Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.
I remind Members that is Tuesday, not Monday. We will not be in session on Monday.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act of 2019, as amended. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.
The House will consider H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement Act, and H.R. 3525, the U.S. Border Patrol Medical Screening Standards Act. These bills will improve how the Department of Homeland Security oversees border issues in a humane and responsible manner, including the care of children.
Members are of course advised that there is additional legislation that may come forward.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Clyburn and the Clyburn family very much appreciate his condolences and his remarks. Jim Clyburn and I have known each other for over half a century. His wife, Emily, he met during the course of the civil rights struggle. She, too, was a drum major for justice, as Jim Clyburn has been.
She has, as the gentleman pointed out, been facing health challenges for some period of time. And, yes, she is in a better place. But as one who has lost his spouse, I know what a difficult time this is for Jim Clyburn.
I would let all the Members know that there will be a service in Columbia, a wake, on Sunday at 5 o'clock, and the funeral will be in Charleston at 11 a.m. I intend to be in attendance. Any Member, I know, would be welcome to be there as well. Jim Clyburn has been a giant in this body. He has been a leader on our side of the aisle now for almost 20 years, and before that, a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus and somebody who has been a strong voice, particularly for rural communities and for people who are challenged either because of the color of their skin or their economic status.
I know that Emily was his partner in those efforts, as the gentleman knows. She was a wonderful, warm woman and will be greatly missed. But the gentleman's observation that she is in a better place is one with which I agree, and I know that Jim Clyburn agrees as well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know that all Members join us in sending Jim Clyburn and the family our deepest sympathy and condolences.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
I don't have a timetable, but I share his view that we want to move this along. As I told him, and the Speaker was on the floor, we were trying to get to ``yes'' on this.
Again, we appreciate Ambassador Lighthizer's good faith. We think he has been dealing in good faith on behalf of the administration and on behalf of getting to an agreement, so we appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we are eager to update and improve NAFTA so that it functions better for the American businesses and workers. However, for House Democrats, as the gentleman knows, getting NAFTA 2.0 done right means doing more than just changing its name. We need to make sure it changes actually its work, and by that, we mean enforcement.
Both the Speaker and I voted for NAFTA. We were concerned and disappointed that the sidebars were not carried out, so we are pursuing that.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as the gentleman knows, has said: ``The commitments in the trade pact aren't worth the paper they are written on if they can't be enforced.''
Not only do we agree with that, but that has been our experience, so we are hoping that we get mechanisms to accomplish that objective.
In 25 years, we have only had one successful enforcement action under NAFTA--dispute resolution procedures--and none in the past 20 years, so that is why we believe enforcement is so very important.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman--and I know he will find this as a positive--there is a meeting today with the task force that was set up by the Speaker, headed by Mr. Neal, with Mr. Lighthizer, so this process is under active and vigorous consideration.
We hope we get to a place where the administration will be able to submit, pursuant to the statute, the proper agreement so that we can proceed on it, but we want to get this done.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say, if the gentleman wants to pursue bipartisanship--I know that they all want to use the word ``socialist,'' which was egregiously misidentified in an ad that I wrote to Mr. Scalise about, which was a hateful ad. My suggestion is ``liberal,'' this, that, and the other.
The drug bill that we have is going to be dealing with private sector producers, privately owned, of prescription drugs.
This is not anything about socialism, but I know the gentleman wants to use that word. I know his advisers apparently have told him that is going to be a catchword that politically will be great for the next election. But if the gentleman wants to seek bipartisanship, let's just not try to color everything we say in terms that clearly reek of partisanship, not bipartisanship.
Now, as to the bill itself, very frankly, we introduced a bill yesterday. The committee has been working on it. When I say ``the committee,'' the Energy and Commerce, the Education and Labor, and the Ways and Means Committees have all been working on this bill. There has been no secret about it. We have been discussing it.
It has three components, essentially, as the gentleman knows. It has a component of negotiation, which, of course, as the gentleman knows, the Veterans Administration does so right now.
I don't know whether the gentleman thinks that is socialism in the Veterans Administration--maybe he does--but in any event, it is not a unique proposal. It puts inflation limits on drug prices so we can't have drug prices that people need to maintain their health and their lives increase 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 700, 800 percent in a very short period of time. We don't think that is really what ought to happen.
Lastly, it restructures the medical part D benefit to cap out-of- pocket spending for seniors, somewhat as the Republicans did with their part D under President Bush.
So this is a proposal that is doing what we said we would do in the last election, and that is to try to look at bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, lifesaving, life-enhancing, health-enhancing drugs, so that people are not priced out of the market or have to make a choice between food, mortgage, rent, and the prescription drugs which they need to be healthy.
Now, I agree that we do need a bipartisan solution, but so does the President of the United States. When the gentleman says ``done in secret,'' let me give a quote that the President of the United States says: ``I like Senator Grassley's drug pricing bill very much. . . . `'
I will say, I do not know the depths of Senator Grassley's bill, but it is Senator Grassley's bill, the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Now, continuing to quote the President: `` . . . and it's great to see Speaker Pelosi's bill today.''
