medicines: 40%
Average delay in approval (compared to the United States):
All new medicines: 19 months
Cancer medicines: 15 months
Average delay in public plan coverage (compared to the
United States):
All new medicines: 32 months
Cancer medicines: 37 months
Currently unavailable medicines:
Brineura--first approved treatment for Batten disease
Caprelsa--medullary thyroid cancer
Farydak--multiple myeloma
Idelvion--hemophilia Type B
Imfinzi--extensive-stage small cell lung cancer
Jivi--hemophilia type A
Kymirah--B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Lartruvo--advanced soft tissue sarcoma
Lorbrena--non-small cell lung cancer
Lutathera--neuroendocrine tumors affecting the digestive
tract
Mepsevii--Sly syndrome
Nuwiq--hemophilia Type A
Obizur--hemophilia Type A
Ocaliva--primary biliary cholangitis (rare liver disease)
Portrazza--metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer
Potiga--epilepsy
Revcovi--a form of severe combined immune deficiency
Rixubis--hemophilia Type B
Rubraca--ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer
Rydapt--acute myeloid leukemia
Symdeko--cystic fibrosis
Unituxin--second-line treatment for children with high-risk
neuroblastoma
Victrelis--hepatitis
Vizimpro--non-small cell lung cancer
Vraylar--schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and bipolar
depression
Yescarta--large B-cell lymphoma that's failed conventional
treatments
Zaltrap--Colorectal cancer
Zejula--ovarian, fallopian tube or primary perineal cancers
canada
Percent of new medicines available (compared to the United
States):
All new medicines: 52%
Cancer medicines: 60%
Diabetes medicines: 90%
Respiratory medicines: 67%
Cardiovascular medicines: 80%
Average delay in approval (compared to the United States):
All new medicines: 14 months
Cancer medicines: 13 months
Average delay in public plan coverage (compared to the
United States):
All new medicines: 31 months
Cancer medicines: 36 months
Currently unavailable medicines:
Brineura--first approved treatment for Batten disease
Caprelsa--medullary thyroid cancer
Cometriq--second line treatment for renal cell carcinoma
Farydak--multiple myeloma
Idelvion--hemophilia Type B
Imfinzi--extensive-stage small cell lung cancer
Jivi--hemophilia type A
Kymirah--B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Lartruvo--advanced soft tissue sarcoma
Lorbrena--non-small cell lung cancer
Lutathera--neuroendocrine tumors affecting the digestive
tract
Mepsevii--Sly syndrome
Nuwiq--hemophilia Type A
Obizur--hemophilia Type A
Ocaliva--primary biliary cholangitis (rare liver disease)
Odomzo--basal-cell carcinoma
Orkambi--cystic fibrosis
Plegridy--relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis
Portrazza--metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer
Potiga--epilepsy
Revcovi--a form of severe combined immune deficiency
Rixubis--hemophilia Type B
Rubraca--ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer
Steglatro--type 2 diabetes
Symdeko--cystic fibrosis
Unituxin--second-line treatment for children with high-risk
neuroblastoma
Vizimpro--non-small cell lung cancer
Vraylar--schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and bipolar
depression
Yescarta--large B-cell lymphoma that's failed conventional
treatments
Zaltrap--Colorectal cancer
Zejula--ovarian, fallopian tube or primary perineal cancers
france
Percent of new medicines available (compared to the United
States):
All new medicines: 53%
Cancer medicines: 67%
Diabetes medicines: 30%
Respiratory medicines: 50%
Cardiovascular medicines: 50%
Average delay in approval (compared to the United States):
All new medicines: 19 months
Cancer medicines: 20 months
Average delay in public plan coverage (compared to the
United States):
All new medicines: 27 months
Cancer medicines: 29 months
Currently unavailable medicines:
Brineura--first approved treatment for Batten disease
Cometriq--second line treatment for renal cell carcinoma
Farydak--multiple myeloma
Idelvion--hemophilia Type B
Imfinzi--extensive-stage small cell lung cancer
Jivi--hemophilia type A
Kymirah--B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Lartruvo--advanced soft tissue sarcoma
Latuda--schizophrenia and depression associated with
bipolar disorder
Lorbrena--non-small cell lung cancer
Mepsevii--Sly syndrome
Ocaliva--primary biliary cholangitis (rare liver disease)
Orkambi--cystic fibrosis
Portrazza--metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer
Potiga--epilepsy
Revcovi--a form of severe combined immune deficiency
Rubraca--ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer
Rydapt--acute myeloid leukemia
Steglatro--type 2 diabetes
Symdeko--cystic fibrosis
Unituxin--second-line treatment for children with high-risk
neuroblastoma
Victrelis--hepatitis
Vizimpro--non-small cell lung cancer
Vraylar--schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and bipolar
depression
germany
Percent of new medicines available (compared to the United
States):
All new medicines: 67%
Cancer medicines: 73%
Diabetes medicines: 50%
Respiratory medicines: 83%
Cardiovascular medicines: 80%
Average delay in approval (compared to the United States):
All new medicines: 10 months
Cancer medicines: 11 months
Average delay in public plan coverage (compared to the
United States):
All new medicines: 10 months
Cancer medicines: 14 months
Currently unavailable medicines:
Latuda--schizophrenia and depression associated with
bipolar disorder
Lutathera--neuroendocrine tumors affecting the digestive
tract
Revcovi--a form of severe combined immune deficiency
Rexulti--schizophrenia and major depression
Yescarta--large B-cell lymphoma that's failed conventional
treatments
japan
Percent of new medicines available (compared to the United
States):
All new medicines: 48%
Cancer medicines: 56%
Diabetes medicines: 70%
Respiratory medicines: 58%
Cardiovascular medicines: 70%
Average delay in approval (compared to the United States):
All new medicines: 19 months
Cancer medicines: 24 months
Average delay in public plan coverage (compared to the
United States):
All new medicines: 19 months
Cancer medicines: 24 months
Currently unavailable medicines:
Brineura--first approved treatment for Batten disease
Cometriq--second line treatment for renal cell carcinoma
Kymirah--B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Lartruvo--advanced soft tissue sarcoma
Latuda--schizophrenia and depression associated with
bipolar disorder
Lutathera--neuroendocrine tumors affecting the digestive
tract
Mepsevii--Sly syndrome
Nuwiq--hemophilia Type A
Obizur--hemophilia Type A
Ocaliva--primary biliary cholangitis (rare liver disease)
Odomzo--basal-cell carcinoma
Orkambi--cystic fibrosis
Plegridy--relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis
Portrazza--metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer
Potiga--epilepsy
Rubraca--ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer
Rydapt--acute myeloid leukemia
Steglatro--type 2 diabetes
Symdeko--cystic fibrosis
Unituxin--second-line treatment for children with high-risk
neuroblastoma
Victrelis--hepatitis
Vraylar--schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and bipolar
depression
Yescarta--large B-cell lymphoma that's failed conventional
treatments
Zejula--ovarian, fallopian tube or primary perineal cancers
united kingdom
Percent of new medicines available (compared to the United
States):
[[Page H10101]]
All new medicines: 64%
Cancer medicines: 70%
Diabetes medicines: 90%
Respiratory medicines: 75%
Cardiovascular medicines: 80%
Average delay in approval (compared to the United States):
All new medicines: 11 months
Cancer medicines: 11 months
Average delay in public plan coverage (compared to the
United States):
All new medicines: 20 months
Cancer medicines: 26 months
Currently unavailable medicines:
Brineura--first approved treatment for Batten disease
Caprelsa--medullary thyroid cancer
Jivi--hemophilia type A
Kymirah--B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Lorbrena--non-small cell lung cancer
Lutathera--neuroendocrine tumors affecting the digestive
tract
Mepsevii--Sly syndrome
Ocaliva--primary biliary cholangitis (rare liver disease)
Odomzo--basal-cell carcinoma
Orkambi--cystic fibrosis
Plegridy--relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis
Portrazza--metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer
Revcovi--a form of severe combined immune deficiency
Rexulti--schizophrenia and major depression
Rixubis--hemophilia Type B
Rubraca--ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer
Symdeko--cystic fibrosis
Unituxin--second-line treatment for children with high-risk
neuroblastoma
Vizimpro--non-small cell lung cancer
Yescarta--large B-cell lymphoma that's failed conventional
treatments
Zaltrap--colorectal cancer
Mr. WALDEN. Mr Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats agree: Americans
pay too much for prescription drugs. We agree we need to do something
about it. We agree our friends and loved ones need access to lifesaving
cures and treatments.
Americans want us to work together in a bipartisan way to get things
done; yet, today, we are considering Speaker Pelosi's partisan bill.
This is an exercise in futility. Not only will it stop an estimated 100
new lifesaving drugs, it has no chance of being signed into law.
I care about the millions of Americans, like my late grandmother,
living with Alzheimer's and the thousands of Americans diagnosed with
cancer every single day and the children who face life-altering
diagnoses, like spinal muscular atrophy, epilepsy, or cystic fibrosis.
I want them to have hope, and I want them to have access to the very
best medicine. That is why we introduced H.R. 19, bipartisan
legislation that could be signed into law by President Trump this year.
So let's stop the partisan theatrics and get serious about the
problem that people are begging us to fix.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, since 2003, the pharmaceutical
companies have had free rein to gouge sick people. They forced into law
language that prohibited the Federal Government from negotiating with
the drug companies for lower prices, which already the Veterans
Administration does and has done for decades.
We know that negotiating for fair prices actually is the only way
that we are going to be able to lower prices, and that is what H.R. 3
is going to do. Even Donald Trump has said that, when he was a
candidate: When it comes to negotiating the cost of drugs, we are going
to negotiate like crazy.
That was then, and this is now.
The Congressional Budget Office says we are going to save about half
a trillion dollars when we negotiate in the most effective way to
protect seniors and families and anyone who has insurance, and we are
going to be able to use that money to finally help senior citizens who
need help with their eyeglasses, with their hearing aids, with their
dental care. We are going to be able to make such a difference in their
lives.
Ninety percent of Democrats, 87 percent of Independents, and 80
percent of Republicans say they support allowing the Federal Government
to negotiate for prices. The time is absolutely now for us to pass this
legislation.
H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, is
the solution that we have been waiting for, a historic step forward in
our fight to solve the problem of the prescription drug pricing crisis
that we face in this country.
I look forward to seeing it pass into law and the President of the
United States keeping his promise and not breaking it by signing
negotiation into law.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), an incredible, important member of our
committee.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, do you want 10 new drugs, 30 new drugs on
the market, 100 new drugs on the market or zero? H.R. 3 removes
research and development investments, which will hinder innovation.
Innovation doesn't always mean higher cost. Take hepatitis C, which
lowers, reduces healthcare costs in the long run.
Technology and innovation have always had the potential to reduce the
time and costs of identifying and developing new therapies, which lower
the cost of drugs.
Incorporation of innovative genomic analysis means drug developers
can reduce the amount of guesswork in identifying candidate molecules
for further research.
This same technology is being used by drug manufacturers today to
help streamline and expedite the process of conducting trials.
And investments in precision medicine will mean that you don't
prescribe drugs that will not work or, in some cases, make people
sicker.
That is why I support H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, which
is composed entirely of bipartisan provisions and could become law
right now.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1845
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug
Costs Now Act, the most transformational expansion of Medicare since
its creation.
As co-chair of the House Democrats' Task Force on Aging and Families,
I am fighting for the nearly 9 in 10 seniors taking a prescription
drug, because when our system puts profit over patient health,
beneficiaries pay the price.
With this landmark legislation, we are delivering on the promise to
lift up older Americans and their families. H.R. 3 negotiates lower
drug prices. It expands Medicare to include vision, dental, and hearing
coverage. It caps out-of-pocket costs, and we extend low drug prices to
all Americans with private plans.
While there are many reasons to support H.R. 3, mine is Tony from
Sacramento. Tony has type 2 diabetes. She is a single mom and works
part-time to care for her child, all while managing multiple chronic
conditions.
Over the last decade, the price of insulin has increased 197 percent,
and those increases make it harder and harder for a family to get by.
Under H.R. 3, drug price savings will be passed on to families like
Tony's. Tony could pay as little as $34 per month, giving her family
the relief they need for other expenses.
For seniors, for families, and for all Americans who desperately need
to lift the burden of high drug prices from their everyday lives, I ask
that my colleagues support this bill.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), the top Republican on the Health Subcommittee of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In the early days of my medical practice in the 1980s, I would sit
around with other doctors and kvetch that there were treatments
available in Europe that were not available in the United States. But
Congress acted and enacted the prescription drug user fee agreements in
1992, sped up the regulatory process, and broke the regulatory
bottleneck. The drug approval process over the past four decades has
significantly improved to the point that American doctors now have more
tools at their disposal to alleviate human suffering than at any time
in the Nation's past.
