And he wants to make sure that the pharmaceutical companies understand that, too. The House Energy Chair intends to retroactively remove what Waxman calls a ‘windfall’ involving Medicare D drug charges, and never mind what either the President or PhRMA thinks:

Drug makers contend they have already worked out a 10-year, $80 billion cost-savings deal with the White House and crucial Senate gatekeepers on the trillion-dollar health care overhaul. The industry says that trying to add Mr. Waxman’s provision could scuttle that agreement.

Putting aside the actual merits of the argument for a moment - I (and Hot Air) may have excellent reasons to assume that a Democrat posturing about ‘windfall profits’ is simply posturing, but it’s still an assumption - it’s instructive to see how little a powerful House Democrat fears the wrath of the White House on this issue.  Then again, this is what happens when you’re a President who hands off responsibility for a bill in the first place; the people who do the work naturally end up deciding that their opinions on its final form are more relevant than yours, and unless you have the ability to do something about it they’re going to show little reluctance in showing public defiance.  Given that the President just hit 50% on Gallup, and lacks any real experience in leading people who don’t want to be led, I’m not surprised that Waxman is doing this.

And this is why people say “If you want something done right, do it yourself.”  Cliche, yes, but cliches exist for a reason.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Bringing the Public’s Coverage to the Congressional Level

House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats voted 31-28 to reject an amendment from Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and Lee Terry (R-NE) that would have opened up the multiple-plan health coverage options available to Members of Congress to the public at large.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who spoke at length yesterday about the need to ensure Americans have access to the same quality health coverage that Congress gets, came out against the measure when the Republican trio offered him a chance to put his vote where his mouth was.

“People will say to us, ‘Why can’t we have the same thing you guys have?’” said Gingrey. “We ought to give everybody in this country an opportunity to get this.”

E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded that, in his view, opening up the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to the general public was unacceptable “because it strikes the public plan.” E&C Health Subcommittee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said the proposal to let the public into Congress’ health plan was based on “a false assumption” that the result “is going to be somehow better” than segregating Congress’ health care from that of the great unwashed.

Bringing Congress’ Coverage to the Public Level

A separate amendment sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt would have put all members of the committee on the record about the desirability of the Democrats’ “public option” by forcing them to vote for or against the automatic enrollment of all federal elected officials from Congress to the President in that public health coverage plan.

“We’ve been challenged by many constituents that ‘if there’s going to be this government plan, shouldn’t you be a part of it?’ I agree with my constituents that if were going to pass this plan, we ought to put ourselves in it,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). North Carolina Republican Sue Myrick concurred, saying, “If this is a good plan for them, it ought to be good enough for us.”

With its mandatory subjection of Washington officials to the same health coverage those officials have been working to force the American public into, Blunt’s proposal was indeed, as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) put it, “a put-up-or-shut-up amendment.”

Rather than either put up or shut up, though, Waxman saved his fellow pro-government health insurance colleagues (and his endangered Blue Dog coalition) from having to go on the record about their willingness to accept the same health coverage they are offering the rest of America by dismissing the amendment on procedural grounds without holding a vote.

In an ultimate CYA cop-out move, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) argued that the amendment was outside the jurisdiction of the committee because it would affect the benefits of members of Congress. Waxman upheld her with a ruling of the chair, and the amendment was dismissed.

Read More →

Yesterday afternoon, House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the House health care overhaul bill to allow for federal funding of elective abortion coverage for those enrolled in the “public option,” to mandate that every regional Health Insurance Exchange contain at least one private insurance plan that offers abortion coverage, and to permit taxpayer subsidies of those private insurance plans and others that cover elective abortion.

The Capps amendment passed 30-28, with E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Capps, and 28 other Democrats voting in favor of mandating (and allowing taxpayer funding to be used to subsidize) abortion coverage.

Taxpayer dollars do not currently pay for, or subsidize, insurance plans that cover elective abortion services. This amendment, if the health overhaul bill to which it is attached is passed and signed into law, would alter that policy, using the tax dollars of every American - pro-life or pro-choice - to subsidize abortion coverage (and, by extension, abortion services).

