tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 12, 2019 10:59am-1:00pm EST
democrats sponsors of the bill that we have put together here. i now recognize the gentlelady from north carolina -- the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. for how long? mr. walden: one minute. ms. foxx: thank you ranking member walden. democrats are putting politics over progress by advancing a socialist drug pricing scheme that will hurt the development of money-saving treatments and peoples' lives. workers and families are being let down by democrats. that's why i'm proud to sponsor and support h.r. 19 the lower costs, more cures act. this legislation includes 40 provisions backed by democrats and republicans and it can go to the president's desk today. unlike h.r. 3 which the nonpartisan congressional budget office present digits there will be 38 fewer costs, h.r. 19
protects access to new medicines and cures and lowers out of pocket spending and strengthens transparency and accountability and champions competition. h.r. 19 acts in the interest of hardworking americans. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense amendment. i yield back. . . the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. porter: claims that h.r. 3 ill stop cures is fear mongering. h.r. 3 makes substantial more ment to help create cures and most importantly will make sure those cures can actually help people in their lives. fair that the government, elected by the taxpayers, and the appointed by , elected officials, should get to negotiate drug prices, and it not come at the expense of innovation. i reserve the balance of my time.
he chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. california man from is recognized. speaker, how r. much time remains? the chair: the gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining. ms. porter: i look forward to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to come up with ways to innovation and support the kind of innovation that's happening in orange county, the area that i represent. but we have to tackle the fundamental problem here, which is that pharmaceutical companies are gouging americans. they are overcharging them, and they're leaving lifesaving drugs hands of the american people each and every day. tackle ndment does not that fundamental problem. today, nine out of 10 big pharmaceutical companies spend marketing, sales, and overhead than they do on research. packaged to support the of h.r. 3, because it will tackle the fundamental problem f permitting price negotiation and making drugs more affordable americans.
i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. ours is the only bipartisan bill. 36 different provisions passed out of ways and means or energy with mmerce committee unanimous bipartisan support. all these provisions co-sponsored by democrats. 17 different bills passed out of the house of representatives, bipartisan support in here. package.he bipartisan i have always worked across the line to get things done, whether 21st in opioids or century cures or modernizing the f.d.a. i pledge to continue to do that. the floor n bill on today is h.r. 3. the facts of the matter show new innovationny in america and new cures for patients whose lives are on the line. vote on h.r. 3 and a yes on the substitute. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the
have it. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. t is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in 116-334.f house report for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 in part b of house eport 116-334 offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman york, mr. tonko, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. without objection. mr. tonko: despite the passage bilogics price
xe -- biologics price innovation act through the affordable care ct which created the modern pathway by bringing biosimilar drugs to market, consumers in are still not es reaping the cost saving benefits biosimilars ature market would provide. as of may, only 19 biosimilars the f.d.a.pproved by many of those that have been approved are not on the market of reasons. economics 101 teaches us when ore competition is introduced into the market, prices come down. we have seen this with the of the ming success generic pharmaceuticals market we're e a home, and seeing it with biosimilars in other parts of the globe. in europe, for example, the of biosimilar ompetition for hew mara -- humara led to the manufacture dropping it. in the ately, here united states, biosimilars still ery low market share and
utilization, despite the fact they could generate much-needed avings for patients and for taxpayers. if we want to continue to meaningfully lower drug costs american patients, congress can and should do more to create that is environment ripe for greater biosimilar adoption. underlying rationale behind my amendment, which is based on legislation i ntroduced with congressman bob gibbs, known as the star ratings for biosimilars act. the amendment would require department of health and human services to incorporate into the existing star rating system for medicare advantage and part d lans a measure that evalue waits how plans pro -- evaluates how plans promote access to biosimilar drugs. in creating such a measure, at things d look suc such at tier placement, cost sharing, and other utilization techniques. by evaluating plans on biosimilar access, this
health t would motivate plans to improve performance and implement changes to improve biosimilars, creating a policy environment ripe for biosimilar development. a similar measure has already senate pted by the finance committee. as they work through their prescription drug legislation. from some criticism hat the star rating system has traditionally not been used for this type of measure. to that, i would contend that tar ratings have already been used in several ways to influence plan behavior and quality such as evaluating plans on how they screenings, care coordination and medicare management, for example. these metrics are incent plans for beneficiary help. access to affordable
medicatio patients will abstain from needed medications if simply too high. the .b.o. score for underlying legislation makes this connection crystal clear. evaluating plans on biosimilar access, we are ensuring that patients have the that will they need allow them to live healthier lives. simply urge would my colleagues to support this important amendment that will elp lay the groundwork for greater biosimilar adoption and continue to lower drug costs for patients. obviously a common cause for each and every person in this chamber. i reserve mr. chair, the balance of my time. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you. reserve. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition? do.walden: oh, i i claim time in opposition and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. chair, i believe we have no other members
speak on our side. mr. walden: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. walden: i commend my friend, mr. he is my tonko. he is a very thoughtful legislator. a lot of together on bills. he withdrew this in committee 3 and i continue onoffer to sit down and work the language. as constructed, it could have consequences, including increasing drug prices, which none of us want gentleman's goal measure. star rating are a good tool for onsumers and the government, but to apply an automatic star rating change to a plan's coverage of biosimilars could them the manufacturer too much negotiating leverage and we that.want to do this would be a major shift in the type of plans would be rated on. affect the way they negotiate with manufacturers and
unfortunately, we believe, not in a way, lower cost for consumers in medicare advantage. star rating is an important factor when they choose their plan. if a plan knows they will be reimbursed based on the coverage of one biosimilar, they don't have much ground to to d on if they want negotiate the cost of that drug down to the benefit of the patient. of means the manufacturer the biosimilar has all the leverage, and they can keep the price high knowing they'll placed on the plan's formulary because the plan is being rated on it. right.tleman is we should do more to ensure biosimilar coverage in this country. an important issue. again, i'd be happy to work with him. side of s on the other the aisle on this and many other provisions. i'd recognize the gentleman from montana for how remains? for three minutes. from air: the gentleman montana is recognized.
gianforte: the cost of prescription drugs have ontinued to rise, putting montanans with critical health issues in jeopardy. senior ly heard from a in libby, montana, with colon cancer. 2010 and hissed in disease has bankrupt his family. takes costs ug he $17,000 per montana. it's the only drug that works cancer and medicare only covers $11,000. he is forced to fight against the -- give up his fight against pay an extra $6,000 a month for a lifesaving drug. a year.n extra $72,000 as he put it, i find it rather sellncerting that one must his home and all his possessions cancer.survive i agree, this has to stop. put -- no ld have to
one should have to end up like my constituent in libby, and the that this would -- we could lower prescription costs while out-of-pocket ' costs by the end of 2019. it's also disheartening that working in have been good faith all year on a ipartisan basis to do just that. unfortunately, house democrats, led by speaker nancy pelosi, are partisan politics in front of patients. er plan would have devastating consequences for montanans. it will lead to rationing of medication, big government price fixing, and government bureaucrats between medication. the truth is her partisan bill house ver move past the floor. we have heard from majority leader mcconnell that the pelosi on arrival in the senate, and it doesn't have a chance of being signed into law president trump. unfortunately, as we wait on democrats to act in a bipartisan
continue to rise and hardworking montanans continue o choose between their needed medication and paying their bills. on the other hand, the republicans have introduced the costs and more cures act. this is a bipartisan bill that law by the ned into end of 2019. his bill increases transparency, encouraging innovation for new drugs and cures and places a cap on costs.' out-of-pocket i've also been working to lower true and shed light on the cost of prescription drugs. last week, i introduced a legislation to bring much-needed transparency into the practice of middle men in pharmaceutical supply chain called pharmacy benefit managers. competition ases between p.b.m.'s and lower costs for patients. win-win.y a waiting any longer to pass bills that lower costs for patients to political points is unacceptable. enough is enough. let's stop the political theater
get back to work. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. is gentleman from oregon recognized. mr. walden: i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. r. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. we have no further speakers on this side. f mr. walden is prepared to close, i'll further reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. r. walden: i believe i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. walden: so i'll reserve and et my friend from new york close. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. opinions ofpect the mr. walden. we have worked in a bipartisan before on several issues energy and commerce, but i believe the claim that this simply crease costs is false. like the senate finance committee that's moving forward this proposition on biosimilars, we believe it is a costs.lower to date, the 9/11 biosimilars -- biosimilars access is at an average of 19% discount.