The President weighed in right around Thanksgiving with what he
[[Page H10102]]
thought would be the correct path forward. Indeed, in the Rules
Committee last night, we received the Statement of Administration
Policy from the President that said he would veto H.R. 3 if presented
in its current form. But he goes on to say that H.R. 19 is a far better
approach to lowering drug prices and discovering lifesaving cures. The
President believes there is a path forward. The administration remains
committed to working with both parties to pass legislation.
What H.R. 3 represents to me is a lost opportunity. It was an
opportunity to work together. The President wanted to work together.
But it is a lost opportunity to bring down drug costs for American
patients. We can vote against H.R. 3. We can support the amendment in
the nature of a substitute. H.R. 19 could become law this year, in
2019.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney), a member of our committee.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
for bringing this bill forward. I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Elijah
E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
We are here today to debate an issue that shouldn't need any
discussion from Members of this body. We have all heard from
constituents back home forced to choose between critical medications
and basic needs because prescription drugs are just too expensive.
Just this week, one of my constituents, Marta, shared her story with
me. Marta suffers from an autoimmune disease that causes her own body
to attack her muscles, and without medication, she struggles to see.
Even the slightest movement feels like a colossal feat, including her
breathing.
The prescription drug she needs in order to walk or even just to
breathe was once available for free, but the medication she is now
taking costs an outrageous $375,000 a year. Who can afford that?
While Marta's insurance covers some of the cost, it is a constant
fight for her to get the medication she needs to be able to live her
life.
What good are miracle drugs if people can't afford them?
As Members of Congress, we must do everything in our power to ensure
that people can afford lifesaving and life-changing drugs. Under H.R.
3, the government would be empowered to negotiate directly with the
drug companies to lower prices for the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3 for Marta and the millions of
Americans burdened by skyrocketing prescription drug costs.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the top Republican on the Oversight and
Investigation Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
today in opposition to H.R. 3.
Two of the issues that I often hear about back home are robocalls and
drug prices. Last week, despite ideological differences on both sides
of the aisle, we came together to address robocalls. I am disappointed
that the same cannot be said for drug prices.
Republicans, Democrats, President Trump, doctors, pharmacists,
patients, we all want lower drug prices. Yet, the Democrats have chosen
to pursue partisan poison pill legislation that will go nowhere.
I was proud to cosponsor the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, a bill that
includes only bipartisan solutions to lower drug prices. My Democratic
colleagues have agreed to these provisions in the past. The Lower
Costs, More Cures Act will allow the continuation of lifesaving
innovation in healthcare research while lowering drug prices for
Kentuckians.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 3, and I urge my colleagues to support
the Lower Costs, More Cures Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of our committee.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have done in our committee some bipartisan work that attacks
patent abuse and will help bring down the costs of drugs, but there is
a question. It is not a partisan question. It is really a judgment. Can
we stop pharma from what has been relentless price increases--I would
call it price gouging--without the government intervening on behalf of
the consumer? We are the only country where the government sits on its
hands while pharma boosts the prices.
President Trump told Elijah that is a rip-off. That is what the
President told Elijah, and the President said he would be okay with
bringing in safe drugs from abroad for price negotiation, or as the
President called it, getting a better deal.
The President's idea, which is a good one and incorporated in the
bill, was to have an international reference price so we don't pay
four, five, six times what they pay in Europe. That is a good idea.
But bottom line, the question is, will pharma stop killing us if we
don't step up with governmental authority for consumers? That is not
partisan. That is a judgment. It won't happen without us asserting that
authority, as is done in this bill.
Then, the benefits are extended to employers who are struggling to
pay health insurance for their folks and can't give them a raise, to
seniors, and to every individual.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley), an important member of our committee.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let's be frank, Senate leadership has already said they are never
going to vote on H.R. 3. Earlier today, President Trump made it clear
that he would veto it. So what are we doing here?
If lowering the costs of prescription drugs were really a priority
for Democrats, they would vote to adopt H.R. 19, the bipartisan
alternative, instead of this politically charged bill. H.R. 19 has 35
bipartisan provisions that passed out of the House committee. It
includes 90 percent of the bipartisan Grassley-Wyden bill in the
Senate.
H.R. 19 will not only lower drug prices, but it will protect
innovation and research into new medicines and cures for diseases like
Alzheimer's, rheumatoid arthritis, ALS, diabetes, and Parkinson's.
The Congressional Budget Office and the Council of Economic Advisers
have both concluded that H.R. 3 will prevent hundreds of new cures from
entering the market. Therefore, I have to ask the supporters of H.R. 3:
Which cures for our loved ones are you willing to sacrifice?
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), a member of our committee.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
rise today to speak on behalf of H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower
Drug Costs Now Act of 2019.
The bill before us today will finally allow Medicare to negotiate the
price for prescription drugs to get a better deal for our seniors, a
task that has long been successful by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, Medicaid, the Department of Defense, and, frankly, in
commercial insurance plans.
Why not allow our seniors to negotiate the best price for their
costly drugs? It can save the taxpayers a lot of money. Americans
support negotiation.
I will point out that while I appreciate the efforts to expand
service, the Medicare trustees report has shown that the Medicare
hospital insurance trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2026, a
mere 6 years from now. At the same time, Medicare per capita spending
is supposed to grow at a rate of over 5 percent a year.
The savings from the drug negotiation portion of this bill, at least
a big portion of it, should be put toward ensuring that our seniors
will continue to have access to Medicare.
We cannot keep spending money we do not have. As we continue to have
conversations around expanding access to healthcare and lowering costs
of prescription drugs, I urge my colleagues to be mindful that they
need to address the solvency of our healthcare safety net systems.
This is a good bill. I urge support.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we cannot lose sight of
how anti-innovation H.R. 3 is. We cannot lose sight of how many cures
will never come around as a result. These aren't my conclusions. They
are, but they are also the conclusions of the Congressional Budget
Office and the Council of Economic Advisers.
[[Page H10103]]
Hundreds of new drugs will never come to market. Medicines will never
be created. We know that 10 percent fewer drugs will enter the market
every year in the 2030s and every year thereafter as a result of H.R.
3.
This bill will leave people behind. It will result in earlier deaths
than otherwise should happen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In committee, I raised issues of unconstitutional takings in H.R. 3.
Ninety-five percent of gross revenues are taken from a manufacturer
unless they agree to the price the government offers.
It is not negotiation. It is an offer you can't refuse. It is
confiscatory. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional.
But you don't have to believe me. The nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service says H.R. 3 likely violates the Fifth and Eighth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Mr. Chair, I took an oath to support the United States Constitution
when I entered this body. To support the Constitution, you must vote
``no'' on H.R. 3. To fix drug pricing, you should vote ``yes'' on the
Walden amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We already have hundreds of drugs in the market that millions of
Americans do not have access to and cannot get because they are not
affordable. Seniors in my district are walking out of the pharmacy
without their medication after seeing the out-of-pocket costs and
saying to themselves they can't afford it.
Many seniors are choosing between eating and buying their groceries
versus taking their medications. They are not taking the medicine that
they need, which puts their health and their lives at risk.
I have heard from seniors in my district who face up to $6,000 a
month in out-of-pocket costs for their medicine. To quote one
constituent of mine: ``Prescription and healthcare costs are an
astronomical burden.'' To quote another: ``Necessary medication should
not be treated as a luxury.''
We must bring down the outrageous out-of-pocket costs plaguing our
seniors and families. H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lowering Drug
Costs Now Act, finally answers the call to bring down out-of-control
costs.
{time} 1900
It does so by empowering Medicare, for the first time ever, to
negotiate lower drug prices with Big Pharma, which will lower costs for
not only seniors, but also American families with private health
insurance.
It does so by limiting out-of-pocket costs to no more than $2,000 a
year for seniors--very important to seniors needing expensive
medication.
It does so by strengthening Medicare, delivering vision, dental, and
hearing benefits for seniors across this country.
Every Member of the House should do the right thing for seniors and
American families: pass H.R. 3.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell should do his job and bring this
legislation up for a vote immediately so that we can strengthen
Medicare for seniors and lower the cost of medicine for American
families.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I would point out that the Republican alternative also
caps costs for seniors, again, for the first time. We believe there is
a place where that needs to happen for our seniors.
In the committee, Republicans offered up an amendment that would have
taken all the middleman profits, the rebates, and put them toward
making insulin at no cost for seniors at the pharmacy counter.
Unfortunately, every Democrat on the committee voted against that. Why,
I do not know, but they did.
We want more cures and we want lower costs. We can have both.
There is no dispute among us, Republicans and Democrats, that drugs
are too high. The question is: Can we find a scheme that is
constitutional, and does it eliminate cures for diseases that people
are relying on and shut down innovation in America?
I think we can, by the way. I think that is H.R. 19. We will deal
with that later.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, Americans see a Congress paralyzed
by impeachment and other distractions.
We should change course, do our job, and put our constituents before
partisan politics. Reducing prescription drug prices is a way to do
that.
My friends across the aisle brag about ``affordable'' healthcare in
other countries, but they don't mention the hidden costs.
Look at a young boy from Canada, Ashton Leeds, who, in 2018, was
stricken with an aggressive form of thyroid cancer. Treatments approved
by the Canadian health system failed, and his life was saved when his
family brought him to America for a cutting-edge treatment unavailable
in Canada.
This isn't an isolated instance. As my Republican colleagues have
described today, the data shows that H.R. 3 takes us in the wrong
direction--stifling innovation and reducing future cures.
Madam Chair, Americans are desperately looking for relief at the
pharmacy counter, and we can give it to them with H.R. 19, a bipartisan
proposal with a real chance of becoming law, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Wexton). The gentleman from New Jersey has
12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 12 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Veasey), a member of our committee.
Mr. VEASEY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for really helping
deliver on the promise to work for the people by bringing down the
costs of prescription drugs for all Americans.
This is a historic and much-needed piece of legislation, and I am
proud to be a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Congress
to bring this bill to the floor.
This past summer, William from Arlington, Texas, came into my
district office because, like so many Americans, William was enrolled
in a Medicare plan and was concerned with the price of his lifesaving
prescriptions. William was worried about the price of his generic
cholesterol medicine. He had been paying $600 a month--$600 a month--
when he went to his local pharmacy to fill his prescription.
I am hearing all this whooping and hollering about all these other
things, protecting these pharmaceutical drug companies, but why is no
one talking about people like William who are having a hard time making
ends meet and they just want some relief when it comes to these
prescription drug prices? That is who we need to be taking care of and
defending in this debate.
Many seniors across the country are living like William. They are on
fixed incomes. They are really having a hard time making ends meet, and
forcing them to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and
their daily necessities is really unacceptable in our country.
That is why I am proud to stand here with my colleagues today to
voice support for H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now
Act. I am proud this legislation will ensure Medicare beneficiaries
will be covered on things like vision, dental, and hearing benefits.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. VEASEY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman very much for yielding
me additional time.
Again, I am just proud that the version of this bill that will help
our low-income residents all across this country will be passed into
law.
There are so many other things that I could talk about, but I just
have to tell you, in closing, there are people who are out there
hurting. They are making life-and-death decisions every day and having
to choose between whether or not they are going to eat or
[[Page H10104]]
pay for their prescription drugs. This is unacceptable in this country.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I just want to point out a couple of things.
First of all, what is really unacceptable is to kill off American
innovation in this space. We know from the biotech people who are doing
this innovation, they have written us saying it will shatter the hopes
and dreams of Americans waiting for cures. It will completely upend the
ecosystem of innovation.
America is where the innovation occurs. We don't think that has to
happen to bring down the costs of drugs, which we also support.
We also don't think you should end up in a system like this where, in
these countries that they want to emulate, like Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, all new medications
that we have here, they only have between 30 and 60 percent.
In fact, in cancer, there are 27 to 50 percent fewer cancer drugs in
these countries. There is a range here, Madam Chair, that are
available. So, if you get cancer, if you were in America here, you
might get a drug that would prolong your life or cure your cancer. In
these countries, you have a run of 27 to 50 percent chance you won't
get that drug; diabetes, 10 to 50 percent fewer; respiratory, 17 to 50
percent fewer.
They, in part, control their costs because they deny access to care
of the lifesaving new cutting-edge drugs that we innovate.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg), a very important member of our committee.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, as I travel across Michigan, I constantly hear about the
high cost of prescription drugs. Hardworking families are simply paying
too much. That is why we need to tackle this issue in a bipartisan way,
not try to score political points.
Sadly, H.R. 3 is a partisan, heavy-handed approach that has no chance
of becoming law.
Let's be honest: Government doesn't negotiate; they dictate.
This drug pricing scheme will ultimately hurt families, stifle
innovation, and prevent lifesaving cures from becoming available to our
friends, our neighbors, and families.
There is a better approach, a plan that is patient-focused and filled
with bipartisan provisions that enjoys support in the Senate as well.
It is H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act. This bill will
strengthen transparency, encourage medical breakthroughs, and make
medications that families rely on more affordable.
