Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include the following polling reality study in the Record, which shows that once Americans learn the details of the so-called Medicare negotiation, which is price setting, that their choices and access to lifesaving cures will be limited, public support for negotiation plummets. Analysis: Americans Don't Support Surrendering Innovation for Democrats' Drug Price Controls Democrats are selling their socialist drug pricing scheme as a way to lower prices, but Americans oppose it once they learn that this kills cures and life-improving treatments. What they aren't telling you is this: Their drug price control scheme will kill innovation, mean fewer new treatments and cures, and a loss of jobs in the biopharma industry. Once Americans learn about these consequences they reject it outright. Furthermore, this isn't a ``negotiation''-- Democrats' proposal has Washington dictate prices under threat of exorbitantly higher taxes on medical innovators. Key Takeaways: The vast majority of Americans oppose government negotiation if it results in fewer new medicines being developed in the future A 50-state Morning Consult/PhRMA poll shows two thirds of Americans oppose price controls if they put the government in charge and take away power from doctors to prescribe medicines that best meet the needs of patients. The Kaiser Family Foundation also finds that Democrats' price control scheme drops in popularity the moment respondents see that it could lead to less research and development of new drugs or limit access to newer prescription drugs. A March 2022 Ipsos/PhRMA poll reveals only 14 percent of Americans support Washington price controls if they limit their access to newer prescription medicines. Even if it ``only'' delays access, only 15 percent support the proposal then. The same poll shows that seniors are even more skeptical-- 10 percent support the price controls when they learn of how it delays people's access to new medicines. Numerous studies show the proposal would kill new treatments, including a University of Chicago study that shows the number going up to 342 Democrats' price-fixing scheme would kill up to 342 cures, according to a study by the University of Chicago, yet they claim it's merely a ``negotiating'' approach that would lower the price of drugs. A new study from Vital Transformation finds that if drug price controls under consideration in the Senate had been enacted during the last decade, only six of 110 currently approved therapies would have made it to patients. Loss of innovation = a death sentence for patients. Looking at CMS drug utilization data from 2016 to 2020 of the types of drugs expected to be most impacted by Democrats' price fixing, even the most conservative estimates of innovation lost from these policies could have left over 42 million patients without the medicine they needed. Surrendering in the fight against cancer: The Council of State Bio Associations writes that socialist drug price controls will get in the way of the fight against cancer: ``In oncology alone, the University of Chicago found that price controls would reduce overall annual cancer R&D spending by about $18.1 billion, or 31.8 percent.'' They continue: ``The specter of government price setting threatens to undermine a sector that has created over 1.8 million jobs across all 50 states and that represents a large portion of our nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP)-- generating an economic output of approximately $2.6 trillion annually.'' Limiting patients' access to low-cost medicines: Back in March, medical innovators wrote to Congress that ``The untested approach in the House-passed Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) does not address these challenges and could in fact harm future savings from generic and biosimilar medicines. The Build Back Better Act's approach to direct negotiations in Medicare and inflation-based penalties, as passed by the House, would alter the incentive for generic and biosimilar manufacturers to develop new medicines [. . .] and is misguided and would limit patients' access to low-cost medicines.'' The Bipartisan Solution That Works: The Lower Costs, More Cures Act (H.R. 19) lowers costs for all prescription drugs Every provision in H.R. 19 is bipartisan. It will lower health care costs and ensure America leads in health care innovation for more cures and treatments. It gives patients more drug price transparency and ensures public disclosure of drug costs and discounts. It increases low-cost options by bringing more generic and biosimilar competition to the marketplace fast. It caps seniors' out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $50 per month. It allows high deductible health insurance plans to cover insulin before the deductible kicks in. A new large-scale survey of 20,000 Americans covering all 50 states and 435 Congressional districts shows a majority of Americans find health care coverage costs unreasonable and a priority health care issue for policymakers to address today. The survey also shows that a majority of voters in every state and district oppose Medicare ``negotiation'' once they learn the policy could harm access and innovation. Here are the key findings from the survey: A majority of Americans in every state and the District of Columbia oppose government ``negotiation'' as a way to address health care costs if it could: Take away power from doctors to prescribe the medicines that best meet the needs of their patients, and instead put the government in charge of those decisions--on average 66% oppose. Limit people's access to newer prescription drugs--on average 64% oppose. Reduce access to medicines for seniors and people with disabilities--on average 62% oppose. Americans concerned with rising health care costs believe Congress should prioritize reducing the overall cost of coverage: 30% of Americans, on average, are concerned with out-of- pocket costs not covered by insurance and 29% are concerned with the cost of health insurance premiums. 66% of Americans, on average, believe Congress should focus on reducing the overall cost of health care coverage, (23% of Americans want them to focus on prescription drug costs, and 13% don't know enough to say). 