a false claim that a biosimilar would not not launch at a lower price. certainly we must do better. we're reminded constantly that better, we must do better, as the namesake of this legislation had constantly us.ored representative elijah cummings always knew that we needed to for the american public. that is why we need to pass this amendment. back, mr. i yield chair. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. r. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. and i understand my friend's comments. accidentallynts to create a situation where prices go up rather than down. intent.that's not his we have that concern on this side. perhaps we can work this out long the way and get to the same place here because i think we share a similar goal, and i yield back the balance of my time. yields.r: the gentleman and the question is on the amendment offered by the new york.from those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 116-334 offered by mr. peterser of california -- peters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman from california, mr. pete, and a member opposed each will control five minutes -- peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. peters: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. is 3 is not perfect, no bill is. but i will support it today because it's our best chance to get moving on the very pressing issue of high prescription drug prices. i hope the senate will work with us in a good-faith manner to come up with a final bill that both lowers prices and preserves incentives for innovation.
the concerns and some outstanding questions about the effect of this bill on innovation in the private sector are legitimate. my colleagues have referenced the c.b.o. studies, also the california life science association released a report in october that predicted that h.r. 3 would make drug development particularly challenging for small and emerging companies in california. the amendment i offer today will go a long way toward preserving and supporting biopharmaceutical innovation and that's not an be a strax it. can be measured in jobs, breakthrough cures and even state of the art research facilities. innovation, research and development are the economic life blood of california and particularly san diego. over the past decade, california firms have received more than 30% of total biotech investment in the country, and in san diego county, there are over 48,000 jobs in the life sciences sector, supported by $1.5 billion in venture capital. in san diego alone we have five institutions that rank among the top recipients of the national
institutes of health funding in the country and they are doing amazing things. one la jolla based research and development facility in my district recently launched a one-time gene replacement therapy that essentially halts the progression of a rare and deadly genetic childhood disorder, spinal muscular atrophy. this company is also currently investing in research to cure a genetic form of a.l.s. if we aren't cable, -- aren't careful, we might put those kind of breakthrough therapies at risk of never treating a single patient. from n.i.h. and academic research institutions to philanthropy and biopharmaceutical industries, there's a network of capital today in the public and private sectors that supports innovation. at the risk of oversimplifying, the n.i.h. focuses on basic biomedical science, investigating the underlying mechanisms of disease, while smaller biotech companies supported by institutional investors take the basic science to the preclinical and early phase stages of drug development. drug companies later conduct later-stage research, fund clinical trials and invest in
startups. these financial backers, like drug companies and venture capitalists, are important because they can help close the funding gap that exists between preclinical research and the early and later stage clinical trials. now, if h.r. 3 predicts -- changes investor behavior as some predict, this could widen the gap for smaller biotech companies, the so-called valley of death, and i think we can all agree that these are consequences we want to avoid. securing funding for the high cost of clinical trials is often cited as the key hurdle facing smaller biotech companies at the precipice of the so-called valley of death. while the biopharmaceutical industry and the federal government both fund clinical trials, n.i.h.'s ability to bring drugs to market is constrained by its limited budget. and a mandate to carry out its core mission of advancing biomedical research, which is not necessarily the same as bringing drugs to market. over time, these limitations have resulted in the declining number of n.i.h. sponsored
clinical trials. the biopharma industry is really good at bringing drugs to market because it can afford expensive failures. the federal government is really good at research and development, because it can ignore constraining signals of the commercial market. we do patient noes favors by pitting biopharma against -- patients no favors by pitting biopharma against government. i established a pilot program that will award multiyear contracts to public and private entities like research institutions, medical centers and biotech companies to support phase two and phase three clinical trials. that pilot program will receive $500 million every year for five years. the bill also includes this amendment, number 3, before you today, which is based on my bill, the innovation and capital network act of 2019. my amendment creates an innovation startup fund at n.i.h. that will support the commercialization stage of research, later stage research
and development, as well as technology, transfer and technical assistance. specifically, it directs $500 million over five years to incentivize incubators and acceleraters and other financial backers to support biotech companies through early to mid stage clinical studies. these two things are mutually reinforcing. n.i.h. is free to do more drug development and more small to mid-sized biotech companies can freely follow the science. in other words, these small biotechs can pursue unforeseen opportunities that could lead to a cure for cancer. whether you vote -- for h.r. 3 or not, we must continue to support the network of capital that sustains innovation. i hope you'll support this amendment and the freedom to follow science and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: i am opposed to the amendment and seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you very much, mr. chairman much i appreciate my colleague -- mr. chairman.
i appreciate my colleague's amendment on this. i understand it. and i think it's important because it does strike at the heart of the issue and the concerns many of us on this side of the aisle have. you know, the california life sciences association told us that if enacted h.r. 3's medicare part d foreign reference pricing proposal would reduce by 88% the number of drugs brought to market by small and emerging companies in california alone. due to changed investor behavior. so they think up to 88% of the great innovations and cure they're working on will never come to market. they also think it would eliminate 80,000 biotech r&d jobs nationwide. and reduce revenues by $71 billion a year. so these are the people, predominantly out in california, that do this every day, that are living in this world of trying to create innovation and new life-saving drugs and they're saying up to 88% of the new drugs are working -- would never
come to market. these are the small startups. we've heard a lot from others on the floor in the last 24 hours about big pharma. well, we're not talking about big pharma here. we're talking about small little startups, american entrepreneurs, if you think about silicon valley and the high-tech world, this is the equivalent in the biotech world. these are individuals that have an idea and a big brain and they're coming together to come up with a cure to these diseases like s.m.a. and alzheimer's and sickle cell apeople in yarks things like that -- anemia, things like that, things that we all struggle with in our communities. our fear on this side of the aisle as republicans is we know based on the facts and the independent analysis of our congressional budget office, based on the council of economic advisors, based on the input of the very people who are in the trenches every day in these laboratories across america, where 2/3 of the world's innovation comes from in this pace, that h.r. 3 will reduce, significantly reduce new cures coming to market.
