Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest tragedies for Therese's family, and that of all other families in America, is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us this bill will do, and that is, 38 fewer cures. 38. What if one of those was a cure for COPD? Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), our pharmacist on the committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining and if my friend has any other speakers. We do not, on our side.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I believe the gentleman has other speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I believe neither of us has any more speakers. I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Madam Speaker, we have had a good debate here on the floor. Unfortunately, it is not a debate over a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a debate over a partisan bill that will never become law. The President's office has issued a recommendation that he would veto this bill, should it ever get out of the Senate and to his desk. Beyond that, let's talk about what impact this will have in this pandemic. We have heard a lot about drugs. We know from the Congressional Budget Office that this legislation will reverse the gains and innovation made in the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, that it would result in fewer new drug products developed and coming to market. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 38 fewer medicines would be developed to cure diseases. My friend from Massachusetts talked about Therese on the doorstep in Lowell, Massachusetts, with COPD. What a tragedy it would be if one of those 38 medicines under development happened to cure COPD. Maybe it is a cure for COVID-19. Maybe it is a cure for ALS or Alzheimer's or some form of cancer, like the ovarian cancer that claimed my mother. What we do know is it puts a dagger in the heart of innovation. In fact, those scientists we are all turning to right now, Madam Speaker, these brilliant young men and women in laboratories all across America, especially those out in California at California Life Sciences Association, said this legislation, H.R. 3, part of which is incorporated in this bill, could lead to as much as a 58 percent reduction in revenue, which would significantly reduce investment in partnerships, licensing agreements, and emerging companies, and, therefore, lead to an 88 percent reduction in new medicines developed by small U.S. biotech companies. That number was an 88 percent reduction. Further, they expect it to eliminate 80,000 high-paying biotech and R&D jobs nationwide. Why would you do that now? Why would you knowingly enact a provision in legislation that would cut 80,000 American high- tech and R&D jobs in the healthcare field, where we are pleading for a cure. We are, dare I say, praying for a cure or a treatment not only for COVID but for these other diseases. The legislation before us today would do that. We have heard a lot about international price controls this legislation would put in place, government price setting. Now, let's talk about what that means. For example, when looking at a sample of 270 new medicines launched in the United States from 2011 to 2018, of those available in the United States under our formula, 67 percent are available in Germany, 64 percent in the U.K., 48 percent in Japan, 53 percent in France, about 52 percent in Canada, 41 percent in Australia. Even in countries where treatment may have been launched, patients often have to wait months, sometimes years, before they get access to that treatment. Compared to the United States, in Australia, it takes an average of 19 months longer for medicines to become available to patients. By the way, this is the scheme that this legislation wants to put into the United States. Compared to the U.S., in Canada, it takes an average of 14 months longer for medicines to become available to patients. More than a year is a long time to wait if you know there is a medicine that could help you with some disease and that medicine has just been developed, and you can get it in America tomorrow and wait 14 months in Canada. In the U.K., it could be 11 months longer. It doesn't have to be that way. We have H.R. 19. We introduced it at the beginning of this debate some time ago. I think there were seven different provisions that have already become law. Everything in that legislation is bipartisan. Look, there are going to be differences of opinion among really good people that I work with on a regular basis, and we just disagree on policy. But wouldn't it make more sense to take the things upon which we do agree on policy and move those forward into law while we debate the things where we have a disagreement and work to try and find common ground? But that is not what is happening today. The navigator program, the bill dumps $100 million more into the exchange user fee program, into the failed navigator program. Let's talk about that a minute. Navigators enroll less than 1 percent of total enrollees, according to one report. In fact, one awardee of the navigator program had an enrollment goal of 2,000. It kind of missed their goal, Madam Speaker. They enrolled one person. They eventually enrolled a total of 67 for $2,300 per enrollee. And in the private sector, they do that for about $2.40, not $2,300. The top 10 navigators signed up just 317 people in 2017. We are going to pump far more money into that. This legislation would do that. We have heard about some of that. The subsidies in here for some of the wealthiest Americans--kind of ironic that the Democrats would be doing this in their legislation, but they removed the subsidy cap that diverts taxpayer dollars for some of the highest earners in the country. There is a blank check for insurance companies. I have talked about the loss of cures, up to 38 in the next 20 years. Remember, the 