66% of Americans from all states and Congressional districts, on average, find their out-of-pocket health care costs ``unreasonable.'' Americans are clear in their opposition to so-called Medicare ``negotiation'' policies. They want Congress to focus on patient-centered solutions that address the real health care issues they face, like rising out-of-pocket costs and health insurance premiums, while preserving access, innovation and choice. Learn how at PhRMA.org/BetterWay.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following article by Americans for Tax Reform, which debunks the Inflation Reduction Act by describing the top five budget gimmicks in this bill, showing over $330 billion in fake savings, more than the so-called deficit reduction in the bill. 5 Gimmicks in Democrats' Reconciliation Bill Democrats' reconciliation bill, improperly named the ``Inflation Reduction Act,'' contains numerous gimmicks designed to deceive voters and circumvent congressional rules. This bill uses several budget gimmicks: a short extension of Obamacare subsidies, a repeal of the ``rebate rule'' that never has nor never will go into effect, and supersizing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ``solve'' an overstated tax gap, This bill attempts to circumvent the Byrd rule by erroneously calling a mandate ``a tax.'' The bill would also violate President Biden's tax pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. 1. The Obamacare subsidies in this bill are only extended until 2025, despite expectations that they will be extended again. In the American Rescue Plan (ARP), President Biden and congressional Democrats expanded Obamacare subsidies-- specifically the advanced refundable premium tax credit--by increasing benefits for households at every income level and expanding them to households earning more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Because these enhanced benefits are set to expire later this year, Democrats are attempting to extend them through 2025 in this legislation. Once these expanded subsidies have been in place for five years total, it will be extremely difficult to get rid of them. Given the high likelihood--and expectation--that these subsidies will be extended once they're set to expire again, the three-year extension is a clear gimmick. If the expanded subsidies were extended indefinitely, the 10-year budget deficit reduction falls from $248 billion to $89 billion, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. 2. The bill repeals the ``rebate rule,'' despite the fact that it was never going into effect. Under the Trump administration, the HHS released the rebate rule which sought to lower drug prices by altering payments from drugmakers to pharmacy benefit managers. The Trump administration never went through with this rule nor has the Biden administration taken it back up again (to be clear, they never will). Even so, Democrats claim the repeal would reduce the deficit by $120 billion. Clearly, it would not. Already, between the likely extension of Obamacare subsidies and this rebate rule, the bill doesn't actually reduce the deficit at all. 3. The IRS would be supersized to solve an overstated ``tax gap.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that $80 billion in additional funding to the IRS would increase tax revenue by $125 billion. While increasing tax enforcement would certainly raise more money from unsuspecting small businesses, the Left has assumed that this can and will be done through increased enforcement on the wealthy. In reality, wealthy individuals and large corporations are almost always tax compliant. The wealthy and large corporations already have armies of lawyers and accountants that ensure they legally take advantage of the plethora of credits and deductions offered by the tax code. Further, the IRS already audits the largest corporations at high rates. It doesn't matter how much more the agency receives in funding-- they will not find violations in the law that do not exist. Thus, the IRS won't find much more revenue from their big targets. Additional funding will instead be used for invasive, time- consuming, and non-fruitful audits of middle-class Americans and small businesses. The IRS previously announced a goal to increase small business audits by 50 percent. As previously reported by CNBC, experts say a fattened-up IRS would go after small businesses that necessarily depend on cash transactions. 4. The bill implements price controls through a 95 percent tax, The bill would give the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to ``negotiate'' the price of prescription drugs on behalf of Medicare. By ``negotiation,'' Democrats mean drug manufacturers will pay a 95 percent excise tax on prescription drug profits unless they accept price controls set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In 2023, the Secretary would be able to determine the prices of 10 prescription drugs. The determined price would go into effect in 2026. The number of drugs the HHS Secretary could set prices for would then increase to 15 in 2028 and 20 in 2029. That tax itself is forecasted to raise zero revenue. Neither the JCT analysis nor any independent analyses estimate that any company would pay this exorbitant tax. A 95 percent ``tax'' on revenue is just a stick to enforce a mandate for government price controls. This is a way to circumvent the Byrd rule, which requires that all the provisions in a reconciliation bill directly change federal spending or revenue. While a tax is obviously protected under this rule, it's not clear that mandates of this kind are. 5. The reconciliation bill raises taxes on those making less than $400,000, violating President Biden's tax pledge. Throughout the ten-year window, the JCT estimates that nearly every single income group will see their taxes raised. Those Americans making less than $200,000 will see their taxes raised by nearly $17 billion. For those making between $200,000 and $500,000 (as the JCT doesn't cut off brackets at $400,000), their taxes would increase by another $14 billion. Senate Finance Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) rightly points out that at least half of all new tax revenue raised by this bill would come from those earning under $400,000. Clearly, this tax hike violates President Biden's pledge not to raise one penny of taxes on any American earning less than $400,000 per year. If Biden and Harris want to keep their pledge, they must veto the bill or instruct Democrats to change the bill.

