Friday, October 25, 2019
Led by Pharma-Friendly Rep. Richard Neal, Democrats Crush Progressive Amendments to Signature Drug Pricing Bill
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Neal has received over
$670,000 in campaign cash from pharmaceutical companies since 2007, according
to Kaiser Health News
Following the lead of pharma-friendly Rep.
Richard Neal, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee this week crushed
several progressive amendments to a House drug pricing bill that would have
expanded the number of medicines covered by the legislation and extended lower
costs to the nation's tens of millions of uninsured.
The Intercept reported Wednesday
that Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, warned his Democratic colleagues against offering any amendments to
the Lower
Drug Costs Now Act of 2019 (H.R. 3) during the committee's markup of
the legislation on Tuesday.
"We intend to stick with
the measure in front of us," Neal told The
Hill.
But Rep. Lloyd Doggett
(D-Texas), the author of a more ambitious
drug pricing bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in April brushed
aside in favor of the more moderate H.R. 3, introduced amendments
anyway during the marathon hearing.
If adopted, Doggett's
amendments would have raised the minimum number of drugs the government would
be required to negotiate under the legislation from 35 to 50 and guaranteed
that the approximately 30 million people without health insurance in the U.S.
would benefit from the lower negotiated rates.
"The chances that the
typical patient will see their prices lowered are akin to winning the
lottery," Doggett said. "Is it so burdensome to ask that a few more
drugs be done? No, it's not."
Despite Doggett's plea, most
House Democrats on the committee followed Neal's lead in rejecting the
amendments. The legislation passed out of the Ways and Means Committee late
Tuesday by a vote
of 24-7-1, with Doggett the lone member voting present.
Under the current version of
H.R. 3, it would take the government over 100 years to negotiate lower prices
for all of the prescription drugs covered by Medicare, Doggett said in a document summarizing
his issues with the bill.
"My objective is not to
let the perfect get in the way of the good, but to ensure that the good we seek
actually reaches those whom we serve," Doggett wrote in a Dear
Colleague letter (pdf)
in September. "In short, more work and amendments are needed to make H.R.
3 effective in achieving our shared objective of lowering drug prices for
American families."
The Intercept's AĆda Chavez
reported that Neal "is one of the biggest beneficiaries" of campaign
cash from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
"According to Kaiser
Health News," Chavez noted, "he's received $670,100 in campaign
contributions from pharmaceutical companies since 2007."
Chavez's colleague Ryan Grim
was among those noting that Neal is currently facing a primary
challenge from his left flank:
Donald Shaw, reporter with the
investigative outlet Sludge, highlighted the slew of major pharmaceutical
companies that have donated to Neal just this year:
As Common Dreams reported in
June, progressives accused Pelosi of cutting them out of negotiations over the
details of H.R. 3 and warned the bill would be far too soft on the
pharmaceutical industry.
"If we don't address this
in a big and bold way, a lot of us should go home and start knitting,"
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, told reporters
at the time.
Progressives were ultimately
able to win
minor concessions from leadership, such as raising from 25 to 35 the
minimum number of drugs the government must negotiate under the bill.
When Pelosi finally unveiled
the H.R. 3 in September, advocacy groups cautiously
applauded the measure but said improvements would be necessary to make
a significant dent in soaring drug prices.
"Fundamentally, high
medicine prices are rooted in the monopoly powers our government grants to
prescription drug corporations," Peter Maybarduk, director of Public
Citizen's Access to Medicines Program, said in a statement.
"Making medicine affordable for everyone requires that we challenge this
power."
'Not How We Defeat Trump,' Says Sanders Campaign After Biden Opens Door to Super PACs
Thursday, October 24, 2019
"The former Vice
President has been unable to generate grassroots support, and now his campaign
is endorsing an effort to buy the primary through a super PAC that can rake in
unlimited cash from billionaires and corporations."
Former Vice President Joe
Biden's 2020 Democratic presidential campaign on Thursday announced
that they would accept support from super PACs, a reversal of a stance
that had lasted through the primary season and is shared by his top rivals.