10- and 20-year pipelines here, there are some estimates that there could be hundreds of new drugs. When I think about the farmer in Minnesota we heard about with $20,000 in premiums per year and $12,000 copayments, that is what America got from the ``Affordable Care Act.'' That is what ObamaCare delivered. It didn't do anything to go after the costs of healthcare. The Trump administration, conversely, has done a lot to go after the cost of healthcare. I have been with the President when he announced initiatives to make hospitals disclose their costs so Americans could shop and we could get competition. We had no more left the Roosevelt Room and returned to the Oval Office when the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced the American Hospital Association already filed suit to stop that transparency in disclosure. By the way, the administration just won a judgment in court that they can proceed to get that disclosure so consumers can know what things cost and make informed decisions. We worked together across the aisle when I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee on really powerful legislation to address the opioid crisis in America. We put enormous amounts of money into our community health centers. We fully funded, for a decade, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did all of that in a very, very bipartisan way. We, in the last few years, under the Republican majorities, rewrote America's mental health laws. We all know there is more to be done to get mental health services into our communities, but we have put an unprecedented amount of support into mental health services. Meanwhile, our community health centers, under the Democrats, continue to get an every-couple-of-month infusion of money, which is enormously frustrating for them. I know when I was chairman, it made national headlines that there were some levels of delay in fully funding our community health centers, and we ended up getting them a 2- year, fully funded, at the highest level ever, funding guarantee. Their money runs out in November. Why are we doing that? Why aren't we taking that up? The President led the effort on surprise medical billing so that, even if you have insurance and you end up like a woman in Colorado who, a few years back, gave birth to her second son. That child, born in a hospital, covered by her insurance, doctors covered by her insurance, had a medical issue after birth and had to go to the neonatal intensive care unit--just down the hall, by the way. It turned out that that hospital had contracted out that neonatal intensive care unit, and it turns out it wasn't in her insurance at all. Now, how in the heck does a consumer know that? We have bipartisan surprise billing legislation. It passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee a year ago and has yet to come to the floor of the House under the Democrats. So, meanwhile, consumers are getting stuck with surprise bills when they are playing by the rules. It continues and it shouldn't. Hopefully, we can get that legislation to the President's desk. He is ready to sign it. Meanwhile, we have made record investments at NIH, and we reauthorized the user fee agreement so that FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, our innovators, can bring their drugs and new medical devices to market faster than any time and still safe. We did that under Republican legislation and signed by President Trump. President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act when we didn't have enough ventilators or masks or gowns to order companies to make swabs, to make ventilators and move forward and continued that investment. And that was in a bipartisan way, by the way, with the CARES Act. We can do bipartisan work. We are just not doing it today. The choice to do partisan or bipartisan work is always made by the majority. When I was chairman I could move anything I wanted, generally speaking, at any time, but I chose to try and make the bulk of our work--nearly all of our work--bipartisan because I actually wanted it to become law. The drug bill Democrats passed earlier this year that takes away access to new medicines and put 88,000 jobs in the high-tech world of innovation in medicine, that bill is going nowhere. This bill is going nowhere. The police reform bill is going nowhere. What a tragedy. What a lot of opportunity. Because there are many, many of us on this side of the aisle, as the Speaker knows, who stand ready to work in a bipartisan way to get good policy and to solve problems for the American people. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate we find ourselves here today when Americans expect so much more out of this institution. I hope people will show up and we can actually do our work and actually do it in a way that will bring a positive view on this House and on our ability to solve these enormous problems that the American people are facing, whether they are suffering from COPD or simply higher insurance premiums and deductibles. What good is your insurance plan if you can't afford to use it, or when you think you followed all of the rules to use it and then find out they contracted out the emergency room and nobody covers the costs there? So let's defeat this now. Let's go to a room where we can work these things out, we can find common ground here that won't put a dagger in the heart of innovative jobs in America, that won't slow innovation in medicine and medical devices, lifesaving medicines, but that will bring better healthcare for Americans. Finally, on the issue of preexisting conditions, the President has been very clear he supports protecting people with preexisting conditions, as do I, going back to when I was in the State legislature in Oregon. We made efforts to do that. I have had legislation since the opening day of this Congress to make sure, regardless of how the lawsuit comes out, that we protect people with preexisting conditions. The Democrats won't let us bring this bill to the floor. So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, in its current form, I am.