Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, yesterday, with impeachment, was a low mark in partisanship. Today, we have the opportunity to set a high mark in consensus and bipartisanship. Today is a momentous day. We will finally consider the implementing bill that brings the trade relationship between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into the 21st century. This trade agreement is sorely needed. It has been over 25 years since we first established this trade relationship through NAFTA. So much has changed since then. For one thing, when we passed NAFTA, the phone booths by the Ways and Means hearing room actually had pay phones in them. A new 21st century trade agreement will be a force multiplier for America's already strong economy. Today marks the day 2 years ago that the House approved the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for the first time that has transformed America's economy. Today, President Trump and Ambassador Lighthizer have fought hard and delivered on their promise for a pro-growth and moderate trade pact. And because of their outstanding leadership and working closely with our congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, we now have a trade agreement that will deliver historic wins for the economy, and that is because this trade agreement is all about growth. USMCA will set the stage for billions more in economic activity. It creates, for the first time, rules for competing in the digital economy, to the advantage of America's manufacturers and farmers across so many sectors. It pries open Canada's market for U.S. farmers and ranchers to sell American dairy, wheat, chickens, eggs, and turkey. It improves the competitive position of our manufacturers, our service companies, and our small businesses. It ends the race to the bottom created by what had been Mexico's poor labor laws. The agreement, best of all, is enforceable, allowing us to challenge violations and to stop countries from blocking these challenges, holding Mexico and Canada accountable for these new rules. More jobs. More American customers. America's innovators will get the tools they need to succeed here as we compete with countries like China. Independent experts predict this new agreement will spur over $68 billion in new economic activity. We are always looking to create more U.S. jobs, and this will create more than 176,000 jobs here in America, including 76,000 in our auto sector. That is good news for everyone. Best of all for the American people, USMCA is a truly bipartisan agreement. To Chairman Neal's credit and his remarkable hard work, House Democrats, including Chairman Blumenauer and my Texas colleague, Henry Cuellar and many others, worked in good faith with Ranking Member Buchanan and Ambassador Lighthizer to get on a path to ``yes.'' We are so glad to see so many Republican priorities were retained. In the agreement before us today, we have labor and environmental rules that are realistic, they are measurable, they are enforceable. What is not in this agreement are provisions for which there is no consensus, like the Paris climate accord. It is not a perfect agreement. No trade agreements are. We will continue to work to improve the areas that we think can be improved in future agreements, but in any event, American workers have a major victory in the USMCA, and I am proud to support it. It is a shame that the Speaker held it up for so long. It has been over a year since President Trump and our North American neighbors signed the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It has been over half a year since Mexico ratified the initial agreement, and they have undertaken transformational labor reform. Due to Democrats' misguided obsession with impeachment, they neglected moving forward on this pro-worker and pro-growth trade agreement for far too long. Nonetheless, today I am so encouraged that we are here, finally moving forward on this new, strengthened North American Trade Agreement, because in the end, USMCA will not be a Republican win or a Democratic win, but a win for the American people, and a stronger, more prosperous alliance with our North American trading partners. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), a leader on free trade from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), a free-market conservative who is an outstanding chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a champion in manufacturing and the Republican leader of Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), the leading Republican on the Trade Subcommittee, who deserves great credit for this trade agreement.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, 21 years ago this week, I spoke here on impeachment. Sadly, history will not treat Democrats well. They will forever be remembered as the Senator Joe McCarthys of our time, so blinded by their hatred of President Trump that they abandoned American rights of due process, fairness, and just decency. Reminiscent of Joe McCarthy, they assaulted the Constitution, took glee in secret hearings, blocked evidence, and switched charges like rogue prosecutors. Ultimately, they chose abuse of power because they practice it so well. President Trump committed no crime or impeachable offense--none. His legacy won't be stained; Democrats' will. We will look back at these days in shame because Trump haters in Congress, like red haters of the past, are willing to plunge America into darkness for raw political gain. This impeachment betrays the Nation, the Constitution, and the American people. I vote ``no.''

