"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Can Congress Stop Robocalls?
>
Wouldn’t you like to see people who profit from robocallcalls die horrible deaths? 50 billion calls a year! 60% of all complaints to the FCC are about robocalls. And they’re not all done by firms in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Among the top 10 robocallers in the U.S. are Capital One, Fingerhut, Comcast, Wells Fargo and Santander. Theguilty parties regularly ignore the Do Not Call List. I live in California, where my state prohibits any robocall unless there is an existing relationship— and on average get around between a dozen and two-dozen robocalls a day. In May there were almost 5 billion robocalls made to phones across the country. The House Energy and Commerce Committee to the rescue? Maybe. Can instinctual corruptionists like Frank Pauline and Greg Walden do anything right? The problem in so pervasive that when I googled "robocalls," this ad to create your own cheap robocall program immediately popped up:
At least Congress can be bipartisan in a search for a solution. Washington Post reporter Tony Romm on Thursday: “House Democrats and Republicans unveiled the so-called Stopping Bad Robocalls Act at a moment when Washington is under heavy fire for failing to swiftly stem the tide of unwanted spam calls. The nearly 5 billion robocalls that targeted Americans’ mobile devices last month is roughly double the amount from the same period two years ago, according to YouMail, which offers a smartphone call-blocking app. Such disruptions have become more than a mere annoyance. They result in the theft of Americans’ personal information each year, and they threaten to overwhelm the country’s most critical communications lines, including at hospitals, which recently have reported a significant uptick in robocalls targeting administrators, doctors and patients.” The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Frank Pauline (D-NJ) and the GOP Ranking Member, Grge Walden (R-OR) must have watched that John Oliver segment 3 months ago. They have a bill about to be voted on.
Their legislation would require the Federal Communications Commission to update the definition of what qualifies as a robocall, a move that could subject a wider array of companies to requirements they obtain consent before calling a consumer. The FCC also would have to ensure it outlaws any attempts to circumvent its rules using new or different robocall technology. Margot Saunders, senior counsel at the National Consumer Law Center, pointed to a lawsuit that her organization has supported against Hilton Grand Vacations Company. Advocates charge that Hilton designed its system in such a way that it narrowly avoided the government’s definition of a robocall— by having a human worker essentially just click a button. As a result, they say Hilton never obtained the consent of the consumers it called. Hilton has denied it violated the law. “We think this bill is a significant step toward stopping unwanted robocalls,” she said. The bill also would start the clock on telecom giants such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, requiring them to implement new technology to authenticate if calls are real or spam a year and a half at most after such the proposal becomes law. Those carriers for months have promised to implement one such standard, known as STIR/SHAKEN, that will alert consumers whenever they’re receiving a call from a dubious source or potentially block it outright, though the government so far hasn’t mandated it. In addition, lawmakers would task the FCC to figure out alternate options for rural carriers that can’t adopt the technology due to cost or technical limitations. And the bill would make it easier for federal officials to investigate, then enforce, the country’s anti-robocall rules, removing some of the hurdles that currently limit the time that law enforcement may investigate or the manner by which they issue fines. The House’s newly bipartisan proposal comes almost a month after the Senate adopted its own legislation, known as the TRACED Act, almost unanimously. The Senate’s anti-robocall measure differs from the House in some ways: It does not, for example, require the FCC to rethink what counts as a robocall or how consumers give and withdraw their consent to real businesses that auto-dial them for payment or prescription reminders. At the same time, the FCC has forged ahead with some improvements of its own, including an order in June that allows wireless carriers to enable, by default, services that automatically block suspected spam calls on behalf of consumers. The agency, however, opted against requiring that AT&T, Verizon and other carriers offer those services without charge. House lawmakers have proposed prohibiting companies from imposing fees for such services.
