Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman when that will occur.

Mr. WALDEN

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

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Shimkus for yielding to me. He has really poured his heart and soul into this issue and has worked very hard on it, is so knowledgeable about it. And he is spot on. Tragically, there is no science here. The EPA was not allowed to testify here. This is a solution that will never become law. It completely overreaches. You are going to hear from some of our Members, including Dr. Bucshon, who is a heart surgeon, about the impact this could have on new technologies and devices that get implanted into people's hearts. You will hear about automobiles and aircraft that use these very specialized chemicals and materials in their manufacturing processes that probably have nothing to do with what we are trying to fix here. You will hear, and it is true, that this is the first time we are going to throw science out the window and make a political decision. So, Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2020, and urge my colleagues, sadly, to do the same. We all want a solution to the country's PFAS challenges. And while there is more work to be done, I would say, thanks to Mr. Shimkus and others, Congress has already acted to provide some funding for reducing PFAS in drinking water in rural and economically distressed areas. We require the Federal Government to enter into cooperative cleanup agreements for Federal facilities with PFAS contamination. But we all know more needs to be done. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen to go partisan with H.R. 535, and that is not the way to go, it is not the solution. This follows two plays Democrats insist on running ad nauseam: putting politics over progress and pushing legislation that will never become law. This was the playbook they ran in December when, sadly, they walked away from progress in protecting public health that resulted in two major missed opportunities. First, we had the chance to mandate that the EPA establish a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS within 2 years. We had that opportunity to get it into law. Second, we could have ensured immediate and mandatory cleanup of PFOA and PFOS at all Department of Defense facilities. We could have put that into law. We were in agreement except for Democrats here, and as a result, they wouldn't take yes for an answer, and we lost those opportunities. But back to H.R. 535. This measure is packed with bad policy and unfortunately, or fortunately, is dead on arrival in the Senate. Sadly, it delays much needed action to enact science-based solutions that protect our constituents. So this hurts Americans, it leaves our communities vulnerable, and it did not have to be this way. During the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of H.R. 535, we had a very robust debate on this bill. Mr. Shimkus offered a package of proposals that had bipartisan Senate support, and those all could have become law; in other words, a three-quarters agreement of the committees of jurisdiction. These proposals were not the way he or I would have crafted them on our own, but we were willing to compromise, we were willing to reach across the aisle, we were willing to reach across the chamber to the Senate, because we wanted to be part of the solution. Sadly, we are here today with a bill that, frankly, reaches a new low. Last month, we had a vehicle to make real, meaningful progress on drinking water standards and PFAS cleanup. We could have done more, but that progress was stopped and this bill was brought forward. So, Mr. Chair, I want to help communities deal with PFAS concerns. I want to do it in a scientifically-based way. It is important the actions we take are appropriately measured and justified and backed up by science. This package, though, is not a practical, science-based solution. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution on impeachment, and I include my statement in the Record. Madam Speaker, President Donald Trump is unique in the history of the American presidency. No one has led as he has. His success and his style have frustrated his opponents. Remember back to the fall of 2016 when pundits and politicians on the left lectured Americans about the historical need to accept the outcome of the election? Then Hilary Clinton lost. Some began undermining and attacking the President before he had even taken office. Others called for his impeachment. Meanwhile, we now know--as a result of the Horowitz investigation-- that some in the FBI engaged in nefarious actions to investigate the Trump campaign. They lied to and misled the FISA court in an incredible abuse of power by a government agency. Civil libertarians are rightly outraged by what occurred. Laws designed to protect America from foreign terrorists were misused to spy on an American presidential campaign. The false narrative of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians dominated the first two years of the Trump presidency. I supported the appointment of Mr. Mueller and repeatedly stood up for the independence of his investigation. I wanted the facts. The Mueller investigation spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars and came up empty. That report produced nothing impeachable, or the articles of impeachment would include the findings of that report. For