now, we're all for lowering drug prices. i think we'd have a unanimous vote on the provisions in our alternative here if we had a real fair opportunity to kind of take these one at a time. we're glad we have the opportunity to have the vote. i think, because there are 138 democrat bills or democrats on the measures that are in our bipartisan, what i would call bipartisan proposal here, that we could get bipartisan support for it. and we could lower drug costs, we can stop the gaming in the system, and we can continue to have more cures in america, not less. let's face it, i do not believe it's an overstatement to say people will die if we have -- if we have fewer cures. we know that to be a fact. it's not a talk point. it is a fact, it is a truth. at a time when we should rely on more facts, this is one we should think about seriously before we vote on h.r. 3. and that's why, mr. chairman, we came up with this combination of really thoughtful proposals,
some of which have passed out of committees in the house or the senate, bipartisan support for them. now, on the peters amendment itself, it's a laudable amendment. it will not be able to substitute for the destruction, however, the american biomedical industry under h.r. 3. congressional budget office says, and i quote, the effects on the new drug introductions from the bill would be modest. i'll let our members vote as they want. certainly we all want to do more to invest in our national institutes of health. i have no real objection to the gentleman's amendment. but the underlying bill eviscerate what is he's trying to accomplish here in terms of medical research and breakthrough cures. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment
s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. kennedy: good morning, mr. chair. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 116-334 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kennedy: i want to thank speaker pelosi, chairman pallone, chairman neal, chairman scott for their extraordinary leadership on this legislation, this helping bring historic reform of our prescription drug system to the floor today. in the last few years, president
trump has demonstrated how quickly the revolving door between industry and lobbyists and high-ranking government officials and offices can spin. it is a practice that may not have started when he entered office. but it is certainly one that he has perfected. even after promising to drain the swamp, president trump has appointed more former industry lobbyists to his cabinet in under three years than both president obama and president bush did in their entire time in office. with those appointments, conflicts of interest run rampant and corruption has not been hard to find. that is what this amendment attempts to address. it is about good, clean, ethical governance. if we are giving the secretary of health and human services the authority to negotiate drug prices, which we absolutely should, we must ensure that those negotiations cannot be
tainted by past business relationships or potential personal financial gain. because it is not fair for a secretary to be put into a position where his or her motives may be questioned. and it is certainly not fair to the public to be forced to question the intentions of that secretary. put simply, a secretary who is previously responsible for price increases on insulin and numerous other drugs while working for a big pharma company may be inclined to choose profits of the former employer over the patients he now serves. that same secretary may choose to increase those prices higher and negotiate something other than in good faith-based on inside knowledge, past relationships or potentially a future return to that same job after his government service has ended. that would give patients rightful doubt that their interests will guide their negotiations taking place on
their behalf. thank you, mr. chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. brady: 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 don't want -- 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 life-saving cures for americans,
struggling with the ravages ofster alzheimer's and dementia -- of alzheimer's and dementia, a.l.s., parkinson's, the many cancers we face, leukemia, hypertension, all those costly and stubborn diseases. we know, the congressional budget office has already confirmed at least 38 fewer medicines and cures the next two decades. the council of economic advisors estimates it will be close to 100 lost cures. and even in the speaker's home state of california, the life sciences association, those small firms that do 3/4 of those clinical trials to bring new drugs to america, they modeled her bill and they said, nearly nine out of 10 of the drugs that they would be working on would never come to market if this democrat drug bill becomes law. 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's what we strongly oppose. so with that, and for those reasons, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i'll reserve time. but i have no other speakers, sir. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. . mr. kennedy: how much time remains? the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. kennedy: i yield to the mrs. woman from michigan, dingell. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague, kennedy, for adding an amendment to this bill which will tighten it even further. to thank speakers pelosi, chairman pallone, for man neal and scott their -- chairmen neal and scott for their leadership on this action which needs
and f to american patients seniors from the high drug prices that's scarring too many them. there's a reason we pay four times more for prescription rugs than other industrialized nations. they use negotiation to lower drug prices. we don't. negotiating lower drug prices is that the president, republicans have ade and the lower drug prices now act makes that commitment. representative kennedy's mendment will strengthen this provision to make sure that the secretary of health and human services, who is responsible for negotiations, is free from conflicts of interest. a public ffice is trust, and america's seniors and atients deserve to have confidence that the secretary's interests are aligned with theirs. this amendment is so important. first american people
when negotiating drug prices so hey receive the best deal possible. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will american people, not special interests -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. -- dingell: mrs. dingell: i yield back. he chair: the gentleman reserves. chairman, i'd mr. like to close by stating a couple things. friend, the chairman from texas, the intent f this amendment is not directed at any one individual. it is directed at an intent i do share, to ensure the integrity of a position in is focused on the well-being of every american. here wants to do anything that is somehow going hinder anyone -- for the
potential for a new cure to come to market. do have to wrestle with the the -- 55% of f the counties in our country a practicing psychiatrist, psychologist, or social workers. off hird of the donations of go fund me are for health care costs. the existing system that we have families dayerican in and day out. they are asking for this for a reason, and we are delivering. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. is gentleman from texas recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. here. talk about the bill i was in the ways and means committee when we created, worked with president bush to affordable drug plan for seniors. pelosi and democrats vote their best to against -- kill it, voted against it. she called it that it would,
medicare as we know it. can you imagine how many seniors' lives would have been succeeded ocrats had in stopping the affordable medicare drug program that 43 have come to s depend upon? ancy pelosi and democrats were dangerously wrong then. an americans afford the pain and loss lives of our loved ones hen they are dangerously wrong again? we oppose this amendment. we oppose the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields, is on the stion amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in 116-334. house report for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. o'halleran: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
designate the amendment. number 5 amendment printed in part b of house eport 116-334 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman mr. o'halleran, and a member opposed, each will five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. o'halleran: thank you, mr. chair. today, i rise in support of my h.r. 3, the lower drug prices now act. would first like to thank chairman pallone and chairman neal for committing to work with and to is amendment committee staff for their efforts as well. am proud to present arizona's -- represent arizona's first congressional district. ur district is larger than the state of illinois and is one of the most rural in the country. held 26 town halls across the vast district. t each and every one, i heard from rural residents struggling to access quality health care close to home. that is why i introduced my amendment.
