Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s aggressive drug pricing package failed a key committee vote on Wednesday, prompting questions about whether the measure can survive a full House vote. Reps. Scott Peters (Calif.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.), and Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), all Democrats, followed through on their threats to vote against the provision in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s markup. Republicans unanimously opposed the measure, too, leading to a tie vote that means the provision failed to advance to a full House vote. (Cohrs, 9/15)

While another key House panel endorsed the drug pricing plan later on Wednesday, leadership may not yet have the votes to pass it as part of a larger bill. The public standoff underscores the significant hurdles ahead in securing the near-unanimous support Democrats will need to advance the social spending package. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team had spent days working to convince the holdouts, according to people familiar with the push. And Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) made multiple public appeals to the centrists to support the drug pricing language during the markup, saying it was essential to negotiating a final agreement with the Senate. (Miranda Ollstein and Ferris, 9/15)

The three moderates said they worried the measure would harm innovation from drug companies and pushed a scaled-back rival measure. The pharmaceutical industry has also attacked Democratic leaders' measure, known as H.R. 3, as harming innovation. The three lawmakers had long signaled their concerns with the drug pricing measure, but actually voting it down in the House Energy and Commerce Committee is an escalation. (Sullivan, 9/15)

Five House Democrats, including the three who voted no on Wednesday, have signed onto rival drug-pricing legislation they officially unveiled this week. Ahead of the vote, Mr. Peters said any pricing provision needs to both lower out-of-pocket costs while also supporting further incentives for private investment and innovation. Democratic leaders will need to find a consensus, given their narrow margins in both chambers. On legislation opposed by all Republicans, Democrats can afford no more than three defections in the House and none in the Senate. (Peterson and Bykowicz, 9/15)

House Democrats writing the health provisions of their big social spending bill aimed high: new coverage for poor Americans without insurance; extra subsidies for people who buy their own coverage; and new dental, hearing and vision benefits for older Americans through Medicare. To pay for those, they also aimed high when it came to lowering drug prices. A measure that would link the prices of certain prescription drugs to those paid overseas was devised to save the government enough money to offset the costs of those other priorities. The House approach, estimates suggest, could save the government around $500 billion over a decade, with that money coming out of the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. But it’s risky to bet against the drug companies. (Sanger-Katz, 9/15)

Millions of Americans who smoke could soon see an increase in their prices, as Democrats target tobacco and nicotine to help finance their $3.5 trillion economic package. The new proposal put forward in the House this week would raise or impose taxes on a wide array of products: It would hike existing federal levies on cigarettes and cigars while introducing new taxes on vaping. Democrats say the changes could help them raise $100 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. (Romm, 9/15)

A key congressional committee failed to pass Democrats' signature drug pricing bill yesterday, but that doesn't mean the party's push to lower drug prices is anywhere near over. Hundreds of billions of dollars are on the line — and Democrats need that money to pay for the rest of their giant legislative agenda. (Owens, 9/16)

As lawmakers in Washington grapple with legislation to alter the upward trajectory of prescription drug prices, a key talking point is likely to be found in a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office. Released late last month with little fanfare, the analysis concluded that limiting prices — as envisioned in a controversial House bill known as H.R. 3 — would lead to 59 fewer new drugs over the next three decades. (Silverman, 9/16)

With the sound of one final gavel, House Democrats on Wednesday completed the mammoth task of translating President Biden’s economic vision into a $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending proposal — marking a major milestone in a fight that’s still far from finished. Assembling the House package proved to be an enormous undertaking, as Democrats raced over the past week to produce roughly 2,600 pages of legislative text spanning the party’s vast policy ambitions. The measure seeks to shepherd major changes to federal health care, education, immigration, climate and tax laws, introducing a sprawling set of federal programs that Democratic leaders have described as historic in their size and scope. (Romm, 9/15)

The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday approved a major portion of Democrats’ $3.5 trillion social spending package, including provisions that would raise taxes on high-income individuals and corporations in order to offset the cost of new spending. The committee advanced the legislation in a near party-line vote of 24-19. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) joined Republicans in voting against the measure. It now heads to the House Budget Committee, which will combine the various pieces of the spending package approved by House panels. (Jagoda and Folley, 9/15)

Vice President Kamala Harris pressed lawmakers on Wednesday to back legislation that she said would expand access to child care and raise the wages of day-care workers, even as her party’s massive spending initiative is facing resistance from key Democrats. The push from Harris, who joined Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen in releasing a Treasury report that made the case for the proposal, came the same day that President Biden is reported to have met with a pair of centrist Democrats who have indicated they do not support the overall costs of the party’s $3.5-trillion spending plan. (Logan, 9/15)