Mr. BRADY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, on behalf of many diabetes patients, I include the following article in the Record, which includes a quote from my fellow Texan, Representative Lloyd Doggett, where he accurately states that the insulin caps policy included in this bill ``does not lower the price of insulin by one penny,'' but, rather, shifts costs to others. Insulin Copay Cap Passes House Hurdle, But Senate Looks for a Broader Bill (By Michael McAuliff) The chances of passing election-year legislation to help people afford insulin--which weeks ago seemed mired in political fighting--are looking brighter as a bipartisan effort to tackle the issue takes root in the Senate. That effort is still in the early stages, but it is moving forward with the support of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who tapped Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to craft a compromise that members of both parties could accept. Adding pressure to the Senate's efforts was a vote by the House on March 31 to pass a different bill that caps out-of-pocket insulin costs for many patients with insurance at $35 a month. Collins said in an interview March 30 that the two senators had come up with an outline based on a bill they worked on three years ago that goes beyond capping what diabetes patients pay and aims to bring down the prices drugmakers charge. ``It tackles the broader issue of the high list price for insulin, and the conflicts of interests that occur in the chain from manufacturer to the consumer buying it at the pharmacy counter,'' Collins said. The idea of reducing patients' out-of-pocket insulin costs is immensely popular, and more than half of the public sees it as a ``top priority'' for Congress, according to a KFF poll out last week. It had been a key selling point of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan, but when that legislation stalled, Biden and Schumer gave Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) an open lane to promote a stand-alone measure identical to the House bill that caps insulin costs at $35 a month for people with private insurance and Medicare coverage. The political climate, however, presented roadblocks. The odds that a bill sponsored by a Democrat facing a tough reelection in the fall could get enough Republicans in the Senate on board seemed slim, and even some Democrats were nervous about stripping the insulin provisions from a possible revised version of the Build Back Better bill. So Schumer embraced a different option from Collins and Shaheen that would include a cap on out-of-pocket costs and possibly draw more votes. Insulin prices have spiked dramatically since the early 2000s, with Americans paying 10 times what people in other developed countries pay. Although Collins said details are still being worked out, her legislation would be based on the pair's earlier bill, the Insulin Price Reduction Act of 2019, which aimed to roll insulin costs back to what they were in 2006. It would have done that by barring rebate payments for insulin to pharmacy benefit managers--those intermediaries who negotiate price breaks for insurance companies and determine which drugs the insurance plans cover. Collins and other critics of PBMs believe they inflate prices because they favor higher-priced drugs from which they can extract a larger rebate and therefore more profit, which gives drugmakers extra incentive to raise list prices. Under that 2019 plan, drug manufacturers who agreed to return to 2006 costs could then raise prices each year only at the rate of medical inflation. The senators estimated the plan would lead to a 75 percent cut in prices from those listed in 2020. ``There's a very complex system which essentially encourages high list prices, because the pharmacy benefit managers frequently receive a percentage of the list price,'' Collins said. ``So their incentive is to choose one that is higher-cost. And so we are trying to address that broader issue, as well as looking at the out-of-pocket costs.'' Warnock's proposal to cap the cost of insulin is silent on list prices and benefit managers, an omission some Democrats complained about even as they voted for the similar bill in the House. They noted that since insurers would likely be forced to absorb the costs no longer paid by patients, the companies would likely raise premiums. ``This bill does not lower the price of insulin by one penny,'' said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas). ``It just shifts the burden of paying for the insulin off of the shoulders of insured insulin users, and shifts it on to the rest of all of us who are paying insurance premiums.'' Collins also noted that the uninsured would not benefit from the House cap, which applies to Medicare and insurance companies but doesn't affect drugmakers' prices. ``It doesn't help someone who's uninsured,'' Collins said. ``When you address the high list price, then it's going to help more people.'' Collins warned that much could change as lawmakers keep working with various stakeholders on a final bill, including diabetes advocacy groups, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Congressional Budget Office. And as caps on out-of-pocket expenses and list-price changes start interacting, things get complicated, indeed. ``We're talking to CBO, which says it's so complex that they need a new model,'' Collins said. The politics also remains tricky. Collins and Shaheen never got their measure close to the Senate floor in 2019 and 2020 when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was majority leader. They did attract some praise from both sides of the aisle, and conservative North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer was a co-sponsor. While that opens the door to GOP support, Collins said she was still only at the stage of circulating among her colleagues what she called a discussion draft. Republicans in the House who voted against the $35-cap bill panned it as a political stunt, saying Democrats should have advanced ideas that had been worked on with Republicans. Such objections could not block the bill in the House. But in the Senate, Democrats command only 50 votes, and it would take 60 to pass the legislation. Although GOP members of the upper chamber might also be opposed to Warnock's bill, one of the House sponsors argued that having the House advance a dramatic cut in insulin costs--with the support of only a dozen Republicans--would raise the stakes for the Senate. ``If 10 Republicans stand between Americans being able to get access to insulin or not, that's a good question for 10 Republican [senators] to have to answer when they go back home,'' Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) said ahead of the House vote. ``So we're gonna pass this bill, and this will put the pressure on the Senate to act.'' He and his fellow Democratic co-sponsors also signaled their willingness to take a measure that included the Shaheen and Collins additions. ``Any train that's leaving the station that gets folks affordable insulin--I'm open to any vehicle,'' Kildee said. ``We think this is a solution that would work. How it gets to the president's desk, I'm agnostic on that question. Any way we can get it there.''