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, this motion should be adopted. It would prevent the bill from upending the very progress we are all counting on for our innovators to develop new vaccines and therapies to confront this killer coronavirus. You see, it simply states the legislation cannot take effect unless the Secretary of Health and Human Serves certifies that no provision will adversely impact the research, the development, or the approval of any drug intended to treat or prevent COVID-19. Now, Democrats, with a straight face, come to the floor today to move a bill that would do grave damage to medical innovation. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that on many occasions. Upwards of 30 to 100 drugs, depending upon the source, could never make it into the pipeline. Will that be a cure for COVID or a cure for ALS or a cure for cancer? We don't know, and neither do the Democrats bringing it. But we do know the independent analyses show we will not see a lot of new medicines. So let's make sure one of those new medicines is not the cure to COVID or a treatment to save lives for people who are on ventilators. That is what our motion to recommit says: Before you move forward with a known innovation killer, let's at least exclude treatments and cures for COVID-19. Communities are being ravaged, we all know these stories. We all share them with each other about incredible damage done to lungs, organs, and lives as a result of COVID-19. In the wake of this public health crisis, medical innovators have worked at an unprecedented speed to develop safe and effective products so we can safely begin to open our country back up and eventually return to normal lives. We have seen public-private partnerships to a degree never seen before. Private companies are joining forces with competitors, government agencies, and nonprofits, and they have taken on substantial financial risk in order to bring safe and effective vaccines and treatment to patients as quickly as possible. But now Democrats, with passage of this bill, want to gut innovation in America. California Life Sciences tells us the provisions of this bill that were included in H.R. 3 can result in 88,000 innovation tech jobs, R&D jobs going away from America to somewhere else. That is the price of this bill. We know House Democrats voted to impose these dangerous price controls with passage of H.R. 3. We also know that one of the side benefits, shall we say, of adopting socialized medicine is you don't get access to new medicines when they do become available in as timely a manner as you do here. Compared to the U.S., in Australia, it takes an average of 19 months longer for medicines to become available to patients; for Canada, it is up to 14 months longer; United Kingdom, 11 months longer for those cures for cancer, those new medicines on the market, revolutionary sort of new innovations we all want. So all we are asking for here is, before your bill becomes law--and, by the way, the administration said they will recommend a veto--before it moves through the path, let's at least make sure that an unintended but dangerous consequence of this bill does not take effect, and that is let's make sure that it will not inhibit research and innovation for a treatment or cure to COVID-19. That is what our motion asks for. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, the current Republican leader of the Rules Committee, for yielding. We are in unprecedented times, and unprecedented times do call for unprecedented actions. But using these times to smash a wrecking ball into the foundation of democratic lawmaking by making government more remote, more isolated from the people by dramatically centralizing even more power with those few at the top in the majority while giving the range of the House to fewer than 25 Members who show up with votes, with proxies, seems like a return to boss politics. This is not to say there is never room for improvement in the way the House conducts its business. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, I led the transition effort for House Republicans, and we looked at ways that we could modernize Congress and improve its operations. But I knew these were matters not to be taken lightly and we needed an inclusive, bipartisan approach, and I took great care to solicit input from Democrats and Republicans alike. We even put up a suggestion box. What we did was good work. The changes were relatively small, but the process was robust. Unfortunately, the reverse is true of this proposal. ``Regular order,'' ``accountability,'' ``transparency''--for the most part--``bipartisanship,'' these are words that govern the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Republicans and Democrats. As the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am concerned what this proposal means for the committees. How do we preserve the rights of all Members on both sides of the dais from top to bottom as we Zoom through hearings and markups? How do we preserve the integrity of the proceedings? What if there is a technology failure? What if somebody makes a mistake using the technology, like accidentally muting another Member or themselves? Haven't we all, by now, experienced the inadequacies of video conferencing? No serious legislator can believe that remote hearings, remote meetings, and remote markups are improved by these changes. Moreover, this rules change further dehumanizes our processes. We all know social media has become a cancer on civility. Further distancing Members will not improve our relationships. Think of what gets worked out between Members here on the floor or in the committees. We need more bipartisan dialogue in this country, not