me, overturning the outcome of an election demands two things: A bipartisan and fair process to determine wrong doing, and a criminal offense worthy of overturning the outcome of the voters' will. Neither threshold has been met in this case. With a clear conscience, I will vote against both articles of impeachment. Read the articles of impeachment. ``Abuse of power'' and ``obstruction of Congress,'' are the charges. Neither of these are criminal violations. This isn't perjury or burglary. Every administration--Democratic and Republican--pushes back against Congress' request for witnesses and information. The Constitution enshrines this separate-branch conflict. Congress doesn't like being told no. At times we've sued over it. It's the tension our founders designed into the competing branches of government. Work it out, or go to the courts. But in this case, they truncated the timeline to exclude a judicial review. They announced the outcome before the investigation was completed. I voted to hold President Obama's Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the ``fast and furious'' fiasco. Congress sued and won this case. But Republicans never seriously thought about impeaching the President. I threatened to subpoena President Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions to his face in the East Room of the White House during our investigation of the opioid crisis. We eventually worked it out and got to review the data we sought. Not once did I think about impeaching the President over this matter. The anti-Trump crowd has weaponized impeachment and converted it into a partisan tool, something one of America's founding fathers--Alexander Hamilton--warned against. The American people elected President Trump to shake things up in Washington, D.C. And that's precisely what he's done. Lower taxes and less oppressive regulations would not have happened under a Clinton Administration. Hillary Clinton would not have stood up to China as President Trump has. She would not have demanded and gotten a new and better trade deal with our friends to the north and south. As for the Russians, she's the one who led the ``reset'' with Russia that offended our European allies and played into Putin's hand. We've never had a better economy or lower unemployment in the modern era. We're the envy of the world. America is standing up to our competitors and enemies. We're getting new and better trade agreements and bringing more jobs back to America. We've never had a President lean in more to get lower drug prices or make our allies keep their promises to help pay for their national security. President Trump is doing exactly what he promised, and that includes violating the political norms of the Washington, D.C. swamp. And for that, the left wants to send him packing. In facts matter, we should not impeach this president, but instead get back to work solving the problems facing American families.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the distinguished majority leader's comments about President Trump. I have been around Congress for 21 years, and I have never seen a President of either party lean more forward in trying to get down the cost of prescription drugs, to give taxpayers more of their hard-earned income, to get an economy up and running like we have never seen it before, to tackle the issue of unemployment and get unemployment numbers down to the lowest level in 50 years in every category all across the country, and to reduce the burdens of overregulation. President Trump has done all those things. He also has called for getting down the price of prescription drugs. I have been in several meetings where he has done that, and I share his passion for that, and I know he wants a bipartisan bill that can become law and be put on his desk. Everything you heard from the distinguished majority leader about President Trump's views are accurate, but he actually read H.R. 3. And if you read the Statement of Administration Policy, he recognizes that this goes too far and he would have to veto it, that it is a partisan- only bill--partisan only. And here is part of the problem with H.R. 3: It hands the government a club. There is no negotiation in here. If you don't agree to what the government says the price should be, the government in Washington comes after your revenues, and up to 95 percent of your revenues for selling that drug they can just come and take. By the way, when you throw in the cost of taxation and everything else, it is well over 100 percent that a drug manufacturer who is innovating some new drug and has the patent for that great American innovation, the government says: If you don't sell it for what we want within a band, we are taking it. We are not taking your patent--well, they might come back and do that in another iteration, but: What we are doing is taking all the revenues. We will bankrupt you. That is why 138 different small innovative startup innovators in this space wrote to the Speaker and the Republican leader. And I want to quote from their letter, Madam Chair. It says: ``We represent the community of emerging biotechnology companies whose researchers and scientists strive daily to develop innovative life-changing therapies and cures for patients. We take pride that we are providing hope to patients and their families and changing the world through medical breakthroughs. These dreams will be shattered if H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, is passed.'' They went on to say: ``Unfortunately, H.R. 3 is an unprecedented and aggressive government intervention in the U.S. market of drug development and delivery that will limit patient access to these extraordinary advancements in healthcare.'' Look, we all agree drug costs are too high, and we want to work together to stop the gaming and bring down the prices. Our alternative, which we will debate in a few minutes, does that, but it doesn't do it at the expense of completely upending the ecosystem that allows American innovators to do what no one else in the world does as well, and that is come up with new cures for diseases and make them available. Madam Chair, I enter into the Record the letter from 138 startup innovators in its full context. December 5, 2019. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, House Republican Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader McCarthy: We represent the community of emerging biotechnology companies whose researchers and scientists strive daily to develop innovative life-changing therapies and cures for patients. We take pride that we are providing hope to patients and their families and changing the world through medical breakthroughs. These dreams will be shattered if H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, is passed. We are at an incredible inflection point in science and technology that is bringing forth transformative treatments and even cures for cancer, infectious diseases, and a myriad of other serious and rare diseases. These advancements are benefiting lives of millions of patients and alleviating human suffering, while helping to reduce other more expensive parts of our health care system, such as hospital spending. Our continued success depends on maintaining an environment that supports investment in tomorrow's discoveries. Unfortunately, H.R. 3 is an unprecedented and aggressive government intervention in the U.S. market of drug development and delivery that will limit patient access to these extraordinary advancements in health care. This extreme proposal will upend the ecosystem of U.S. biomedical innovation, destroying our ability to attract private investment dollars that allow us to develop new treatments and change the course of healthcare delivery for so many patients. We strongly urge you to abandon H.R. 3. Further, in order to keep pace with this biomedical revolution and ensure America remains the world leader in innovation, we hope that you will pursue bipartisan, holistic policies that modernize our health care payment system and lower drug costs for patients. Sincerely, Adelene Perkins, Chair & CEO, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Adrian Gottschalk, President & CEO, Foghorn Therapeutics; Alden Pritchard, CEO, Kaio Therapy, Inc.; Alex Nichols, PhD, President & CEO, Mythic Therapeutics; Amit Munshi, President & CEO, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Andre Turenne, President & CEO, Voyager Therapeutics, Inc.; Aprile Pilon, PhD, President & CEO, Trove Therapeutics, Inc.; Armando Anido, Chairman & CEO, Zynerba Pharmaceuticals; Axel Bolte, Co-Founder, President & CEO, Inozyme Pharma; Barry Quart, President & CEO, Heron Therapeutics. Bassil Dahiyat, President & CEO, Xencor, Inc.; Bill Enright, CEO, Vaccitech, Ltd.; Bill Newell, CEO, Sutro Biopharma; Blake Wise, CEO, Achaogen, Inc.; Bonnie Anderson, Chairman & CEO, Veracyte, Inc.; Bradford Zakes, President & CEO, Cerevast Therapeutics; Brandi Simpson, CEO, Navigen, Inc.; Brian Windsor, CEO, Lung Therapeutics, Inc.; Briggs W. Morrison, MD, CEO, Syndax Pharmaceuticals; Bruce Clark, PhD, President & CEO, Medicago, Inc. Casey Lynch, CEO, Cortexyme; Cedric Francois, Co-Founder, CEO & President; Apellis Pharmaceuticals; Chris Gibson, Co-Founder & CEO, Recursion; Christopher Barden, CEO, Treventis Corporation; Christopher Burns, PhD, President & CEO, VenatoRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Christopher Schaber, President & CEO, Soligenix, Inc.; Ciara Kennedy, PhD, CEO, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals; Clay Seigall, President, CEO & Chairman, Seattle Genetics, Inc.; Craig Chambliss, President & CEO, Neurelis; David Baker, President & CEO, Vallon Pharmaceuticals. David Bears, Founder & CEO, Tolero Pharmaceuticals; David de Graaf, PhD, President & CEO, Comet Therapeutics, Inc.; David Donabedian, PhD, Co-Founder & CEO, Axial Biotherapeutics; David Lucchino, President & CEO, Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.; David Mazzo, President & CEO, Caladrius Biosciences; David Meeker, CEO, KSQ Therapeutics; Doug Kahn, Chairman & CEO, TetraGenetics, Inc.; Douglas Doerfler, President & CEO, MaxCyte, Inc.; Dr. Elizabeth Poscillico, President & CEO, EluSys Therapeutics, Inc.; Eric Dube, PhD, CEO, Retrophin, Inc. Eric Schuur, President & CEO, HepaTx Corporation; Erika Smith, CEO, ReNetX Bio; Franciso LePort, Founder & CEO, Gordian Biotechnology; Gail Maderis, President & CEO, Antiva Biosciences; Gary Phillips, President & CEO, Orphomed, Inc.; Geno Germano, President & CEO, Elucida Oncology, Inc.; George Scangos, CEO, VIR Biotechnology; Gil Van Bokkelen, Founder, Chairman & CEO, Athersys, Inc.; Greg Verdine, President & CEO, LifeMine Therapeutics, Inc., FOG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imran Alibhai, CEO, Tvardi Therapeutics. James Breitmeyer, President & CEO, Octernal Therapeutics, Inc.; James Flanigon, CEO, Honeycomb