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, on behalf of seniors who rely on generic drugs, I include in the Record the following letter from generic and biosimilar manufacturers, which explains the price controls in this Democrat bill will reduce competition from lower-cost generic and biosimilar medicines. That means fewer options for patients and worsening drug shortages. The Biosimilars Council, Washington, DC, July 11, 2022. Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Leader Schumer: The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) and its Biosimilars Council share in the goal of lowering prescription drug costs for America's patients and seniors. However, in an effort to target high prices on brand-name drugs, the proposed prescription drugs reforms--in particular the Medicare negotiations framework--being considered as part of a revised reconciliation package will reduce patient savings from lower-cost generic and biosimilar medicines. Even though competition from generic and biosimilar medicines is the only proven solution to consistently lower the cost of prescription drugs, the proposed price setting scheme will reduce competition, harm future savings from generic and biosimilar medicines, and increase costs for employers and patients with private insurance. We thus urge all U.S. Senators to oppose the prescription drug reforms under consideration as part of a revised Build Back Better reconciliation package. America's patients rightfully expect Congress to address the ever-increasing prices of brandname prescription drugs. High launch prices on new brand biologics, combined with an increasing trend of anti-competitive patent and rebate ploys designed to delay or prevent competition from more affordable biosimilars and generics, are keeping access to medicines out of reach for too many patients. These dynamics are compounded by flawed policies that reward health plans and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for the use of high-cost, high-rebate brand drugs and that allow plans and PBMs to raise out-of- pocket costs for generics, even as the prices for those same generics are falling. As a result, patients, including Medicare's seniors, are missing out on billions of dollars in savings from biosimilars and generic drugs each year. However, the proposed price setting approach fails to adequately address these challenges, while dampening future competition and reducing savings from generic and biosimilar medicines. Negotiations Framework Increases Uncertainty for Generic and Biosimilar Developers The proposal increases the risks associated with developing generic and biosimilars without addressing the fundamental barriers to competition from lower-cost medicines, such as abuses of the patent system and brand rebate traps. The proposed timelines for when the Secretary can initiate the price setting process will significantly increase the risk to develop new lower-cost generics and biosimilars. Although the proposal exempts drugs with generic or biosimilar competition from the price setting process, the bill only does so through unrealistic timelines for that competition to enter the market. For many complex generics and biosimilars, it can take 8-10 years to develop new, more affordable medicines. And it can take many more years to conclude patent litigation and then launch a complex generic or biosimilar medicine. But the new price setting process would not begin until years after a developer commits to developing a lower-cost generic or biosimilar. This means that generic and biosimilar manufacturers will have no way to know whether a brand-name drug will be selected for negotiation or what the negotiated price may be. This dynamic fundamentally changes the ability of generic and biosimilar manufacturers to plan and make investment decisions that can be up to and exceed $250 million per drug. While the revised bill includes a provision that could allow for a temporary delay of the negotiated price if the Secretary determines a biosimilar launch was imminent, there are a number of limitations on the provision make it difficult to utilize. By way of example, a biosimilar developer would need to show a ``high likelihood'' of biosimilar competition by a ``clear and convincing'' evidentiary standard. Moreover, the narrow two-year window to launch does not appropriately account for how long it takes developers to challenge brand-name patents. Large patent estates and time-consuming patent litigation are currently and will continue to prevent biosimilars from being able to launch within two years of receiving FDA approval. These dynamics will likely deter manufacturers from making investments in biosimilar and generic medicines in some instances--and will result in less competition and ultimately higher costs for patients. Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Savings Exceeds Potential from Negotiations Framework After years of high-risk investment, biosimilar developers are poised to deliver tremendous savings to the U.S. health care system, improving access for patients and lowering prescription drug costs. New biosimilars are expected to launch for a range of treatments for patients with diabetes, arthritis, macular degeneration, oncology and more. In the next few years, 42 biosimilars are on track to launch. Gold-standard data firm IQVIA estimates biosimilar savings of $30 billion annually as a result. In comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the negotiations framework saves $18-24 billion per year from 2028 to 2031. Thus, more savings is projected from market- based competition than from the Build Back Better proposal and it starts now. In addition, as more complex generics, biosimilars, and interchangeable biologics become available, there is the potential for even greater savings to the U.S. health care system as providers and payers take advantage of the opportunities to increase access and reduce costs for patients. Negotiations Framework Increases Costs on Employers and Patients with Private Coverage Reduced competition from generic and biosimilar medicines impacts all patients, not only Medicare beneficiaries. The dampening effect this legislation would have on competition would cause employers and patients with private insurance to lose savings these populations have historically enjoyed from robust generic competition and growing biosimilar competition. Instead, there may be fewer new, more affordable generic and biosimilar medicines, leaving the commercial and employer markets captive to the high cost of brand-name drugs. When reviewing a nearly identical proposal in the House- passed Build Back Better Act, AAM's Biosimilars Council assessed the potential lost savings to the commercial market for medicines used to treat asthma (Xolair) and rheumatoid arthritis (Orencia), as examples. For just two products, lost savings would be between $4-$7 billion between 2027-2030. This is lost savings that would otherwise be used to lower patient out of pocket costs and reduce insurance premiums for employers and employees. For these reasons, we must oppose the Medicare negotiations framework and its impact on patient access to lower-cost medicines. There are other bipartisan steps to address patent abuse and brand rebate traps that are already under discussion in Congress that can meaningfully reduce drugs costs without harming generic and biosimilar savings. We strongly encourage Congress to reconsider its approach. Sincerely, Dan Leonard, President and CEO.