Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, John Lewis was many things. He was a father. He was a Congressman. As you know, he was a civil rights pioneer who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a husband. He was a son of the South, one who walked in the wind to bring equality to America and is now walking in the heavens with his Creator. He was a colleague. John was all these extraordinary things, and he was also my friend. We are a better Nation and a better people because of him. This institution, of all of our country, will miss him dearly. I always struggle to explain back home just what an extraordinary person he was. To know John was a blessing. To get to work with him on so many important issues on the Ways and Means Committee, including the first reform to the IRS in over two decades, making important improvements to Medicare for our seniors and those who need our help the most, that was an honor of a lifetime. I served with him on the Ways and Means Committee for many years. He was a warm, needed, inspirational presence in that storied committee room. When I look down the dais, I will be sad to miss my friend. But I will always be proud to have had the privilege of working with such a remarkable spirit. Each day he walked in these halls, we all witnessed firsthand his remarkable integrity, his intelligence toward the complex policy issues we debate, and his willingness to work across the aisle if it means Americans will have greater dignity, opportunity, and equal rights. God loved this remarkable servant, and I know John is walking hand- in-hand with God and his beloved Lillian today. I miss you, John. Cathy and I will continue to pray for you and all those who call you family. May you rest in peace and rise in glory. God bless you.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the ranking member for his insistence that both parties work together to develop and fund infrastructure priorities in America. This is the way it ought to work. This issue has never been partisan in the past. Mr. Graves has made the point, we will go to the table and work together. He is exactly right, and I support his efforts. I rise today to support Representative LaMalfa's amendment to strike certain credit risk premium provisions in the underlying bill. The amendment protects Federal taxpayers all across America, makes sure they are not stuck holding the bag when a specific railroad defaults on its loans. The author of the original provision readily admits that this is an earmark for Texas Central Railroad in Texas. This is a private company that had claimed for years that they would fund this privately and it would be a State railroad, but they have reneged on that. They are now considering one of these loans to build a high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas. But Texas Central's train is so risky and their financial situation so poor, they say they can't even pay the risk premium upfront. And for this reason, they request that legislators change the Federal law in order to help the company qualify for a loan they would never receive under standard rules. This is a huge red flag if I have ever seen one. That is why I feel it is important for legislators of both parties to support Representative LaMalfa's amendment, to ensure that we don't lose important taxpayer protections for these RRIF loans and allow for a prolonged CRP payment schedule. Here is the situation: Texas Central Railroad is privately funded and a State railroad, and it has always promised to Texas that this ``project does not need, does not want, and will not ask for government grants for construction or public money to subsidize operations.'' Yet it is now clear that promise, which was used to gain support from citizens in communities across Texas, was misleading. In April, Texas Central announced they would renege on their original promise; they would now seek Federal stimulus money. And there is a reason they are doing that. The project's costs have tripled from its original estimates of $30 billion. These ballooning projections are especially concerning, considering the project also faces other significant hurdles: Lack of financial feasibility; They have no power for eminent domain, thank goodness, although they are coming to Washington for power to seize people's lands without their consent; There are potential safety and funding issues; and Near uniform opposition from local and State officials along the rural route of this railroad. Texas Central is now asking House Democrats in the House to include a change in the Green New Deal legislation to make it easier to renege on these loans. We should not condone this. We are in a COVID crisis. Those dollars should be used for healthcare, not a boondoggle.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a veto threat from President Trump that states the administration strongly opposes H.R. 1425, further demonstrating this bill has no chance of becoming law. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1425--Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act--Rep. Craig, D-MN, and 61 cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1425. This bill attempts to exploit the coronavirus pandemic to resuscitate tired, partisan proposals that would send hundreds of billions of dollars to insurance companies in order to paper over serious flaws in Obamacare. Furthermore, H.R. 1425 would pay for this bailout by imposing price controls that undermine the American innovation the entire globe is depending on to deliver the vaccines and therapeutics needed to respond to the coronavirus. Since the beginning of this crisis, the Administration has taken a whole-of-America approach to fight the corona virus. This includes a productive partnership with both houses of Congress to respond to the healthcare needs of our citizens. The Administration has delivered millions of pieces of personal protective equipment to frontline healthcare responders, surged hospital capacity, and dramatically scaled up diagnostic and surveillance testing capabilities. The Administration also launched Operation Warp Speed to collaborate with the private sector to develop a coronavirus vaccine, therapeutics, and diagnostics. Additionally, the Administration is working to reimburse providers for corona virus testing and treatment of uninsured Americans so they do not have to worry about the financial implications of obtaining these services. All this was done while putting the country in the strongest possible position to rebound from the most significant economic challenge since the Great Depression. Working with Congress, the Administration has delivered financial relief directly to over 160 million Americans, over 4.5 million businesses and their employees, and over one million healthcare providers. Instead of building on these vital, bipartisan efforts, H.R. 1425 reads as if the corona virus never emerged. It repurposes failed proposals from years past that would literally pay insurance companies more to hide the true cost of Obamacare from consumers. Even the additional billions of taxpayer funding is not enough to prop up Obamacare on its own, thus H.R. 1425 goes out of its way to systematically eliminate any competition by prohibiting more affordable coverage options and the consideration of alternative approaches by States. At the same time, the bill lacks any provision to ensure the Federal Government adheres to the long-held consensus to not fund abortion services or abortion coverage. To create a facade of ``paying'' for the revival of last decade's most partisan project, Obamacare, H.R. 1425 invokes another partisan misadventure reflected in provisions of H.R. 3. In its Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3, the Administration explained that these provisions would impose price controls under the guise of ``negotiation'' that would ultimately ``harm seniors and all who need lifesaving medicines.'' In perhaps an indication of the intentions of H.R. 1425, it does not even attempt to include those provisions of H.R. 3 that had previously garnered bipartisan support, such as establishing a cap on out-of-pocket expenses for all beneficiaries in Medicare Part D and other improvements to that program for seniors. While any time is an inopportune time to dramatically undermine the development of innovative medicines, H.R. 1425 is even more imprudent given the current focus on developing vaccines and therapeutics rapidly to help America and the world combat the coronavirus. To take such an action simply to double down on the same expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic approach to health coverage that the American people endured for the past decade makes it even more misguided and counter to the most urgent needs of the country. If H.R. 1425 were resented to the President his advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a leading healthcare expert in the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a leader in rural healthcare reform.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as a Republican in Congress, I am proud of our Republican congressional efforts creating the Medicare part D prescription drug program for seniors which then-Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democrats tried to kill. You may remember that Speaker Pelosi famously predicted that creating 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 43 million seniors have come to depend on today? We are in the middle of an unprecedented national pandemic. Americans are worried about their health and their jobs. Yet here we go again in the Democratic House, another partisan bill with no input from Republicans but lots of input from campaign operatives and special interest groups. The American people are sick and tired of this partisanship. To my Democratic colleagues and friends, I say: Stop playing political games with healthcare. Madam Speaker, this bill is dangerous to your health in three key ways: It stops lifesaving cures from getting to the patients who need them most. It blocks Americans from buying affordable, short-term health plans that cover them in between jobs. And it threatens to slash State support for Medicaid for the most vulnerable and poor. As if that isn't enough, it doubles down on the most unpopular healthcare plan in modern history: the Affordable Care Act. Madam Speaker, you remember that disaster. It broke every promise Democrats made to the American public. Do you remember: If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it? False. If you like your doctors, you can keep them? False. Your healthcare costs will go down by $2,500 a year? Big false. No American making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase? False. ObamaCare won't add a dime to the Federal deficit? False. By the way, it will add over $1.5 trillion in debt this decade. Here we are battling the coronavirus and hoping against hope as companies partnering with the government are racing heroically to bring new treatments and medicines that will save our lives and prevent Americans from being infected. Yet today, House Democrats are unbelievably advancing a bill with provisions that the Congressional Budget Office and the Council of Economic Advisers predicts will stop as many as 100 lifesaving cures from ever getting to the patients who need them most. The California Life Sciences Association says that the Pelosi plan for government setting medicine prices would mean nearly nine of ten new drugs would never be made available--never--from their researchers in small