Blog

Home » blog » Blog

Services for You

View My
Year-End Report
Burgess Opening Statement During Hearing On Resolution of Inquiry
Posted by on January 27, 2010 | comments
f t # e
I want to thank Chairmen Waxman and Stupak as well as Ranking Members Barton and Walden.

You worked with me to ensure the oversight jurisdiction of this committee in this matter.

Chairman Waxman, I know transparency is very important to you. I hope we can pass this resolution on a bipartisan basis.

As you know, I wrote to the White House on September 30th (I ask unanimous consent to enter my letter for the record.

My staff reached out to the White House.

Mr. Chairman, you reached out to the White House on my behalf.

And nothing.

Finally I was compelled to introduce this Resolution of Inquiry.

Last year, the White House engaged major stakeholders in the health reform debate.

At these meetings deals were struck to save upwards of $2 trillion. Call them gentleman’s agreements, backroom negotiations, or power politics – we know they happened. What we don’t know is what was agreed to.

On Monday, the President said “I didn’t make a bunch of deals.” This claim contradicts everything that has been reported. Somebody did.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the President engaging on such an important topic or encouraging groups to act in the best interest of the public.

But we don’t know if the deals struck were in the best interest of the public.

Even worse, these deals circumvented the legislative process.

As the six groups named in my resolution were meeting at the White House, this very Committee was marking up HR 3200.

How could our mark-up be viewed with any integrity if the real deals were being cut at the White House?

Maybe that is how we got a new bill, nearly 1,000 pages longer, stripped of nearly all the bipartisan work done by this committee -- including the landmark unanimous vote for patient protections authored by myself and Mr. Dingell based off of the Norwood-Dingell Patient Bill of Rights.

Was this a payoff to the insurance companies?

Over in the Senate Finance Committee’s mark-up, Senator Nelson (D-Fl) introduced an amendment regarding drug prices. Senator Carper (D-Del), arguing against the amendment, said “Whether you like PhRMA or not, we have a deal.”

In the same mark-up the Finance Committee endorsed a commission to slow Medicare spending. However, the bill had to be rescored and rewritten to exclude hospitals because, according to CongressDaily, “they already negotiated a cost cutting agreement” with the White House.

Finally, Senators Dorgan and McCain introduced a Floor amendment on prescription drug reimportation.

According to The Hill, “A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry {held up}” and helped defeat the amendment.

The press seems to know more details about the agreements than we do.

Mr. Chairman, I do not support these policies. They are bad for patients and taxpayers.

But I am willing to debate anyone on my position and let the best policy win on its’ merits. Allowing these deals to guide the legislative process is a dereliction of our responsibility as legislators.

In December, we held a hearing on price manipulation of pharmaceuticals -- I wondered was it part of these secret negotiations?

None of us know. But the American people deserve to know.

These questions will continue hovering over this committee until we fill in some history.

This is not about the groups named in the resolution. I do not blame them for advocating for policies impacting their industry.

I want to know what the White House negotiated, with whom, and on what terms.

I want to know how those deals influenced the legislative process.

And I want to know why a President who committed himself to transparency feels no need to heed the requests of this Committee.

During the primary on January 31, 2008, the President said: "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."

The President earlier this week said that his lack of transparency was “a mistake.” If true, he should correct this “mistake” by turning over the information requested.

To fully understand the policy choices going forward we need to know what took place at the White House last year.

The American people expect us to act in their interest, rather than protecting business interests of those currying favor in Washington.

If stakeholders sought protections or made unreciprocated concessions to Washington politicians, Congress and the American public deserve to know.

These negotiations may have produced consensus on policy changes that are proper and needed, but we will never be certain until all the facts are known.

To view the video of the opening statement, click here.
f t # e