award grants ould to hospitals in rural and so cally underserved areas these hospitals are able to establish a graduate medical or partner ogram with within approved hospital to host residents. to the congressional research service, more than half f family medicine physicians reside within 100 miles of where they trained as residents. will incentivize doctors to stay and practice in by rural communities providing opportunities to bring areas students to rural for residency training. hospital are not reimbursed for graduate medical education programs until they are fully established. the grants awarded under my amendment would cover associated hospitals, s for including necessary infrastructure, equipment, and fees. my amendment also requires the nonpartisan government
issue ability office to report on the success of the education willis implement, including analysis of the er residents stayed in rural communities where they trained. according to the association of colleges, our l country will suffer a shortage physicians by the year 2032. we are already losing -- physicians across rural america. hit ural areas will be especially hard. i'm offering my amendment today to mitigate the effects that rural eeking care in areas will experience. as we move forward with h.r. 3, not leave our rural communities on the back burner. ur rural communities will not be able to access their first place n the if they cannot access providers. y amendment takes an all-of-the-above approach to improving rural health care by
and revamping s the ways we recruit qualified professionals. the area we need them -- in the area we need them most. i reserve the balance of my time. he chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: mr. chairman, i'd time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: this would require health and y of human services to award grants to hospitals including critical located in tals rural or medically underserved areas to establish and improve residency training program. the goals in this amendment are like so much around here, bipartisan work in this area has been stopped impeachment and it's rush to impeachment that's toxic atmosphere and prevented parties from working n the people's business rather than creating a constitutional crisis for purely political reasons. to hear this ange discussion, because earlier this year we offered, ways and means
to ittee, an amendment reallocate these g.m.e. slots rural and these medically underserved areas. nfortunately, those amendments ejected on a largely partisan basis. i wish the gentleman from arizona would have been with us all day because almost democrats voted no. that said, i do have real concerns. provides more medicare-funded payments to slotsals for these g.m.e. but without making any needed to rms everyone knows needs happen. institute of medicine report called for innovative approaches slots in order to improve the match between the physician workforce, what we health care ional needs. just last week, the journal of medicine -- internal medicine published a study of how medicare is overpaying for g.m.e. and this wasted money could actually be used to address the physician shortages
areas.rserved according to the study's lead may be medicare g.m.e. overpaying some hospitals up to $1.28 billion annually. instead of creating another grant program on a bill that's deader than a door nail, let's a serious attempt at g.m.e. reform. e can build, after impeachment is over, if it wastes all of maybeear as well as this, we can build upon recommendations, establish a permanent performance-based program that actually reaches what we as democrats and want and s, i think, create the standards needed for these rural and underserved areas. overpayments identified in the report could actually go oward expanding the teaching health center program, which ould be terrific, because that focuses on training in ommunity-based primary care settings. that's where providers are needed the most. that's where they intend to
stay. that's a win-win for everyone. to work with the gentleman from arizona, i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. r. o'halleran: mr. chairman, i now yield to my colleague from new mexico, congresswoman traez small, for one -- torres for one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman from new mexico is recognized. ms. torres small: thank you, mr. chair. i thank the gentleman from arizona for yielding and for his tireless work fighting for rural d health care in communities. congressman o'halleran's mendment, which i am proud to co-sponsor, is vital like those in new mexico's second congressional district. run on small n margins and do not have necessary resources to establish residency training programs. this is especially problematic, to moree shortage of up than 100,000 physicians by 2030 states.united rural communities, in particular, already struggle to
ttract and keep medical professionals. therefore, it is only fitting that the federal government of the savings earned by h.r. 3 into rural health care rove accessiblibility, and this just that -- do accessibility. and this amendment will do just that. colleagues to support rural residents greater access to basic health care. ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. o'halleran: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from recognized. mr. brady: mr. chair, i am prepared to close after the entleman from arizona finishes his remarks. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. o'halleran: how much time do i have, mr. chair? the chair: you have one minute, sir. you, 'halleran: thank representative torres small, and thank you for all of my me eagues for standing with today in support of this mportant amendment that has
received support of the national association of rural health clinics. i look forward to joining with colleagues to vote for the lower drug prices now act later today. legislation will lower high costs of prescription drugs, enable medicare to prices, and save real dollars that can be reinvested and rug research development. this bill has the potential to countless lives of american seniors, veterans, and families. no family should have to choose medication they need and putting food on the table. colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in h.r.rt of my amendment and 3 later today and i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. is gentleman from texas recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i will close. has really hment ruined most of these bipartisan efforts in health care, the underlying bill. democrats and republicans well.ng together
speaker pelosi shut it all down or this partisan secretly written bill. impeachment has stopped most of this. when and if impeachment is ever done, finished, and i know congressman green, my colleague, impeach again an multiple times. when all that foolishness, finishes, maybe we can work together. i think it would be tremendous. underserved areas, area. slots, d these g.m.e. and the whole thing needs to be reformed in a positive way. with that i oppose the amendment and the underlying bill. i yield back. the gentleman yields. the question is -- the gentleman from arizona. the question is on the amendment the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. o'halleran: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings the e amendment offered by gentleman from arizona will be ostponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> good morning. i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-334 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chair of i yield myself as much time -- mr. chair, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. kennedy: mr. chairman, i rise today in place of my esteemed colleague, sheila jackson lee from houston, who is unavoidably detained at the judiciary committee, as they consider articles of impeachment against our president. she did want to offer this amendment and asked me that i do it in her steady.
so i do so -- in her stead. so i do so reading her statement. mr. chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the jackson lee amendment to the elijah e. cummings lower drug prices now act. let me also express my thanks to the chairman of the committees of jurisdiction for their hard work in crafting this critically important legislation. chairman malone -- pallone of energy and congress, chairman scott and chairman neal. the elijah cummings lower drug price now act levels of playing field by giving medicare the power to negotiation directly with drug companies and creating powerful new tools to force drug companies to the table, to agree to real price reductions, while ensuring seniors never lose access to the prescriptions they need. two, making lower drug prices negotiated by medicare available to americans with private insurance, not just medicare beneficiaries. three, stopping drug companies from ripping off americans while
charging other countries less for the same drugs and limiting the maximum price for any negotiated drug to be in line with the average price in chris like ours. four, creating a new $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drug costs for medicare beneficiaries. and five, reviventing in the most transformational improvement in medicare since its creation, delivering vision, dental and hearing benefits and turbo charging the search for new cures. high drug prices are harmful. medical costs and out-of-pocket expenses result in high rates of bankruptcies and 10% to 25% of patients either delaying, abandon or compromise treatments because of financial constraints. survival is also compromised. for example, a chronic leukemia, eight to 10-year survival rate is 80% in europe where treatment is affordable. but it's only 60% in the united states. high out-of-pocket, pences discourages patients from seeking care or purchasing
drugs. in a recent survey, 1/3 of insured persons in my home state of texas were delayed or did not pursue care because of high out-of-pocket ex -- expenses. the jackson lee amendment is simple and straightforward. the jackson lee amendment improves the bill by expressing the sense of congress regarding the harmful impact of the high cost of prescription drugs on communities of color and persons living in rural or sparsely populated areas of the united states. according to the center for american progress, the negotiation authority provided in h.r. 3 could save some diabetics more than $700 on annual supply of certain types of insulin. moreover, negotiations could bring down the net price of other types of drugs that are particularly needed in minority and poor communities, including expensive treatments for cancer and multiple sclerosis by thousands every month. nearly 1 in -- one in four americans currently taking prescription drugs find them difficult to afford. some people struggling to afford
medication for chronic illness even turn to drug rationing in desperation, which can be lethal. a recent study found that one in four patients with diabetes ration their insulin in response to rising prices. the american public overwhelmingly agrees that it is time to alout government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. 85% of americans support this tactic to reduce prices for medicare and private insurance. thank you for the opportunity to explain the jackson lee amendment and i urge the committee to make it -- to -- i urge our colleagues to pass the -- to approve the amendment. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield back? the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i claim time on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the serious impact of prescription drug prices on all americans. we all have constituents facing the same problem. drug prices are too high. and we all want to come together to find a way to lower drug prices.
where we separate is our proposal would lower drug prices , put a cap on what seniors pay for the first time in medicare part d, reduce their insulin costs. but not, not end the kind of incredible innovation we see in america today, would not cost $8 -- 88,000 american innovators their jobs, would not reduce this innovation that is producing 2/3 of the world's cures. unfortunately h.r. 3 would do that. h.r. 3, the underlying bill, that is a very partisan, disappointingly partisan bill, to cost patients cures their diseases. we know that. it's not my conclusion. these are the people who innovate, these are congressional budget office analysts, council of economic advisors. hasn't been a single piece of evidence presented on this floor that says that h.r. 3 will do anything but reduce investment
in overall -- an outcome of overall new cures. in fact, a colleague of mine and i were talking during the last amendment debate in effect we're trading $1 trillion in private sector investment in new innovation in america for medical cures for $100 million, in this characters the peters amendment, in taxpayer money. so you're trading $100 million for $1 trillion. and $1 trillion is private sector investment coming in, because we know a lot of these new paths that our inowe -- our innovators pick to find a cure suft simply end up being a dry hole and that all money is lost. it takes a lot to find a cure. the cusp of on something big and bold and that is cures for diseases where there is none today. we do have a problem in america trying to figure out how to pay for. that i'm going to be retiring at the end of this congress -- for that. i'm going to be retiring at the end of this congress.