less, so I urge my Democratic colleagues to withdraw this proposal and work with us to preserve the great democratic traditions of the U.S. House that will work in this challenging time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma, who has done such a good job. I rise today in opposition to this bill. It is deeply troubling to me that during the worst pandemic in modern history and amidst a deep economic crisis, Democrats in the House continue to take a partisan path. As Republicans and the Trump administration moved to respond quickly, it was congressional Democrats who needlessly delayed the initial passage of the CARES Act and later caused a pointless week-long shuttering of the Paycheck Protection Program. How many jobs were lost because of that delay? And here we go again. According to Politico, ``Democrats acknowledge that their behemoth proposal, whose summary alone is 90 pages, is more of a talking point than legislation that they expect to become law.'' Well, just from the Energy and Commerce Committee perspective alone, you have policies that amount to Federal Government takeovers of entire sectors of the economy, Mr. Speaker. There is a sweetheart deal for Medicaid compliance carved out only for the State of New York and no one else. The bill throws more good money after bad to the failing enrollment programs in ObamaCare and it violates years of bipartisan agreement to maintain Hyde protections on Federal healthcare spending. Why would Democrats spend weeks crafting what amounts to an 1,800- page progressive manifesto that is dead on arrival in the Senate? Why? Mr. Speaker, I again implore my friends across the aisle to please drop the partisan, petty politics. Let's move forward in a united way for the country. That is what the people across America are doing, and that is what they expect us to do here in Congress.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me and members of Concerned Families in Southern Oregon in recognizing ``Birth-Day'' on the first day of every May. Since 2012, the Birth-Day Project has motivated concerned adults to make an impact on their local public and private schools by visiting students and celebrating all their birthdays with ice cream sundaes and recreational activities. Nearly 10,000 Americans celebrated Birth-Day last year, including several of the inaugural members in Grants Pass, OR who first recognized Birth-Day as 4th graders nine years ago. In fact, the Birth- Day Project has been so significant for students and their communities that a similar group in the State of New York, Young Life Manhattan, now celebrates Birth-Day in schools throughout the Bronx. However, this May students that would be wrapping up their school year or graduating at school, are instead learning from home and practicing social distancing in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many students and adults may feel disheartened at missing this year's Birth-Day celebration while at school, I ask that they keep in mind the sentiment of honoring the birth and life of their fellow community members. As the Coronavirus continues to impact our daily lives, we must turn to our American values to reinvigorate our fortitude as well as own faith in each other during this crisis. The Birth-Day Project seeks to bring out the best in us by valuing compassion, community, and service to others. Once again, l hope my colleagues will join me today, Friday, May 1st in building community connectedness all over our great country and celebrating the birthdays of young Americans who deserve some cheer and support during these trying times. I would personally like to wish a happy Birth-Day to all the Oregon students who cannot celebrate at school this year. We are all in this together.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this issue. I, too, rise in support of the Paycheck Protection Program and the Health Care Enhancement Act. This provides a fourth installment of funds to continue to address the impact of the COVID-19 virus on the American people. We have heard all the stories about how people have lost their lives, lost their loved ones, lost their business, lost their jobs. This bill will replenish the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses, and it will provide additional funding for healthcare providers and expanded testing. And I am glad we are finally here. For too long, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate played partisan politics. They needlessly delayed the initial passage of the CARES Act, and then they prevented a quick replenishment of the funds for the PPP. That left our small businesses and the people they employ in the lurch. With record unemployment claims, we have seen that every single day, every day, counts in this pandemic. That is why Republicans and President Trump were so adamant over the last two weeks about the need to not let these programs run out of money. We all knew that was going to happen. We could have done this unanimously. Painfully, Democrats took an ice-cream break while small businesses were left empty-handed, a pointless weeklong shuttering of the Paycheck Protection Program that hurt Americans and undoubtedly cost thousands of jobs. As a member of the President's bipartisan task force on reopening the economy, I remain committed to ensuring that there are resources and strategies in place for widespread testing that our health and economic experts have said is needed to reopen the country. And while I support additional funding for healthcare-related expenses, it should never have been at the expense of bankrupting more small employers and throwing more people into the unemployment lines. The American people's plight should not be used as leverage for partisan priorities, especially in the midst of a crisis. We must move forward in a united way that puts the needs of the American people first. Now, let's pass this measure, get it to the President's desk, so we can begin to safely reopen this country.