Sen. Paul Kirk Jr. (D-Mass.), who recently took the seat held by deceased Senator Ted Kennedy, says if he were a member of the House of Representatives he would be proud to have passed “historical health care legislation,” and adds that as a new member of the Senate, he plans on being an active and vocal force in getting health care legislation passed. (0:19)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-M.D.) says he is proud of the House of Representatives for passing their health care bill. He says the House bill effectively accomplishes the three goals of bringing down health care costs, providing care for all Americans and acheiving fiscal responsibility. (0:21)
By Learned Foote – Talk Radio News Service
A group of Democratic Congressmen introduced proposals on Thursday known as the CARE (Cut Americans’ Rx Expenses) Package. This package would seek to reduce the costs of prescription drugs, and thereby create savings worth $190 billion dollars that could be applied to health care reform.
The package has three amendments which the Congressmen will seek to insert into the legislation. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said that Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) agreed to support these proposals during mark-up.
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said that pharmaceutical companies “create life-extending, pain-relieving, life-saving drugs,” but also “charge very high prices and have an excessive control over the marketplace.”
Rep. Harman said that the first proposal seeks to reverse a 2003 law that passed 220-215, which prohibits the Health and Human Services Secretary from bargaining for lower prices for pharmaceuticals for Medicare D patients. She said the law represents a “poignant example of Congress’ failure to take meaningful action to rein in drug costs.”
According to Rep. Castor, the bill’s second amendment allows a potential public option to “negotiate prices” and to establish a formulary. A prepared press release said that such a formulary would mean that “families who choose the public option are guaranteed the lowest cost for prescriptions.”
Rep. Betty Sutton said that the final provision “will require…drug manufacturers to pay a supplemental rebate when name-brand drugs exceed the current rate of inflation.” She said the companies “won’t have to pay these rebates if they decide not to jack up their drug prices above the rate of inflation.” She added that this proposal will incentivize drug companies to “show reasonable restraint, thereby making prescription drug prices more affordable.”
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fl.) noted that Americans pay higher prices for drugs than do consumers in other countries. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) said that the government has “terrific bargaining power.” He wondered “why shouldn’t the government in dealing with the pharmaceutical industry be able to go into the marketplace and use that bargaining power on behalf of seniors, on behalf of working families across the country?”
The members of Congress proposing this legislation include Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), John Sarbanes (D-Md.), Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) emphasized that “we will be on schedule…to vote for [health care] legislation before we leave for the August recess” in a press conference on Monday.
“It is our plan to introduce our legislation tomorrow,” she continued. “It won’t be the finished product, it is…to be marked up in committee to go to the next step.”
Pelosi discussed the moderate Blue Dog Democrats who have expressed some concern about certain aspects of the health care legislation. She said that such give-and-take is commonplace during the legislative process.
“We’ve made a great deal of progress, I think we’re on schedule, and the conversations have been very productive. As you get toward the end, when you’re ready to introduce and then you go to the markup and the amendment process, is when you get some of the differentiation beyond the consensus that we have built to date. But from those conversations, I feel very confident that we will have strong health care reform,” Pelosi said.
Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged that there have been “extensive and spirited discussions,” but emphasized that “to a person, the Blue Dogs believe we need to pass and they want to support health care reform… There is nobody with whom I’ve talked to in the caucus who doesn’t believe that health care reform is essential to do and do this year.”
Pelosi also emphasized the benefits of quick action on health care reform and several private citizens called for speedy action during the press conference. Pelosi said that reform will lower costs, improve the quality of health care and provide more choices to consumers and businesses.
“You’ll hear some of our opponents of reforming health care saying that this is putting government between you and your doctor,” she said. “That’s what they say, that is just the opposite. What we are doing is removing the health insurance company from between patients and their doctors. And in doing so, we’ll provide stability and peace of mind,” said Pelosi.
By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service
On Thursday, the House Financial Services Committee questioned Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn regarding a proposal recently advanced by the Obama administration that would expand the powers of the Fed.
The Fed currently oversees monetary policy, and in 1977 Congress established that the agency’s objectives are to maximize employment and stabilize prices.
The expanded powers would grant the Fed the authority to oversee systemic risks to the financial system as a whole. Said Kohn, “the job of the systemic risk regulator would be to take account of those interrelationships, the markets and how they’re developing, and the institutions and how they fit into the markets, and look at the overall risk to the system, as well as the risk of the individual institution.”
He added that the Federal Reserve could fulfill this role.
Some Congressmen argued that the expanded powers could compromise the Fed’s responsibilities regarding monetary policy.
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said that the House Republicans’ view of the Federal Reserve dramatically differed from that of the administration. “Republicans believe that the Fed’s core mission, and I stress this, is to conduct monetary policy, and that that will be seriously undermined if its supervisory responsibilities are dramatically expanded.” He suggested that the Fed could become a “permanent bail-out agency,” and its political independence could be compromised.