Engadget.com explained the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill. “The [House] measure would require that carriers authenticate calls and offer opt-out blocking at no extra charge, with transparency to make sure you don't miss an important conversation. The FCC, meanwhile, would be granted extended statutes of limitations on robocall offenses. In return, the regulator would have to issue rules protecting against unwanted calls (including the option to withdraw consent), clamp down on abuse of robocall exemptions and submit a report on its implementation of the reassigned numbers database. The Senate bill doesn't require the new FCC rules. The Act is due for a panel vote next week. Whether or not it makes it to the President's desk as-is could be another story. While both sides of Congress are clearly in favor of stricter regulation of robocalls, they'll have to reconcile bill differences-- it's possible that the finished legislation will be watered down. Between this and the FCC's block-by-default initiative, though, you'll see at least some kind of improved enforcement against automated calls.”
That's part of a press release Pelosi's office sent me Wednesday evening. It also has the new appointees for Ways and Means:
• Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia • Congressman Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania • Congressman Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania • Congressman Steven Horsford of Nevada • Congressman Dan Kildee of Michigan • Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Wisconsin • Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of Florida • Congressman Jimmy Panetta of California • Congressman Brad Schneider of Illinois • Congressman Tom Suozzi of New York
The Congressional Progressive Caucus made a deal with Pelosi. One crucial component was that she would guarantee the CPC 40% of the seats on crucial committees like the 3 above. Last week I mentioned that there was a potential problem with the deal. Not everyone in the Congressional Progressive Caucus is actually progressive. CPC co-chair, Mark Pocan, has made membership a farce by selling ($5,000 annual dues) them to "moderate" congressmembers who need cover-- protection from progressive activists-- back in home. I immediately guessed that Pelosi would appoint all the rubbish in the caucus to the committees and say, "see I upheld my end of the bargain." There are at least 13 members of the CPC who are also New Dems (Wall Street shills-- and unless you want to define "progressive" as, basically, being pro-choice, not racist and not homophobic these are not progressives. There are 26 members named to these 3 key committees. The only freshmen were former members Ed Case, one of the most conservative members of Congress, Ann Kirkpatrick, another right-of-center member, and Steven Horsford, a garden variety Democrat. Let's start by showing each member's ProgressivePunch score. The bolded named are CPC members:
Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog, just switched to New Dem-IL)- F Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)- F Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- F Lois Frankel (FL)- C Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)- F Brenda Lawrence (New Dem-MI)- B Norma Torres (New Dem-CA)- F Bonnie Watson-Coleman (NJ)- A Nanette Barragán (CA)- B Lisa Blunt Rochester (New Dem-DE)- F Robin Kelly (IL)- B Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)- F Donald McEachin (New Dem-VA)- D Tom O’Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- F Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)- F Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX)- F Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)- D Brendan Boyle (New Dem-PA)- F Dwight Evans (PA)- B Steven Horsford (NV)- F Dan Kildee (MI)- A Gwen Moore (WI)- A Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- F Jimmy Panetta (CA)- F Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)- F Tom Suozzi (New Dem-NY)- F
Just over a month ago, in a post called The Battle For Plum Committee Positions Begins-- Alexandria Ocasio v Tom Suozzi, we mentioned that progressives Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were trying to get appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee, "whose jurisdiction over taxes and revenue puts most of the economy within its mandate." By tradition, one seat is guaranteed to New York and in the last Congress that was Joe Crowley's. Although Ocasio-Cortez defeated Crowley, the committee seat went to the far more conservative Long Islander, Tom Suozzi. As Ryan From wrote for The Intercept, "Any major piece of legislation-- whether it’s Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or free public college-- would involve some level of revenue, putting it squarely in the domain of Ways and Means, which makes it a key spot for a legislator looking to have an impact. Ocasio-Cortez is routinely asked how she plans to pay for her aggressive economic agenda, and the first answer begins with securing a spot on the House’s key tax-writing committee."