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, this package is not the first response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor will it be the last. The American people expect us to set partisanship aside in times of crisis and do what is best for our country and for our constituents, and that is what we are doing today. We are helping healthcare providers on the front lines back home get the personal protective equipment they need and the medicines and medical devices that will save the lives of their patients. We are helping people who have lost their jobs get a lifeline. We are helping our small businesses keep their workforce together. We are making record investments into finding treatments and a cure. We are helping our State and local governments, too. We are all in this together. With President Trump's leadership, we are all in this to win as fast as medically possible. In order to prevent our health system from collapsing under the weight of this virus, we are providing unprecedented support for our Nation's healthcare providers, including $100 billion for hospitals, labs, doctors, and increased reimbursement for treating COVID-19 patients. We will dramatically expand production and distribution of medical supplies by providing liability protections through the PREP Act for respirator manufacturers, providing $16 billion for the Strategic National Stockpile to procure medical countermeasures such as personal protective equipment and ventilators, and providing $11 billion for the manufacturing, production, and purchase of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other items to address the Nation's medical or preparedness needs. The CARES Act opens up the fastest computers in the world at our national laboratories for research and analysis related to the COVID-19 virus. We help EPA expedite the ability to get disinfectants to market more quickly to protect the public from COVID-19 and prevent its further spread. In a volatile oil market, the CARES Act smartly delays a mandatory 2020 sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through 2022. Included in the package are improvements to expand access to care through telehealth, including $200 million for the FCC for telehealth services and devices and an expansion of telehealth services in the Medicare program. The package also extends vital Medicare, Medicaid, and public health programs, including community health centers, among many others, until November 30 this year. We mobilize the Nation's health workforce by providing liability protections to those who provide volunteer medical services during the public health crisis and by standing up the Ready Reserve. We take steps to protect our medical supply chain, something that I hope the Congress will continue to work on after we pass this legislation today. Today's phase three approach is the most comprehensive and robust response to COVID-19 yet. Together, we are going to win this war.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill. The American people are rightly concerned about coronavirus, and as a Congress, we have a responsibility to help them deal with this crisis. Many Americans--sick or not--will need to stay home from work. Many will need access to testing and care. Our state and local health care providers and first responders are on the front lines of this fight. We're all in this together. That's how I'm thinking about it as a citizen--for my family--and as United States Congressman working for you, for Oregon, and for our nation. Last week, we approved over $8 billion to get more tests out into our communities, reimburse local entities for the work they are doing, and to find a vaccine and treatments. We need to do more, and that's what we will do today. By working together, our efforts will leave our country better prepared to address this crisis. But I must note that more could have been done. First, we all know hospitals across the nation are preparing to treat a surge of patients and health care providers are already running low on crucial respirator masks. We need to make more of these masks available to protect our health workers who are on the front lines of this pandemic. By making commonsense changes to the PREP Act, we could boost the availability and supply of critically needed respirators. This is a missed opportunity, but I'm going to keep pushing. We need to get these crucial pieces of protective equipment out to communities who need them most. Second, our front-line needs reinforcements. We currently have provider shortages; to win this next stage of the fight we must maintain sufficient hospital staffing. Dr. Burgess and Representative Eshoo have a bipartisan bill that would improve the ``Ready Reserve'' of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The ``Ready Reserve's'' purpose is to fulfill the need for additional personnel on short notice for public health and emergency response. We must improve the surge capacity of our health care workforce. Why this was left out is maddening; it makes no sense. Of course, we all know there will be more work to do in the coming weeks. We must get ready. We need to turn our attention to our medical product supply chain--both for this pandemic and future ones. For me, this is not a new concern, prior to the coronavirus outbreak, I've raised concern about our country's overreliance on foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing. If a country monopolizes the production of a drug and wishes to retaliate against the U.S., they could substantially increase drug prices or reduce supply in an attempt to cause shortages, limiting access to critical medications. This could put American lives at risk in a time of crisis. Finally, I still believe the Medicaid policies in the bill could have been designed more effectively and better-targeted to the immediate challenge presented by COVID-19. With that said, states and localities are on the front lines and this enhanced funding will help states immediately address public health needs as well as handle an expected surge in new patients. Even with these concerns, I do rise in support of the bill because we need to make sure people can get tested, help those who have to stay home from work and their families, and ensure our health professionals have the support they need from the federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. To the American people, our country is strong. Our economy is resilient. Do not panic but be smart and vigilant and we can overcome this challenge.