Biotechnologies; James Sapirstein, President & CEO, AzurRx BioPharma; Jay Evans, President & CEO, Inimmune Corporation; Jeb Keiper, CEO, Nimbus Therapeutics; Jeff Cleland, PhD, Executive Chair, Orpheris, Inc.; Jeff Jonker, President & CEO, Ambys Medicines; Jeff Kindler, CEO, Centrexion Therapeutics; Jeremy Levin, Chairman & CEO, Ovid Therapeutics, Inc.; Joe Payne, President & CEO, Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc.. John Crowley, Chairman & CEO, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.; John Jacobs, President & CEO, Harmony Biosciences; John Maraganore, CEO, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; Julia Owens, President & CEO, Millendo Therapeutics, Inc.; Justin Gover, CEO & Executive Director, Greenwich Biosciences; Keith Dionne, CEO, Casma Therapeutics; Keith Murphy, Founder, CEO & President, Viscient Biosciences; Ken Mills, CEO, REGENXBIO, Inc.; Ken Moch, President & CEO, Cognition Therapeutics; Kent Savage, CEO, PhotoPharmics, Inc. Kevin Gorman, CEO, Neurocrine Biosciences; Kiran Reddy, MD, CEO, Praxis Medicines; Lawrence Brown, CEO, Galactica Pharmaceuticals; Lorenzo Pellegrini, Founder, Palladio Biosciences; Marc De Garidel, Chairman & CEO, Corvidia Therapeutics; Marilyn Bruno, PhD, CEO, Aequor, Inc.; Mark Leuchtenberger, Executive Chairman, Aleta Biotherapeutics; Mark Pruzanski, MD, President & CEO, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mark Timney, CEO, The Medicines Company; Markus Renschler, MD, President & CEO, Cyteir Therapeutics. Martin Babier, CEO, Principia Biopharma; Melissa Bradford-Klug, CEO, Mayfield Pharmaceuticals; Michael Clayman, MD, CEO, Flexion Therapeutics; Michael J. Karlin, Co-CEO, Ibex Biosciences, LLC; Michael Raab, CEO, Ardelyx, Inc.; Mike Narachi, President & CEO, Coda Biotherapeutics; Ming Wang, PhD, President & CEO, Phanestra Therapeutics, Inc.; Morgan Brown, Executive VP & CFO, Lipocine; Nancy Simonian, CEO, Syros Pharmaceuticals; Olin Beck, CEO, Bastion Biologics. Pam Randhawa, President & CEO, Empiriko Corporation; Pat McEnany, President & CEO, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Paul Bolno, MD, CEO, Wave Life Sciences; Paul Boucher, President & CEO, Parion Sciences, Inc.; Paul Hastings, CEO, Nkarta Therapeutics; Paul Laikind, President & CEO, Viacyte; Peter Savas, CEO & Chairman, LikeMinds, Inc.; Rachel King, Founder & CEO, GlycoMimetics, Inc.; Randy Milby, Founder & CEO, Hillstream BioPharma, Inc.; Rashida Karmali, PhD, President & CEO, Tactical Therapeutics, Inc. Richard Markus, CEO, Dantari Pharmaceuticals; Richard Pascoe, Chairman & CEO, Histogen, Inc.; Richard Samulski, President, Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, Inc.; Rick Russell, President, Minverva Neurosciences; Rick Winningham, Chairman & CEO, Theravance Biopharma; Rob Etherington, President & CEO, Clene Nanomedicine; Robert Goodwin, PhD, CEO, Vibliome Therapeutics, Inc.; Robert Gould, PhD, President & CEO, Fulcrom Therapeutics; Robert M. Bernard, President & CEO, Ichor Medical Systems; Robert Wills, Chairman, CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc. Roger Tung, President & CEO, CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals; Ron Cohen, Founder, President & CEO, Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.; Russ Teichert, PhD, CEO, Scintillant Bioscience; Russell Herndon, President & CEO, Hydra Biosciences, LLC; Samantha S. Truex, CEO, Quench Bio; Sandy Macrae, President & CEO, Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc.; Scott Koenig, President & CEO, MacroGenics, Inc.; Sean McCarthy, President, CEO & Chairman, CytomX; Sharon Mates, Founder, Chairman & CEO, Intra-Cellular Therapies; Shawn K. Singh, CEO, VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. Stan Abel, President & CEO, SiteOne Therapeutics, Inc.; Stanley Erck, President & CEO, Novavak; Stephen Farr, PhD, President & CEO, Zogenix, Inc.; Stephen R. Davis, CEO, ACADIA Pharmaceuticals; Stephen Yoder, CEO & President, Pieries Pharmaceuticals; Sue Washer, President & CEO, AGTC; Sujal Shah, President & CEO, CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc.; Ted Love, CEO, Global Blood Therapeutics; Terry Tormey, CEO, Kibow Biotech. Thomas Wiggans, Founder, President & CEO, Dermira, Inc.; Tia Lyles-Williams, Founder & CEO, LucasPye BIO; Tim Bertram, CEO, inRegen & TC Bio; Timothy Walbert, President & CEO, Horizon Therapeutics; Todd Brady, CEO, Aldeyra Therapeutics; Vipin Garg, PhD, CEO, Altimmune; Wendye Robbins, MD, President & CEO, Blade Therapeutics; Will DeLoache, CEO, Novome Biotechnologies; Zandy Forbes, CEO, MeiraGTx.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I know the Democrats yesterday said: We don't care. It is worth it. We don't need all those cures. That is, in effect, what they said. And then they said: Oh, those are just somebody's talking points. No. This is the Congressional Budget Office's independent analysis that said we will lose 38 cures right out of the gate in the next two decades because of H.R. 3, and that for every year thereafter in the 2030s, we will lose 10 percent of what we otherwise would have. Is that the cure for Alzheimer's? rheumatoid arthritis? ALS? Parkinson's? That is what Democrats are saying they don't care about, that it is worth it to let those go in order to force the government price in this market. We don't think that has to be the case. I don't think it is an either/or choice. They are making it that with H.R. 