If the other side is serious about getting something done, then we
should be voting on the Lower Costs, More Cures Act this week.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Soto), my colleague.
Mr. SOTO. Madam Chair, back in central Florida, we had a townhall
where we had everyone from Bernie Sanders supporters supporting
Medicare for all to Donald Trump Make America Great Again, red hat-
wearing Trump supporters, and all of them, regardless of the political
spectrum, could not believe Medicare can't negotiate. ``What a sham''
is what they said.
Well, today is the day. We are going to end the ban on Medicare
negotiating.
So you can wring your hands, contort the facts, but then you are
going to have to go home and explain why you campaigned on ending the
ban on Medicare negotiating and then you voted ``no,'' and then you
voted to keep this sham system in place where we don't even allow the
government to negotiate for lower drug prices.
This bill caps out-of-pocket costs at $2,000. That saves $1,196 per
senior for the over 124,000 seniors in my district. It also applies to
the 550,000 people who have private insurance.
What do we do with the $500 billion we save? We finally crack that
injustice for seniors to get dental, vision, and hearing coverage.
We hear scare tactics: Hundreds of drugs aren't going to be improved.
Try 8 to 15, while 300-plus drugs, according to the CBO, will be
improved over the next 10 years. So let's stop the scare tactics.
And is it worth it? Of course it is worth it.
Hundreds of new cures; finally giving dental, vision, hearing
coverage--of course it is worth it.
$1,196 in savings per senior in my district. Of course it is worth
it.
America put us in the majority because they think it is worth it, so
it is time to pass the Lower the Drug Costs Now Act.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, we have heard this refrain before that it is worth it,
worth it not to have a cure. A cure for what? We don't know.
We know that there are 100 drugs that will never be developed because
of H.R. 3. That is what the Council of Economic Advisers said. The
Congressional Budget Office says 38 in the next 20 years will never be
developed.
Is that the cure for Alzheimer's? Is that the cure for Parkinson's?
Is that the cure for ALS?
Madam Chair, the gentleman says it is worth it to upend the entire
ecosystem of innovation in America. That is what we just heard. We
heard it in committee too: It is okay. We don't need a cure for this,
that, or the other thing.
138 of these great American innovators wrote us and said it is not
worth it. This bill is going to shatter the hopes and dreams of people
who are hoping that there will be a cure for cystic fibrosis or sickle
cell anemia or SMA.
Oh, by the way, we are developing those cures, but this bill, H.R. 3,
kills innovation in America, and that means people will die because
they didn't get those drugs because they were never invented.
We don't have to do that to bring down the cost of drugs. There are
bipartisan ways to bring down the cost of drugs without destroying
medical innovation in America, and we want to work with you to do this.
H.R. 3 is the purely partisan bill on the floor.
The proposal we have is all bipartisan, Republican and Democrat ideas
put together that will have a positive effect on bringing down drug
prices. It will stop the gaming of the system, and it will result in
more cures.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter), Congress' only pharmacist, an outspoken advocate for our
legislation and doing the right thing for patients, whom he greeted at
the pharmacy counter every day.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
You know, I find myself in a situation here where I am both excited
and I am sad. I am finally getting the opportunity to address something
that was one of my major initiatives coming to Congress, and that is to
do something about prescription drug pricing.
As the ranking member noted, I am the one, for over 30 years, who was
at the front counter telling patients how much their medication was
going to be.
I am the one who watched a mother in tears because she couldn't
afford her child's medication.
I am the one who watched a senior citizen try to decide between
buying medication and buying groceries.
Yet, never did it enter into my mind that this was a Republican or a
Democrat thing. No. It never was, and it should not be now. This is
about Americans and about Americans trying to get medications.
Now, I will tell you, in my career, in my pharmacy career, I have
witnessed nothing short of miracles in the way of new drugs.
I can remember a time when, if you were diagnosed with hepatitis C,
you were going to die. That is all there was to it. Now, think about
it. We can actually cure it with a pill. How phenomenal is that? That
is what research and development has done for us.
Now, do pharmaceutical manufacturers need to do a better job with
their pricing? Yes, they do. But I am here to tell you where the real
problem lies. I have been saying it ever since I have been here for 5
years, and that is in the middleman, in the fee PBMs, the pharmacy
benefit managers, the ones who hide behind the curtain and are causing
this, that bring no value whatsoever to the system. Yet H.R. 3 is going
to do away with research and development.
[[Page H10105]]
And, yes, you have heard it. Even if it is 8, even if it is 15, even
if it is 100, even if it is 1, that is one too many that doesn't come
to market. What if it is the one for Alzheimer's?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
{time} 1915
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is too important. This
should not be partisan.
Thank goodness we have H.R. 19, a bipartisan bill. Everything that is
in H.R. 19 is bipartisan--everything. And it brings down the cost of
medication without stymieing innovation, without ruining research and
development.
Madam Chair, I encourage Members to support H.R. 19.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, this is a historic piece of legislation before us this
evening. H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, is
the critical action we need to lower prescription drug prices for
Americans across the United States.
Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues this evening continue to
peddle Big Pharma's talking points and say that this bill will stifle
innovation. Even the Trump administration's Health and Human Services
Secretary Alex Azar, who was a drug company executive himself,
acknowledged that drug companies like to claim that ``if one penny
disappears from pharma's profit margins, American innovation will grind
to a halt.''
Frankly, I am appalled by this argument, Madam Chair. It is the
Federal Government and the American taxpayers who are the largest
investors in innovation.
In fact, the National Institutes of Health, which has long enjoyed
bipartisan, bicameral support, is the largest public funder of
biomedical research in the world. For decades, publicly funded research
has laid the foundation for the treatment and cures that patients use
today.
Research shows that many patented prescription drug products were
first discovered through taxpayer-funded NIH research and grants.
According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, NIH-funded
research contributed to the development of all 210 new drugs approved
by the FDA between 2010 and 2016.
The impact is clear: Americans are living longer, healthier lives;
heart disease, stroke, and diabetes are less deadly; cancer mortality
rates are also, overall, on the decline.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, H.R. 3, will
strengthen innovation--I stress, strengthen innovation--by investing
$10 billion of direct funding to continue this momentum. This money is
delivered to the agency over 10 years to provide sustained, predictable
investments to our Nation's brightest researchers at our world-class
universities and medical research centers.
This bill will advance research in cancer, rare diseases,
regenerative medicine, and antibiotic resistance, among others. It also
provides additional funding for phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials.
History shows us that investments like these will pay dividends for
patients.
Madam Chair, I am just so tired of hearing the Republican claim that
H.R. 3 will kill new drug development and innovation. It is just the
same tired fearmongering that the big pharmaceutical companies have
used in an effort to lower their out-of-control drug prices.
We, as Members of Congress, work for the American people, not Big
Pharma. And now is the time for us to act and deliver our promise to
patients who rely on prescription drugs to live long and meaningful
lives by lowering their drug prices.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I can't help but just respond. Our information is based
on fact, not rhetoric. It comes from the independent Congressional
Budget Office that works for all of us. And when they evaluated H.R. 3,
they are the ones--at CBO, the Congressional Budget Office--that said
that the Democrats' plan, the Pelosi plan, would result in fewer new
drug products being developed and coming to market.
CBO is the one, not Big Pharma. You can throw that around all you
want, but it is the Congressional Budget Office that said 38 new cures
that could be developed in the next 20 years would be lost in
development because of this bill--38. Up to 38.
It was the Council of Economic Advisers that said upwards of 100 new
cures, new medicines, would not come to market because of H.R. 3.
The great American innovators wrote to the Speaker and wrote to the
Republican leader and said the dreams of life-changing therapies and
cures for patients would be ``shattered'' by H.R. 3. They said that,
unfortunately, H.R. 3 is an unprecedented and aggressive government
intervention in the U.S. market of drug development and delivery that
will limit patient access to these extraordinary advancements in care.
These are the people that--when they get a cure for cystic fibrosis;
when they develop a cure for sickle cell; when, hopefully, they develop
a cure for diabetes--we will all rush out to say, ``We helped. We
funded NIH. They did an important role.''
And NIH funding is extremely important, but it is these innovators
that do the actual development of the drugs. In fact, the Congressional
Budget Office said, when it comes to H.R. 3 spending for NIH, that the
effects of the new drug introductions from increased Federal spending
under the bill on biomedical research would be modest--modest. Okay.
We have all supported increases in additional research at NIH. It is
an important element of this. But it is actually the innovators spread
all across the country and these tiny little startups, in some cases,
that are begging us not to blow up the system to get drug prices down.
We can get drug prices down. We are willing to work on both sides of
the aisle to do that. You don't have to destroy innovation in America
and lifesaving cures for patients to get there. H.R. 3, independent
analyses show, would do exactly that.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stivers).
Mr. STIVERS. Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Walden for yielding,
and I commend him for his efforts to limit drug prices and continue
innovation.
I have a concern about the increased costs that both H.R. 3 and H.R.
19, as well as Senate proposals, could have on small manufacturers
through the part D redesign.
These small manufacturers often serve the Low-Income Subsidy
population that are our most vulnerable, and it would
disproportionately affect their access to lifesaving and life-changing
medications, such as drugs for mental illness and addiction. H.R. 3 is
catastrophic to this population.
Madam Chair, I ask to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Oregon and seek his commitment to ensure small manufacturers and the
LIS population are not inadvertently penalized as this process moves
forward of our alternative.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his
remarks. I am hopeful that, after this political exercise of H.R. 3 is
done, we can work on a bipartisan basis on needed part D modernization
like we were doing before the Speaker, unfortunately, shut down these
discussions.
When we do so, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio
to ensure that the vulnerable LIS population is not unintentionally
adversely impacted.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
appreciate the gentleman for bringing up this important issue.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, the Republicans keep saying that they want to work with
us. We have suggested to them that the only way to reduce prices, that
I know of--and they haven't suggested anything else--is by having some
kind of negotiation.
We are talking about the drugs for which there is a monopoly. These
are
[[Page H10106]]
the brand-name drugs for which there is no competition, no generic
alternative. Every other country, the six that we have mentioned as
part of this bill that we are looking at, because we subsidize them as
the American people get ripped off, Australia, Canada, Japan, United
Kingdom, and France bring prices down considerably by negotiating.
When you have all these Medicare beneficiaries, if you will, you have
a tremendous amount of power, if you will, to negotiate with the drug
companies because they want to sell their drugs to bring the prices
down. If you don't do that, which is what the Republicans refuse to do,
then you have no effective way of bringing prices down. We know that.
Now, this is why, when Medicare part D was established--I was here
how many years ago--the Republicans insisted that they put in this
clause in part D that said that the government can't negotiate prices.
So that is why we have to pass this bill, because right now the
government has no power to do that.
Why not give the government that ability? So far, they refuse to do
it.
So, I know they keep saying they want to work with us on a bipartisan
basis, but they have refused to do any kind of negotiated prices, to
get rid of that clause that says that the Department of Health and
Human Services can negotiate prices.
The American public is getting ripped off. We are subsidizing drugs
that are being sold in this other country. It is not fair. It is not a
fair playing field.
Why should we let the drug companies continue with this monopoly?
That is why we are moving H.R. 3. That is the basis for H.R. 3.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen) for 1 minute.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chair, we all agree here that prescription drug
prices are skyrocketing, and Congress must act. That is something that
we all agree on. The question is how do we go about it.
A couple of facts:
One, H.R. 3 is a radical government takeover of the pharmaceutical
industry, and it ultimately will prevent Americans from accessing
potentially lifesaving cures.
Fact 2: According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers,
H.R. 3 will prevent as many as 100 fewer drugs from entering the U.S.
market in the next decade.
Fact 3: Countries that have adopted similar drug pricing schemes, as
proposed under this legislation, have experienced a decrease in access
to innovative new medicines, increased wait times for treatment, and
supply shortages for in-demand drugs.
Americans will not stand for this. We have an alternative: H.R. 19,
the Lower Costs, More Cures Act.
I urge Members to work together in a bipartisan way on H.R. 19.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1 minute remaining.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's go through this really quickly.
Democrats have said it is worth it not to have future cures. That is
point one. They have said that: worth it not to have future cures.
Congressional Budget Office tells us up to 38 cures will not come
about because of H.R. 3.
They have said we want to model America after foreign countries, and
the facts show that in foreign countries you have less access to
lifesaving drugs for cancer, diabetes, respiratory issues, and
cardiovascular.
The chart on the far side here lists those drugs individually. We are
not making this up. This is fact. We can do this better. We can work
together.
The Congressional Budget Office said, when we created Medicare part
D--which I was here for and supported--that having the government in
charge of pricing would have a negligible effect in terms of the
savings. I think they believe that today.
But if you want to restrict access to drugs, if you want to deny new
cures to patients, if you want to go on a system where you die because
the medicine is not available in your country, then vote for H.R. 3.