Late last night, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) responded to the Capps amendment’s passage by proposing an amendment of his own. Pitts’s proposal would have prohibited the federal government from requiring any insurance plan — including the “public option” — to provide coverage for abortion (with the three chief exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother).

E&C passed the Pitts amendment by a 31-27 vote, with Waxman among the “Yea” votes. However, after the votes were in and the amendment passed, Waxman decided he wanted to change his vote, and so brought the amendment back up for “reconsideration” and a re-vote.

The second time around, Waxman voted against the amendment to prevent abortion coverage from being mandated in health insurance plans. He also convinced Blue Dog Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) to switch his vote from Yea to Nay, and pulled conflicted Blue Dog Zack Space (D-OH), who had managed to sit out the first round of voting, back into the debate. Space, who voted in favor of the Capps amendment earlier yesterday afternoon, succumbed to pressure from Waxman and cast his vote against the Pitts measure.

The result was a 30-29 defeat of the measure — a reversal of the initial outcome, and the Democratic preservation a health care overhaul bill that not only allows, but mandates, taxpayer-funded abortion coverage and services.

Last night, during yet another attempt to mark up the House health overhaul bill, Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) House Energy and Commerce Committee took up and voted down (33-25) an amendment by ranking member Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to prevent the implementation of a little-known provision in the bill that would cause the highly-publicized surtax on high earners to double if the cost of the health overhaul is higher than expected.

The “surtax” (read: tax increase) “doubles in the year 2013 if there is a study by the Office of Management and Budget that determines certain savings have not occurred,” said Barton. “The effect of the Barton amendment would be that beginning 2013, only those citizens who make over $1 million would have their taxes increased by the surtax.”

The bill currently increases the taxes of those making $280,000 ($350,000 for couples) by 1 percentage point, those making $400,000 ($500,000 for couples) by 2 percentage points, and those making more than $800,000 ($1 million for couples) by three. The provision Barton’s amendment was designed to forestall was an automatic increase of these rates by two percentage points across the board if CBO determines in 2013 that the overhaul is costing more than lawmakers currently expect it to — something that is a near-absolute certainty.

Read More →

For whatever reason — perhaps it was Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick’s stubborn insistence on a fully-funded, competitive “public option” for her black constituents, whom she seems to think have no other option in life but to be on the public dole — Rep. Zack Space (D-OH) is rumored to have withdrawn his support from the ongoing negotiations over HR 3200, the Orwellianly-titled “Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.”

One of four Blue Dog Democrats whose willingness to continue negotiating about the fine points of the thousand-page bill was the only thing keeping the possibility of a pre-recess vote on life support, a withdrawal by Space would effectively end E&C’s ability to continue marking up the health overhaul bill, at least for the present.

Even if he relented this evening and returned to the negotiating table, though, the compromise amendment stemming from the Blue Dog capitulation — which has not yet been written — would have to be completed by noon Friday if it is going to be considered by E&C during the markup period, which Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has said would end at 2:00pm.

Additionally, the four Blue Dogs whose compliance has allowed the bill to remain alive in the Energy and Commerce Committee had predicated their support on their inspection of a Congressional Budget Office scoring of the compromise bill they are helping to craft — and, reportedly, no such score has been forthcoming to date.

Promoted from the diaries by bs

Time: About 4:30 p.m.

Date: July 6, 2007

Place: Somewhere in California’s 30th Congressional District (presumably not in Beverly Hills, due to the distinct absence of cement ponds SWIMMING POOLS … MOVIE STARS…

H/T Chuck, via Ace of Spades

After Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)’s exasperated halting of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s health overhaul bill markup — done because of problems in negotiations that Waxman insists are going “well” — Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) took to the House floor to make his one-minute address.

In a departure from the GOP theme of today’s minute speeches — “finding the jobs” — Blunt used his time to propose an amendment to the health overhaul bill that would force federal officials from the President to Congress to put their health care money where their mouths are, and to accept the Democrats’ proposed “public option” — or government-run insurance plan — as their sole source of health coverage.

