Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that our colleagues across the aisle talk about the problems with the filibuster in the Senate. But that is exactly why bills could not get passed that Republicans in the House passed but couldn't get them passed in the Senate because Democrats filibustered.
And about misinformation, there probably has never been a bill that has been more misrepresented to the American people than what is going on here in terms of this bill. And I do think the American people understand the truth, and they're going to act on the truth later on this year. They're doing it now. They're telling them, don't vote on it. But they feel obliged to do it.
I want to say that while my colleague across the aisle keeps ranting and raving about corporate profits for insurance companies, he doesn't say a word about the corporate profits for the Big Pharma companies. And yet, these are, they are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Big Pharma companies.
Of all the single industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA sent $26.2 million on lobbying last year. That's nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, which spent only $8.9 million.
And let's talk about profits. Drugmakers' combined profit margin last year--this is from an article of The Examiner from March 17, 2010, yesterday--profit margin was 22.2 percent, compared with the insurers' 4.4 percent. Drugmaker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined. And I can go on and on. Madam Speaker, I'd like to put this article in the Record.
And the reason they don't talk about Big Pharma and the drug industry is because Big Pharma helped write this bill, because it protects them. They know that they are going to get a windfall out of this bill, and they, again, our colleagues across the aisle, are wholly owned subsidiaries of them.
Madam Speaker, our colleague, my colleague from Louisiana, brought up a very, very important point that I think needs to be mentioned again and again. What Chairwoman Slaughter has proposed, and what will be done here, is to use a rule providing for consideration of both the Senate and reconciliation bills to deem the Senate bill passed, avoiding the political problem that stems from taking a true up-or-down vote on the horribly unpopular legislation.
If this legislation is doing so much good for the American people, then our colleagues should be proud to be voting for this in an up-or-down vote. They keep saying it, but you know, saying it doesn't make it so.
Even though, again, Speaker Pelosi said on page 23 of her ``New Directions for America'' document issued in the 109th Congress that ``Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' Then on page 24 she states that ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, and Members should have at least 24 hours''--later expanded to 72 hours--``to examine the bill text prior to floor consideration.''
Yet, as Mr. Scalise has said, all we've seen are broken promises. And now, Speaker Pelosi is advocating parliamentary trickery to avoid an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill. And he quoted her as saying, ``This is a great way to do it because it avoids an up-or-down vote.''
This is not what the American people sent us here for. They didn't send us here to undermine the rule of law and to do things with tricks. They know this is the wrong thing to do. That's why they have been jamming the phones and telling our colleagues, vote ``no.''
[From the Examiner, Mar. 17, 2010]
Dems Tap Drug Maker Millions for PhRMA-Friendly Bill
(By Timothy P. Carney)
As they whip for the health care bill, Democratic leaders pack a mean one-two punch of populist rhetoric and the hefty financial backing of the drug industry.
In the heated yearlong health fight, President Obama has often accused his opponents of willful misrepresentation, even as he and his allies have endlessly repeated the biggest whopper of all--that the bill would rein in the special interests.
The Obama team regularly dismisses opponents as industry lackeys. The Democratic National Committee blasted out e-mails this week warning that ``for every member of Congress, there are eight anti-reform lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill'' and ``Congress is under attack from insurance lobbyists.''
But drug industry lobbyists, according to Politico, spent the weekend ``huddled with Democratic staffers'' who needed the drug lobby to ``sign off'' on proposals before moving ahead. Meanwhile, we learn that the drug lobby is buying millions of dollars of ads in 43 districts where a Democratic candidate stands to suffer for supporting the bill. The doctors' lobby and the hospitals' lobby are also on board with the Senate bill.
So the battle at this point is not reformers versus industry, as Obama would have you believe. Rather, it is a battle between most of the health care industry and the insurance companies.
(And the insurers are not opposed to the whole package. On the bill's central planks--limits on price discrimination, outlawing exclusions for pre-existing conditions, a mandate that employers insure their workers and a mandate that everyone hold insurance--insurers are on board. They object mostly that the penalty is too small for violating the individual mandate.)