3. I think we can have innovation without the heavy-handed club mugging innovation by taking the revenues of companies when they don't agree with what the government sets as the price. And we know in foreign countries that they want to model America after, upwards of 40 percent of cancer drugs are not available in those countries, and they are available here in the United States. You can go across every one of the six indicator countries, look at how they control drug costs, and, yes, they do have lower drug costs-- and that is why we have a trade negotiator, so we can get lower drug costs in these trade agreements and stop getting ripped off--but what they do to really control is they control access. There was a lot talked about in terms of death panels when ObamaCare was considered. This bill actually represents that. We are told that by the people who innovate in this space that they will not be able to continue to innovate as they have in the past and that drugs that save lives will not be available because they won't be invented. That is not just my words. That is the Congressional Budget Office; that is the Council of Economic Advisers. There isn't a think tank out there yet that I have seen, no independent analysis that says H.R. 3 is going to do anything but that. Innovation goes up on the rocks with H.R. 3. Lives will be lost; cures will never be found; and Americans won't be better off. It doesn't have to be that way. We have bipartisan legislation in our substitute that will bring down prices, bring down drug costs, bring about transparency, put a cap on what seniors spend on Medicare, address the insulin cost issue, and it can become law. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is important to know that in our substitute we cut the costs of cancer treatment for seniors in half, as well. There is bipartisan agreement on this. In fact, everything in our substitute is bipartisan. It is also important to note that in Canada it takes 14 months longer to get access to miracle new medicines compared to what we have in America. They have 52 percent of the medicines there that we have here. They have 60 percent of the cancer medicines. That means 40 percent of the cancer medicines, the latest cutting-edge ones, the ones we read about and see on ``60 Minutes'' that are curing cancer here in America, you can't get in Canada. I don't want to import that here. And when it comes to reducing access to drugs, basic research is essential. Nobody has done more to deal with that than the gentleman from Michigan, former chairman of the committee, Fred Upton, who led the effort with Cures to get more research in the National Institutes of Health. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), Congress' only pharmacist.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chair, I want to make clear that I am always willing to come to the other side of the aisle to work these things out. All of us came here with similar cause and calling, to lower the price of prescription drugs, to stop the abuse and bad behavior of pharmaceutical companies when they keep generics from coming to market. But I don't think anybody came here to take away cures for patients who come to our offices every year begging for a cure for Alzheimer's, pancreatic cancer, or ASL, you name the disease. My mother died of ovarian cancer. My father had bladder cancer. My sister-in-law died of brain cancer. We lost a son to a heart defect. We all want cures. We know by independent analysis that H.R. 3 denies access to cures. That is a fact. It is a fact that the Council of Economic Advisers says up to 100 cures will be lost. The Congressional Budget Office says in the next two decades, 38 cures would be lost. It doesn't have to be that way. We can lower drug costs. We can incent innovation. My friend from Michigan talked about being involved in the innovation world. This is a letter from 138 leaders of these incredible American innovators who beg us not to shatter the dreams of Americans, which they say H.R. 3 will do by completely upending the process. That is why President Trump said he cannot sign this. No President has ever leaned further than President Trump.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 additional seconds. We have an alternative. Everything in our substitute bill is bipartisan. Even if you feel like you have to vote for H.R. 3, there is no reason you should have to vote against the proposals in here. There is not a poison pill. They are all bipartisan. They will all bring meaningful relief to our folks at home, and nothing in here will reduce innovation.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise in support of the substitute amendment, H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act. There is a better way, ladies and gentlemen. We can reduce the high costs of drugs. We can improve health and lower long-term costs without stifling innovation and restricting patients' access to new, lifesaving medications. H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, is the bipartisan solution that can be signed into law this year and immediately begin to provide relief to patients and seniors from high prescription costs. This bill lowers out-of-pocket spending. It protects access to new medicines and cures. It strengthens transparency and accountability and champions competition. Every single proposal in this substitute is bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans coming together. First, H.R. 19 encourages innovation of groundbreaking new cures and promotes the introduction of more low-cost generic and biosimilar competition to the marketplace faster, through inclusion of the CREATES Act, which streamlines the regulation of over-the-counter products, stopping the pay-for-delay agreements and patent system gamesmanship. These policies unanimously passed the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year. They would have unanimously passed on this House floor, had a poison pill not been put in up in the Rules Committee. H.R. 19 also has a critical provision to make insulin more affordable by requiring insurance companies to cap the costs of insulin for seniors at $50 a month. H.R. 19 increases transparency and removes uncertainty at the pharmacy counter by requiring insurance companies to make information about drug costs available in the doctor's office before a prescription is written. It reduces the cost of drug administration, including for cancer treatment. We can cut that in half. We will pay for quality, not sites. H.R. 19, for the first time, places a cap on seniors' out-of-pocket costs for the year. Critically, it stops the U.S. from subsidizing other freeloader foreign countries by having a strong trade rep to negotiate better deals for Americans. This will lower costs, and it will bring about cures. Mr. Chairman, I urge bipartisan support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the leading Republican on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WALDEN. That is true on the bipartisan, but every provision in the bill has Democratic support as individual bills in other sectors. We brought only bipartisan bills into this alternative. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, let me say in response, the CBO also said 38 new cures as a result of H.R. 3 will never come about. The Council of Economic Advisers says 100 new cures will never come about. H.R. 3, the underlying bill the majority wants to put into law, actually denies people who are desperately hoping for cures, that innovation. To answer further your question, there are 138 different Democratic sponsors of the bill that we have put together here. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Ours is the only bipartisan bill. Thirty-six different provisions passed out of either the Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce Committee with unanimous, bipartisan support, all these provisions cosponsored by Democrats. Seventeen different bills passed out of the House of Representatives with bipartisan support in here. This is the bipartisan package. I have always worked across the line to get things done, whether it was in opioids or 21st Century Cures or modernizing the FDA. I pledge to continue to do that. The partisan bill on the floor today is H.R. 3. The facts of the matter show that it will deny new innovation in America and new cures for patients whose lives are on the line. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3 and a ``yes'' on the substitute. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I commend my friend, and he is my friend, Mr. Tonko. He is a very thoughtful legislator, and we have worked together on a lot of different bills. He offered and withdrew this amendment at full committee markup of H.R. 3, and I continue to extend the offer to sit down and try to work out the differences in the language. Unfortunately, as it is currently constructed, though, this could have unintended consequences, we believe, including actually increasing drug prices, which none of us wants, which I know is not the gentleman's goal either. Star ratings to measure the quality of an insurance plan or a specific benefit are a good tool for consumers and the government, but to apply an automatic star rating change to a plan's coverage of biosimilars could give a manufacturer too much negotiating leverage, and we don't want to do that. This would be a major shift in the type of quality measure the plans would be rated on and would actually affect the way they would negotiate with manufacturers and, unfortunately, we believe, not necessarily be in a way that lowers costs for consumers in Medicare Advantage. Star ratings are an important factor consumers consider when they are choosing their plan. If a plan knows they will be rated and reimbursed based on coverage of one biosimilar, they do not have much ground to stand on if they want to negotiate the cost of that drug down to benefit the patient. That means the manufacturer of the biosimilar has all the leverage and they can keep the price high, knowing they will likely still be placed on the plan's formulary because the plan is being rated on it. But the gentleman is right. We should do more to incentivize biosimilar development and coverage in this country. This is an important issue. And, again, I would be happy to work with him and others on the other side of the aisle on this and many other provisions. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand my friend's comments. None of us wants to accidentally create a situation where prices go up rather than down, and I know that is not his intent. We have that concern on this side. Perhaps we can work this out along the way and get to the same place here, because I think we share a similar goal. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment and seek time in opposition.