If you don't, if you want to have lower drug prices, stop the gaming
by the pharmaceutical companies and have more cures, then support our
alternative.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, with H.R. 3 we are one step closer to fulfilling our
promise of making prescription drugs more affordable for the American
people.
Today, here in the United States, drug companies can charge whatever
they want because there is no competition until a generic comes to
market and because the Federal Government has no ability to negotiate
drug prices.
The American people are getting ripped off. The status quo is
unacceptable and unsustainable.
In other countries negotiations occur, and prices in those countries
are substantially lower than here in the United States. For years the
American people have been subsidizing prescription drugs for the rest
of the world, and we are fed up with paying 3, 4, or 10 times as much
for the exact same drug as someone in a similar developed country.
Under H.R. 3, those days are over. We are finally empowering the
Federal Government to negotiate lower prices with the drug
manufacturers.
Now, what we are doing with the savings that come from this bill is
we are providing additional benefits to seniors.
H.R. 3 adds Medicare part B comprehensive dental coverage for the
first time. It adds a new dental benefit to Medicare part D and will
provide coverage for screening and preventive services. It adds a new
vision coverage. H.R. 3 adds new vision benefits that would cover
routine eye exams, contact lens fitting, and glasses or contact lenses
once every 2 years.
{time} 1930
It adds a comprehensive hearing benefit. It adds new hearing benefits
that provide hearing aid coverage for individuals with severe, profound
hearing loss.
The list goes on. We are investing more money to go to NIH. We are
providing more money for community health centers. The bottom line is,
we are also trying to save seniors' out-of-pocket costs by capping out-
of-pocket costs at $2,000.
We are doing all this at the same time that we are lowering
prescription drug prices through negotiation by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, or the Federal Government. Understand that once
that price is set for Medicare, that price is also available in the
rest of the market for those with insurance coverage.
This is a win-win situation for the American people. I don't
understand how the Republicans on the other side could say that there
is any other way to lower prescription drug prices, and they, frankly,
haven't given us any suggestion in that respect.
I ask my colleagues, please, this is a transformational piece of
legislation. Please support us. This should be supported on a
bipartisan basis.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for the Energy and Commerce Committee has
expired.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Elijah E.
Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
I am delighted to have been asked to join with my colleagues Mr.
Pallone and Chairman Scott in authoring this historic legislation. It
delivers on a Democratic promise to meaningfully stabilize and lower
the very high costs of prescription drugs in the United States.
As a recent Ways and Means Committee report details, Americans pay,
on average, four times more for the same prescription drugs as patients
in
[[Page H10107]]
other similarly developed countries. An overwhelming majority of
Americans, 95 percent, believe this disparity is unacceptable. I
certainly agree with them.
H.R. 3 will level the playing field for patients and taxpayers by
giving the Health and Human Services Secretary the power to negotiate
better prescription drug prices in Medicare and throughout the private
market. It also caps Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket prescription
drug spending at $2,000.
According to CBO, H.R. 3 will save American taxpayers over $500
billion. We will vigorously reinvest these tremendous savings into
unprecedented dental, vision, and hearing Medicare coverage expansions.
These are benefits that are directly associated with positive short-
and long-term health outcomes, and seniors deserve meaningful access to
them.
H.R. 3 also expands eligibility to low-income subsidy programs so
that seniors can get help to lower their out-of-pocket costs. These
changes ensure seniors can afford lifesaving medications, protect
Medicare beneficiaries with preexisting conditions from discrimination,
and give older Americans access to commonly needed and life-
transforming health services. Millions of Americans will see
improvements to their quality of life and to their financial security.
I have long believed that we need to look at ways to reinvest in
healthcare across the spectrum, and H.R. 3 does that by doubling our
investment in maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting
programs, a proven tool to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.
The bill also builds on the successful Health Profession Opportunity
Grant demonstration projects to provide a leg up for low-income adults
to fill good-paying healthcare jobs currently unfilled because of a
lack of trained workers. Expanding HPOG programs will help low-income
adults gain new skills, earn good jobs, and help address health worker
shortages that exist across our 50 States, in the U.S. territories, and
in American Indian communities.
I am pleased and proud of the medical innovation and research that is
undertaken daily around the Nation, especially in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. But I am concerned that this innovation is becoming out
of reach for consumers who simply cannot afford its discoveries.
H.R. 3 gives patients the ability to benefit from and afford
innovative drugs. In addition, the legislation reinvests savings from
lower drug prices back into a very important part of the Massachusetts
economy, the National Institutes of Health, to fund additional
groundbreaking, lifesaving research.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, is a commonsense
proposal that will allow Americans to live healthier lives and save
money as they move along the way.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, why should patients have to choose between affordable
medicines and a lifesaving cure for Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, or
cancer? Why should parents with sick children be forced to wait longer
for the newest breakthroughs that can save their lives? Why should
Americans face shorter lives because the costliest and most painful
drug is the one that is never created?
At the depths of Nancy Pelosi's drug bill is a dangerous tradeoff of
lower drug prices in the short term but fewer lifesaving cures in the
future, and not just a few cures lost, but many, according to the
independent Congressional Budget Office and the Council of Economic
Advisers, up to 38 cures lost, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, and up to 100, according to the CEA.
The California Life Sciences Association predicts nearly 9 of 10 new
drugs would never be available--never--from their research and small
biotech companies if the Pelosi bill becomes law. This is a cruel
and false choice, which is why this bill would quickly die with no real
bipartisan support in the Senate.
As Republicans, we believe we need to do both, lower drug prices and
accelerate new lifesaving cures. Our bill, the Lower Costs, More Cures
Act, lowers out-of-pocket costs for Americans by cracking down on
overpriced drugs and empowering seniors to choose the right place to
get medicines, which can cut the cost of chemotherapy in half, pulling
back the curtain on those who set drug prices, forcing drug companies
to justify their increases and list their prices in their ads.
We accelerate, not kill, lifesaving medical cures. We permanently
make it easier for Americans to deduct high medical expenses from their
taxes. We allow them to use their health savings accounts for over-the-
counter medicines, including feminine hygiene products, and save
seniors over $300 each year on their medicines in the popular Medicare
prescription drug program.
All of these proven ideas are bipartisan. All of these can be passed
by Congress. All of these can be signed by President Trump this year if
Democrats abandon their partisan games and recontinue what was our
bipartisan work that got shelved for the Pelosi drug bill.
I will finish with this. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee,
we in the Republican Congress joined with President George Bush in 2003
to create an affordable drug plan for seniors. At the time, Speaker
Pelosi and Democrats tried their best to kill it. She famously
predicted that trading the crucial part D prescription plan for the
elderly would end ``Medicare as we know it.''
Can you imagine how many seniors' lives would have been lost if she
had succeeded in stopping the affordable Medicare drug program that 43
million seniors have come to depend upon today?
Nancy Pelosi and Democrats were dangerously wrong then. Can Americans
afford the pain and risk when they are dangerously wrong again?
Madam Chair, we have an alternative that lowers costs and accelerates
cures in H.R. 19. That is the solution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, there is only one problem with this
bipartisan plan that the Republicans have embraced: It will not lower
manufacturers' prescription drugs prices by a penny.
As to the phony argument that there are some cures out there that
will be lost by this legislation, it also does not stand the test of
analysis. The suggestion is that 8 out of 200 drugs over the next 10
years may not be presented. Not new cures, but in many cases, if we
look at the current market, these are simply reformulations of existing
drugs that manufacturers use to extend their monopoly positions.
All of this about a bill that, frankly, I am not all that
enthusiastic. I think this legislation was originally advanced as a
narrow approach to win over Republicans, and that doesn't appear to
have been too successful this evening.
For that purpose, it may have merit. But as a model for comprehensive
future legislation on prescription price gouging by government-approved
monopolies, this narrow measure does not. Its negotiation scope is
restricted to insulin and certain high-cost, high-volume drugs.
Despite our pledge to repeal the Republican-imposed prohibition of
Medicare negotiation, it still remains illegal, a violation of Federal
law to negotiate lower prices for two-thirds of the medications covered
by Medicare. That includes EpiPens and many other treatments.
No negotiation for lower prices is assured even when the taxpayers
paid for much of the research to develop the drugs.
Price gouging is not limited to one disease or one class of drugs.
This bill also does not provide any guarantee to 30 million uninsured
Americans that they will get any lower prices.
I look forward to a new Congress with a President who wants to follow
the campaign promises that President Trump has ignored, to provide
relief for all Americans with a comprehensive solution to contain this
Big Pharma monopoly power.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), one of our key members on the
Ways and Means Committee.
[[Page H10108]]
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3.
This misguided, partisan legislation was written behind closed doors.
It will result in fewer cures, less innovation, and worse health
outcomes. We all agree that prescription drug affordability is a vital
issue for the American people. However, we shouldn't be sacrificing new
cures in the process. The bill tells patients with cancer, Alzheimer's,
and other terrible diseases to keep waiting for the cures they so
desperately need.
That is why I support H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act. This
bipartisan bill will lower out-of-pocket spending while also protecting
access to new medicines and cures.
Madam Chair, we have an important opportunity to work in a bipartisan
fashion for the American people. But here we are again, considering a
partisan bill that has no path forward in the Senate. This has become
such a disturbing trend.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed legislation so we
can work together on a bipartisan solution.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy,
and I appreciate his leadership.
I strongly urge that my colleagues reject the cynical approach that
is being advanced by our Republican friends. Think about it for a
moment. We are talking about challenging the monopoly that the
Republicans gave, making it illegal to negotiate drug prices.
As a result, we have heard already in the course of this debate that
our constituents pay four times more, on average, than other countries.
Sometimes it is 67 times as much.
What would happen if we were able to slightly restrain that monopoly
power and have a little competition? The Republicans are so cynical
that they say the first thing the drug companies will do is not cut
executive bonuses, not cut back on stock buybacks, not cut back on
bizarre advertising. The first thing the pharmaceutical industry would
do, in the vision of the Republicans, is cut back on vital research.
{time} 1945
Give me a break. They already spend less on research than they do on
the items that I have mentioned.
I really believe that, even though we have big differences with
them--and I think we settled some of those scores in the recent trade
negotiations--I have a hard time believing that they would make
patients suffer instead of cutting back a little bit on executive
compensation or stock buybacks.
I am proud that we have stood firm against Big Pharma in our trade
negotiations, and I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this
legislation that will lower prescription drug prices by almost $2,000
per average family.
It will have savings that will expand Medicare benefits to include
dental, vision, and hearing--critical benefits for the older
constituents whom we all represent.
It reinvests the savings in Federal health programs, drug innovation,
and medical research.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, reject this cynical view that the drug
companies will punish consumers before they will restrain some of the
excesses if we finally take back part of the monopoly powers that the
Republicans gave to the pharmaceutical industry.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is one of our leaders in technology in
healthcare.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chair, this is one of those, the tyranny of the
clock as we have talked about, 3 minutes.
There are so many things here we agree upon about the rage we feel
when we see the pricing mechanisms and those things. But there are so
many things also being said here that are absolutely wrong, from what
is happening in Big Pharma to the new biologics that are coming from
the small research companies, that I believe, actually, H.R. 3 is going
to do incredible violence to our society.
Madam Chair, you have to understand. We are living in the time of
miracles. There are cures coming that would not happen under H.R. 3.
The single shot that cures hemophilia, one of most expensive diseases
in our chronic population, that single shot is going to be outrageously
expensive; but it is actually dramatically cheaper than just 3 or 4
years of living with the disease.
Madam Chair, here is actually one of my incredible concerns.
You do understand the pricing efficiency you are importing. This is a
reference pricing bill.
Madam Chair, what is a year of your life worth? Madam Chair, what is
a year of your life worth if you are healthy? One year of healthy life,
what is it worth to you, Madam Chair?
Because, Madam Chair, if you are in Great Britain, it is $37,000. If
the drug comes in at $37,001, it is not purchased. That is the
efficiency you are about to import into our country. You are going to
do this.
There are countries here where, if a pharmaceutical breakthrough is
$19,000 and it would give you 1 year of healthy life, they don't buy
it. That is what you are importing. You are importing this type of
cruelty.
You get to look at someone's face and say: Look, we imported that
European model that basically said that your life is not worth that to
us for you to be healthy for another year.
We are better than this. We can do better.
We both passionately agree the pricing mechanisms are crappy. The way
capital is moved around is unfair. But H.R. 3 is going to do so much
more damage.
And I think I can build you a financial model that says that you will
lower some people's drug prices and you will raise the cost of,
functionally, healthcare in our country because the cures that are
coming don't come anymore.
Madam Chair, do you really want to import that type of cruelty into
our society?
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, if the gentleman asked me what a year of my
life was worth, I would have said: An awful lot.
But I am appreciative of the fact that you were mute on that issue,
Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I want to thank Frank Pallone, Richard
Neal, and Bobby Scott for all their hard work on the Elijah E.
Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
The science and innovation behind lifesaving drugs is light-years
beyond our wildest imagination.