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to follow up on my friend from Florida's comments. Let me remind the body that it was the Obama administration that failed to take enforcement action against e-cigarette manufacturers while these products grew in popularity among our children. In contrast, it is the Trump administration that is actually taking significant action to curb youth use of tobacco and e-cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration under President Trump has already removed most flavored e-cigarettes from the market and stated they will take additional action against any products found to be targeting children. My friends will say the administration left open a giant loophole by not targeting all these cigarette products. I reiterate: FDA has stated they will ``take action against any product, regardless of whether a product is cartridge-based, disposable, or flavored, if it is targeted to minors, its marketing is likely to promote youth use, or if the manufacturer has failed to take, or is failing to take, adequate measures to prevent minors' access.'' The FDA has that authority to regulate e-cigarettes. It has taken action to remove those products that are targeted to kids from the market. In addition, any product wishing to come back on the market will need to receive marketing authorization from the FDA beginning later this year making the actions of this bill actually unnecessary. But remember this bill deals with adults because we already, in a bipartisan way, passed a law to prohibit these products from being sold to people under 21 years of age. That was a huge problem. There was a big loophole. As I said, the Obama administration let all this unfold before their eyes. We passed a bill. It is now law. Nobody under 21 has access to these products. Madam Speaker, the bill doesn't address this issue; this is literally called CannaKids. This is literally DOPE e-Liquid, Black Cherry. Marijuana-flavored vaping products are not covered under this legislation. But this legislation goes so far as to take legal products that adults may use--I don't use any of this stuff. I am not a big fan of it at all. But they have their choice. These are adult products. Adults will no longer have access to these products. They are gone. They are banned under this bill. Madam Speaker, you are going to set up a whole new criminal enforcement effort that some, including the ACLU, believe will target people of color more than others. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I think we have had a good debate here today, and we understand the differences between the proponents and opponents. I want to close with a couple of comments. Marijuana and THC-laced products are illegal at the Federal level under the Controlled Substances Act. Nobody disputes that. Yet, we have seen how easy it is for individuals, including children, to get their hands on these products. They are marketed all over the internet in kid-friendly flavors. Not only are these illegal products easy to access, but they caused an outbreak of serious illnesses known as e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury--it is known as EVALI--and resulted in the deaths of 68 Americans. Centers for Disease Control confirmed this outbreak was linked to vitamin E acetate used in THC-containing e- cigarettes. The point is, though, as more people are pushed away from flavored tobacco products that are currently legal--again, we already made all this illegal for anybody under 21, so we are talking about adults here--they will start pushing products through illicit markets. We all hope that in the face of the tobacco prohibition, tobacco users would simply quit using these products, but the fact is, these products are addictive. They are designed so users cannot simply quit. Without accounting for this reality, this legislation will simply push individuals to more dangerous and unregulated products. Illicit markets are already thriving, as is evidenced by the cannabis marketplace and the existing illicit tobacco trade. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives. They say: Organized criminal groups are already increasingly active in selling illicit cigarettes from low tax states to high tax states. A new market--menthol cigarettes--will only fuel those criminal enterprises and everything that comes with them from money laundering of shell companies that are funding gang and terrorist activities. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, Alexandria, VA, June 11, 2019. Re H.R. 2339: Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic of 2019, Bill introduced by: U.S. Congressman Frank Pallone. Hon. Frank Pallone, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Moore: The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) serves as the conscience of law enforcement in America by being committed to Justice by Action. Founded in 1976, NOBLE is committed to ensure equity in the administration of justice and its unyielding commitment is to work toward the elimination of racism and bias of any type within the law enforcement field. NOBLE has nearly 60 chapters and represents over 3,000 members worldwide that represent chief executive officers and command-level law enforcement officials from federal, state, county, municipal law enforcement agencies, and criminal justice practitioners. As an organization, NOBLE has no stance on the scientific and medical issues regarding the impact of the use of menthol cigarettes aside from saying that we believe any governmental decision--especially one that could ban a previously legal product--should be rooted on rigorous science. Historically, NOBLE has expressed concerns over the ban of menthol cigarettes for adults due to the unintended consequences that occur when said products are made available through a illicit market. The result can be the increased encounters between the consumer (in this case African Americans) and law enforcement officials who are enforcing the ban. NOBLE applauds the legislation to increase the minimum age to consume tobacco products from 18 to 21. We currently are launching a program aimed at educating and informing young people to the dangers of consuming tobacco products and their derivatives. However, we are concerned over the inclusion of menthol flavored products in H.R. 2339 that may encourage a ban of these products in the adult market. Research data shows that menthol cigarettes constitute one-third of the U.S. market and is the preferred cigarette of more than 80% of African Americans who choose to smoke. Our goal is to reduce policies and legislative actions that may increase unintended enforcement interaction between police and people of color. Organized criminal groups are already increasingly active in selling illicit cigarettes from low tax states to high tax states. A new market--menthol cigarettes--will only fuel those criminal enterprises and everything that comes with them from money laundering or shell companies that funding gang and terrorist activities. A ban on menthol cigarettes would be exploited by criminal organizations to finance their activities. We urge you to consider the real-world evidence of the ramifications of the unintended consequences of a ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes and the disproportionate impact of a menthol ban in African American communities. Given all of these concerns, NOBLE respectfully requests that this legislation remove menthol from the list of flavors being considered for a ban on retail sales. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Vera Bumpers, National President.

Mr. WALDEN. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, which opposes this legislation. This bill is making an additional set of products illegal that will further encourage illegal behavior that is already occurring and difficult to combat. Madam Speaker, where does this stop? We are all for stopping children from having access to these products. We did that with T21. It is now law. We have legislation--bipartisanly passed in the House, pending in the Senate--to require age verification at point of sale and delivery of tobacco products so that we really get boundaries around these products getting into the hands of youth. But if you are going to ban flavored tobacco products but not flavored marijuana products, are you going to ban flavored alcohol products? We know childhood obesity is an epidemic. Are we going to go down that path as well and ban products adults use but tell kids they can't have a candy bar? I mean, where does this end? I led an effort when I was student body president in high school to get smoking out of the bathrooms. I went to the school board, and we actually created a smoking area outside that required parental permission, a permit, and a fee. That was the 1970s. It was an amazing, revolutionary thing. Thankfully, a few years later, they got rid of the whole thing, but I got tired of using the bathroom only to find my friends smoking in there and lighting fires in the trash cans. I have been an advocate for getting smoking and smoking products away from kids my entire life. That is why I supported T21 to ban the sale of tobacco products to anybody under 21, the age verification issue, and all that. But we are talking here about now telling adults in America that you can no longer have access to these legal products. Now, I am not a fan of these legal products. Don't get me wrong. But I represent people who do use them, and I am going to go home, and they are going say: ``What do you mean you took away my Grizzly or Kodiak or Snuffs?'' I don't even know what you do with those products, but we are going to take them away. We are going to ban them for good under your law, and we are going to have our law enforcement go enforce that. Now, they will tell you that it is just the FDA, but what they won't tell you is, in the bill, it only relates to the FDA, but there are criminal penalties in this bill. It probably should have gone to the Committee on the Judiciary. There are other laws on the books that law enforcement can enforce, and that is why the ACLU and others sent us this letter concerned about the stop and frisk tactics. Remember, Eric Garner was selling illegal cigarettes on the streets, individual cigarettes. That is what led to the law enforcement action that tragically ended up in his death with the illegal choke hold. They reference all that in their letter in opposition to this legislation. We are not making this up on our side. It is all right here. I include in the Record this letter, along with a Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 2339. Monday, February 24, 2020. Re Coalition Concerns with Blanket Prohibition on Menthol and Other Flavored Tobacco within H.R. 2339, Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act. Hon. Frank Pallone, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,

Mr. WALDEN. Meanwhile, marijuana products are not covered by the bill. Go figure. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. WALDEN. In its present form, oh, yes, I am opposed.