i know my colleague's going off to the senate at the end of this congress. voters of massachusetts have their way. but together we still as a country have to come together and figure out, with precision medicine that may produce a cure for you and you only, how are we going to pay for that? we don't have a lot of great answers. i don't think, given the government -- give -- don't think giving the government to take 95% of revenues if you don't agree with what the government wants you to pay for something is the right approach. that's what hrment r. 3 does. we know it takes $1 trillion out of the pipeline and costs 80,000-some jobs in innovation. but in terms of the jackson lee amendment, which with a was -- which was so ably brought and described by mr. kennedy, i share the concern. i share the concern about what the costs of medicines are putting as a burden on people, especially in rural areas. my district would stretch from the atlantic to ohio. we could put a lot of massachusetts in my district.
and my people are suffering. i look forward to a day when, after our substitute becomes law, we can continue to work together on these other issues. and i hope you'll support our substitute because i think it is all bipartisan. 138 democrats have supported provisions in our substitute amendment. there isn't a single partisan poison pill in our substitute amendment. and i think that's why it's atacting supports on both sides -- attracting supports on both sides of the aisle. with that, mr. chairman, i know we have a lot of business to do. i appreciate mr. kennedy bringing this to the floor on behalf of ms. jackson lee. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. kennedy: i urge our colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. gottheimer: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 116-334 offered by mr. gottheimer of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. gottheimer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. gottheimer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gottheimer: i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 3rks the elijah cummings lower drugs cost now act of 2019. my amendment will ensure continued innovation in research to further the development of life-saving medicines for rare diseases, including cancers, alzheimer's, a.l.s., and rare disorders. the challenge now is that at best only one out of every 20 clinical trials results in a
cure. this of course means that manufacturers invest billions before they find a medicine that can go to market to help save lives. they don't just bet on the winners, they have to also bet and take a lot of risks that don't turn out to succeed and get to market. america has the best medical innovators in the world. when our health is on the line, we can't stop taking those risks to make sure that we find those cures, we can't risk falling behind. my amendment provides investment in qualified clinical testing for drug applications that address unmet medical needs to treat rare and life-threatening diseases. diseases that may go unaddressed without extra incentives. my amendment requires h.h.s. to conduct a study to identify diseases without an f.d.a.-approved treatment and where the development treatment would full an -- fill an unmet medical need for these rare diseases. my amendment also requires h.h.s. to identify appropriate incentives that would ensure the continued investment in the development of these treatments. treatments that will save lives. of children and adults, of
seniors, of our families. the congressional budget office and other studies have shown potential reductions in the number of drug approvals each year as a potential risk of h.r. 3. this amendment helps address that concern. targeted therapies in medicines serving smaller populations stand to lose the most from this blow to r&d. these are areas where the science is the most difficult, but also the most important. such as cancers and other rare diseases. cures for these horrific diseases could always be just around the corner. but not if we are forced to abandon what might be the next cure. while i appreciate the intention of h.r. 3 to reinvest savings in medical research, including n.i.h. and f.d.a., without this amendment there would still be no clear answer to explain what might happen to the incredible research and development work that occurs every day in the private sector. this amendment addresses that. i know how critical n.i.h. funding is and have consistently advocated for increasing the investment in research there. however, n.i.h. does not manufacture medication. and neither does the f.d.a.
the private sector, including all the research being done every day in my home state of new jersey, manufacturers of life-saving medications that americans rely on every single day. it's also why my colleague, republican fred upton and i, fred from michigan, we introduced bipartisan legislation this week, the protecting america's life saving medicines act. to ensure that life sciences companies continue to invest in these innovative drugs, with a tax credit for qualified clinical research. again, to ensure that this research keeps getting done, that they keep making the bets on moon shot drugs, that without those investments might not save lives like they do today. again, in the greatest country in the world, where we innovate like no one else. it's critical we never give up hope that the next cure is within reach. my amendment today will help us reach that goal of curing our most life-threatening diseases. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. chairman, i claim time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: i thank the gentleman for offering his
amendment today and i really do. we work a lot with mr. gottheimer on a number of issues before the congress and i appreciate his commitment to this cause and republicans fully support the goal of the amendment, to identify those diseases and conditions in which there's an unmet medical need. and exploring ways it to further incentivize getting treatments to market. in fact, a study on unmet medical needs is especially timely with the consideration of this bill -- underlying bill, h.r. 3. because we believe it will crush, crush development and hope for new treatments and we're not alone. we come to this conclusion based on others' factual evaluation of the bill. there's no shortage of sources warning us that h.r. 3 will lead to fewer cures. in fact, -- in fact, independently the council of economic advisors estimates as many as 100 new treatments, 100 new treatments will be lost over the next decade under the partisan h.r. 3. i think the most disturbing, mr. chairman, is the california life
sciences association, the great innovators in america who come up with these new cures that we all are counting on. they predict an 88% reduction in the number of drugs brought to market by small and emerging companies and that's only in california, apparently. and the nonpartisan congressional budget office, another source here, our third independent source, they estimate under h.r. 3 we'll have nearly 40 fewer drugs over roughly the next two decades and then after that you'd see an annual, every year reduction of 10% in the number of drugs entering the market in polarity years. that's -- in later years. that's what's led so many of us republicans to oppose h.r. 3. we support the goal of getting drug prices down, we think there are other ways to do that. and we are open to working on those issues. no president's ever leaned further forward on this matter and taken the pharma company
c.e.o.'s head on than president trump. but even he after reading through the bill said it goes too far and you can't sacrifice innovation and life-saving cures for what else is in the bill. h.r. 3 will undoubtedly lead to an increase in patients with unmet medical needs, fewer drugs republicans believe the we led on 21st century cures and passed it into law led by my friend from michigan, mr. upton, and my -- and my friend from colorado, diana degette. bipartisan effort. we know there are diseases out there, still longing for a cure. this is why our bipartisan solution, lower drug prices, a substitute amendment, h.r. 19, will lower costs and promote innovation, promote it from the private sector side. we want the private venture capital money to flow into this pipeline. h.l. 3, we're told, independent analysis says $1 trillion of
money will leave this sector because the punishment is so harsh. can you imagine, you work your whole life, gone to college, got this great degree, dig brain -- big brain, coming up with a solution to a.l.s. or something, get it done, goes through the trial, it's perfected, it work you get a tatent -- patent and the government says we're going to set the price and if you don't agree with that price we'll take 95% of the revenues when you sell this. the congressional research service told us, warned us, warned congress, and we've had other constitutional experts warn us, that this violates the 5th amendment of the constitution and the 8th amendment of the constitution. the understood lying bill is unconstitutional. we all stand down here and take an oath of office to uphold the constitution. we're being told by our own congressional research service it likely up ends, is in violation of the constitution,
we have other experts say for sure it is. so i appreciate the gentleman's amendment. i do. we know there are unmet needs that need to be dealt with. it makes a lot of sense. and with that, mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. gottheimer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member for his thoughtful comments and his comments on the unmet needs that we need to continue invest, so thank you. before i finish, let me just say, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment because we need to keep making those investments to keep our leadership as a country when it comes to r&d innovation as one of the reasons why our country is so great and why so many lives have been saved and so many families and children
helped. we need to make sure that we get drug price down overall, which is why this legislation is important, to make sure we have competition, more development of generics in the marketplace and of course overall the best quality health care in the world. it's critical for our country and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: how much time do i have left? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. walden: perfect. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this issue. i know we share a common goal of getting drug prices down and meeting unmet needs of cures. but tragically, the democratic bill, h.r. 3, it's a very partisan bill. we're told by the california life science association that if enacted, you could see an 88% reduction in the number of drugs brought to market by small and emerging companies. in california alone.