biotech companies. These are the medicines that could be the answer to some of the most heartbreaking and devastating diseases-- including COVID-19--that our children, seniors, and families are facing. As this pandemic makes urgently clear, we need more cures, not fewer. Fewer cures means more lives cut short. Yet leading Democrats shrugged off these research experts and say: We are fine with that. Although the Affordable Care Act has improved under President Trump-- no sabotage--prices went down in most States, insurance companies have stabilized, and many families see more choices today. But it remains fatally flawed. Here is proof: two out of three Americans eligible for ObamaCare are turning it down--two out of three. They say that it is healthcare they don't want, they can't afford, and it doesn't work for them. Unbelievably, Democrats are so hellbent on forcing Americans on to the ACA, today they are threatening to slash State support for Medicaid unless States buckle to expand ObamaCare. Holding the poor hostage, threatening to defund the operations of Medicaid at the State level? That is immoral. Maybe they don't remember that the Supreme Court quickly struck down their last scheme to extort States. Finally, despite the claims they are expanding healthcare choice, this misguided bill blocks Americans from buying legal, affordable, short-term plans often used by small business workers and Americans who are out of work or in between jobs. Yes, these health plans aren't for everyone. But to the 3 million Americans with these lifesaving plans, Democrats say: Tough. If you don't like your plan, or even if you do, you can't keep it. There is a better way than this dangerous, partisan waste of time. Real people are hurting. We should work together in Congress to make affordable, patient-centered healthcare a reality for Americans. Last year Republicans proposed legislation that brought together ideas and bills from Members of Congress from both parties to lower drug prices and accelerate new cures. Healthcare policy fails when it is partisan. We must work together now to make drugs more affordable, to expand access to quality care, and, yes, to lower costs. This bill doesn't achieve any of those goals. It is partisan business as usual during a time when our Nation calls out for so much more. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), who is a key member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a key leader of the Committee on Ways and Means on healthcare reform.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a key member of the Ways and Means Committee and a technology leader.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the to gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a leader on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have here a host of letters in opposition to this dangerous legislation, one signed by more than 40 State and regional life science organizations and another signed by over 130 small biotech companies, many of whom are currently working to develop COVID-19 therapies and vaccines. In these letters, they emphasize that this bill will deter badly needed investment that will harm their ability to manufacture and produce therapies and cures for American families. Madam Speaker, in the midst of a pandemic, we just heard a question: Why do we oppose this bill? In the midst of a pandemic where countless lives will depend upon the development of these new cures, this cannot happen on our watch. We will not stand idly by. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the letters, and I reserve the balance of my time. October 16, 2019. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Senate Democratic Leader Schumer, House Speaker Pelosi, and House Republican Leader McCarthy: As state and regional life sciences organizations across the country, all dedicated to supporting the development and delivery of innovative life-enhancing and life-saving products, we write to express our strong concerns about recent legislative proposals that seek to introduce international reference pricing and foreign price controls as a strategy to reduce prescription drug costs. We are gravely concerned that such polices will consequentially threaten patient access and choice and cede America's global leadership in biomedical innovation. At the outset, we underscore our appreciation for the bipartisan and bicameral efforts underway to provide relief to patients from unaffordable out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. This is a critical challenge for our nation, and we are committed to being part of the solution to address it, while also ensuring that incentives still exist to spawn future innovation. However, we are deeply concerned by proposals by some in Congress to introduce price controls, particularly foreign reference pricing, into government and private healthcare programs. These proposals are concerning for states and regions of the country with established life sciences communities, as well as for emerging biomedical innovation ecosystems working to attract capital investment and support entrepreneurship to build the companies and therapies of the future. Most importantly, they would be devastating for those patients hoping for medicines to treat serious, life-threatening diseases. For example, 96 percent of new cancer drugs are available in the U.S., at an average delay of 3 months. By comparison, Japanese patients have access to 50% of new medicines and wait on average 23 months. German and Canadian patients wait four times longer, French patients wait six times longer. None of these countries even approach the access to new therapies that our patients have. Should the U.S. implement foreign price controls, patient choice and access to the full range of