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I include in the Record the following list of 586 credible voices of opposition to this bill. They include business leaders, taxpayer advocates, economists, and thought leaders who all say this bill will hurt Americans if passed today. BBB2.0/ IRA Groups Opposed Alvere; American Action Forum; American Benefits Council; American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights; American Enterprise lnstitute; American Experiment; American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC); America First Policy Institute (AFPI); Americans for Prosperity KEY VOTE; American Petroleum Institute; Americans for Prosperity; Americans for Tax Reform KEY VOTE; Americans for Tax Reform KEY VOTE; Amgen; Arizona Chamber; Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC); Associated General Contractors of America; Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM); Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM); Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC). AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Beer Institute; Biocom California; Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO); Biotech Leaders (RA Capital Management, Viscient Biosciences, No Patient Left Behind, Bay City Capital); Boehringer Ingelheim; Business Roundtable; Bristol Myers Squibb; California Biotech CEOs; California Life Sciences; Can Manufacturers Institute; Catholic Vote KEY VOTE; Center for a Free Economy; Center for Individual Freedom 2021; Center for Urban Renewal and Education; Coalition of Minority Owned Businesses (2021); Coalition of 14 Real Estate Organizations (2021); Competitive Enterprise Institute (2021); Concerned Women for America KEY VOTE. Council for Affordable Health Coverage; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Council of State Bioscience Associations; Club for Growth; CTIA; CURE: Center for Urban Renewal and Education; Domestic Energy Producers Alliance; Eli Lilly & Company; Exelon; Family Research Council KEY VOTE; FDA Law Blog; Freedomworks KEY VOTE; Gilead; Genentech; Heritage Action KEY VOTE; Heritage Foundation (2021); Independent Electrical Contractors; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA); Independent Women's Forum; Job Creators Network. Juneau Oil and Gas; Koch Network; The Libre Initiative; Main Street Employers; AAHOA; AICC, The Independent Packaging Association Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Building Materials Alliance (ABMA); American Hotel and Lodging Association; American Pipeline Contractors Association; American Supply Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General Contractors of America; Brick Industry Association; Ceramic Tile Distributors Association; Construction Industry Round Table; Convenience Distribution Association; Distribution Contractors Association; Education Market Association; Family Business Coalition. Financial Executives International (FEI); Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association; Forest Resources Association; Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors; International Illinois Farm Bureau; Independent Bakers Association; Independent Electrical Contractors; Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America; Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers Association; International Association of Plastics Distribution (IAPD); International Foodservice Distributors Association International Housewares Association; Main Street Employers Coalition Manufactured Housing Institute; Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association; Metals Service Center Institute; National Association of Electrical Distributors; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Professional Insurance Agents; National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Community Pharmacists Association. National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB); National Grocers Association; National Independent Automobile Dealers Association (NIADA); National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association; National Marine Distributors Association; National Onion Association; National Restaurant Association; National Roofing Contractors Association; National Stone Sand and Gravel Association; National Wooden Pallet & Container Association Nebraska Cattlemen; North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM); North American Equipment Dealers Association (NAEDA); Oregon Cattlemen's Association; Outdoor Power Equipment and Engine Service Association Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--; National Association Power and Communication Contractors Association; Reserve Organization of America (ROA) Retail Bakers of America; S Corporation Association; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS); Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance. Subchapter S Bank Association; Textile Care Allied Trades Association; The Hardwood Federation; Tile Roofing Industry Alliance; Truck Renting and Leasing Association; WASDA--Water and Sewer Distributors of America Western States; Roofing Contractors Association; Wisconsin Grocers Association; Wisconsin Small Businesses United Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation; Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation; Managed Funds Association; March for Life Action KEY VOTE; Merck; National Association of Home Builders; National Association or Manufacturers (NAM); National Association of Small Trucking Companies; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Black Chamber or Commerce (2021); Nebraska Farm Bureau; NFIB. National Multifamily Housing Council (2021); National Restaurant Association; National Right to Life KEY VOTE; National Taxpayers Union KEY VOTE; National Taxpayers Union KEY VOTE; National Taxpayers Union KEY VOTE; National Venture Capital Association; Nebraska Farm Bureau; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Pacific Research Institute; Paragon Health Institute; 31 Pharmaceutical CEOs (CA); PhRMA; Pfizer; Pink Sheet: Informa Pharma Intelligence; Rapport: Biotech; Real Estate Roundtable; R Street Institute; Sanofi. Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council; States Trust; Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America KEY VOTE; Taxpayers Protection Alliance (2021); Taxpayers Protection Alliance; USA Retirement; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Natural Gas and Oil Industry Trade Groups; American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC); American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM); American Petroleum Institute (API); Arkansas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners; Arkansas Oil Marketers Association; Associated Builders & Contractors West Virginia; Associated Industries of Florida; Associated Industries of Missouri; California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA); Chemistry Industry Council of Illinois; Colorado Oil and Gas Association; Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association. Energy Workforce & Technology Council; Florida Independent Petroleum Producers Association; Florida Natural Gas Association; Florida Petroleum Marketers Association; Florida Propane Gas Association; Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Florida Transportation Builders Association; Floridians for Better Transportation; Fuel Iowa; Georgia Association of Convenience Stores; Georgia Mining Association; Illinois Fuel Retails Association; Illinois Manufacturers Association; Illinois Retail Merchants Association; Independent Petroleum Association of America; Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association (KIOGA); Louisiana Association of Business and Industry; Louisiana Oil and Gas Association; Manufacture Alabama; Michigan Association of Convenience Stores. Michigan Oil and Gas Association; Michigan Petroleum Association; Minnesota Service Station & Convenience Store Association; New Mexico Business Coalition; New Mexico Oil and Gas Association; North Carolina Chamber; North Carolina Petroleum & Convenience Marketers Association; North Dakota Petroleum Council; Ohio Energy and Convenience Association; Ohio Manufacturers Association; Ohio Oil and Gas Association; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry; Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Coalition; Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (PIOGA); Pennsylvania Independent Petroleum Producers; Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association; Permian Basin Petroleum Association; Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW); Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association; South Dakota Petroleum and Propane Marketers Association; Texas Alliance of Energy Producers; Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO); The Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama; The James Madison Institute; The Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma; West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association; WSJ Editorial Board.