Traditionally, the seat is sought after for its fundraising potential, as every industry in the country is concerned with federal tax policy, meaning that members of the committee are more likely to get their fundraising calls returned. That makes the decision of who to give the seat to a tricky one for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has the final say on committee assignments. Placing a lawmaker who refuses corporate PAC contributions on the Ways and Means Committee could be seen by some elements of the party as leaving money on the table. But giving it to the other New York applicant presents its own problems. Ocasio-Cortez is competing with Rep. Tom Suozzi, who represents the North Shore of Long Island, a district not far from Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx and Queens-- but a world away in terms of wealth and privilege. He would no doubt make efficient fundraising use of the seat, but he also took part in a recent assault on Pelosi’s power as speaker. The contrast between how Ocasio-Cortez and Suozzi have approached the incoming Congress has been stark. Ocasio-Cortez began by joining a sit-in at Pelosi’s office to demand an empowered select committee to focus on legislating a Green New Deal. It was a risky move, but one that ended with Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez praising one another, and the issue of climate change was elevated on the agenda. Ocasio-Cortez then threw her support behind an embattled Pelosi for speaker of the House. Pelosi’s bid for speakership was threatened by the so-called Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of lawmakers funded by the dark-money group No Labels, which threatened to withhold voting for Pelosi unless she agreed to a suite of rule changes that would largely empower Republicans. Suozzi was one of the nine signatories on that letter. Pelosi ultimately ceded to some of their demands. Suozzi is a vice chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, as well as a member of the New Democrat Coalition, a bloc of Wall Street-friendly Democrats that dramatically expanded its membership with the 2018 elections. ...Ocasio-Cortez’s decision to go after a spot on the Ways and Means Committee is part of a broader strategy to grow progressive power in the coming Congress. It began with Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and Pramila Jayapal of Washington state extracting a major concession from Pelosi, that in exchange for CPC votes, she would give the caucus proportional representation-- which amounts to 40 percent-- on the most powerful committees, which includes Ways and Means.
So... long story short: this is the worst I ever saw Pelosi screw progressives-- not Pocan's transactional definition, but actual progressives... in her entire congressional tenure. Anyone who ever doubted which side she's on can now set those doubts to rest for all time. Let me a dd a caveat; the deal, apparently, was that 40% of the entire membership of each committee would be from the CPC. So, technically, the deal wasn't broken. But that still, for example, leaves the Appropriations Committee with 11 actual economic progressives, 13 anti-progressives and 6 floating in the middle. The committee can easily be swayed in whatever they want to do by arch bankster-buddies Debbie Wasserman Schultz ($2,485,907), Henry Cuellar ($1,499,463), Ann Kirkpatrick ($1,615,753), Norma Torres ($177,560), Cheri Bustos ($1,097,471), Pete Aguilar ($965,965), Mike Quigley ($1,019,844), Sanford Bishop ($1,223,847), Ed Case ($539,917), Charlie Crist ($3,165,972) and Pete Visclosky ($704,795). I might add that committee chair, Nita Lowey has taken $5,244,643 from the Finance Sector.
Bribe? Campaign Contribution? What's The Difference? And Who Defines The Difference?