that's their estimate. these are the people who do this work. they also estimate we'd lose 80,000, that's a lot, 0,000 biotech r&d jobs nationwide. that's what h.r. 3 does. so if you're for cutting jobs in america in biotechnical research and for 88% fewer drugs coming to market from small and emerging innovators in california, i guess you can vote for h.r. 3. i'm not going to. i think we can do better. with that, ill yield -- with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, drn from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. mr. gottheimer: question a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18,
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in art b of house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentlelady from iowa seek recognition? mrs. axne: i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 prinned in part b of house report 116-334, offered by ms. axne of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentlelady from iowa, ms. axne, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from iowa. mrs. axne: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself so much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. axne: mr. speaker, as a mom, i spent hours in doctors
offices with sick kids. nothing is more frustrating than when a doctor has to spen more time looking at the computer screen than helping or children. i've taken time off work only to end up sitting in waiting rooms because the doctor is running behind. all because of a mountain of paperwork they must do for every single person they see. i've seen doctors who are frustrated at their computers, trying to find the information they need. i've also heard from my constituents in iowa that when they go to the doctor's office they don't want to feel like it's an oil change, a quick check under the hood and then a mountain of forms. it's not the doctor's fault. they have to comply with all these administrative rules an codes. parents like myself, those doctors, and everyone in the health care industry knows that something has to change. that's why i'm offering my amendment today. my goal is to create a grant program to help reduce all this excessive and unnecessary
paperwork on doctors and health care workers. it will help doctors spend more time with their patients, including children like mine and those across iowa. it'll save money because it makes required medical administration more efficient. my amendment will reduce the time crying kids have to wait for their parents to fill out their paperwork before they go into the doctor's office and my amendment will cut red tape and federal spending. this amendment cuts federal health care administrative work by 50% in 10 years. i spent 10 years working for the state of iowa and i focused on making government more efficient so i absolutely know where to find government waste an how to cut it. i think it's important that we look at that. as an efficiency expert and mom of two boys, i'm proud to introduce this amendment today. health administration costs are out of control, we spend $500 billion on all types of
duplicate administration every year my amendment creates $250 million in grants for states each year. because when excess administrative work costs nearly $250 billion per year, that's 1,000 times more. in other words, if we reduce administrative waste by .1%, these grants would already pay for themselves. this amendment is going to cut away way more waste than .1%. i have the opportunity to travel all 16 counties in my district every month and i've met with doctors, nurses, and physicians' assistants. they've all told me how exhausting and unnecessary all that extra work is. in 2016, doctors said they're spending almost twice as much time on administrative work than they are with their patients. that's just wrong. and that same study also found that when the doctor is in the exam room, more than a third of that time is spent on desk work. our rural and small communities
are struggling to hire enough doctors and i'm already working on attracting doctors to our state. but we also need to protect and keep the doctors that we have and doctors want to help patients not do paperwork. last month the center for medicare and medicaid services released new guidance to help reduce documentation burdens and ensure doctors have more time with their patients. that was the first time many 25 years we've updated these regulations with a specific purpose of reducing paperwork. my amendment creates grant programs to get that done. look, i get it, mr. chairman. if you're filling out 30 pages of paperwork, you probably won't like this amendment if you like doing that. if your favorite place is a doctor's waiting room and you want to spend more time there, i'll understand you not wanting to support my amendment. or if you've always dreamed of being treated like you're a computer code and not a patient, then you can vote no on this amendment. but i'm pretty confident that
you're like me and you hate those things. so vote yes. if you want doctors to focus on your kids. vote yes if you want shorter wait times and more time with your doctor. vote yes if all that while you're also saving federal government money. and by the way if you're going to misthe waiting room i'd be happy to sign you up for a highlights magazine subscription to come to your home. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to claim time in support of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> though i oppose the dangerous fewer cures act by speaker pelosi because it was written in secret, it's partisan and will delay cures that our patients are hoping and praying for with alzheimer's, a.l.s., parkinson's and so many cancers. mr. brady: this amendment's goal
is to reduce unnecessary costs, administrative burden across the health care system. i share this goal with my colleague from iowa. this amendment includes a lot of smart ways to achieve this goal, including identifying best practice, reviewing existing regulations to see if they're adding unnecessary burdens, and studying how we might be able to standardize and automate certain of these administrative actions. all this, pretty good commonsense. this amendment would help the public and i think the private sectors in the federal government and states all work together better. i hope ms. axne offer this is 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 delay sod 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 would be all about impeachment. we want to make it all about health care. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. let's vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from iowa is recognized. mrs. axne: thank you, representative brady, for your support for this amendment. i appreciate anybody who also wants to look at efficiencies within government. it's something we need to spend more time on. so i'm grateful for your support. i look forward to working with you and moving this agenda forward. i would still continue to urge all of my colleagues to vote for h.r. 3 so we can make this a reality. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in 116-334. house report for what purpose does the gentlelady from iowa seek recognition? ms. finkenauer: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 116-334, offered by ms. finkenauer of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentlelady from iowa, ms. finkenauer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from iowa. ms. firningnaur: thank you mr. chairman. -- ms. finkenauer: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. finkenauer: i want to start before i talk about this
amendment to talk about why this is so important. i hold prescription drug round tables across the district. a recent one comes to mind, a story i want this body to hear. we were doing a round table interview where we invited folks to come and talk about their issues with drug prices and how that's impacting their lives personally. there was a family that came, a young woman, who was in her teens, with her mom and her dad. she has diabetes and they struggle every month to try to figure out how they're going to keep affording insulin and her meters and different meters with different insurances happen almost every single year and telling me these stories and in the middle of the round table the young woman and her mother had to leave to go to a doctor's appointment. it was her dad that stayed for the rest of it. as i'm going around saying thank you for coming and sharing your story today. i shook the dad's hand and he looked at me and he said please
do everything you can to fight for my daughter and fight to make sure that she's going to be able to afford the care she needs because he told me he's worried about when she turns 26, if she's not on their insurance, what does that look like? will she be able to keep affording it? he told me that he wanted to be able to walk his daughter down the aisle one day at her wedding, not her funeral. i will never forget that conversation. and i will never stop fighting to make sure that we lower the cost of these life-saving medications that so many folks across our country and in my district need and rely on. it is why i am so proud to support the lower drug costs now act, which puts measures in place to make sure that drug companies aren't charging us double, triple or quadruple what
countries like canada and australia currently pay. however, h.r. 3 is currently missing a bipartisan drug pricing reform that has been supported by senator grassley, by president trump, and members of both parties alike. it's requiring drug companies to disclose pricing information on prescription drugs when they advertise directly to consumers like us and folks in my district. we've all seen the tv commercials that promote prescription drugs. what we may not realize is that pharmaceutical companies spend billions on this advertising. last year they spent over $6 billion and a lot of that was actually to encourage people to get expensive, brand-name drugs. my amendment would require tv advertisements for prescription drugs to include the list price for a 30-day regiment or a typical course of treatment. with this transparency, we can all be empowered to make informed choices and bring down
costs to our health care system. when drug companies use advertising to boost demand for drugs whose prices just keep going up, the american people deserve to know what these drugs cost. my amendment will ensure that we get a complete picture of the prescription drug options we see on tv. i urge my colleagues today to support this amendment, support this bill, and with that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time iowa reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: mr. chairman, i'd like to claim time in support of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: so 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's just a simple way to increase openness in health care , so transparency to patients are, i think, searching -- the
transparency to patients are searching for. this bipartisan approach is already in the republican bill before 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's 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, negotiate -- 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 life-saving cures for alzheimer's, a.l.s., parkinson's and so many cancers. that's just wrong. i do support this amendmentment