Mr. BRADY. I include in the Record the following letter from dozens of Main Street businesses opposing the Democrats' bill because of the IRS' targeting of their business under the bill and tax hikes on small businesses. August 11, 2022. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, Leader Schumer, and Leader McConnell: The undersigned organizations represent millions of Main Street businesses and employ tens of millions of workers and we oppose the Senate-passed Inflation Reduction Act. Inflation is at 40-year highs, we have had two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, and we are witnessing a shrinking small business sector, yet the Inflation Reduction Act does nothing to address these immediate issues even as it increases the burden of the tax code shouldered by America's small and family-owned businesses. The Biden Administration claims the savings in the IRA are ``front-loaded'' and will reduce the deficit in the short- term, helping to ease inflationary pressures. That is simply not the case. Recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, Penn-Wharton, and others shows the Inflation Reduction Act would increase prices in the short term and do little to bring them down in the long run. At the same time, the bill would give the IRS an additional $80 billion in funding, more than half of which would pay for thousands of additional IRS agents to conduct millions of additional audits. We support addressing the tax gap and oppose illegal tax evasion, but as former National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson observed recently, it is wrong and counterproductive to characterize the entire tax gap as willful tax evasion. From experience, we know many, if not most, of these additional audits will be conducted on the owners of family businesses who have fully complied with the tax code. Finally, the Warner Amendment adopted at the last minute presented the Senate with a clear choice between Wall Street and Main Street, and the Senate chose Wall Street. The amendment extends for two years the Section 461(l) cap on losses a business owner is permitted to claim. This $52 billion tax hike on pass-through businesses was adopted with almost no consideration, and the revenues it raises were used to offset the cost of exempting private equity investors from the fifteen-percent corporate minimum tax. The cap on active pass-through less deductions is bad policy at any time, but it is particularly harmful when the economy is weak and an increasing number of businesses are suffering losses. The timing of this amendment's adoption could not have been worse. The Inflation Reduction Act would fail to reduce price pressures even as it raises the cost of the tax code to small and family-owned businesses at a time of economic weakness. We ask that you reject the IRA's Main Street tax hike when it is considered by the full House. Sincerely, AAHOA; AICC, The Independent Packaging Association; Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Building Materials Alliance (ABMA); American Hotel and Lodging Association; American Pipeline Contractors Association; American Supply Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General Contractors of America; Brick Industry Association; Ceramic Tile Distributors Association; Construction Industry Round Table; Convenience Distribution Association; Distribution Contractors Association; Education Market Association; Family Business Coalition; Financial Executives International (FEI); Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association. Forest Resources Association; Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International; Illinois Farm Bureau; Independent Bakers Association; Independent Electrical Contractors; Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America; Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers Association; International Association of Plastics Distribution (IAPD); International Foodservice Distributors Association; International Housewares Association; Main Street Employers Coalition; Manufactured Housing Institute; Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association; Metals Service Center Institute; National Association of Electrical Distributors; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Professional Insurance Agents; National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Community Pharmacists Association; National Federation of Independent Business (NHB); National Grocers Association; National Independent Automobile Dealers Association (NIADA); National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association; National Marine Distributors Association; National Onion Association; National Restaurant Association; National Roofing Contractors Association; National Stone Sand and Gravel Association; National Wooden Pallet & Container Association; Nebraska Cattlemen; North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM); North American Equipment Dealers Association (NAEDA); Oregon Cattlemen's Association; Outdoor Power Equipment and Engine Service Association; Plumbing- Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association; Power and Communication Contractors Association. Reserve Organization of America (ROA); Retail Bakers of America; S Corporation Association; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS); Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance; Subchapter S Bank Association; Textile Care Allied Trades Association; The Hardwood Federation; Tile Roofing Industry Alliance; Truck Renting and Leasing Association; WASDA--Water and Sewer Distributors of America; Western States Roofing Contractors Association; Wisconsin Grocers Association; Wisconsin Small Businesses United; Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, a year ago, we met to consider another disastrous version of this bill. Since then, American families and Main Street businesses have been facing and continue to face historic inflation and, now, a recession. This bill is a hoax on the American people. Americans who are suffering the most in President Biden's cruel economy will soon know this firsthand. They will know it because inflation will get worse, according to the Penn Wharton School of Business analysis. Parents sitting up at night will notice higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower wages as they pay for the vast majority of any new revenue collected under this bill, according to Congress' own nonpartisan scorekeeper. A middle-income single mom with two kids who runs her own business will know it when she comes home from Walmart and finds a letter from the IRS telling her she is under audit. Seniors and loved ones with life-threatening illnesses will arrive at the pharmacy counter and break into a sweat when they see they cannot afford their medicine. Families with loved ones newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's, or cancer, or ALS, and desperately seeking treatment will wonder whether the cure for their disease will ever come. The wealthiest and the biggest foreign-owned corporations will do just fine. They are getting hundreds of billions of dollars of government handouts under this bill. After all, they get the government checks paid for by the middle-class taxpayers who are getting squeezed. This is a sad day for struggling American families and Main Street businesses. This economy is cruel enough, but by voting to turn this hoax into law, Congress is inflicting one more act of cruelty. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lucas for his leadership on science, which is of so much importance to our country. It is official; we are in a recession. Joe Biden's economy is a cruel economy. Americans are finding this out more and more each day. This morning's economic report shows negative economic growth. Inflation is crushing our families, our small businesses, and our entire economy. Now, Democrats have confirmed that CHIPS is a green light for higher taxes, corporate welfare, and, even worse, inflation in the future. They are insisting on hundreds of billions of tax increases on companies that build and make in America. They are insisting on unleashing 80,000 new IRS agents on American families, farmers, and small businesses. Who in their right mind raises taxes as you are entering a recession? Now, even Republican sponsors of the CHIPS bill in the Senate are urging a ``no'' vote. Good people can disagree on the contents of the semiconductor issues here. My view is that the original bill misses the mark on national security and provides tax subsidies that aren't warranted. China is targeting 10 of our American technologies and industries, including robotics, biotech, artificial intelligence, and on and on. It is a mistake and missed opportunity to subsidize one and help one while ceding nine of our industries and technologies to China. I believe our approach should be to lift all of our industries up so they can compete and win against China. I also believe we have the strongest semiconductor industry on this planet. No one sells more chips around the world than we do. We sell nearly half of all the chips. The sales of the chips in America, the market in the world, we sell nearly half of it. Our production has been growing for 20 years. It is one of our biggest exports, and we have reliable supply chains because almost half of our chips for America are made here in America. I think there is a smarter way to tackle this issue. I am, like others, stunned by the turnaround--I think the deceit--among Senate Democrats on taxes and tying it, unfortunately, to this bill.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Vita Swarers on the occasion of her birthday, July 24th. Vita serves as the Deputy Director of Casework and the Deputy District Director in my Conroe district office, and she has spent the past 15 years serving the people of the Eighth Congressional District of Texas. Vita started working for me as a caseworker in January of 2008 when my district office was originally in Orange, Texas. Vita has always been a devoted member of my team and I have experienced the depth of her commitment firsthand. Following the last redistricting of Texas in 2010, Vita chose to relocate her home from Orange to Huntsville in order to continue her work in my new district office. When Hurricane Ike struck the 8th District, Vita's own home was flooded but she helped countless victims' recover first. Thousands of Texans' lives have been improved because of Vita's tireless efforts on behalf of the community. In addition to her amazing casework success, Vita also directs our Military Service Academy Program which, because of the academic and athletic accomplishments of our prospective cadets, typically sends 15 or more cadets to the four service academies. The staff of the academy admission offices refer to the program Vita spearheads as a ``model program'' and Vita frequently consults with new Congressional offices on how to set up and run a successful program. Outside of the office, Vita is a natural caregiver, loves serving others, and gives her all in every aspect of her life. Vita is the type of person who can overcome anything--when life gives her lemons, she throws them right back--very hard. Vita is a devoted mother to three, grandmother to seven, and great-grandmother to four. She loves her family deeply and says that one of her goals in life is to live long enough to meet her greatgreat-grandchildren. One of Vita's favorite ways to spend time with her family is to compete in local competitions. Vita is a well-decorated Texas champion--holding first place trophies throughout Texas for her famous chili. On behalf of the Eighth Congressional District of Texas, it is a pleasure to formally recognize Vita for her long years of dedicated service and the instrumental role she has played on behalf of the constituents of the 8th District of Texas. It is an honor to work with someone as special as Vita, and I am grateful for her service. I thank Vita for everything, and wish her a Happy Birthday.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call No. 364.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, on this day in 1788, the United States Constitution was ratified making that remarkable document the law of this land, and it began with those immortal words: ``We the People.'' So 234 years to the day after that call to create a more perfect Union, the U.S. House of Representatives makes history today with the inspiring swearing in of the first Mexican-born Member of Congress, Mayra Flores of Texas. There is so much to be impressed by with Mayra. She was born and raised with humble beginnings in Burgos, Mexico. From a young age, her parents and grandparents raised her with strong conservative values of faith, family, and hard work. She came legally to the United States at 6 years old, and with the enthusiastic help of her father, she became a proud, naturalized American citizen. Growing up, Mayra worked alongside her parents in the cotton fields in Memphis, Texas, to earn extra money for school supplies and clothes. With the support of her family, Mayra graduated as a respiratory care practitioner and has worked ever since to care for the elderly and the disabled. She did serve on the front lines helping patients combat COVID-19 and remains every day an active member of her community in south Texas. She remains a firm believer in the American Dream--it is a dream she is living--and will always fight so that others can achieve it, as she has. A proud wife and mother of four, her husband serves as a Border Patrol agent in the Rio Grande Valley working to protect our country during an unprecedented border crisis. So on behalf of the entire Texas delegation, please welcome with me to the United States Congress the Honorable Mayra Flores, her husband John, and their four beautiful children. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Flores).