As the medicine chest of America, New Jersey leads the way in
biopharmaceutical research, which is integral to discovering lifesaving
treatments. But with the blessing of living longer, the curse of high
costs lingers. After too many years of inaction, it falls on us to
address exploding costs in the health system.
Pharmaceutical innovation demands the best science, not the highest
prices. But if medications are not affordable for all, how can they be
lifesaving?
H.R. 3 is landmark legislation that helps us address the cost crisis
by allowing Medicare to negotiate fair prices for American families.
We talked about this in 2009. The minority rejected it then, too. We
should have done it then.
Medicare beneficiaries, our seniors, will save $150 billion in lower
premiums and out-of-pocket costs. On top of that, Medicare part D
beneficiaries will see an average discount of nearly 55 percent on
current prices of the first drugs chosen for negotiation.
Our seniors will ultimately benefit from lower premiums, cost
sharing, and a cap on their out-of-pocket expenses.
By the way, Medicare would finally, at long last, cover dental,
hearing, and vision care services to help our seniors stay healthy--
instead of bumper stickers and empty promises.
This legislation requires drug manufacturers to justify price
increases and launch prices for drugs. By making this information
public, manufacturers will be accountable.
This bill also includes a reauthorization of the Health Profession
Opportunity Grants program, or HPOG, to
[[Page H10109]]
provide education and training to low-income individuals for health
occupations that are in high demand or are experiencing labor
shortages.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), who is a small business person who has always
offered quality healthcare for his workers.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I am going to read a letter
from a family back in Pennsylvania, the Stewarts, Sara, Michael, and
their three daughters: Maddie, Gilly, and Daphne. It start off this
way:
Dear Congressman Kelly, my name is Sara Stewart, and I am
from Saint Petersburg, Pennsylvania. It is my understanding
that the House Ways and Means Committee is having a public
hearing on H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019.
Now, it appears this legislation does not have bipartisan
support. It needs to take a more balanced approach. The
balance is needed for patients like my 10-year-old daughter,
Maddie.
Maddie suffers from a rare mitochondrial deletion condition
called Pearson syndrome, which is a disorder that occurs as a
result of mutated genes in the body. These genes impact
mitochondria of her cells that prevent them from producing
enough energy for the body to function properly.
Pearson syndrome is difficult to diagnose because it
affects each individual differently. Maddie's symptoms
through the years have included being blood transfusion-
dependent for several years, the inability to heal after heat
and Sun exposure, becoming type 1 diabetic, progressively
losing her hearing and her vision, kidney failure, and
several other daily complications, including developmental
delays from having a body that runs on limited energy. It has
been truly heartbreaking to see her endure this disease, but
she continues to defy the odds.
My message is simple to you, Mr. Kelly, and to the rest of
the committee: There is no cure or treatment for Pearson
syndrome. There isn't any right now. Each day is a struggle
to keep Maddie balanced so her body is able to better cope
with the symptoms of this terrible disorder.
All we have--as well as many other families across the
world--is hope. Please don't let partisan bickering impact
the ability of researchers to discover and innovate new
therapies that could save Maddie's life one day. The clock is
ticking, and Maddie is waiting.
Madam Chair, I went to visit the Stewarts. I saw this adorable child,
and her mom told me: She has so much energy today, and we are really
excited that she is feeling this way when you came to see her.
When I looked at the Stewart family, when I looked at Maddie, when I
looked at her sister Gilly, and when I looked at her sister Daphne, I
thought: This isn't fair. She has never had a chance to live her life.
She has already doubled the chances of what the life expectancy is. The
mom is saying please don't let political bickering stand in the way of
developing and innovating a new source that could save Maddie's life.
Last year, there were 80-some children who had the same condition as
Maddie. This Christmas, hopefully, the 40 who are left will have the
chance to celebrate it.
Now, I don't know how the Stewarts are registered. I don't know if
the Stewarts vote, and I don't care. But I do know how the Stewarts
pray, and they pray every night not just for Maddie, but for all the
rest of the children who have this horrible disease.
The other thing they pray for is that, in the people's House and on
the floor of the people's House, we don't look at each other as
Republicans and Democrats, that we look at each other the way we really
are: We are moms and dads. We are grandmas and grandpas and aunts and
uncles.
If we cannot come here and agree that the hallmark of America has
always been her ability to develop, to innovate, and to be the savior
of the rest of the world, then what are we doing?
Do we really want to make this a political battle, or do we want to
start developing policy that is about people and not political power?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, do we really want to look in
the eyes of a 9-year-old or a 10-year-old and say to that child: It is
not just in the cards right now because we can't get together as adults
and do the right thing for the right reasons and let good things
happen.
No. We have allowed ourselves to be so damned political and so damned
divided that we turn our backs on the people who sent us here.
Maddie Stewart can't develop the drug herself. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart
can't develop the drug themselves. The people of Saint Petersburg,
Pennsylvania, can't help Maddie develop a drug. But we can. We can by
passing legislation and looking not at H.R. 3, because you know it
stops innovation.
Forget all the rest of the talk. It is all about innovation. It is
about something new, something better, and something great that is
going to save somebody's life.
Let's look at H.R. 19. Let's talk about the substitute, the Lower
Costs, More Cures Act.
I wish we all had unlimited time to speak on this issue, but we
don't. The clock is ticking. It is ticking for Maddie Stewart in Saint
Petersburg, Pennsylvania.
Please do the right thing for the right reasons, and good things are
going to happen.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, a reminder that our bill will invest $10
billion in the National Institutes of Health for new and innovative
cures.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chicago,
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. It is the
solution whose time has come.
According to the CBO, this bill will save $448 billion from Medicare
alone, which can be used to provide other services to seniors and
people with disabilities.
I thank the Democratic leadership for including my bills to reduce
maternal mortality and morbidity by doubling the MIECHV program and by
expanding the successful Health Profession Opportunity Grants program
to train low-income individuals to help relieve the health shortage
that exists in this country.
Madam Chair, Elijah Cummings would be proud of this bill to carry his
name, and I urge its passage.
{time} 2000
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who is a dynamic member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Chair, and I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 3,
the fewer cures and more government price control act.
While everyone recognizes that the overall cost of prescription drugs
is too high, and that there are some bad actors in the system, I wonder
why we are here tonight debating this legislation that essentially puts
in place an arbitrary government price setting system. We should be,
instead, finding ways to encourage more companies to engage in research
for cures and drive competition for lower costs.
During consideration of H.R. 3 in our Ways and Means Committee, I
authored a commonsense amendment to exempt any drug or biological
product used to treat or cure Alzheimer's from the definition of
``negotiation eligible drug,'' essentially ensuring through this
amendment that Alzheimer's research remains intact, so that the
scientists and the researchers and the Ph.D.'s that are working hard
every day to find a cure can continue to do that uninterrupted.
Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated.
We already know from a CBO estimate that 38 cures will not come to
market because of the legislation over the next two decades. It
essentially cuts off at the knees innovation and deters the work that
goes on today. The impact of future treatments and cures for diseases
like Alzheimer's and dementia is unacceptable. An impact on even one
cure is one too many, let alone 38.
Instead, we have an alternative. The House should support H.R. 19,
the Lower Cost, More Cures Act, which consists of over 40 bipartisan
provisions that President Trump may actually sign to help lower the
cost of prescription drugs for all of our constituents.
It is disappointing that Democrats won't work across the aisle to
solve this problem, and instead, are pushing a bill that will stifle
innovative healthcare solutions and result in fewer life-saving cures
and the research that goes into Alzheimer's.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
[[Page H10110]]
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
I am particularly proud of a provision that I worked on with Speaker
Pelosi to improve a provision in the original bill that caps out-of-
pocket spending for Medicare part B beneficiaries at $2,000 annually.
My proposal further protects seniors by allowing them to pay these
out-of-pocket costs in equal installments over 12 months, rather than
all at once.
The final version of H.R. 3 also includes a bill I introduced earlier
this month, H.R. 4669, the Maximizing Drug Coverage for Low-Income
Seniors Act.
This is smart and innovative legislation that will ensure seniors are
enrolled in the best Medicare part D program for their individual
needs, not just randomly assigned.
This will save them money on out-of-pocket costs as well as improve
access to their needed medication, while also generating savings in
overall Medicare spending that can be reinvested in the program.
Madam Chair, in the richest Nation in the world, every American
should be able to afford their life-saving medication.
I urge my colleagues to support this groundbreaking legislation and
to vote for H.R. 3.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
Americans are sick and tired of getting fleeced by Big Pharma and
have had enough of skyrocketing prescription drug prices.
In my district, an uninsured patient with diabetes has to pay $655
for a monthly supply of Novolog Flexpen, a popular brand of insulin.
But, in Canada, that same supply of insulin can be purchased for just
$47.
This is outrageous. Why should Americans have to pay so much more
than any other developed country for the exact same medications? Why
should my constituents have to plan trips to Mexico and Canada to get
the medications they need to stay alive? Because even with the cost of
travel, it is still cheaper to buy their insulin abroad. And why are
drug company profits soaring while patients go bankrupt? This is simply
not right.
H.R. 3 is a landmark piece of legislation. It gives Medicare the
power to negotiate for lower prices directly with the drug companies.
It makes those lower prices available to those with private insurance.
Seniors will not have to pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket for their
drugs. And drug companies can no longer rip off Americans while
charging other countries less for the same drug.
This bill is an important first step in addressing the skyrocketing
cost of prescription drugs. I am proud to stand here today as a
cosponsor of H.R. 3. And I am committed to continuing our work for the
people to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I thank the
chairman and all the colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle and
my committee, the Ways and Means Committee.
What a perfect illustration of the difference in priorities between
the two parties. The major health initiative of the opposite party,
when they were in power 2 years ago, was to repeal the Affordable Care
Act, which would have taken away healthcare from more than 20 million
Americans.
Yet, now the House, under Democratic leadership, is considering a
major priority on this side of the aisle, H.R. 3. A bill that,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, will save on drug costs
of $500 billion for the American people.
Now, there are many reasons why I support H.R. 3, and I am proud to
do so, but I want to highlight, especially, just one of them. This
legislation would generate $10 billion to fight the opioid crisis,
setting aside resources for the localities that have been impacted the
most. That includes many rural areas in our country, but it also
includes urban areas as well, especially in my district, in my hometown
of Philadelphia.
I am proud to stand here and support H.R. 3. This is one of the most
important things we can do for the American people: save prescription
drug costs.
Madam Chair, I urge its support.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Madam Chair, I am proud to stand before you and offer my
support for H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
One issue that has a significant impact on my constituents is the
skyrocketing cost of insulin. Across Pennsylvania, more than 1 million
people live with diabetes and can spend anywhere from $1,200 to $20,000
on insulin medication each year. Over the past decades, the price of
insulin has increased 197 percent.
When I think about the impact that these price hikes have on my
constituents, the first person that comes to my mind is a young man by
the name of Chase. Chase is from Philadelphia. He was diagnosed with
Type 1 diabetes at the age of 3. He came to my office not long ago.
Chase told me that he and his mother needed Members of Congress to do
something about the cost of insulin because he was worried about the
burden it was placing on his mother, even though his illness was
brought on through no fault of his own.
Chase walked me through each step of his journey with his illness. He
told me what he and his mother do on a daily basis to manage the
diabetes. He is strong in his message that we need to do something
about this rising cost. Chase is 10 years old. He did not choose this,
and neither did the other 30 million Americans across the country.
Under H.R. 3, there will be a reduction in insulin. It is important
that I stand with my colleagues today and support H.R. 3, which
includes my bill.
It is important that this bill will help seniors afford healthcare
costs by increasing the number of them who are eligible for the
Medicare Savings Programs. No one chooses to be sick, and no one
chooses illness for their children.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation. It is time to act.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, today the House is taking long overdue
action in fulfilling our promise to the American people to lower the
cost of prescription drugs. Medical research has fueled lifesaving
advancements in medicine, but these innovations remain out of reach for
too many due to exorbitantly high costs.
Tragically, 3 in 10 adults reported not taking their medicines as
prescribed at some point because of the cost. Even those who can afford
their prescriptions are charged prices many times higher than in other
developed countries. This is simply unacceptable.
H.R. 3 puts us on a path towards a more equitable healthcare system
where cost is no barrier to getting the care patients need. In
particular, I want to highlight my legislation, the Protecting Medicare
Beneficiaries with Preexisting Conditions Act, now included in H.R. 3
as Section 801.
More than 13 million beneficiaries have a supplemental insurance
policy known as Medigap. Medigap helps lower out-of-pocket costs, but
some 30 million more Americans are unable to buy a Medigap plan without
being charged more for a preexisting condition. Specifically, disabled
Americans under 65 and Medicare Advantage enrollees are not afforded
the same coverage guarantees as nearly every other American.
The Affordable Care Act rightly eradicated discrimination for
preexisting conditions in the individual market. We need to finally
right this wrong for Medicare beneficiaries as well, and that is
exactly what this bill does.