i urge my colleagues to support -- amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it too. and i hope the gentlelady from iowa will continue to demonstrate her support for more openness. i also support -- by also supporting the bipartisan h.r. 19 when it comes to a vote later today. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. let's vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from iowa is recognized. ms. finkenauer: mr. chair, can i check the balance of my time? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. ms. finkenauer: thank you, mr. chair. i'm happy to hear that my colleagues across the aisle will be supporting this important amendment and i'd like to end with another story that i heard at another round table. one from our -- one of our farmers in our district who came to our water loo round table and came -- waterloo round table and came with his wife, heidi, who is battling m.s. and was so concerned about how
he was going to continue to make it with the ongoing trade war with china that has been taking his soybean market and the attacks on renewable fuels that have been hurting him every single day as a corn grower as well. and the $80,000 every month they were going to have to pay for the m.s. medication. he asked his lawyer, how is he going to keep the farm and make sure his wife gets what she needs? and his lawyer looked at him and said, if you want to keep your farm, you should consider divorcing your wife. that's another story that i will never forget. these are the reasons we are here today, that we fight for legislation like this, that we get these things done, and that we put our constituents and people over the politics that we continue to see here from folks who would like to divide us instead of unite us. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in art b of house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentlelady from virginia seek recognition? mrs. luria: mr. chairman, i have and at -- i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 116-334 offered by mrs. luria of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentlelady from virginia, mrs. luria, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from virginia. mrs. luria: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i
might consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. luria: mr. chair, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 3, the elijah cummings lower drug costs now act. my amendment would ensure that federal employees benefit from say -- from the same contracting practices as stated in if the -- stated in the fair price negotiation program established by the underlying bill. close to 30,000 of our constituents in virginia's second congressional district are federal employees. and they should all be able to benefit from this monumental legislation to lower prescription drug costs. making health care more affordable is among my top priorities in congress. as the cost of prescription drugs seem to skyrocket, i know i must do everything i can to ease that burden on coastal virginians. nobody should need to choose between life-saving medications or bankruptcy. a vote in favor of this
amendment is one to support broader access to affordable prescription drugs. i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would ask for time in op stoiths amendment. the chair: without objection -- in opposition to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i do rise in opposition to the amendment. i would like to make a couple of points. mr. upton: according to the office of personal management, o.p.m., the fehb program, the federal employee health benefits program, is in fact the largest employer-sponsored group health insurance program in the world. it covers nearly nine million, nine million federal employees and their families. and this amendment says that any private health plan that chooses
to offer coverage in the fehb program must accept the government price controls for prescription drugs established under this bill, h.r. 3. so clearly we're not satisfied, this amendment -- not satisfied with only setting prices for medicare and private businesses, it also creates another harmful mandate and expands the already radical scope of h.r. 3 to other programs as well. so as my colleagues have noted again and again today and yesterday, the government doesn't -- governments don't negotiate, they dictate. and taxing up to 95% of a drug manufacturer's revenue if it refuses to agree with the government-mandated price is not free market negotiation. and as we've heard from both the c.b.o., nob partisan body, congressional but -- nonpartisan body, congress at budget office, and the c.e.o., they tell us we're going to lose -- c.e.a. --
d.e.a., they tell us we're going to lose drugs that solve cures. government price controls lead to lower and fewer cures and as the c.e.a. said, nearly 100 cures for rare and difficult diseases -- diseases like alzheimer's, a.l.s., cancer just aren't going happen, or they're going to be much delayed under h.r. 3. so, i would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. mrs. luria: thank you, mr. chair. i stand here today in strong support of h.r. 3, in opposition to my colleague. if in fact we are going to offer lower prescription drug costs to those covered by medicare and
private insurance, it is the least that we can do to include our federal employees in these cost-saving benefits. federal employees live in nearly every district in this country and we must ensure that they too can benefit from lower drug prices secured about -- secured by this landmark legislation. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment as well as the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i just yield myself the balance of the time. i would also just like to say that the c.r.s., congressional research service, they have found that price controls in this bill, h.r. 3, the underlying bill, may be unconstitutional under the fifth amendment's takings clause, and the eighth amendment, excessive fines clause. so instead of considering yet another amendment which expands radical government mandated price controls at the expense of developing life-saving cures,
our time would be better spent considering bipartisan policies such as what was in the substitute, h.r. 19. so i'd encourage my colleagues to instead vote for the amendment on h.r. 19 and vote against h.r. 3. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment ffered by the gentlewoman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. the gentleman from oregon requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in
art b of house report 116-334. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? cuncun mr. chair, i have an -- mr. cunningham: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 116-334 offered by mr. cunningham of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. cunningham, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. cunningham: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today in support of my amendment to ensure that the v.a. and the veterans it serves are able to take advantage of the lower drug prices made possible by h.r. 3. i am proud to support the underlying bill which will result in lower drug prices for millions of americans. but we cannot forget those who have sacrificed so much for our country. veterans have earned our support
and they should never have to compromise on health care. h.r. 3 will establish a fair price negotiation program, which will enable the secretary of health and human services to negotiate with drug companies and obtain a fair price more medicare recipients, as well as the -- for medicare recipients, as well as the federally insured. this would allow the v.a. to purchase drugs at the same price if it is lower than what they would otherwise pay on their own. put simply, everyone, everyone deserves to pay a fair price for their life-saving medication. and this is not just about fiscal responsibility. it is about moral responsibility. the hard-earned tax dollars americans are willing to put towards caring for our veterans should be spent on veterans, not on lining the pockets of drug companies. the low country is home to over 80,000 veterans and i want them to know that when they seek v.a. care, they are receiving the
best care at the best price. i for one refuse to allow big pharma to profit off of our veterans. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in ensuring our veterans have access to the lowest possible drug prices. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. roe: there is no question that the drug places in this country are too high. i wish the bill we are debating today would solve that problem. the premise of this amendment is that the v.a. should be able to
lower drug costs. make no mistake about it, a bill that stops cures from coming co-market and discourages innovation is bad for veterans, bad for america, regardless of the effects of the amendment. further with this amendment we would be putting the brave men and women who served in our armed forces at risk. congressman cunningham's amendment would expand the scope of this bill to include the prescription drugs provided by v.a. as well -- by v.a. as well intentioned as the amendment might be, this is the wrong thing for veterans. mr. speaker, let me just reminisce a little bit. when i graduated from medical school, there was a disease out there we did not know the name of. we didn't even know the name of it. we later discovered it was hepatitis c. we've gone from not even knowing the name of this disease, to being able to cure it in eight to 12 weeks. let me tell you what this
incredible innovation has done for our nation's veterans. the v.a. has cured more than 100,000 veterans of hepatitis c since 2014. remarkable. cutting the death rate by 50%. that's innovation that's done that. because of this treatment, veterans cured are estimated to have a 72% less likely chance of developing cancer of the liver. fewer than 25,000 veterans out there are now untested that are are at risk and the v.a. is to be applauded for this. let me digress to my first pediatric rotation in medical school in memphis, many years ago. my first inpatient rotation was st. jude's children's hospital. at that time when i saw those children, 80% of them, mr. speaker, died of their disease. because of innovation and research and doctors and nurses and others that went in every day and saw tease children die,
today, 80% of those children live. and if we don't stifle innovation, 100%, my prayer is that 100% of these children live. these bills, this h.r. 3, my concern is not what it will do. it's what will be left undone. when we don't have these cures. and i know that's not the intent of my friend. we serve on the committee together. i know that's not the intent. my concern is that's exactly what will happen. this system, right now, i want to submit to the record, this is a list of drugs right now that the v.a. does not have on its norm lair because it's closed. and mr. speaker, further with this amendment, i would encourage, we have a system now that works. and i would encourage my colleagues to not support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. that request will be handled under general leave. the gentleman from south
carolina is recognized. mr. cunningham: mr. chairman, in closing, i would like to thank my colleagues on the committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and labor for their work on this historic piece of legislation which will, will save lives. i also want to thank chairman mcgovern and my colleagues on the rule committees for ruling my amendment in order. i urge all my colleagues to vote to lower the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs for every single american. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time they have gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, i agree with my colleagues that we should do everything possible to lower prescription drug costs. i can tell you h.r. 3 will not do it. and one of the problems i have with this bill is the incredible, is to stifle the incredible innovation that i have seen in my career.