life-saving therapies would undoubtedly be threatened. Proposals to implement foreign price controls also put at risk the U.S.'s world-leading innovative biopharmaceutical sector that has created nearly one million jobs across all 50 states and represents a large portion of our nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP)--generating an economic output of approximately $1.3 trillion annually. As a sector that already takes on extraordinary risks and significant investments with the hope that a few will eventually become the next life-saving treatment for patients, the looming potential of foreign price controls brings a threat that risks the support of future investment. It is also important to remember that the overwhelming majority--over 80 percent--of biopharmaceutical innovators in the US are small, start-up, pre-revenue companies without a single product yet on the market. A recent report by IQVIA showed that emerging biopharmaceutical (EBP) companies account for over 70 percent of the total late-stage R&D pipeline and were responsible for almost two-thirds of the patents for new drugs launched in 2018. These mostly pre- revenue companies without a product on the market are the ones to be most affected by fluctuations in investment caused by the political and public policy environment. The recent actions taken by the Administration and Congress on drug pricing are seen as extremely threatening by the life sciences sector, and we are therefore concerned that the proposed foreign price controls policies will scare investment away from life sciences investment, and towards other industry sectors that pose far less risk. If price controls as proposed are implemented it may reduce drug pricing in the short term, but it will certainly result in significantly reduced innovation and severely restricted access to life-saving medicines. On behalf of the US's innovative life sciences community, we urge you to reject any efforts to undermine America's global leadership in biomedical innovation through international reference pricing or other price controls. Patients deserve access to and choice of the lifesaving therapies of today and tomorrow. As you move forward, we stand ready to work with you to consider alternative proposals that will propel American innovation forward and deliver affordable, accessible and innovative therapies for patients who need them. Sincerely, Alabama: BIO Alabama. Arizona: Arizona Bioindustry Association, Inc. (AZBio). California: California Life Sciences Association--CLSA, BIOCOM, SoCalBio. Colorado: Colorado BioScience Association. Connecticut: BioCT. Delaware: Delaware Bioscience Association (Delaware BIO). Florida: BioFlorida. Georgia: Georgia BIO. Illinois: Illinois Biotechnology Innovation Organization (iBIO). Indiana: Indiana Health Industry Forum (IHIF). Iowa: Iowa Biotechnology Association (IowaBio). Kansas: Bio Kansas. Kentucky: Kentucky Life Sciences Council. Louisiana: Louisiana BIO. Maryland: Maryland Technology Council. Massachusetts: MassBio. Maine: Bioscience Association of Maine (BioME). Michigan: Michigan Biosciences Industry Association (MichBio). Minnesota: Medical Alley Association. Missouri: Missouri Biotechnology Association (MOBIO). Montana: Montana Bioscience Association. Nebraska: Bio Nebraska. Nevada: The Nevada Biotechnology and Life Science Association. New Jersey: BioNJ, HealthCare Institute of New Jersey (HINJ). New Mexico: NMBio. New York: New York BIO. North Carolina: North Carolina Biosciences Organization (NCBIO). North Dakota: BioScience Association of North Dakota. Ohio: BioOhio. Oregon: Oregon Bioscience Association (Oregon BIO). Pennsylvania: Life Sciences Pennsylvania (LSPA). South Carolina: SCBIO. South Dakota: South Dakota Biotech. Tennessee: Life Science Tennessee. Texas: Texas Healthcare and Biosciences Institute (THBI). Utah: BioUtah. Virginia: VirginiaBio. Washington: Life Science Washington. West Virginia: Biosciences Association of West Virginia. Wisconsin: BioForward Wisconsin. Puerto Rico: Industry-University (INDUNIV) Research Center Inc/Bio Alliance Puerto Rico.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, just a quick fact check, because you know the Republican Congress in 1996 enacted the first comprehensive protections for preexisting conditions, which cover, today, 275 million Americans who are not affected by the lawsuit. There is simply too much fear- mongering and bad information in this debate. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, Republicans support children, seniors, and patients with preexisting conditions. A Republican Congress created the popular Children's Health Insurance Program that millions of families rely on today. A Republican Congress created the prescription drug program and Medicare to help seniors get the medicine they need, and every Democrat and Speaker Pelosi tried to kill that bill. A Republican Congress created the Medicare Advantage program that serves 20 million seniors in America. And a Republican Congress created the first law that established protections for patients with preexisting conditions that covered 275 million Americans today regardless of this ACA lawsuit. We want people to have access to quality, affordable healthcare that fits their needs, not Speaker Pelosi's. We also support cures now for serious and life-threatening diseases that plague so many families and our loved ones. Eliminating the hope for those cures is why this bill is just so dangerous. Let me also be clear about what isn't in this bill, Madam Speaker. We have heard a lot today from my friends on the other side of the aisle bemoaning the Trump administration's effort to root out unconstitutional laws while committing to protect people with preexisting conditions. The Democrats could end this uncertainty now. They