Blunt said:

Mr. Speaker, if the Energy and Commerce Committee had continued to work today, I would have introduced an amendment to require all federal elected officials, including the President and Vice President, to set aside our health care benefits and enroll in their new idea of a government-run health care system. If the majority is really so confident that their plan will provide the very best health care for the people we represent, we ought to demonstrate that confidence by enrolling ourselves.

I, for one, don’t believe a government-run health care plan will be the best for the people we represent, but a government competitor will soon be all that is left.

A government competitor, Mr. Speaker, would be like an elephant in a room full of mice. The fast mice get out of the room as quick as they can, the slow mice get crushed, and only the elephant is left.

That’s a great proposal. Naturally, it won’t make it anywhere in this “One Set Of Rules For Me, Another For Thee” Congress, but the fact they keep shooting down such proposals should make clear to the American people just how little elected Democrats think of the “options” they present their constituents in such vital areas as health care.

From a letter to Rep. Waxman by Rep. Barton & Rep. Upton on the apparently burning need to pass HR 2454 before Memorial Day:

In your March 27 letter to President Obama concerning climate legislation in the 111th Congress, you seemed to agree. You told the President that “hearings, markups, and regular order are the best way to forge the compromises that will unite members from all parts of the country. As we work to achieve this consensus, we hope Republican members of our committee and of the full House will join the process too, so that truly bipartisan answers can be developed.”

However, your self-imposed Memorial Day deadline for reporting this bill necessarily requires that we short-circuit the logical legislative process that our democracy thrives on, and replace it with a frantic rush to judgment.

What is the hurry? If we wanted a bill sure to embarrass our committee, this is precisely the process we would adopt to create one. It began with secret negotiations, moved on to a decision to skip subcommittee consideration altogether, and now we face a scheduled markup. We appreciate that today you provided us with a copy of your revised language in the form of an introduced bill—H.R. 2454—that is 284 pages longer than your original draft. However, since the House is not in session today and will not be voting until Monday evening, Members will not have had any meaningful chance to even look at your new language; much less try and understand it before you start the markup. Not that this would make any difference, as we understand that you will be offering a complete substitute amendment at the markup that we will not see until it is offered. Mr. Chairman, this is no way to write any public law, much less one that will transform the way every person in our country lives and works.

Read More →

We at Red State have pointed out several times that while Chris Dodd agreed to insert an amendment into the stimulus bill to protect AIG bonuses, he was not in position to do so. Chris Dodd was not a Member of the conference committee that drafted the final version of the bill - the only one that had protection for AIG. The Democrats on the conference committee locked the Republicans out of the process and wrote the bill themselves. No Republican supported the conference report; no Republican signed it (look on the final page of the conference report here).

The Democrat conferees were Daniel Inouye, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Dave Obey, Charlie Rangel, and Henry Waxman. One (or more) of them allowed Dodd to make the change.

So who was it?

Harry Reid needs to talk about his role in this. And so should Daniel Inouye, Max Baucus, Dave Obey, Charlie Rangel, and Henry Waxman. Each was responsible for the contents of the bill that the six of them drafted together.

Here we go folks.

The Fairness Doctrine is going to make a comeback under the Obama administration. It just won’t be via Congress and it won’t be called the “Fairness Doctrine.” It’ll come via the FCC, involve restrictions on media ownership and content, and it’ll apply to the internet too.

As Brian Darling noted, the administration and leftists in Congress will be using the Center for American Progress’s outline.

From the Prowler:

“This isn’t just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven’t heard about,” says Democrat committee member. “The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we’ve established that broadband networks — the Internet — are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure.”

Here’s the gist of what’ll happen. Congress will restrict how many stations a company can own in a market. They’ll also require advisory boards for each station and make it easier to address consumer complaints against stations.

One of the requirements will be diversity of ideas on the air, so if a company is just broadcasting Rush Limbaugh on all stations in a state, consumers can file complaints. Likewise, the advisory boards’ demands will have to be adhered to by the stations.

If the stations’ advisory boards are filled with liberals who demand Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air, the station will have to comply in order to keep its license.

In addition, there’s this:

Also involved in “brainstorming” on “Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.

So it’ll no longer be what the market wants. It’ll be what the left demands.