I look forward to this Chamber passing H.R. 3 to give more Americans
peace of mind when buying their insurance and standing at the pharmacy
counter. I hope all my colleagues on
[[Page H10111]]
both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Chair, the Republican alternative to Lower Cost, More Cures Act
is based on both parties working together. In fact, we were doing so
until Speaker Pelosi blew this up with H.R. 3, written in secret,
without any Republican input.
Our bill contains 36 different provisions that passed unanimously out
of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. Madam Chair, 17 provisions that passed out of the House of
Representatives also with bipartisan support; 28 different provisions
that passed out of 3 different Senate committees with bipartisan
support, and 21 of these provisions from the Grassley-Wyden Drug
Pricing Package.
When this partisan bill dies, H.R. 3, we Republicans will be ready to
take up these bipartisan measures because we agree--Democrats and
Republicans--we need to lower drug prices, and we need to accelerate
these cures.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Suozzi).
Mr. SUOZZI. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Neal for yielding me time.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. I think this is one
of the most important issues facing America today. The American people
are hungering for a solution to this problem.
On January 11, 2017, President-elect Trump said, when referring to
the pharmaceutical companies, ``these guys are getting away with
murder.''
For too long, Big Pharma has cashed in because our government, the
largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world, has been
prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices. Americans pay nearly
four times as much for prescription drugs as people in other countries.
H.R. 3 will finally give the United States Government the power to
negotiate lower prices. It will stop unjustified price hikes and put a
cap on Medicare part D beneficiary out-of-pocket costs.
The $500 billion in cost savings will be used to create historic
Medicare improvements, such as dental, vision, and hearing benefits.
This bill will also provide financial support for more Medicare
beneficiaries, will boost funding for scientific innovation, will
invest in community health centers, and will provide more money to
fight the opioid epidemic.
I thank Chairman Neal for also including a provision I wrote to help
protect seniors that will require Medicare prescription drug plans to
publicly disclose information about when beneficiaries are denied at
the pharmacy counter.
{time} 2015
I want to thank Congressman Reed for helping in that legislation. I
am honored to cosponsor this historic piece of legislation.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), one of our new members of the Ways
and Means Committee who is really thoughtful on healthcare.
Mr. ESTES. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a bill that
should be called the fewer cures and more government price controls
act.
My colleagues know this partisan bill is another that is dead on
arrival in the Senate, but it didn't have to be this way. I truly wish
that my colleagues across the aisle had not abandoned the good faith,
bipartisan negotiations on a realistic, workable solution to fix
soaring drug prices.
Instead, H.R. 3 was changed after it was passed out of committee to
please extreme voices on the left and become a giveaway for radical
policies.
Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said H.R. 3 will
result in fewer cures and fewer drugs coming to market, and current
drugs being pulled from the market.
That means that, while H.R. 3 may lower drug prices today, it comes
at the expense of fewer cures being developed in the future and more
government controls.
We should not be forced to choose between lower prices or less
innovation, just like no one should have to choose between paying for
groceries or paying for their medication.
We must address this issue. But instead of H.R. 3, I encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting an amendment before us based on
H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act.
This amendment, and the H.R. 19 bill, will use bipartisan reforms to
lower prices, protect access to new medications, strengthen
transparency with drug companies and PBMs, and allow competition to
thrive.
I know this will help people across our country, like a community
pharmacist I heard from in a rural area in my district. Unfortunately,
retroactive and unpredictable fees to PBMs totaling $45,000, just in
2018 alone, have left it hard for this business to stay afloat and to
serve patients in this rural community.
Unlike H.R. 3, our bipartisan solution will help give him and other
community pharmacists, particularly in rural areas, the needed
stability and predictability.
This is just one way today's amendment and H.R. 19 will help patients
lower their out-of-pocket-costs and help keep more cures coming to
market.
And furthermore, unlike H.R. 3, this measure could be passed and
delivered to the President's desk this year and provide real relief to
our seniors.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Horsford).
Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for his steadfast
leadership.
I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings
Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019.
I support this bill because of one of my constituents, Steven
Pastrone, who lives with multiple sclerosis. He shared: ``My whole
right side of my body was weaker than my left and I had a hard time
cognitively doing anything.''
Steven was not able to access his medication, which cost $35,000 per
treatment, more than many Nevadans earn annually, so he had to rely on
a cost-assistance program from the drug manufacturer.
So many people in our country are in Steven's position and cannot
access their lifesaving medications outright. Chairman Elijah Cummings
would say: ``We are better than that.''
My constituents who stop me at church and at recreation centers don't
tell me that they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent. They tell
me that they have diabetes; they have cancer; they have heart disease;
they have asthma; and they want this Congress to do something, to act.
So this week, we finally tell Americans across this country that we
value your health more than Big Pharma profits, and we will pass H.R.
3, to lower drug costs now.
I want to thank the chairman and the Members of this body, my
colleagues, for working so hard. This is one of the most important
issues that this Congress can act on, and I am proud to be a sponsor of
this important legislation.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared
to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Patients or politics--that is really the choice we have today when we
vote on these different drug pricing bills.
There is a path forward that chooses politics. This path takes a
partisan approach and throws away months of Republicans and Democrats
working together to lower drug prices.
Experts tell us this will delay or eliminate medical breakthroughs
and lifesaving cures for American families.
This piece of legislation is potentially unconstitutional, one that
leads to patient access restrictions while giving more power to foreign
bureaucrats to set prices for American patients right here.
And at what cost?
To save a few dollars in the short term for a dramatically worse
landscape in America that discourages science, research, and discovery.
So I think of Representative Kelly's young girl, Mattie Stuart, St.
Petersburg, Pennsylvania. She has a Facebook page, Mattie's Followers.
Go to that page. Understand how patients are waiting for us, for those
new cures.
[[Page H10112]]
I think of my friends in my neighborhood. We had a neighbor who died
from a rare brain cancer. I have another who is fighting a
glioblastoma; another neighbor, a very dynamic friend, who is now
struggling with Parkinson's; two friends who have died from ALS; and my
friends, acquaintances, coworkers who they or their parents struggle
with dementia and Alzheimer's.
This bill, from Speaker Pelosi, in my view, just rips hope, robs hope
from people waiting and praying for those cures. There is no way there
are not fewer cures.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to $1 trillion will
be taken away from research and science and revenues that are invested
in drugs and new discoveries.
Some say, well, the drug companies--and everyone seems to hate them--
but the drug companies can just not do as many ads, can just shift some
money around.
But let me put it in perspective. Drug companies could not spend a
dime on any advertisement for the next 25 years; they couldn't make up
what is taken from this bill.
We could zero out National Institutes of Health for a quarter
century. That is what $1 trillion in research and discovery investment
does.
You are in denial if you don't know there will be fewer cures--
whether it is 38, whether it is 100, whether it is something in
between. No one can tell us that cure that is lost won't be the one for
Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, or for cancer.
This is the path Republicans reject. We believe that is too high a
price to pay for this bill, because we think there is a bipartisan road
right in front of us that we can take together, one that chooses
patients and their needs. And I am convinced Democrats believe, with
us, that we can do both.
I believe, with goodwill and good ideas, we can do this Lower Costs,
More Cures Act. It sets out what Chairman Richie Neal and I set out to
do in February of this year. We wrote that now is ``the time to take
meaningful action to lower the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S.''
We said we are committed to working together to end this cycle while
preserving access to lifesaving innovations. I believe we can do that.
I believe the solution isn't in H.R. 3. That is as dead as can be. I
think the solution is H.R. 19 and working together to fine-tune it even
better by accelerating, not killing, lifesaving medical cures; by doing
what we have already said is bipartisan: driving out-of-pocket costs
down; expanding health savings accounts; deducting medical expenses;
letting people use their FHAs more; saving seniors by redesigning part
D; forcing drug companies to justify their increases, to pull that
curtain back on how they price those drugs; everyone along the system,
making them, forcing them to pay more of the drug burdens in Medicare
part D.
And together, we can tell families suffering from Alzheimer's, ALS,
Parkinson's, cancer, and so many other illnesses that we are committed
together to finding a cure.
My vote today will be on behalf of patients. It will be on behalf of
bipartisan solutions. It will be cast with the hope that a future cure
for cancer can be discovered and developed right here in America,
sooner rather than later.
I know my Republican colleagues will join with me in that fight as
well, and I ask my friends, my Democrat colleagues, to do the same.
Let me be clear on that. I think there are Democrats who have come
here to solve problems but find themselves boxed out by the Speaker's
top-down approach. My simple request is, join us in fighting for a
bipartisan solution, H.R. 19, no matter how you will eventually vote on
H.R. 3.
Send a signal that it is not too late for the Matties of the world.
It is not too late. We can deliver a bipartisan win for lower drug
prices and that cure we all pray for for our families and loved ones.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Addressing the rising cost of prescription drugs is a complicated
issue, as Mr. Brady has noted, and it needs a thoughtful approach. H.R.
3 is a critical step toward a long-term, sustainable solution.
A lot of hard work went into crafting this measure and, indeed,
bringing it to the floor. And there are a number of staff to thank.
From the Legislative Counsel's Office: Jessica Shapiro, Karl
Hagnauer, Lisa Castillo, Adam Schilt, Fiona Heckscher, James Grossman,
and Henry Christup.
From CBO: Tom Bradley--who, I might add, is retiring after long and
distinguished service, and we thank him for that--Paul Masi, Rebecca
Yip, Lara Robillard, Chad Chirico, Alice Burns, Stuart Hammond, Lori
Housman, Jennifer Gray, and Leo Lex.
From the Joint Committee on Taxation: Tom Barthold, Vivek
Chandrasekhar, Shelley Leonard, Chia Chang, Lin Xu, and James Elwell.
From CMS: Manda Newlin, Maia Larsson, Ira Burney, Lisa Yen, Jen
Druckman, Stacy Harms, Leigh Feldman, and Jenny Keroack.
And, of course, as always, I want to thank the staff of the Ways and
Means Committee, who, as usual, have worked tirelessly and effectively
on this legislation. The legislation before this House today is in no
small part because of their expertise and their commitment to improving
the healthcare for all members of the American family.
I thank Amy Hall, Sarah Levin, Melanie Egorin, Rachel Dolin, Orriel
Richardson, Neil Patil, and Morna Miller.
As we have heard today on the floor, there are a lot of views on how
to lower prescription drugs, and I am open to suggestions. One policy
is not going to be the final fix, but this legislation is an important,
impactful first step, and I welcome continued dialogue on both sides of
the aisle.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this historic
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Davids of Kansas). The time of the Committee on
Ways and Means has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
{time} 2030
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chair, I would first like to thank Chairman Neal, Chairman
Pallone, the Speaker of the House, and other Democratic leaders for
their leadership in lowering skyrocketing drug costs.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act is a historic
proposal to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. Not
only does this legislation lower drug costs for taxpayers and seniors
on Medicare, but it also reduces drug costs for businesses and families
across the country, allowing employer-sponsored plans to access the
same cost savings negotiated for Medicare.
In fact, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
H.R. 3 will save households and businesses more than $160 billion over
the next 10 years. In my district, this means savings for approximately
600,000 people in public and private health insurance programs.
H.R. 3 will save the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and
these savings will be reinvested in healthcare priorities. These
priorities include funding new cures through the National Institutes of
Health; funding community health centers, which serve 29 million
Americans across the country; and combating the opioid epidemic.
Simply put, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act will
lower prescription drug costs for workers today while investing in a
healthier future for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation and deliver on our bipartisan promise to lower
healthcare costs for the American people.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
All of us in this Chamber have heard the troubling stories of mothers
and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, friends, and colleagues who
suffer every day because they can't afford
[[Page H10113]]
their medications. That is why Congress started a collaborative and
bipartisan process to tackle this issue earlier this year.
In October, this bipartisan collaboration was cut abruptly short by
Speaker Pelosi with the introduction of H.R. 3, which was written in
secret without Member input or the regular committee process.
Instead of a bipartisan solution, we are left with H.R. 3, which is
nothing more than a Democrat downpayment on a government-run healthcare
system that would eliminate private insurance and implement government-
controlled rationing of prescription drugs.
I serve as the senior Republican on the Education and Labor
Committee. H.R. 3 is the latest string in a series of radical
Democratic bills that I have seen in the committee and in the House
that promote unprecedented government interference in private markets
and increased regulatory red tape. Proposals that can and should be
bipartisan, such as addressing the skills gap, pension reform, and now
drug pricing, are being rewritten by Democratic leadership, which is
held hostage by their most leftwing Members.
An amendment adopted during our committee markup proves just that
point. Representative Pramila Jayapal's amendment pushes this radical
bill even further to the left by requiring the Secretaries of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and the Treasury to study and issue
regulations on extending government price controls to private
healthcare plans.
The mandate for additional price controls suggested in this amendment
tells private companies how much they can increase their prices each
year or forces them to pay a fine. House Democrats aren't satisfied
with only setting prices in government programs, and they continue to
find ways to expand the already radical scope of H.R. 3 to the private
market as well.