are in charge of the House. Bring to the floor a measure Republicans support that sever the individual mandate from the rest of the ACA. Bring to the floor a legislative fix for your unconstitutional law. Bring to the floor certainty for all Americans, especially those with preexisting health conditions. But House Democrats won't do that. No, they find the political fear- mongering to be too potent an election-year weapon. So we continue this charade. Let me state it all again for all to hear: Republicans support protections for those with preexisting conditions. We wrote the law that protects 275 million Americans today. And we warned Democrats about this unconstitutional law, and we knew it would get struck down in court. But we cannot have a healthy society, we cannot protect all Americans, if we don't have access to lifesaving cures. As we continue to fight COVID-19, what are you thinking? Why are we destroying the incentives for new medicine and cures? We ought to be doing all we can to accelerate medical innovation, not destroy it in this bill. Democrats would force patients to choose between affordable medicines and lifesaving cures for Alzheimer's ALS, Parkinson's, diabetes, or cancer. That is a false choice. And we are not talking about just a few cures for some very rare diseases, we are talking about up to 100 cures, dozens lost. Our country is in a time of uncertainty. Millions are unemployed. States still have deep restrictions in place. For folks who are relying on short-term limited plans for this period of uncertainty, why do Democrats propose to make their lives harder? I oppose this dangerous bill and urge everyone to oppose it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole for his remarkable leadership during these challenging times. What are we doing here? Our Nation is fighting a vicious battle for lives and jobs, yet Democrats waste time bringing a partisan, political, and dead bill to the House, never asking Republicans to work together. It is shameful. As one House Democrat who opposes this bill said, ``This isn't the time for partisan gamesmanship. This is the time to find common ground.'' Democrats parrot ``go big, go big.'' What they didn't do is ``go smart'' to stimulate this economy. This bill guarantees a prolonged recession. It leaves 36 million jobless Americans behind, but it delivers big for Democratic special interests. What do mail-in ballots, marijuana banking, bailing out failed union pensions, and releasing criminals early have to do with America's struggling economy? Absolutely nothing. The word ``cannabis'' even occurs more often than the word ``job'' in this bill. As we continue to battle this virus, Republicans believe Congress should ``go smart.'' Our top economic priority is to make sure the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs temporarily don't lose them permanently, because lost jobs mean more drug and alcohol abuse, more domestic violence, more crime in the streets, and shorter lifespans. We need to reopen our economy safely, help our local businesses rebuild their workforce and remake their workplaces so they are safe and healthy. Instead, Democrats encourage millions of Americans to stay unemployed even if a good, safe job is offered. If you get paid more than your salary not to work and have good healthcare, why would you go back? But next year, when these government benefits all run out, don't be surprised that local businesses and jobs simply don't exist anymore. This bill robs precious cash from local businesses struggling to survive, imposes costly mandates, provides a windfall to millionaires, and sends your hard-earned tax dollars to those here illegally. This bill imposes a gag order to prevent the jobless from knowing their affordable health options, uses your tax dollars to fund abortions, and chooses rebate checks over paychecks. How will this get workers back into jobs? It gets sadder. Democrats choose wealthy trial lawyers over our front-line healthcare workers, giving a green light to unleash frivolous lawsuits on hospitals, doctors, and local businesses doing everything they can to reopen safely. These heroes are already struggling with huge losses. Fighting trial lawyers in court will only make it worse. We will hear today about why we need to spend hundreds of millions more for State and local governments who, without question, are battling so hard. But did you know that Congress has already funded over $760 billion to State and local communities? That is more than we have helped small businesses. Did you know that State and local governments are struggling to spend all that money by the end of the year? As the Houston mayor told us: ``I don't need more money. I just need the flexibility to spend it where it is needed.'' Did you know most small communities in America haven't seen a dollar yet because many State governments are hoarding this crucial aid, refusing to pass it on to smaller counties and cities as Congress intended? Let's fix these problems first. The bottom line is this bill is crammed with special interest handouts but does nothing for the jobless. It guarantees more jobs will disappear while silly political games are played. This is an unprecedented crisis, and so many Americans have been heroic. They deserve a Congress that works together to help them regain their jobs, their savings, and their future. This bill is big: regrettably, a big fail for our economy.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the lead Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a leader in the small business community.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

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

Mr. BRADY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a member of the Small Business Committee.