In response to the news, Faiz
Shakir, campaign manager for the democratic presidential campaign of Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sounded a note of disappointment.
"The former Vice
President has been unable to generate grassroots support, and now his campaign
is endorsing an effort to buy the primary through a super PAC that can rake in
unlimited cash from billionaires and corporations," said Shakir.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday,
plans are underway by Biden allies to start a super PAC for the beleaguered
front-runner. Biden has struggled to raise money; a CNN report
Thursday showed the former vice president has less than $9 million cash on
hand. Sanders has $33.7 million.
Biden deputy campaign
manager Kate Bedingfield told NBC in
a statement Thursday afternoon after the CNN story broke that the
campaign was still opposed to super PACs—at least ideologically. She left the
door open to accepting their support due to fears of running against President
Donald Trump in a hypothetical general election match-up.
"Until we have these
badly needed reforms, we will see more than a billion dollars in spending by
Trump and his allies to re-elect this corrupt president," said
Bedingfield. "And let's be clear: Donald Trump has decided that the
general election has already begun."
Bedingfield did not explain
why Biden would need a super PAC in the primary, where he will not face Trump.
Instead, the Biden aide focused on the future.
"In this time of crisis
in our politics, it is not surprising that those who are dedicated to defeating
Donald Trump are organizing in every way permitted by current law to bring an
end to his disastrous presidency," said Bedingfield. "Nothing changes
unless we defeat Donald Trump."
Shakir, in his statement,
strongly disagreed with that interpretation of how to defeat the Republican
incumbent. Super PACs, said Shakir, are a recipe for disaster.
"That's not how we defeat
Trump," said Shakir. "It's a recipe to maintain a corrupt political
system which enriches wealthy donors and leaves the working class behind."
House Homeland Security Chair Demands Sergeant at Arms 'Take Action' Against Republicans Who Stormed Impeachment Hearing
24 Oct 2019
Rep. Bennie Thompson called
the GOP stunt an "unprecedented breach of security."
Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman
of the House Homeland Security Committee, demanded on Wednesday that the
chamber's sergeant at arms "take action" against the dozens of
Republican lawmakers who stormed
a secure impeachment hearing room with their cellphones, a brazen
violation of House rules.
In a letter (pdf)
to House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, the chamber's chief law enforcement
official, Thompson called Republicans' coordinated
attempt to disrupt House Democrats' impeachment inquiry "a
blatant breach of security" that "violates the oath of all members of
Congress sign to gain access to classified information" and
"contravenes security controls established by the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency for the protection of classified information."
"This unprecedented
breach of security raises serious concerns for committee chairmen, including
me, responsible for maintaining SCIFs [Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facilities]," Thompson wrote. "As such, I am requesting you take
action with respect to the members involved in the breach."
"More broadly,"
Thompson added, "I urge you to take House-wide action to remind all
members about the dangers of such reckless action and the potential national
security risks of such behavior."
Thompson's letter came after
the GOP's disruption effort was finally tamped down. All told, the Republican
stunt delayed by five hours the testimony of Pentagon official Laura Cooper, a
witness in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
As Buzzfeed reported,
a dozen of the House Republicans who took part in Wednesday's stunt are members
of the House Intelligence, Judiciary, or Foreign Affairs Committees, meaning
they already had access to the impeachment hearing that they decried as overly
secretive.
Journalist Marcy Wheeler compiled
a list of the more than 40 Republican lawmakers who took part in the
security violation.
On top of storming a secure
room with their electronic devices, numerous Republican lawmakers—including
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who led the group—tweeted updates from inside the
SCIF, a significant breach of House security protocol.
The lawmakers later claimed
the tweets were sent by
staff.
"Since many of the flash
mob already sat on the committees, they *knew* how serious a breach it was to
bring devices into SCIF and did it anyways," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(D-N.Y.) tweeted late
Wednesday. "Our country is a game to them. Remember that the next time
they use 'national security' as an excuse for their bad ideas."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)