let me give you another example before i close, mr. speaker. i had a professor in medical school, my hematology professor who spent his entire career trying to cure sickle cell anemia. i've sat by the bedside of pregnant women and done transfusions on women nearing and o they could be well the baby would be well. my professor passed before we found that we can do alterations of the h.i.v. virus, an attenuated virus, place the right code in the genetic code and potentially cure sickle cell disease for african-americans. we do not want to stifle this innovation. i oppose this amendment and i intend to vote for it. with that, i yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from tennessee requests the yeas and nays. does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. roe: yes, sir. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in 116-334. house report for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. scanlon: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: ehe the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12
prinned in part b of house report 116-334, offered by ms. huell hand of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 758, the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. huell hand, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from pennsylvania. ms. houlahan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. houlahan: i rise to offer this amendment offered by my friend and neighbor, ms. scanlon of pennsylvania. this commonsense amendment has two parts. first it would require pharmacy benefits managers or p.b.m.'s to pass discounts on drugs through to state medicaid programs. p.b.m.'s are an important part of our drug pricing system bus republicans an democrats alike agree on the feed for -- on the need for p.b.m. reform. this is a feature of the senate's bipartisan drug pricing bill. according to the pennsylvania department of human services, pennsylvania taxpayers paid
$2.86 billion to p.b.m.'s for medicaid enrollees in 2016. that's a 100% increase over four years. under current law, p.b.m.'s can bill medicaid one price for a drug, reimburse the pharmacy at a lower price and profit millions from the difference. this amendment would stop that practice and simply require p.b.m.'s to pass along any discounts they get from pharmaceutical companies to the state's medicaid program. the amendment also requires pharmacies to participate in the c.m.f. survey of acquisition costs for drugs so that states, consumers and lawmakers alike all can have greater transparency into what these prescription drugs should cost. again, this is a feature of the republican drug pricing proposals included in mr. walden's proposal and it is all about increasing transparency into costs, especially p.b.m. pricing. lastly this amendment invests in n.i.h. research for new cures an treatment, especially for high
need conditions. i am a proud co-sponsor of my sheryl's, by yo information actful as an engineer and former chemistry teacher i know how important it is that research is applied to medicine. aisle pleaed that this bill builds off that legislation and establishes a pilot program at n.i.h. to provide additional funding for clinical trials. this stage of development is often costly and complicated and this bill would provide $900 million to this important program. with this investment we're boosting support for an initiative to assist the development of new cures and treatments. mr. chairman, for our medicaid beneficiaries, for the patient out there right now with a condition that has no cure, i ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady
reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker, i claim time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. houlahan: i stand here in strong support of ms. scanlon's amendment today to h.r. 3 and in support of h.r. 3 as well. as a freshman member this delegation an this congress i can tell you the number one thing our constituents ask of us each and every day is to address the pricing of precipitation drugs. this bill and the underrying amendment therein support and affirm both of those things. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill and the underlying amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves.
the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. houlahan: i urge support of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. we certainly support clinical trials at the national institutes of health. in fact republicans are led on this issue and in fact republicans have led for decades in increasing the funding for n.i.h., going back to about 1995 when then-speaker gingrich led an effort to double the funding at n.i.h. our colleague, mr. upton, of michigan, led the effort to dramatically increase the funding for n.i.h. we know that's extraordinarily important to do. of course while that's important, it's kind of the basic science, the real work that gets done takes that and then turns it into drugs through a whole clinical trial process with lots more innovation, investment. tragically, h.r. 3 rips $1
trillion out of that innovation funding cycle. that's why for the life of me i can't understand why my friends are voting for that, knowing that, why they can vote for h.r. 3 knowing that upwards of 100 or more cures, life-saving drugs, medicines, never be developed. those aren't my numbers. those are the numbers the council of economic advisors. those are numbers from c.b.o. they tell us in literally the 38 20 years, upwards of drugs will never be developed. after that it's 10% every year don't get developed. we think it's actually higher than that. but those are the facts. those are facts. i want to emphasize that the ban on pricing in medicaid offered here as a democrat amendment is, as you recognize, in our bill h r. 19. we agree.
there are 138 democrats who have sponsored different provisions that are bipartisan in the substitute amendment. and it should do no damage, why would you vote against your own stuff? it's in here. good policy. bipartisan. i hope that some of -- some will have the opportunity to be strong and vote for really good, bipartisan legislation. i would argue h.r. 19 substitute is the most bipartisan bill on the familiar today. the only bipartisan bill on the floor today. this comprehensive collection of bipartisan policies from both house and the senate contained in the substitute h.r. 19. we looked a lot at the work senator grassley, and in my state, senator wyden, put together in their legislation. we probably got 90% of that in one way or another incorporated in here. i've learned over the year, from the time i got here as a
freshman until now, you don't get everything. sometimes you make more progress when you get together and get what you can agree on done and then continuing to work on the issues where you don't agree. i'd say that's an issue we face right now. we have before us a substitute that could become law and the president end kayed -- indicated he would sign it. he's clearly indicated he would veto h.r. 3. and we've had word out of the senate they have no plans to take up h.r. 3. to me that makes it a nonstarter and i also believe it's dangerous to innovation. it'll cost 88,000 jobs worldwide, or u.s.-wide and 80-something percent of new drugs out of california won't be developed, according to people who do this work, california life sciences. i don't think you have to trade that reduction in innovation and new cures for lower prices. i think you can have both. we have a common commitment here to lower drug prices.
we have a common commitment here to increase investment at n.i.h. and stop the bad behaviors by the pharmaceutical companies to stop them from with holding samples so that generics don't get to mark or paying off generic brands not to come to market. i wrote the legislation last congress that modernized the f.d.a.'s approval process for medical guyses, generic devices, so we wouldn't get stuck, a bit of a pun, by another epipen issue. there was no competitor, they raised price they stuck it to people like my wife who used to use an epipen and many other consumers. we now have competition in that space and the f.d.a. approved ore generic drugs, our unanimous work in f.d.a. reform, resulted in more generic drugs than any other time in the f.d.a. history were approved. you get more yes for thic drugs and the consumers get lower
prices. there's still gaming that goes on, we agrea to that, we're putting a stop to that wherever we can find it, but i don't want to vote for h.r. 3 as an unconstitutional measure as we've been warned by our own congressional research service lawyers who looked at it who said they -- that it likely violates two constitutional amendments. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part on house report 116-334 which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. walden of oregon. amendment number 5 by mr. o'halleran of arizona. amendment number 7 by mr. gottheimer of new jersey. amendment number 10 by mrs. luria of virginia. and amendment number 11 by mr. cunningham of south carolina. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116-334. by the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden.
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116-334 offered by mr. walden of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has een requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]