“We need to end the bailouts that the Fed I think has been instrumental in carrying out over the last eighteen months, and I mean the ad hoc bailouts of individual institutions.”
Kohn said “we do not believe that enhancements to our existing supervisory and regulatory authority proposed by the administration would undermine our ability to pursue our monetary policy objectives effectively and independently.”
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has introduced a bill in the House to audit the Fed more thoroughly, expressed skepticism as to whether the Fed’s powers should be expanded. He said that the Fed needs to be more transparent, although Kohn argued that “our independence in the conduct of monetary policy is accompanied by substantial accountability and transparency.”
Congressman Al Green (D-Texas) asked the Vice Chairman how he would respond to those who argue that it is “risky to give the Fed this much power.” Kohn replied that the additional powers are “incremental…not a huge increase in our authority.” He emphasized that “for the authority we already have, we are held accountable.”
Michael Tanner, CATO Institute’s Head of Health Care and Social Security Research, speaks about the current draft of health reform legislation, including the House of Representatives’ proposed payroll tax hike and how the legislation may cost over $3 trillion. (0:49)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
Former presidential candidate and long time consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader talked with Michael Ruhl to discuss the status of his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This was immediately following the circuit court argument for Nader vs. DNC. Nader claims that he was harassed and burdened in 2004 presidential election by the DNC, in what he calls “an abuse of the legal process” and malicious prosecution. In this interview, Nader explained background of the case, and the case’s current status. He said, “there is no other western democracy that comes close to obstructing voters and obstructing candidates as is the case in our country.”
Nader also spoke about the two-party system, and the effect that his case has on future third party candidates in the presidential process. He said that his case is designed to draw boundaries, to make sure that third party candidates can exercise their First Amendment rights. Nader also referred to the issue as one of democracy, because he said in limiting ballot access, one is truly limiting the right of the people to decide who they want to represent them. Nader called for national ballot standards, instead of ballot standards which vary state by state. He also advocated instant runoff voting and public funding of public campaigns.
Nader said that the two-party system is not allowing third parties access to the higher tiers of federal government, and this two-party system is moving gradually to a one-party system, where gerrymandered districts make reelection almost certain for many members of Congress. He called this a system that can be rented by the rich. In spite of the stronghold that the two parties have on the system, Nader said that he has talked with several members of Congress who may be interested in helping to move legislation on election reform. He mentioned by name: John Conyers (D-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and Jessie Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.). He anticipates this reform effort to be difficult, because as he said, “the foxes are guarding the chicken coop.” Nader seems ready for a fight.
(08:50)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
Grassroots advocacy groups are launching an offensive against conservative Democrats in Congress who are opposing President Obama’s legislation. Campaign for America’s Future has launched a program called “Dog the Blue Dogs”, which is aimed at persuading members of the Blue Dog Coalition into voting for President Obama’s legislation. The Blue Dog Coalition is a group of moderate and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Bob Borosage, President of Campaign for America’s Future, said that several Blue Dog Democrats are conspiring with the Republicans to be obstructionists of the president’s agenda, and are partnering with the likes of talk show host Rush Limbaugh to try to make Obama fail all together. The response from Borosage and groups like USAction is going to be a ground offensive against these Democratic members of Congress. The plan is to run ads in each member’s home district, informing the constituents of how their congressional representatives voted against the President. Borosage said that the campaign is about educating the public, not partisanship.
Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) has been painted with a target for his position on the president’s budget. William McNary, President of USAction and part of Unity 09, said that his organization was going to be mobilizing grassroots efforts in Bayh’s home state of Indiana during the upcoming congressional recess, but could not elaborate on what specific strategies would be used. McNary said that if Senator Bayh wants some specific changes made to the Obama budget, he should express that in a clear and articulate manner, instead of simply voting against the bill.
McNary said that the public should not let members of Congress get “cold feet” about change. Borosage believes this reluctance by some members is because of the power of entrenched interests, rather than individual political stances. He continued that these legislators must “be heard by their constituents, not just their contributors”.
Borosage denied planning this with any of the Congressional Leadership, and said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel was also not involved.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Dan Lasko, a fellow in the Wounded Warrior program who now works for Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) speak at a news conference on the House Wounded Warriors Program. Lasko says that “I saw this as a great opportunity once again to serve my country, and especially our nations hero’s.” Pelosi says that this program is a model for the opportunities that should be there for our Veterans, and she says that she hopes the numbers will grow and grow. (1:45)
House Republicans have felt the sting of Partisanship during the passing of the Economic Stimulus Package. Congressmen Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) speak about how they feel, the relationship between the House and President Obama, and the time frame involved in passing the legislation. Representative Chaffetz said that although Democrats won the election, he “was elected too”, and his constituents in Utah should have a stake in deciding on the package. (02:45)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