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the 101st birthday of a remarkable Purple Heart recipient and outstanding member of the Eighth Congressional District of Texas, Mr. Alfred Birdwell, or ``Whitey.'' Born on November 18, 1918, Whitey was the second of six boys in his family and grew up on a farm in Minden, Texas. He had a traditional East Texas upbringing, from growing crops and raising animals to hunting with his family. Though he traveled the world while training for and serving in World War II, Whitey has remained a lifelong Texan. In 1940, Whitey married his first wife, Edith Husband. Together, they had two children before basic training. While at training in 1945, he received a letter that their infant child, Jimmy, was sick and passed away. He went home to help his family through the tragic loss and returned to training more motivated than ever to serve his country. Edith and Whitey would end up having seven beautiful children together before Edith's passing on August 8, 1960. Whitey began his service in the Army on May 26, 1944. He served as a Medium Tank Crewman to the 3rd Armored Division, 3rd Regiment and drove the lead tank. Whitey quickly became known for his quick wit and expert rifle skills, and soon became friends with his commanding officer, Colonel Lovelady, who he was charged with protecting during battle. The two bonded over morning coffee and would often joke, ``Do you think this cup will carry us to Berlin?'' Whitey earned the nickname ``Crazy Texan'' for his actions under fire throughout his service. During a mortar barrage, his assistant tank driver sat up out of the tank to try to get a better vantage point but was instead hit by the incoming fire. Whitey grabbed him and ducked into a foxhole, getting hit by the mortar barrage himself. Stubborn and hard-headed as ever, he insisted on fighting although he was wounded. Whitey was sent to the hospital after the battle, and was later awarded a Purple Heart for the incident. In the 1960s, Whitey worked in Texas City. While dining at a local restaurant, he met Patsy Grimes. The two married later that year and blended their families, raising their 11 children in one household. Although the family was large and the house was always hectic, life as a Birdwell was full of love and laughter. Shortly after celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary in 2015, Patsy fell ill and passed away. Anyone that knows Whitey can testify that he's never lost his energetic spirit. Last year, he decided to celebrate his 100th birthday walking a mile. The event garnered so much attention that he decided to turn his birthday celebration into a charity event, and successfully raised hundreds of dollars for the Blinded Veterans Association and the Brazos Valley Veterans Memorial, two causes close to his heart. His service to our country, compassion for others and joy for life serves as true example for us all. I am proud to join his 18 grandchildren, 46 great grandchildren, 9 great great grandchildren, and the entire Eighth Congressional District of Texas in wishing Whitey a happy 101st birthday.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), one of the leaders in healthcare.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader of the House.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chair, at first glance, Mr. Kennedy's amendment sounds like a good idea. Of course Republicans don't want administration officials to have a conflict of interest in carrying out their official duties on behalf of the American people. But, in reality, this amendment is narrowly tailored to be a petty jab at the current Secretary of Health and Human Services. Look, people want more cures and lower drug costs. They don't want more cheap political shots. Luckily, the underlying bill, H.R. 3, stands no chance of becoming law, so this amendment means nothing. We do, as Republicans, oppose H.R. 3's government price-setting regime because it will kill lifesaving cures for Americans struggling with the ravages of Alzheimer's and dementia, ALS, Parkinson's, the many cancers we face, leukemia, pulmonary hypertension--all those costly and stubborn diseases. We know, and the Congressional Budget Office has already confirmed, at least 38 fewer medicines and cures the next two decades. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates it will be close to 100 lost cures. Even in the Speaker's home State of California, the California Life Sciences Association, those small firms that do three-fourths of our clinical trials to bring new drugs to America, they modeled the gentlewoman's bill and said nearly 9 out of 10 of the drugs that they would be working on would never come to market if this Democratic drug bill becomes laws. We think, rather than kill cures, you should accelerate it. Because when you look at the ravages to these families and our loved ones, really the costliest drug is the one that never gets developed. That is what we strongly oppose. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. When the Republican Congress, in 2003, joined with President Bush to create the affordable drug plan for seniors, then-Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democrats tried to kill it. She famously predicted that creating the part D program for seniors would end ``Medicare as we know it.'' Can you imagine how many seniors' lives would have been lost if Democrats had succeeded in stopping the affordable Medicare drug program that 43 million seniors have come to depend upon? They were dangerously wrong then, and they are dangerously wrong again. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the leader of the Health Subcommittee for the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BRADY. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment. It would require H.R. 3 include a provision requiring each drug ad on TV to include the list price of the drug. I support this policy; Republicans do, as well. It is just a simple way to increase openness in healthcare, transparency that patients are, I think, searching for. In fact, this bipartisan approach is already in the Republican bill in front of us today, H.R. 19. I don't know why it was rejected in the initial Democrats' bill. I think perhaps it was written in secret. It was all partisan measures. We know, at the end of the day, it is deader than a doornail. But I think, after that is done, after impeachment--I don't know how many years that thing goes on and wastes our lives. But after all that foolishness is done, I hope our Democrat friends will come back to the negotiating table so we can work on more commonsense, bipartisan ideas like this one. Despite my strong opposition to H.R. 3--it is such a cruel and false choice to force people to choose between lower drugs and lifesaving cures for Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, and so many cancers; that is just wrong--I do support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, too. And I hope the gentlewoman from Iowa will continue to demonstrate her support for more openness by also supporting the bipartisan H.R. 19 when it comes to a vote later today. Let's vote. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong leadership on this. It has been invaluable. Like impeachment, Speaker Pelosi's fewer cures bill was written in secret, highly partisan, and is dead when it goes to the Senate. The President won't sign it. The Senate won't take it up. It is losing support every day. Here is an idea. Let's pass a bill. Let's come together. The only bill that has bipartisan provisions, bicameral provisions, a bill that lowers prices, deserves to become law, a bill you can be proud of, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, our Republican bill. It doesn't kill cures; it accelerates them. It makes it easier for patients to use their personal healthcare plans to lower costs for medicines, holds pharma accountable by insisting they pay more of the drug costs for seniors. It pulls back the curtain on drug pricing. It forces these companies to justify their prices. It can help seniors lower their medicine costs by $300 a year. Every Member of Congress who pledged to deliver lower costs for families and seniors and who truly wants more cures for diseases will fulfill that promise with H.R. 19. I urge support.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the underlying bill here. I was on the Ways and Means Committee when we worked with President Bush to create the first affordable drug plan for seniors. Then-leader Pelosi and Democrats tried their best to kill it. They all voted against it. The gentlewoman famously predicted that creating the part D drug program for our seniors would end ``Medicare as we know it.'' Can you imagine how many seniors' lives would have been lost if Democrats had succeeded in stopping the affordable Medicare drug program that 43 million seniors have come to depend upon? Nancy Pelosi and Democrats were dangerously wrong then. Can Americans afford the pain and lost lives of our loved ones when they are dangerously wrong again? We oppose this amendment, and we oppose the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chair, though I oppose the dangerous fewer cures act by Speaker Pelosi because it was written in secret, it is partisan and it will delay or kill the cures that our patients are hoping and praying for with Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, and so many cancers. This amendment reduces unnecessary costs, administrative burdens across the healthcare system. I share this goal with my colleague from Iowa. This amendment includes a lot of just smart ways to achieve this goal, including identifying best practices, reviewing existing regulations to see if they are adding unnecessary burdens, and studying how we might be able to standardize and just automate certain of these administrative actions. All of this is pretty good common sense. This amendment would help the public and, I think, the private sectors and the Federal Government and States work better together. I hope Mrs. Axne offers this amendment again on another legislation, maybe one that will become law, because, obviously, H.R. 3 will not. And, of course, impeachment has poisoned the water and delayed so many bipartisan things that are important to the American people. I hope she continues to offer it. I imagine that that ``Highlights'' magazine on the doctor's table will be all about impeachment. We want to make it all about healthcare. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Let's vote.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Imagine life under H.R. 3, the Democrats' fewer cures bill. There will be lower costs for some medicines, no doubt. Both bills do that. But if you have a rare disease, or your loved one does, whether it is ALS you are struggling with or dementia or Alzheimer's, if you were a dynamic person who now is struggling with Parkinson's, cancer, diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, the hope for your cure may never come. The waiting for your cure may be years, decades, or never. The truth of the matter is--and it is undeniable--H.R. 3, the Democrats' bill, will cause fewer cures here in America. Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 38 cures lost over the next two decades, the Council of Economic Advisers, 100 cures lost over the next several decades. California Life Sciences Association said, if we do what Nancy Pelosi's bill does, nearly 9 out of 10 drugs we would have created will never exist. There will be fewer cures for Americans when we need it most. I will tell you, drug prices are too high in many cases. There is no excuse for these price spikes, none at all. But I will tell you what, the costliest drug ever is the one that is never created, that leaves the ravages of these diseases to these loved ones who are struggling with them. We already know this is the case because in Canada, France, these other countries that H.R. 3 wants to make us look like, they have about half the medicines we do. When they do get a medicine, they will wait a year or 2 longer to even get it. Well, if you have got ALS, if you have got a glioblastoma, you are done at that point. That is what that bill brings about. We know, fewer drugs in America, because today, we have created, over the last several years, 111 new drugs in America. France, this is the France drug pricing scheme, 11. 