>
Pelosi is going to establish another select Committee on Climate Change and appoint Tampa Democrat Kathy Castor as chair instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As I've mentioned, Castor is relatively (even very) scrupulous about not taking money from industries she takes part in writing legislation for unlike most of her colleagues. Virtually all Republicans, New Dems and Blue Dogs seek out assignments on the "honey pot committees" (Financial Services, Way and Means, Energy and Commerce, Agriculture... specifically so that they can use the position to sell their votes to the industries they impact. Castor has avoided that. A senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on Health, she has avoided the big bribes her colleagues have gobbled up. Subcommittee on Health members who have taken massive bribes from, for example, PhRMA:
• (Former Energy and Commerce Committee Chair) Fred Upton (R-MI)- $930,040 • Subcommittee Chair Greg Walden (R-OR)- $883,542 • Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $840,700 • John Shimkus (R-IL)- $826,700 • Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $686,100 • Michael Burgess (R-TX)- $683,392 • Leonard Lance (R-NJ)- $574,000 • Subcommittee Vice Chair Brett Guthrie (R-NJ)- $480,550 • Diana DeGette (D-CO)- $455,659 • Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- $440,917 • Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $431,000 • Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $432,678 • Joe Barton (R-TX)- $408,500 • GK Butterfield (D-NC)- $346,985 • Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- $311,500 • Subcommittee Ranking Member Gene Green (D-TX)- $293,565 • Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- $271,250 • Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)- $269,178
Compare that to subcommittee member Kathy Castor- $15,000, which is not from corporate PACs or anything but, in all likelihood, from individuals she happens to know, say a couple of doctors or nurses or a pharmacist, who are "in the healthcare industry." The Energy and Commerce is such a lucrative place for the criminally-minded congress members because of the scope of industries it oversees. Imagine the portfolio of regular bribes you can get from:
• health care, including mental health and substance abuse • health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid • biomedical research and development • food, drug, device and cosmetic safety • environmental protection • clean air and climate change • safe drinking water • toxic chemicals and hazardous waste • national energy policy • renewable energy and conservation • nuclear facilities • electronic communications and the internet • broadcast and cable television • privacy, cybersecurity and data security • consumer protection and product safety • motor vehicle safety • travel, tourism and sports • interstate and foreign commerce
And Committee Chair, Frank Pallone, the person who is screwing up the chances for America getting a Green New Deal, makes the most of it and has no intention of giving up an inch of that turf. This crook has taken more bribes from the healthcare industry-- and remember he's only the ranking member, not even chair yet-- than any other member of Congress ion history-- $6,067,900. He should be in prison. These are the other sectors he deals with that he's taken beaucoup d'argent from: Labor- $2,891,845; Finance- $2,179,885; Communications/Electronics- $1,536,862; Energy and Natural Resources- $862,516. And Castor-- who's about be chair of the Climate Change Committee? Just $2,951 (from Oil and Gas). That's not from "The Industry." Anyway, my point is that she hasn't been a typical bribe-taking monster like almost everyone on the Energy and Commerce Committee. On Christmas Eve, Alex Kotch, writing for Sludge, reported that Castor told him she will reject campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry to “build confidence in her leadership", which sounds like more than what any of the other non-freshman contenders would have done. Many members of Congress have built up defenses about the obvious bribery they take and one thing they virtually all say is that it would be unconstitutional to force committee members to not accept "campaign donations" (which is how members of Congress refresh's to bribes) from the industries they are regulating (or, more likely in recent years, freeing from regulation). Kotch reported that Castor "will not require committee members to reject donations from fossil fuel interests" but that she won't accept any herself. Kotch wrote that her "spokesperson Steven Angotti told Sludge on Friday that the representative 'will not accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry, to help build confidence in her leadership of the Select Committee.' It’s unclear whether she’ll reject contributions from executives or employees in the industry; Angotti did not immediately reply to Sludge’s follow-up about this question."
Over her six terms in the House, Castor has received a relatively small number of donations from energy industry PACs and individuals who work in the industry, totaling $34,750, according to a MapLight analysis. Most of these donations are $1,000 and over, and many came from Pacific Gas and Electric, Progress Energy, and Florida-based Teco Energy. The Center for Responsive Politics has Castor’s total donations from energy and natural resources interests at roughly $73,000, with $60,000 coming from PACs and the rest from individuals. Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who leads the Green New Deal initiative, tweeted that “loading a climate committee w/ fossil fuel [money] is akin to letting foxes in the henhouse.”
Despite planning not to restrict committee members’ campaign finance, Castor told Sludge that members “should be ready to stand up to corporate special interests and fight to reduce carbon pollution.” “[Rep. Castor] strongly supports transparency and accountability for members of Congress,” wrote Castor spokesperson Angotti. She “will not accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry, to help build confidence in her leadership of the Select Committee. Members who serve on the committee should be ready to stand up to corporate special interests and fight to reduce carbon pollution. She cannot speak for Republicans who may serve on the committee…Also, the first bill Democrats intend to bring to the floor in the new Congress is legislation that will address corporate money and dark money.” [Note: the bill very conspicuously does not address members of committees taking bribes from the industries they work with. That would never pass the House or even just Democrats in the House.]