Since the Education and Labor Committee markup, this issue has been a
key area of disagreement between moderate and progressive Democrats,
but Speaker Pelosi, yet again, caved to the demands of her Progressive
Caucus and agreed to keep the amendment in the final bill.
The flawed and extreme approach taken by H.R. 3 includes troubling
and unprecedented government interference in private market
negotiations. Governments don't negotiate; they dictate. So this
radical scheme will eliminate choice and competition and jeopardize
innovation, investment, and access to future cures.
Breakthrough cures for diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, sickle-cell
disease, and others will be at risk. In fact, if we pass H.R. 3, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says we could see up to
approximately 38 fewer cures for deadly diseases over the next 20
years, and the Council of Economic Advisers says up to 100 fewer cures
over the next 10 years.
If those estimates aren't concerning enough, just look at real-world
examples for proof. Countries that have adopted drug pricing systems
like those included in H.R. 3 face decreased access to innovative new
medicines, increased wait times for treatment, and supply shortages for
in-demand drugs.
Democratic supporters of this bill have said fewer cures in exchange
for government control prices is ``worth it.'' This is shameful.
Democrats may be okay with fewer cures. I am not, and neither are my
colleagues.
The American people deserve better from Congress. They deserve a real
solution that will lower the costs of prescription drugs without
jeopardizing access to new treatments and cures.
That is why House Republicans have introduced H.R. 19, the Lower
Costs, More Cures Act. This bill contains measures that have bipartisan
support in the House and the Senate, and it can become law this year.
Specifically, H.R. 19 will help lower out-of-pocket costs, protect
access to new medicines and cures, strengthen transparency and
accountability, and champion competition. Yet, House Democrats are
ignoring this bipartisan, commonsense legislation. Clearly, they prefer
politics over progress.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership on this issue.
Madam Chair, the Chamber can see the chart on my right, which was
prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
which shows that the American people pay far more for prescription
drugs than any other country in the world by wide, unacceptable
margins. Per capita, the United States spends 25 percent more on
prescription drugs than Switzerland, the country with the next highest
drug costs.
Specific examples of this outrageous disparity abound. A vial of
insulin in the U.S. is $300. The same vial in Canada is $32. In the
U.S., an EpiPen two-pack has a list price of $608, in the U.K., $69.
About one-quarter of Americans say that it is difficult for them to
afford their prescriptions. Seventy-nine percent of Americans think the
costs of prescription drugs is unreasonable. Approximately one-third of
Americans say they haven't taken their medicine as prescribed because
of trouble affording it.
This week, Congress will vote finally to use the leverage Medicare
has to get U.S. drug prices in line with the international price index
for developed countries whose standard of living is comparable to the
U.S. and whose life expectancy in many cases actually exceeds the U.S.
As CBO confirmed, this bill will save patients millions of dollars
and will ensure that this chart changes for the better.
Crucially, this bill is unique from other proposals by lowering drug
costs not just for Medicare but also for the 50 percent of Americans
who receive their health insurance through work.
This bill directs the Secretary of HHS to negotiate lower drug prices
and extends that price voluntarily to employer-sponsored health plans,
reducing the relentless increase in healthcare costs that is driving
premiums higher for large employers, small employers, and the self-
insured.
According to the Connecticut Department of Insurance, the portion of
healthcare premiums attributable to prescription drug coverage has
increased from 15 percent to 23 percent of every premium dollar since
2010, which eats up wages and salaries.
In a nutshell, this bill will put billions of dollars into the
pockets of working Americans and their families, at the same time not
using a limited formulary, at the same time preserving a research and
development tax credit, and at the same time boosting support for
pharmaceutical research at the National Institutes of Health.
This bill is the most significant healthcare proposal in a decade. It
is time for us to listen to the American people, who in 2018 listed
healthcare costs, specifically prescription drug care costs, as their
number one concern in exit polls in the highest voter turnout for a
midterm election since 1914. This is the bill that responds to that
loud signal from the American people. I urge passage of H.R. 3.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Americans want lower drug prices. I want lower drug prices. My
colleagues want lower drug prices.
We have been told tonight that H.R. 3 is the proper vehicle to
accomplish that goal. I regret to inform the body that it is not. H.R.
3 is not a bipartisan attempt to find common ground. Make no mistake
about it, it will not become the law of the land.
But for those of us who came to Congress to solve problems, there is
some good news. There is a better way.
H.R. 19, which was introduced by 111 of my colleagues and me this
week, is markedly better than H.R. 3, and it can become law. I want to
highlight four components of H.R. 19.
First, it would end abuse of the patent system, and it would end the
pay-for-delay agreements that allow generic manufacturers to actually
be paid by their competitors to keep drugs off the market.
Secondly, it would, for the first time ever, place a cap on seniors'
out-of-pocket drug costs. That is supported by 75 percent of Americans.
[[Page H10114]]
Third, it would establish a new negotiator within the Office of the
United States Trade Representative, allowing us to push back against
countries that expect that the U.S. should subsidize their drug costs.
Finally, it would increase transparency in the doctor's office and at
the pharmacy. That will be welcome news for the 90 percent of Americans
who want to see more transparency in the drug pricing system.
Madam Chair, with agreements this week on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada
Agreement and the National Defense Authorization Act, we have some
bipartisan momentum building in this town. Oh, my, perhaps it is a
Christmas miracle.
With that in mind, we should set aside the partisan H.R. 3 and
instead apply that reemerging bipartisan spirit to lowering drug
prices.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Davis), the distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor and chair of the Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Investment.
Ms. DAVIS of California. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I thank Chairman Scott for his leadership on this bill.
This bill is named after the late Congressman Elijah Cummings for his
great work fighting for affordable healthcare and prescription drugs.
He fought for people like a constituent of mine who wrote to me
regarding the absurdly high cost of insulin. He explained in this
letter that his brother had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, which
requires him to take an insulin injection four times a day. My
colleagues are probably familiar with that, people they know. A single
bottle of insulin costs $400. He tells me that some people skip
needles. Others let themselves stay at harmful blood sugar levels so
that they can make their insulin last longer.
Madam Chair, no one should have to suffer this indignity, especially
when in many places around the world, insulin is as low as $8.
With H.R. 3, Medicare will be able to negotiate drug prices for
seniors and beneficiaries, and our constituents won't be plagued by
such high costs for such a common drug.
{time} 2045
And thanks to this bill, the NIH will have more resources to
encourage more research and more experimentation. The savings can be
used for large projects and for new pilot initiatives to assist the
development of new cures and treatments, and this can really be
groundbreaking for all of us.
I supported this bill in committee because it boosts the economy by
saving both American workers and businesses billions of dollars. We all
know what that can mean.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the underlying
legislation.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
Mr. WRIGHT. Madam Chair, I thank Ms. Foxx for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3.
This Congress, we have seen on multiple occasions that Democrats and
Republicans are able to agree on and move powerful and beneficial
legislation when we put aside politics in favor of bipartisan
pragmatism.
Members on both sides of the aisle agree that rising drug prices are
a major concern for all Americans, and you would think we would be able
to deliver for the American people on this issue.
Unlike the radical bill before us, H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More
Cures Act, contains bipartisan solutions and has a real chance of being
signed into law. Sadly, we are wasting the taxpayers' time debating a
hapless Federal takeover of America's innovative biotech industry that
will result in more harm than good.
H.R. 3 represents the first step of a government takeover, all under
the guise of helping. But threatening companies is not helping;
restricting future cures is not helping; threatening the jobs of 89,000
Texans employed by the biotech industry is not helping.
This bill would slap manufacturers with a 95 percent excise tax for
not negotiating its prices with the Federal Government. That is not
negotiating; that is dictating.
Speaker Pelosi's price-setting legislation gives manufacturers a
stark choice: comply or exit the U.S. market entirely.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. Public officials
should do the same.
If one thing is clear to me, it is that H.R. 3 will absolutely do
harm. This bill has one assured outcome: the stifling of medical
innovation here in the United States.
Experts from the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of Economic
Advisers, and the California Life Sciences Association have all warned
of the disastrous impact H.R. 3 will have on future cures.
Specifically, they warned that up to a third of new cures could be lost
over the next 10 years.
Fortunately, we don't have to rely solely on expert estimates about
the impact of government price setting. We can look at the real-time
results in other countries.
Between 2011 and 2018, 89 percent of new treatments introduced were
available to Americans, compared to 62 percent in Germany and 60
percent in the United Kingdom.
We have seen, to the United States' benefit, the migration of R&D
activity from Europe in the aftermath of their price controls.
Now is not the time to slow down medical innovations in the United
States. We must stop this radical government overreach.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and Labor.
Ms. WILD. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Elijah E.
Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. In his name, the days of putting
profits over people must come to an end.
Madam Chair, to my colleagues across the aisle, why do they consider
this to be a partisan idea?
Drug companies owe a fiduciary duty to make profits for their
shareholders, but as Members of Congress, we have a much more important
shareholder: the American people.
When we try to pass good bills to drive down drug prices, Big Pharma
throws the weight of its lobby to kill them. They talk about innovation
and research and development without disclosing that they spend more on
marketing than they do on innovation, without disclosing that they
could lose $1 trillion in sales and still be the most profitable
industry.
One vial of insulin in America should not cost 10 times what it costs
in Canada. People like my constituents Danielle Thrapp and her son
Brandon should not have to worry about the price of insulin.
People like my constituent Mitchell Lenett shouldn't have to worry
whether his 14-year-old daughter Carly, who has type 1 diabetes, will
be able to afford her insulin when she is no longer on his health
insurance plan. That is why this bill is so important.
The Secretary of HHS must be able to negotiate lower drug prices for
the highest cost prescription drugs, something other countries with far
lower drug prices have long been able to do.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that H.R. 3 will lower
prices and increase the availability of prescription drugs. The CBO
score says that this bill will reduce Federal spending for Medicare by
at least $345 billion.
This will free up funding for some of our other priorities, like my
bill to increase funding for child abuse prevention and treatment
services and for expanding trauma-informed education practices in our
schools and for mental health services.
Madam Chair, I call on my colleagues to put people over profits,
finally, and pass this bill.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chair, as I travel across Michigan, I constantly hear about the
high cost of prescription drugs. Hardworking families are simply paying
too much.
We agree on this, and that is why we need to tackle this issue in a
bipartisan way, not try to score political points like, Madam Chair, I
am hearing tonight.
Sadly, H.R. 3 is a partisan, heavy-handed approach that has no chance
of becoming law.
[[Page H10115]]
Mr. Chair, let's be honest: Governments don't negotiate; they
dictate. This drug-pricing scheme will ultimately hurt families, stifle
innovation, and prevent lifesaving cures from becoming available to our
friends, our neighbors, our families.
Approximately 100 lifesaving drugs, according to the Council of
Economic Advisers, won't come to fruition if H.R. 3 passes.
Mr. Chair, I would dearly love to ask my colleagues: Which of those
cures would we do away with? Alzheimer's? Parkinson's disease?
Childhood cancers? Which ones would we give up for H.R. 3?
There is a better approach, a plan that is patient-focused and filled
with bipartisan provisions that enjoys support in the Senate, and, oh,
by the way, the President would sign. It would become law. It would
reduce the costs and increase innovation. It is H.R. 19, the Lower
Costs, More Cures Act.
Mr. Chair, this bill will strengthen transparency, encourage medical
breakthroughs, and make medications that families rely on more
affordable.
If the other side is serious, Mr. Chair, about getting something
done, then we should be voting on the Lower Costs, More Cures Act this
week and move it forward for our people and provide cures at lower
cost--and many more than the other countries that you are talking about
tonight.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor, who, prior to her service in
Congress, was a practicing physician.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chair, I thank everyone who worked so hard on the
Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act.
As so many of my colleagues have said already, this is a
groundbreaking bill.
Medicare is the biggest purchaser of medications in the world, and it
should absolutely have the power to negotiate costs, and we should not
continue to pay three to four times more than the rest of the world for
our medications.
With negotiation, this bill saves hundreds of billions of dollars,
and we are going to use that money well. Part is for research, but one
of the ways is my bill, included in H.R. 3, that requires Medicare to
cover vision care.
Medicare part B covers cataract surgery and yearly glaucoma tests,
but it does not cover routine eye exams, glasses, or contact lenses,
and this is a tremendous gap in coverage for our seniors.
We want to make sure seniors can live independently for as long as
possible, and part of this is making sure they can see well enough to
drive to appointments, walk safely around the house, and carefully read
their prescription bottles. Also, poor vision can limit physical
activity and increase isolation, leading then to deteriorating health.
As a doctor, I am concerned about the number of older Americans who
have not had an eye exam in well over a year and might have undiagnosed
eye conditions. By expanding Medicare part B to cover vision care, we
will ensure that older Americans will be able to access affordable
care.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chair, I thank Ms. Foxx for yielding me time.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3.
