On the recordDecember 12, 2019
I recognize the serious impact prescription drug prices have on all Americans. We all have constituents facing the same problem: drug prices are too high. 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, and, for the first time, in Medicare part D, reduce their insulin costs but not end the kind of incredible innovation in America we see today. It would not cost 88,000 American innovators their jobs, and it would not reduce this innovation that is producing two-thirds of the world's cures. Unfortunately, H.R. 3 would do that. H.R. 3--the underlying bill that is a very disappointingly partisan bill--would cost patients cures to their diseases. We know that. It is not my conclusion. These are the people who innovate in this space. These are Congressional Budget Office analysts and the Council of Economic Advisers. There has not been a single piece of evidence presented on this floor that says that H.R. 3 will do anything but reduce investment and outcome of overall new cures. In fact, a colleague of mine and I were talking during the last amendment debate. In effect, we are trading $1 trillion in private- sector investment in new innovation in America for medical cures for $100 million--in this case, the Peters amendment--in taxpayer money.…
Source
govinfo.gov




