Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTHCARE (HEALTH) ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2005)

BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.

I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. This bill is a perfect example of the ironclad control that the pharmaceutical industry has over the Republican leadership of this House. It is so in your face, it is so out in the open, it takes my breath away.

Instead of improving the medical industry and providing protection to its consumers, H.R. 5 provides sweeping liability protections to drug manufacturers. H.R. 5 does nothing to address the dramatic escalation of insurance premiums and health care costs. Forty-five million Americans, 16 percent of our population, do not have health insurance. Placing caps on the punitive damages that could be awarded to victims of medical malpractice will not provide one single American with health insurance.

From the onset this bill has been handled improperly: no mark-ups, no amendments, no hearings. In fact, for the third time in 3 years, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has pointed out, the Committee on Rules' Republicans have prevented any House Members from offering amendments to this bill.

Last night the committee Republicans rejected all 15 amendments offered, including an amendment that would have stripped the bill of the special protections for irresponsible drug companies. Over the past 3 years, Committee on Rules' Republicans have rejected a whopping 67 amendments to medical malpractice legislation. Eliminating amendments and shutting down debate is not how this House should operate.

Why has this bill been rushed to the floor, bypassing both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce despite the abundance of startling information in the headlines regarding the misconduct of drug industry giants like Merck, the creator of the deadly drug Vioxx?

According to testimony given by FDA scientist Dr. David Graham before the Senate Committee on Finance, Vioxx may have caused as many as 55,000 deaths and 160,000 hearts attacks. Mr. Speaker, how can we reward a company that has knowingly created, marketed and distributed a drug which has caused 55,000 deaths?

Well, that is exactly what this bill does. By providing across-the-board immunities to drug and device manufacturers, the pharmaceutical industry would never be held accountable for injuring or even killing people.

Without the threat of full liability, there are no financial incentives for drug companies to keep life-threatening drugs like Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was always a dangerous drug. From its inception in 1999, Merck knew that Vioxx significantly increased the chance of hearts attacks and cardiovascular problems. In 1999 and 2000, two clinical trials showed that people taking Vioxx had a fivefold increase in hearts attacks.

It was not until 2002, after multiple requests from the FDA, that Merck reluctantly change its warning label to include the severe risk of heart attack.

Mr. Speaker, this was too little, too late. Vioxx should have been pulled from the market years ago, and its victims and victims' families should have been compensated appropriately.

It was not until September 2004, after several more studies and testimonies from high-level FDA officials that Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market. And here we are, less than a year later, considering a bill that provides immunity for drug manufacturers that create and distribute unsafe, possibly deadly, drugs.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware of the dangers of Vioxx, and the fact that Merck continued selling it knowing of its dangers. How can this House in good conscience reward the drug industry for bad behavior? The American people deserve a better bill, a bill that actually protects, not endangers them.

I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: if you want to protect irresponsible drug companies, that is your choice. Go right ahead and do it. But I am interested in protecting people. The least you could do is allow us to vote up or down on amendments that would hold the drug companies accountable.

There is no reason why, none whatsoever, why this rule needs to be closed. It is a disgrace that this has been brought to the House floor under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TEXT

http://thomas.loc.gov