While we can all agree that Americans pay too much for healthcare and
that the rising cost of prescription medicine needs to be addressed,
H.R. 3 is not the bill to accomplish those goals.
Traveling across Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, I have
met with patients and medical professionals who have told me that the
best way to address rising prescription drug costs include patient
reforms that will include patent reform to get generics to market
faster, price transparency so consumers know the actual cost of the
medication they are purchasing, and incentivizing innovation to help
find new cures.
Contrary to these goals, H.R. 3 would turn a blind eye to good
bipartisan work done on this issue throughout 2019 that can provide
real savings for our seniors and our families.
H.R. 3 would lead to more government control over a private industry,
putting this country on the road to socialized medicine. And H.R. 3
would lead to fewer cures, with some estimates saying up to 100 fewer
cures would be found as a result of this legislation.
Mr. Chair, we have a bipartisan plan that has the support of doctors
and patients alike. H.R. 19 would provide for more cures, create price
transparency, and get generics to market faster.
These are bipartisan solutions backed by doctors and pharmacists in
Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and across our country.
While Americans struggle to pay for the high cost of prescription
drugs, we have real legislation that can help solve this real problem.
We should not be wasting our time debating something that harms
Americans by providing fewer cures and will never become law.
Mr. Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this socialist
fantasy in H.R. 3 and encourage us to work on the real bipartisan
solutions in H.R. 19.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor and a former National Teacher of
the Year.
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Elijah E. Cummings
Lower Drug Costs Now Act, a bill that would take power wielded and
weaponized by massive drug companies and put it back in the hands of
the American people.
It is beyond unacceptable that families in my district and around the
country are price gouged at the pharmacy counter and forced to make the
impossible decision to either pay for their medication or put food on
their table.
H.R. 3 will save my constituents in Connecticut's Fifth suffering
from diseases like diabetes, asthma, and arthritis, hundreds--even
thousands--of dollars per year.
{time} 2100
But perhaps the thing I am most proud of in H.R. 3 is that it
includes a bill that I sponsored, the Supporting Trauma-Informed
Education Practices Act. This bill will put drug companies who share
responsibility for the opioid crisis on the hook for part of the
solution.
My bill would direct $100 million of the savings from drug pricing
negotiations to grants that would improve trauma support services and
mental healthcare for children and schools.
As a Member of Congress who has spent a career in the classroom, I
have seen the painful reality of too many schools having too few
counselors and psychologists to tackle the complex needs of students
suffering from abuse, neglect, and trauma.
We need to commit to investing and implementing ongoing supports and
wraparound services for every student who is affected, for every
student who has faced loss or has been separated from their parents as
a result of the opioid crisis.
Drug companies are prioritizing profits over human lives in their
cruel business calculus. Communities like Waterbury, Litchfield, and
New Britain in my district desperately need help to fight this opioid
crisis, which mirrors the crisis that consumers are currently facing
with rising drug costs.
I am proud that this bill also includes legislation I cosponsored
that would lower drug costs for some of the most vulnerable members of
the population.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Levin of California). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from
Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. HAYES. The bill would also save older adults with limited
incomes money and improve access to their needed medications.
Mr. Chairman, my constituents cannot wait for change. Patients in
rural communities cannot wait for change. The 22,000 Connecticut
residents diagnosed with cancer each year cannot wait for change. The
student in Meriden who has suffered as a victim of the opioid crisis
cannot wait for change.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that our
constituents need us. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R.
3.
[[Page H10116]]
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I also rise to speak against H.R. 3.
To me, there are two segments of society in which the costs have gone
out of control and are really broken. One is the secondary education
system, and the other is the medical situation.
It is not surprising that the two areas that prices have spun out of
control since I was a child are two areas in which the government has
been most involved; and, therefore, we should be very measured before
we become involved in a lot more government prescription or mucking
around the medical industry.
And I say that as somebody who is no friend of the drug companies. I
think their behavior has become absolutely deplorable.
Nevertheless, we have to remember that, when it comes to new drugs
right now on the market, other countries have a lot less access than we
do in America. In that regard, America is still number one.
Only 36 percent of the new drugs are allowed into Australia, 46
percent in Canada, and under 60 percent in the U.K. We are still the
envy of people in other parts of the world there.
Of new cancer drugs launched in the last 8 years, 95 percent are
available in the United States, 74 percent in the U.K., and less than
50 percent in Japan.
The thing to remember which is so frequently true: Government
involvement can be good, but a lot of times government involvement can
make things worse.
The next frustrating thing about this bill is there are good things
that both sides could agree on and could pass right away.
We have heard a lot about H.R. 19 right now. One of their folks was
talking about the high cost of insulin. We are doing things, or people
would do things in H.R. 19, to rush more biosimilars to insulin to the
market. They could have that victory tomorrow.
But, for some reason, rather than vote on a bill they know will pass
and will do a great deal to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, the
other side has elected to bring forth a bill that they know will not
pass, which comes down to the third point I am going to make: Why are
they not passing a bill that would collect the vast majority of
Republicans in the House and has a good chance of passing the Senate
and being signed by President Trump?
I reluctantly conclude that, one more time, they don't want to have a
victory in these 2 years, for whatever motivation. And that is truly
sad because these drug costs are out of control, and there are
victories that can be taken today.
But instead of passing a bill, given political reality, that can be
brought to the floor, they will pass a bill on the House floor that
they know is going to go nowhere in the Senate and that they know is
going to delay the relief that people need.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from
Wisconsin an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GROTHMAN. They know it will delay that relief for at least
another year.
I have a bill I am going to talk about, myself, a little bit later.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, I just want to comment about a letter that we received
from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
This letter states, in part: ``Enactment of H.R. 3 is needed because:
``It directs our government to stand on the side of all Americans and
protect us from price gouging by directly negotiating for lower
prescription drug prices.
``It creates a new $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drugs
for people on Medicare.
``It reinvests Federal savings into much-needed new Medicare benefits
to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
``The cost of inaction is too high. It is calculated in the suffering
of individuals who are forced to ration their medicines or choose
between buying medicines or paying for housing and groceries.
Prescription drug companies must be made accountable. We urge you to
send a clear message that Congress is on the side of all Americans by
directing the government to directly negotiate for lower prescription
drug prices. Please vote in support of H.R. 3.''
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3.
Every single person in our country deserves lower prescription drug
prices. Congress needs to act. But the bill on the floor today is not
the answer.
With this legislation, my colleagues across the aisle have decided
that, once again, government should be in the business of healthcare,
picking winners and losers, taxing lifesaving cures, and ignoring that
private innovation is the main driver in advancing healthcare.
House Republicans have a bipartisan solution, one which will deliver
the transparency, affordability, and predictability we need: H.R. 19,
the Lower Costs, More Cures Act.
With this bill, we can make sure that every person--the parents of a
newborn baby, a young adult with a chronic illness, a coal miner coping
with black lung disease, or a senior citizen taking their daily pills--
has access to the drugs they need at the affordable, predictable prices
they deserve.
We need the innovators to be at the forefront of creating new, better
drugs to improve quality of life for all Americans in need. H.R. 19
delivers this. We can have it all. That is why I oppose H.R. 3.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chair, I want to comment on a letter we received from the AFL-
CIO, a legislative alert. It says, in part, that ``3 in 10 adults
report that they were unable to take their medicines as prescribed at
some point in the past year because of the cost, often worsening their
medical condition, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet
according to AARP, the average annual cost of prescription drugs rose
nearly 58 percent between 2012 and 2017. Prices in 2019 increased for
3,400 drugs on the market, with an average price increase of 10.5
percent, a rate roughly five times the inflation rate. . . . `'
``The Lower Drug Prices Now Act takes bold action to address this
relentless rise in drug prices. . . . `'
``H.R. 3 reinvests the estimated $500 billion in Federal savings in
historic improvements to Medicare benefits and other important
healthcare programs. Medicare part D prescription drug coverage is
substantially improved by the addition of a $2,000 out-of-pocket
maximum. Medicare benefits are further expanded by the inclusion of
vision, dental, and hearing benefits. To help low-income seniors, the
legislation expands subsidy eligibility to make premiums and out-of-
pocket costs more affordable.
``Other investments in healthcare include $7.7 billion to support
community responses to the opioid crisis and $10 billion for National
Institutes of Health biomedical research toward the discovery of
breakthrough drug therapies.
``The Lower Drug Prices Now Act will provide crucial assistance to
working families who are currently unable to afford the medicines they
need, while simultaneously making important investments to address
other healthcare priorities. We urge you to vote for this bill.''
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in
opposition to H.R. 3.
As a practicing surgeon for the last 30 years, I believe I give
somewhat of a unique perspective on the unbearable high price of
prescription drugs, an issue that all Americans can agree upon.
I have seen patients and continue to see patients who simply cannot
afford their medications. We all agree on this problem. Unfortunately,
however, H.R. 3 is, while well intentioned, a poorly executed solution.
[[Page H10117]]
Healthcare economics are unique, a fact that many here do not
realize. Price controls do not work in healthcare. There is evidence to
show that, in countries that implement price controls, only a fraction
of medicines that come to market are actually available.
I should know. I have worked across the globe. I have worked in
places where I have tried to prescribe medications that I thought were
best for patients, only to have government prevent me from doing so.
In Australia, for example, only 36 percent of new drugs released
between 2011 and 2018 were available. Canada and the United Kingdom
hardly fared better with 46 and 59 percent.
The American public does not deserve to be shortchanged.
In my 30 years as a practicing surgeon, I have seen new drugs and
treatments become available that 20, 10, and even 5 years ago patients
could have only dreamed of. But curative therapies do not occur
overnight. They occur by innovative and dedicated scientists who
continue to be on the cutting edge of research and development.
Yet it takes financial risks to develop these drugs. At present, less
than 1 in 100 drugs that are being discovered actually ever come to
market.
H.R. 3 will gut companies with a 95 percent tax if they do not
succumb to the government's strong-arm negotiation.
As a urologist, I can personally attest to the leaps and bounds that
have been made in drugs that treat advanced prostate cancer. In just
the last 5 years, more progress has been made in metastatic prostate
cancer than in the preceding 70 years. I can now talk to patients about
outliving their cancers rather than succumbing to them.
We can control drug costs. H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act,
is a much better path. We should cut the billions spent on direct-to-
consumer advertising or the billions spent on pharmacy benefit
managers. We need a surgical approach to cure this disease, not a
heavy-handed hatchet job by an overreaching government.
H.R. 19 leads to decreased costs while, at the same time, providing a
pathway for the cures that so many patients desperately seek.
{time} 2115
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I will point out that the question of availability of drugs in the
United States came up at a hearing we had on this legislation. It was
pointed out that the target negotiated price will be approximately 120
percent of the international average. That is a lot better than the
two, three, five, as much as 60 times higher Americans are paying for
the same drugs here than in other countries.
At that price, at 120 percent, that will be the highest price, and we
will be the biggest market. They certainly won't take a drug away from
the biggest market paying the highest price, so we don't have to worry
about availability.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, House Democrats have once again decided to pursue
politics over progress and advance a radical drug pricing scheme that
will eliminate choice and competition, and jeopardize innovation,
investment, and access to future cures, putting breakthrough treatments
for diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, sickle-cell, and others at risk.
As many as 100 lifesaving drugs--and that needs to be repeated, Mr.
Chairman, as many as 100 lifesaving drugs--could be kept from Americans
desperately in need because of Speaker Pelosi's socialist drug-pricing
scheme. This is unacceptable.
We shouldn't be pursuing policies that will harm the health and well-
being of American patients, and we shouldn't destroy a system that
allows the U.S. to lead the world in new cures and treatments.
Bottom line, this radical legislation offers fewer cures, and
American families will suffer because of it.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this seriously flawed
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chair, last year, Congress made a promise to lower skyrocketing
drug costs and strengthen our healthcare system for Americans. H.R. 3,
the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, delivers on that
promise. The legislation not only lowers the costs of prescription
drugs for taxpayers and those enrolled in Medicare, but it also lowers
the costs for workers, businesses, and families.
It improves the quality of healthcare by expanding Medicare benefits
to include vision, dental, and hearing benefits, and it limits the out-
of-pocket copays and deductibles to $2,000.
It strengthens public health by investing in community health
centers, and it provides historic funding for evidence-based student
trauma services and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Both
of these initiatives will help support children who have suffered abuse
or trauma related to substance use disorder and the opioid crisis.
The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act is a long-overdue
step to improve healthcare and the lives of Americans across the
country, both today and for decades to come.
Again, I thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Neal, Speaker Pelosi, and
other Democratic leaders for bringing this legislation to the floor,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this priority for the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the Committee on Education and Labor
has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Hayes) having assumed the chair, Mr. Levin of California, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3)
to establish a fair price negotiation program, protect the Medicare
program from excessive price increases, and establish an out-of-pocket
maximum for Medicare part D enrollees, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________