Forty-three House members have signed on to the Green New Deal plan, which would establish a new select committee that would be tasked with writing a Green New Deal proposal by 2020 that would make the United States greenhouse gas emissions-neutral by 2030. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who backs the Green New Deal and does not accept campaign donations from fossil fuel PACs or lobbyists, told Sludge:
“It’s in the interest of Ranking Member Pallone and Energy and Commerce Democrats to support a strong select committee. Climate change is the issue of our generation, and we need a solution on the scale of the new deal. House Democrats should demonstrate to the American people that we have the courage to take on the whole problem with a bold committee.”
Khanna claimed on Twitter that Pallone, who opposes a Green New Deal committee and has accepted big sums from the oil and gas industry, is holding up an unrelated, Khanna-sponsored rural broadband bill because Khanna is “supporting a Green New Deal and encroaching on his turf.” ...While dozens of House members were willing to commit to reject fossil fuel PAC money, some own stock in oil, gas, or coal companies. Few of these members have acknowledged that such investments may pose a conflict of interest for those who sit on energy and climate committees, which review and write legislation that directly impacts the fossil fuel industry. For example, as Sludge recently reported, Rep. Joe Kennedy, who backs the Green New Deal, owns between $963,000 and $2,195,000 worth of stock in companies in the oil and gas industry such as Chevron, Exxon, and NextEra Energy, mostly through inherited family trusts. Kennedy’s press secretary told Sludge that “Kennedy’s family investments play no role in his decision-making in Congress.” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and his wife own as much as $415,000 in stocks and bonds from oil and gas companies. Khanna’s spouse is also heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, as well as many other industries. Khanna told E&E News in September that he didn’t believe members of Congress need to divest from fossil fuels. “I think divestment is going perhaps much further than just not taking PAC money or corporate money,” he said. Khanna’s spokesperson told Sludge that the California representative “believes that [members of committees that oversee a particular industry] should not accept any contributions from that industry, and should disclose any personal investments or family investments.” Members of Congress are required to disclose the investments that they and their spouses own once per year and periodically after stock trades. Castor stopped short of criticizing these kinds of investments. Angotti said, “Rep. Castor believes we need greater oversight and transparency in this area and is hopeful Democratic ethics reforms can tighten the rules on this.”
Earlier Kotch had reported that Beto "has been removed from a pledge he signed to reject large donations from fossil fuel PACs and executives, following a recent Sludge investigation of federal campaign finance records. Sludge reported on Dec. 10 that the congressman had accepted dozens of contributions of over $200 from oil and gas executives and had not reported refunding them. Oil Change USA, which led a coalition of environmental and democracy organizations to create the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, attempted to reach O’Rourke’s campaign and congressional office but did not hear back. Nor did Sludge. David Turnbull, strategic communications director at Oil Change USA, told Sludge on Tuesday that the group had just removed O’Rourke’s name from the list of signers."