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 198; YEA on Roll Call No. 199; YEA on Roll Call No. 200; YEA on Roll Call No. 201; YEA on Roll Call No. 202; YEA on Roll Call No. 203; and YEA on Roll Call No. 204.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 205; YEA on Roll Call No. 206; YEA on Roll Call No. 207; YEA on Roll Call No. 222; YEA on Roll Call No. 223; YEA on Roll Call No. 224; YEA on Roll Call No. 225; YEA on Roll Call No. 226; YEA on Roll Call No. 227; and YEA on Roll Call No. 228.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, today I rise in celebration of the completed expansion project at Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Medical Center. For nearly 115 years, Memorial Hermann Health System has been the premier health care provider in the Greater Houston region with 17 hospitals in the area. Located in Houston, the Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center is one of the nation's busiest Level I trauma centers and serves as the primary teaching hospital for McGovern Medical School at UTHealth. The Memorial Hermann Health System is famed for its cutting-edge advances in medical science and technology. As a nationally acclaimed Accountable Care Organization, it provides exceptional care in cardiology, neuroscience, orthopedics, women's health, general surgery, and organ transplantation. The Memorial Hermann Life Flight air ambulance service was the first of its kind in Texas, the second accredited air ambulance service in the nation, and is the busiest air ambulance system in the country. In my district, Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Medical Center has been a valued partner for many years, caring for the community and engaging in numerous community events and activities, Continuing with the system's tradition of excellence, Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Medical Center houses the Canopy Cancer Survivorship Center. A first-of-its-kind facility, the Canopy Center offers an array of programs and services designed to address the emotional, physical, and social needs of those impacted by cancer. In November 2019, the Memorial Hermann Health System announced an expansion of its hospital in The Woodlands to meet the needs of patients and their families in the growing Montgomery County community. The new South Tower will provide 8 stories of patient care and house areas in which patients, their families and guests can learn, connect, and relax. The new addition will bring expanded patient and operating rooms to the campus and feature new interventional laboratories to allow Memorial Hermann to better serve the needs of our growing community. I am honored to join the countless friends and supporters of the Memorial Hermann Health System in thanking and congratulating them for their decades of service, commitment to excellence in healthcare, and their dedication of the new South Tower of Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Medical Center.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this great bipartisan work from the House. I thank Chairman Neal and the Ways and Means Democrats for working together with us and the Senate Finance Committee. I urge strong passage in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join with Chairman Neal in urging the House to take the final legislative step to ending the flow of American dollars toward Russian oil that acts as a treasury for Russia's war machine. Soon, President Biden will have on his desk a bill that demonstrates we stand with the people of Ukraine. As Chairman Neal pointed out, the Ukrainian people have been waiting. The action we take today is long overdue but just as necessary. Since we first debated this bill, the horrors of Putin's war in Ukraine have been on display for the world to see. Today, we will make sure American dollars will no longer fund Russia's war machine by blocking all Russian energy imports. The bill also strengthens the sanctions by ensuring that before the ban can be lifted, Russia must meet three clear criteria: withdraws its forces from Ukraine; poses no immediate military threat of aggression to NATO; and recognizes the right of the people of Ukraine to independently and freely choose their own government. This is an important, bipartisan victory. There is still more we can do and should do. We should turn toward unleashing America's own ability to be energy independent, replace Russian oil with American sources, and use our energy strengths to wean the world from Russian energy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the Republican leader of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has finally taken action, and now we move forward on our bill to answer President Zelenskyy's passionate plea to the United States and all free nations to stand with the brave people of Ukraine against Putin's deadly ambitions and heartbreaking genocide. Putin's onslaught has been relentless. Beautiful town squares have been leveled, children have been killed, and families have been abused. The bill we sent to the President today will stop American dollars from funding Russia's bloodletting. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are leading, and I thank Chairman Neal for his great leadership and his work on this bipartisan provision to suspend Russia's special trade status. I was proud to have helped lead this bipartisan effort of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. Both parties in Congress came together and worked in good faith on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to immediately ban purchases of Russian energy and suspend our trading relationship with Russia and Belarus. We don't take these steps lightly, but Russia's aggression requires this approach. Russia will no longer enjoy the same special trade status with America as the country it is invading so that it will no longer be able to sell made-in-Russia products into the United States at lower tariffs. Combined with the energy import ban which targets 60 percent of what Russia sells us, this provision targets the remaining 40 percent, hurting Russia's economy and cutting off funding for its war effort. Said another way, American dollars will no longer fund Russia's war machine. This is another step in the right direction and includes further incentives for Russia to end its aggression. This bill, by the way, includes tough but clear conditions to be met for restoring Russia's trade status--the same conditions as we are requiring to reverse the import ban on Russian energy products. Going forward, we must continue to work closely with our allies to increase pressure on Russia and ensure this is an effective, global effort. Neighboring Canada has also taken serious action to do both of these, and other nations have announced their intentions to do the same. Finally, I am glad this bill no longer includes controversial changes to the Global Magnitsky Act sanctions authority. Instead, this bill merely includes a straight extension of the current Global Magnitsky authority. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that the Senate shared our concerns and removed that provision, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), who is the Republican leader of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill has overwhelming support. It is time to act now. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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