111 in America. Eleven in France. That is their vision of a day in the life of someone with a rare, deadly disease in America. Our bill, the Lower Cost, More Cures Act, lowers out-of-pocket costs for Americans because we crack down on overpriced drugs. We give seniors, for example, the power and the information to choose the right place for their medicines, which can lower their chemotherapy by half. We pull back the curtain on everyone involved in this drug pricing process. We force drug companies to pay more and shoulder more burden in the part D prescription plan. We force them to justify their increases. We force them to list their prices in the ad so we know. We accelerate; we don't kill lifesaving medical cures. We go further, further than H.R. 3. We permanently make it easier for Americans to deduct high medical expenses from their taxes, allowing them to use their HSAs for over-the-counter medicines, including feminine hygiene products. We save seniors over $300 a year in the popular Medicare prescription drug program. All these ideas are bipartisan. All these can be passed by Congress. All can be signed by President Trump this year if Democrats abandon their partisan game and continue what was really good bipartisan work that got shelved for this bill that dies. When this is done, let's come back together. Let's work together. Everyone knows, in good faith, we have to tackle these drug prices. Let's prove to America that we can actually work together not for impeachment, not for the junk we are wasting our time on, but for things that really matter to families back home. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to hospitals, including critical access hospitals, located in rural or medically underserved areas to establish and improve medical residency training programs. The goals in this amendment are laudable. But like so much around here, bipartisan work in this area has been stopped because of impeachment. The rush to impeachment has created a toxic atmosphere and prevented parties from working on the people's business, creating a constitutional crisis for purely political reasons. It is a nice change to hear this discussion because earlier this year, we offered in the Ways and Means Committee an amendment to reallocate these GME slots exactly to these rural and medically underserved areas. Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected on a largely partisan basis. I wish the gentleman from Arizona would have been with us that day because almost all Democrats voted no. That said, I do have real concerns. This amendment provides more Medicare-funded payments to hospitals for these GME slots but without making any immediate reforms that everyone knows need to happen. An Institute of Medicine report called for innovative approaches to finance these slots in order to improve the match between the physician workforce that we need and national healthcare needs. Just last week, the Journal of American Medical Association Internal Medicine published a study and found Medicare is overpaying for GME and that this wasted money could actually be used to address the physician shortages in underserved areas. According to the study's lead author, Medicare GME may be overpaying some hospitals up to $1.28 billion annually. So instead of creating another grant program on a bill that is deader than a doornail, let's make a serious attempt at GME reform. After impeachment is over, if it wastes all of next year as well as this, maybe we can build upon MedPAC recommendations, establish a permanent performance-based incentive program that actually reaches what I think we as Democrats and Republicans want and create the standards needed for these rural underserved areas. These overpayments identified in the report could actually go toward expanding the teaching health center program, which would be terrific because that focuses on training in community-based primary care settings. That is where healthcare providers are needed the most. That is where they tend to stay to serve the community. That is a win-win for everyone. While I look forward to working with the gentleman from Arizona on ways to reform graduate medical education, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chair, I would like to claim the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. So we have heard today that we should pass H.R. 3 because you can go to Canada and get medicines for pennies on the dollar. Here is what they don't tell you: There are lots of medicines you can get for zero in Canada because they are not available. Canadians have access to about half of the lifesaving cures available here in America. Guess where they come when they need that cure and that recent medical breakthrough? They come to America. What happens when we start acting and behaving like Canada? Who is going to be our safety net? Why should patients in America have to choose between affordable medicines and a lifesaving cure for Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, or cancer? Why should parents with sick children in America be forced to wait longer for the newest drug breakthrough that could save their life? Why should Americans face a shorter life? Because the costliest and most painful drug to me is the one that was never created. At the depths of Nancy Pelosi's drug bill is a dangerous trade-off: lower drug prices in the short term, but fewer lifesaving cures in the future. This is a cruel and false choice, which is why this bill will quickly die with no bipartisan support in the Senate. As Republicans, we believe we need to do both: lower drug prices and accelerate new lifesaving cures. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.