Congress Should Not Be Self-Regulatory-- Especially Not When It Comes To Determining What Is And What Is Not A Bribe
>
The Subcommittee on Health-- the members
This morning I was on David Feldman's radio show and people were happy I had shown the connection between committee chairman and immense bribery flows from special interests the day before. OK, let me follow up on that a bit then. Let me go back to the crucially important House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired, starting in a couple of weeks, by corrupt New Jersey machine hack Frank Pallone. Energy and Commerce has its fingers in a lot of pies-- as does the incoming chairman, Frank Pallone. This cycle his 5 biggest contributing sectors were sectors his committee writes legislation for:
• Health- $724,700 • Communications/Electronics- $333,451 • Finance- $214,450 • Labor- $187,525 • Energy and Natural Resources- $178,199
His biggest industries this cycle were health professionals, Pharmaceuticals and Telecom services, industries he will be writing legislation for in the next Congress. but career-long, this is what he's gotten from the sectors that are most eagle to influence him:
• Health- $6,067,900, the most of any member of the House, past or present! • Communications/Electronics- $1,536,862 • Finance- $2,179,885 • Labor- $2,891,945 • Energy and Natural Resources- $862,516
I think I moved away from that $6,067,900 number too fast. Int deserves more attention-- and not just because of Pallone. According to its own website, "the Energy and Commerce Committee has the broadest jurisdiction of any authorizing committee in Congress. It legislates on a wide variety of issues, including:
• health care, including mental health and substance abuse • health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid • biomedical research and development • food, drug, device and cosmetic safety • environmental protection • clean air and climate change • safe drinking water • toxic chemicals and hazardous waste • national energy policy • renewable energy and conservation • nuclear facilities • electronic communications and the internet • broadcast and cable television • privacy, cybersecurity and data security • consumer protection and product safety • motor vehicle safety • travel, tourism and sports • interstate and foreign commerce
Since I have the PhRMA contributions broken down by member, courtesy of the Kaiser Health News-- and because pharmaceutical policy is so important for the committee and for tens of millions of Americans-- let's take a look at what kind of money from PhRMA comes flowing into the accounts of the members of the committee that write the legislation that impacts it. First the Republicans, who still run the committee for another couple of weeks. They are listed in order of seniority, starting with (outgoing) chairman Greg Walden and outgoing vice-chairman Joe Barton (followed by former chairman Fred Upton). The bolden names indicate members of the committee who are also members of the subcommittee on health. It's hard to miss this eye-popping bribes that have been showered on these ladies and gentlemen.
I suspect that when Alexandria Ocasio made that statement above, she had incoming chairman Pallone in mind, perhaps because he has been working furiously to sabotage the creation of a GreenNewDeal Select Committee, or-- at the very least-- working to make sure it has no real power. It's his turf and keeping that turf brings him immense amounts of money and the power that attends money. So... here are the Democrats on the committee, again, in order of seniority. And, again, the members of the subcommittee on health are bolded. I do want to especially call 3 members to your attention who agree with Ocasio that when you're working on legislation for a particular industry, you do not take contributions from that industry: Jan Schakowsky, Kathy Castor and John Sarbanes.
•Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $840,700 • Bobby Rush (D-IL)- $14,000 •Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $686,100 •Eliot Engel (D-NY)- $184,500 • [Gene Green (D-TX)]- $293,565] •Diana DeGette (D-CO)- $455,659 • Mike Doyle (D-PA)- $65,000 •Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)- $4,500 •GK Butterfield (D-NC)- $346,985 •Doris Matsui (D-CA)- $211,700 •Kathy Castor (D-FL)- $15,000 •John Sarbanes (D-MD)- 0 • Jerry McNerney (D-CA)- $31,604 • Peter Welch (D-VT)- $55,000 •Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)- $269,178 • Paul Tonko (D-NY)- $74,098 • Yvette Clarke (D-NY)- $70,000 • Dave Loebsack (D-IA)- $24,500 •Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $432,678 •Joe Kennedy (D-MA)- $216,494 •Tony Cárdenas (New Dem-CA)- $180,000 • Raul Ruiz (D-CA)- $138,262 • Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- $311,500 • Debbie Dingell (D-MI)- $31,000
A little tangent will take us to the Senate for a minute and then we'll be back to the House. On Monday, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent a letter to Republican leaders of three Senate committees with jurisdiction over drug pricing issues, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Finance Committee Chairman-designate Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Judiciary Committee Chairman-designate Lindsey Graham (R-SC), calling for them to open investigations and hold hearings on allegations of price fixing behavior by generic drug manufacturers. She was reacting to a Washington Post report about allegations of price-fixing activities by generic drug manufacturers that one expert described as "most likely the largest cartel in the history of the United States." According to these reports, "What started as an antitrust lawsuit brought by states over just two drugs in 2016 has exploded into an investigation of alleged price-fixing involving at least 16 companies and 300 drugs."