That is the ``socialist'' bill to which the gentleman referred just now.
Let's get it done in a bipartisan way. In other words, what the President of the United States is saying is the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has introduced a bill; Speaker Pelosi and others have introduced a bill. Let's try to work together on those bills. That is what President Trump said just the other day. That is what I expect we are going to do.
So I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We hope we can work in a bipartisan way, because this is a very critical challenge that the American people face. They know they need these prescription drugs to stay alive, to stay well, to be able to continue to work. But if they are priced out of the market, they suffer; and, therefore, our economy suffers; and, therefore, we all suffer.
So I share the gentleman's view that I hope we can get this done in a bipartisan way. Senator Grassley has a proposal; we have a proposal. Let's see what we can do together to assist the American people in having something that they absolutely must have.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the gentleman a letter. Did he believe that that ad that I complained about and that I thought was so egregious, so disgusting, does he agree with me that that ad totally misrepresented what socialism is? It deluded the American people. It was a big lie. Does the gentleman agree with me?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill to the floor that the gentleman spoke about that prohibited pay for delay, prohibited drug companies from paying generics not to bring their drugs to the market so that drug prices would be lower for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, of the 194 Republicans, maybe even 98 Republicans--I don't know how many were elected at that point in time--5 of them voted for it, 190 voted against it.
Mr. Scalise also said that we wanted to protect that no one with a preexisting condition would be denied healthcare. Five Republicans voted for that bill. Six years, the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, were in charge, totally. There was no effort to bring a bill to this floor to bring drug prices down. And, in fact, Americans know drug prices didn't come down. The President was a Republican, the House was Republican, the Senate was Republican. They didn't bring a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker.
Two of the three proposals in our bill are also in the Grassley bill.
And, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have regular order. We have introduced a bill, it is going to go to committee, it is going to be subject to amendment, it is going to be subject to debate, it is going to be subject to hearings.
Now, we will see whether it is a bipartisan process. Because, very frankly, the record of bipartisanship when the Republicans were in charge is pretty absent.
Of the 19 major bills that we passed, we got 618 Republican votes, so they weren't too partisan. Now, admittedly, about 400 of those votes were on four bills that went through this place in a very bipartisan fashion.
So I would hope that we see bipartisanship when the committee marks up this bill, and we will do what the President says he wants to do. We will see whether he supports that.
They have the Grassley bill and now you have a Democratic bill in our House. They are going to have hearings in the Senate, led by Republicans, Mr. Speaker. We will have hearings here, led by Democrats. But Republicans and Democrats will both participate in those hearings, and it is going to be bipartisan, and we will see whether we can come up with bipartisanship.
But the gentleman continues to want to make some political patina with this, some partisan patina, Mr. Speaker. I asked him, but he didn't respond. He says he hasn't seen the ad. I wish he would look at the ad. It is an egregious piece of political diatribe. But I would hope that he would also urge his Members to work together.
And this business we negotiate for drugs right now, Mr. Speaker, through the Veterans Administration to ensure that our veterans get the best cost they can get. Apparently, that is okay, but doing the same thing, Mr. Speaker, for American consumers of prescription drugs who are not veterans is somehow characterized by the gentleman as government control.
I urge the gentleman to proceed, as he speaks, on a bipartisan basis and see whether or not we can get to an agreement in this House. But we are going to pass something to bring drug prices down for the American consumer because that is what we promised to do, and we are going to do it. We hope we can do it in cooperation with everybody in this House, but we are going to do it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman didn't answer my question, of course.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the standard of care at the VA, managed by the administration, which, of course, has had the Presidency for the last 3 years.
Whether you pay $5 for prescription drugs or $50 for prescription drugs, that is not the standard of care. That is how much you are paying for the drug that you think helps either a veteran or a nonveteran.
But let me say this: The gentleman keeps talking about, Mr. Speaker, these bipartisan bills. The reason they weren't bipartisan in passing this House is because we added ACA protections.
We added preexisting condition provisions to those bills, and the Republicans, therefore, voted against. Why? Because they have been against the Affordable Care Act and its adoption, against it in the campaigns.
When they had the opportunity to change it, they couldn't do it. They came up with a goose egg, Mr. Speaker.
The President said, during the course of the campaign, that he was going to present a bill that included coverage for every American at a lower cost and a higher quality. I tell the press, as soon as he sends that bill down, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for it. He has been President now for 3 years, a little short of that. No bill has come down.
The bill that the Speaker and majority leader went down to the White House and cheered about, look, we passed this bill, and they sent it to the Senate. The President was there at the White House. It was a great bill, and within 14 days, he called it a ``mean'' bill.
Let me tell you what the President further said, Mr. Speaker, and the characterization differs from the characterization that my friend, the Republican whip, exhibited. The President endorsed Medicare drug price negotiations in his campaign and put forward a proposal to use international prices as a guide to limit out- of-control U.S. prices. That is what the gentleman's President said.
The administration has endorsed the other two concepts of inflation limits on drug prices and improving Medicare part D as part of the legislation put forward by Senator Grassley.
I guess everybody has their own definition of bipartisanship.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source