Pharmaceuticals are a far more entrenched special interest than the insurers.
Of all the single-industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA spent $26.2 million on lobbying last year--that's nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, which spent $8.9 million.
If you include individual companies' lobbying pharmaceuticals blow away the competition, beating all other industries by 50 percent, according to data at the Center for Responsive Politics.
Given this Big Pharma clout, it's unsurprising that the bill Obama's whipping for--Senate bill--has nearly everything the drug companies wanted; prohibiting reimportation of drugs, preserving Medicare's overpayment for drugs, lengthy exclusivity for biotech drugs, a mandate that states subsidize drugs under Medicaid, hundreds of billions in subsidies for drugs, and more.
PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin, who was vilified by Obama on the campaign trail, worked out much of this sweetheart deal in a West Wing meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Tauzin visited the White House at least 11 times. He left his imprint so deeply on the current bill that it should probably be called BillyCare rather than ObamaCare.
Recall that pharmaceutical executives and political action committees dug deep trying to save the flailing candidacy of Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts--a race that was explicitly a referendum on health care. She took in more than 10 times as much drug company cash as Republican Scott Brown.
This week, PhRMA, through a front group called Americans for Stable Quality Care, is rolling out millions of dollars in advertisements for the Democrats' jury-rigged package consisting of the BillyCare bill and some as-yet-undetermined ``budget reconciliation'' measure. The ads reportedly will target wavering Democrats.
But supporters of BillyCare will continue to attack opponents as shills for insurance companies, demonizing, as Obama puts it, ``those who profit from the status quo.''
Let's look at those profits. Drug makers' combined profit margin last year was 22.2 percent, compared with insurers' 4.4 percent. Drug maker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined.
Pfizer, which netted $8.64 billion last year, gave its CEO, Jeff Kindler, a 12.5 percent salary increase, bringing his compensation to $14.9 million. Pfizer, in a federal filing, attributed the raise partly to Kindler's work ``developing and advancing U.S. and global public policies that serve the overall interests of our Company,'' including his ``constructive participation in the U.S. legislative process.'' Kindler contributed the maximum to Obama's election, and Obama raised more money from the drug industry than any candidate in history.
On this bill, Republicans side with insurers, and Democrats mostly side with the richer and more powerful drug makers. The difference: Republicans didn't cut a backroom deal with the insurers. Obama will still play the populist card, even as the drug lobby is his ace in the hole.
Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that what my colleague from Massachusetts just said about all those hours of hearings, it was a totally different bill. No hearings have been held on this bill; a totally different bill. That isn't the way we work around here.
What they're asking people not to vote on is a bill that came from the Senate. It isn't the House bill. So let's, again, get real here and let's talk about what we should be talking about.
You know, my colleagues across the aisle were against the Senate bill before they were for the bill, and I would like to quote my distinguished colleague who is the Chair of the Rules Committee when she said on December 23, 2009, ``Under the Senate bill, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance plans which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care, but will be a windfall for insurance companies.'' She went on to then say ``The Senate has ended up with a bill that isn't worthy of its support. Supporters of the weak Senate bill say, just pass it. Any bill is better than no bill. I strongly disagree.''
Now that very same person has done everything possible to get this bill passed in this House so that it will become law. It is no wonder that the majority is considering procedural tricks and sleight of hand, because the bill that they are proposing to pass doesn't provide true health care reform. And the process doesn't pass the sniff test.
Republicans will never accept the status quo for health care. We can do better. We need to have a bill that will lower the cost of health care in America. But you do not lower the cost of health care by creating new government-run programs. We can lower the cost by putting patients, average, everyday Americans in charge of their health care, not insurance companies and not the government. Lower costs will result from putting patients in charge of their health care through innovations like expanded health savings accounts and by making sure that trial lawyers are not driving up the cost of health care with a blizzard of frivolous lawsuits.
We should be revitalizing America's economy and promoting economic freedom. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican plan will reduce the deficit by $68 billion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source