These allegations, if true, may help explain the numerous and increasingly troubling reports in recent years of rapid and unexplained price increases for generic drugs. While generic drugs have helped dramatically curbed healthcare expenditures, and are generally significantly less expensive than their branded counterparts, reported price spikes of 600%, 1000%, or more are profoundly troubling, and cause immense harm to patients in need. The GAO in 2016 reported that over 300 generic drugs sold under the Medicare Part D program had at least one "extraordinary" price spike of over 100% in the five-year period from 2010-2015. But evidence also suggests that generic drug markets are plagued by anti-consumer behavior and anti-competitive features that go far beyond high-profile price hikes of individual products. The industry is characterized by substantial consolidation: forty percent of generic drugs are now made by only one company, and the majority are made by one or two companies. "If the allegations of price-fixing are true, they affect millions of Americans who purchase prescription drugs. The investigation should include the impact of such behavior on the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the Affordable Care Act, and the private health insurance market, as well as potential shortcomings in antitrust law and antitrust enforcement, and in the laws governing generic and biosimilar drug competition," wrote Senator Warren. "All of these issues are within your Committees jurisdiction, and Congress has a responsibility to investigate these concerns and legislate if necessary.
The bicameral bill to address this was written by Warren and House Energy and Commerce Committee member (one of the clean ones), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). Remember, we mentioned above she's on the health subcommittee and does not take contributions from the Industrial Medical Complex. Their legislation, the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, would:
• Lower prices, increase competition, and address shortages in the market for prescription drugs through a newly established Office of Drug Manufacturing within HHS; • Authorize the Office to manufacture generic drugs under these key conditions, where competition is lacking:
◦ No company is manufacturing the drug; ◦ Only one or two companies produce the drug, and the price has spiked or the drug is in shortage; ◦ Only one or two companies produce the drug, the price is a barrier to patient access, and the drug is listed as an “essential medicine” by the World Health Organization;
• Further authorize the Office to manufacture any drug that has been compulsorily licensed by the federal government; • Require the Office to begin production of generic insulin within one year of enactment; • Allow the Office to sell publicly-produced drugs at a fair price that covers manufacturing costs while taking into account the impact of price on patient access; • Improve the ability of new companies to enter the generic drug market by authorizing the public manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients; • Jump-start competition by directing the Office to offer to sell its manufacturing rights to any company that commits to keeping the product on the market at a fair price; • Reserve any revenue generated from the sale of publicly-manufactured drugs for the use of the Office, making the office self-sustaining.
Looks like stuff that would be popular, right? Don't count it becoming law-- certainly not with the current Senate or the current occupant of the White House. And with this House... we're talking about a lot of money here. Let's see what Chairman Pallone does with this bill. We have already seen how he's trying to destroy the GreenNewDeal-- basically a plan that would would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy-- despite polling that shows 92% of Democratic voters and 64% of Republican voters want to see it move forward. That translates to 81% of registered voters saying they either support the plan.
Even a majority of self-described "conservative" Republicans back what the plan is attempting to accomplish. Yet, not a single Republican has signed on yet. So it isn't just Pallone, other turf-conscious chairmen and the Blue Dogs who oppose establishment of the select committee, but the GOP as well. The GOP doesn't get a vote. The Democrats decide this one on their own.
Back in the direction of health. Remember way back on Friday evening when a crackpot right-wing judge in Texas declared ObamaCare unconstitutional? And by morning, Señor Trumpanzee was celebrating. Republicans in Congress? Not so much... the dog had caught up with the car. So what happens next? I haven't herald many Republicans joining Trumpanzee in the celebration, despite the fact they had voted to repeal it literally dozens of times. They're very away that around 50 of their colleagues will not be back in Congress in January largely because of that opposition. Pelosi: "Republicans are fully responsible for this cruel decision and for the fear they have struck into millions of families across America who are now in danger of losing their health coverage." Hopefully this will finally lead Democrats towards what they should have done instead of ObamaCare: Medicare-For-All. 124 Democrats in the House have signed onto H.R. 676, the Medicare-For-All bill, including almost all the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee-- but not Pallone.
