Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of controlling time to the ranking member of the full Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4. It is a flawed piece of legislation. If there was ever a bill that should have gone through regular order in the committee process, it is this one, because we find as we look at it more carefully that there is much more to it than might appear at first glance. First and foremost, we should recognize that Medicare part D is working. Ninety percent of seniors are covered. Thirty-eight million seniors now have prescription drug coverage. Additionally, due to private competition, the cost of this program is continuing to fall. Estimates from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services have predicted that this program will cost $373 billion less over the next 10 years than was expected in 2005. Seniors are saving an average of $1,200 dollars a year because of those declines. Market-driven reforms in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act are working to provide more choices and lower prices. Rather than establishing a one-size-fits-all government benefits package, the part D program allows beneficiaries to choose from a range of plans that meet their unique needs and circumstances. It is also important to note that the current private sector negotiating power of part D is greater than a government-run Medicare program. We have heard much from the other side about a government-run program having a bargaining power, but in fact, the four top pharmacy benefit managers cover over 200 million individuals. So they not only negotiate on behalf of the seniors in part D but also on behalf of all the other beneficiaries in their programs throughout the United States, including most Members of Congress in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. So this is over 10 times the number of Medicare beneficiaries than the Secretary would negotiate on behalf of. Despite these facts, Democrats are continuing to push a bill that could significantly disrupt and dismantle the successful and popular Medicare prescription drug program. They want to remove private competition forces from this successful equation and, instead, have the Secretary of Health and Human Services interfere in and implement a price control system. Medicare part D is successful because seniors are able to choose plans that cover their drugs and best meet their health needs. Government bureaucrats, instead, would be replaced and would choose what drugs seniors would get, and these bureaucrats would be allowed to set prices for Medicare covered drugs. The government should not be responsible for making decisions that should be left to seniors. Currently, seniors are able to choose plans. I think we should continue to allow seniors to make their own choices and keep bureaucrats out of seniors' medicine cabinets. The Medicare prescription drug program is working, and we would be wise to resist the Democrats' plan to fix what is not broken. We can continue to improve prescription drug programs, but we must closely examine these changes so Congress does not do more harm than good by enacting new policies. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this noninterference language that we have been talking about, that has been in legislative proposals for both Democrats and Republicans for the last decade, actually stops the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating drug prices. And the reason that this has been part of bipartisan legislation for so long and was actually a part of the motion to recommit in 2000 that more than 200 Democrats voted for is because it was important to structure a plan that allowed beneficiaries to work with their doctors, not with the government, to determine the best access to treatment and the best treatment that worked for them. That is why you have seen so many coalitions come out against this proposal, particularly those that work with the most vulnerable of the Medicare beneficiaries. I would urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would include in the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office saying that CBO estimates H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on Federal spending. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, January 10, 2007. Hon. John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: At the request of your staff, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, as introduced on January 5, 2007. The bill would revise section 1860D-11(i) of the Social Security Act, which is commonly known as the ``noninterference provision'' because it prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from participating in the negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and sponsors of prescription drug plans (PDPs) involved in Part D of Medicare, or from requiring a particular formulary or price structure for covered Part D drugs. H.R. 4 would require the Secretary to negotiate with drug manufacturers the prices that could be charged to PDPs for covered drugs. However, the bill would prohibit the Secretary from requiring a particular formulary and would allow PDPs to negotiate prices that are lower than those obtained by the Secretary. The bill would also require the Secretary to report to the Congress every six months on the results of his negotiations with drug manufacturers. CBO estimates that H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law. Since the legislation specifically directs the Secretary to negotiate only about the prices that could be charged to PDPs, and explicitly indicates that the Secretary would not have authority to negotiate about some other factors that may influence the prescription drug market, we assume that the negotiations would be limited solely to a discussion about the prices to be charged to PDPs. In that context, the Secretary's ability to influence the outcome of those negotiations would be limited. For example, without the authority to establish formulary, we believe that the Secretary would not be able to encourage the use of particular drugs by Part D beneficiaries, and as a result would lack the leverage to obtain significant discounts in his negotiations with drug manufacturers. Instead, prices for covered Part D drugs would continue to be determined through negotiations between drug manufacturers and PDPs. Under current law, PDPs are allowed to establish formularies--subject to certain limits--and thus have some ability to direct demand to drugs produced by one manufacturer rather than another. The PDPs also bear substantial financial risk and therefore have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts in order to control their costs and offer coverage that attracts enrollees through features such as low premiums and cost-sharing requirements. Therefore, the PDPs have both the incentives and the tools to negotiate drug prices that the government, under the legislation, would not have. H.R. 4 would not alter that essential dynamic. I hope this information is helpful to you. The CBO staff contacts for further information are Eric Rollins and Shinobu Suzuki. Sincerely, Donald B. Marron, Acting Director. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place into the Record four letters, from the American Legion, the Lou Gehrig's Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the American Autoimmune Association, all opposed to H.R. 4, concerned about its effect on the prescription drug benefit for seniors. The American Legion, Washington, DC, January 11, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: The American Legion urges you and your colleagues to reevaluate the ``noninterference'' provision of Chairman Dingell's proposed legislation, H.R. 4, The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. It would amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Each time the Federal government has enacted pharmaceutical price control legislation, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has experienced significant increases in its pharmaceutical costs as an unintended consequence. A fundamental principle in the price negotiation process so that the ``lowest price'' establishes the baseline. By simply raising the baseline, it sustains or possibly increases the corporate bottom line based on the projected increased volume in sales. An increased baseline minimizes the margin in future price negotiations. The American Legion strongly urges you and your colleagues to seriously consider the collateral damage that would result from listing the current ``noninterference'' provision in section 2 of H.R. 4 on VA's formulary and the Federal Supply Schedule. This ``noninterference'' provision is not in the best interest of America's veterans and their families. VA is a health care provider, whereas Medicare is a health insurer. Any possible Medicare savings would likely result in a reciprocal cost to VA. Sincerely, Paul A. Morin, National Commander.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill before us that increases the federal minimum wage without providing tax relief to America's small businesses.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved legislation that extends meaningful tax relief to American manufacturers, families, students, and teachers. As the 109th Congress closes, and an era of Republican control ends, it is fitting that one of the last bills considered provides Americans with the opportunity to keep more of their hard- earned money. H.R. 6111 does much more than lower taxes--it will help America keep its competitive edge. For example, H.R. 6111 includes incentives for companies to engage in research and development work, allows students to deduct their college tuition costs, and encourages the use of solar, wind, landfill gas, and other clean energy technologies. Importantly too, this legislation extends tax benefits for individuals and families to use for their health care needs through the use of health savings accounts. In my view, one of the highlights of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act is the 2-year extension and enhancement of the research and development tax credit. As one of the leading advocates in the House of Representatives for the R&D tax credit, I am particularly pleased that companies will be able to use a new, Alternative Simplified Credit. The ASC will enable more companies to utilize the credit. As foreign-based R&D spending has grown faster than U.S.-based R&D spending, it is imperative that the U.S. offer American companies tax incentives for high-risk, long-term research projects. Extension and enhancement of the R&D credit is vitally important for companies doing business in my home state of Michigan. Michigan ranks as one of the top 10 states in reported R&D activity with more than 1,300 companies performing research and development in the state. Another tax item of significance in H.R. 6111 provides teachers with a $250 tax deduction for the purchase of classroom supplies, equipment, and other related school materials. I have long sponsored legislation that provides tax relief to teachers. America's K-12 teachers spend literally thousands of their own dollars on classroom supplies. The average educator spends $1,180 on non-reimbursed expenses such as books, lesson materials, math flash cards, crayons, and countless other items that help children learn. H.R. 6111 provides teachers with tax relief that will help defray the significant out-of- pocket cost of educational items for their students and classrooms. Regarding clean energy, this legislation will extend tax credits for renewable electricity production from sources such as wind, biomass, and landfill gas. It will also extend incentives for commercial and residential use of solar power. Greater tax credits and deductions will help lessen the higher costs typically associated with these types of clean energy. These incentives will also help expand consumer acceptance of renewable energy. And, without consumer demand, businesses are reluctant to develop the technologies to harness these energy sources. H.R. 6111 will extend current tax policies that will foster the development and use of clean energy. I appreciate Chairman Thomas' hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor. His skill and dedication to putting together good tax policy will be missed. It has been an honor serving with him on the House Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to vote in favor of H.R. 6111 and am confident that these incentives will help more Americans keep more of what they earn while further stimulating our already robust national economy.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for her comments on this bipartisan bill. I rise today in support of S. 1346, and I was proud to introduce a companion bill in the House. Michigan owes its rich maritime history to more than 3,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. As the largest freshwater body in the world, the Great Lakes are home to a thriving shipping industry, a passenger transport system, and thousands of recreational boaters. It is not surprising, then, that Michigan's shores carry more lighthouses than any other State. These lighthouses are important reminders of the State's maritime prominence. Michigan is also home to several underwater preserves and the country's only freshwater marine sanctuary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Thunder Bay contains hundreds of shipwrecks preserved by the icy waters of Lake Huron. Each one provides a unique window into Michigan's maritime history. In addition, I am proud that my State contains many major maritime museums and a dozen historic ships, including a replica of a wooden schooner in Traverse City, which served as the city's first schoolhouse. The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act authorizes a study that directs the U.S. Department of the Interior on the protection and promotion of Michigan's maritime resources. Specifically, it requires the Department to determine how best to preserve these sites and recommend ways the public may better experience them. This effort will undoubtedly benefit Michigan's tourism industry and the State's residents, who hold maritime resources in high regard as symbols of their cultural past. I thank my colleagues who have helped move this legislation forward, including Mr. Pearce, chairman of the Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, and Senator Stabenow, the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 959) recognizing and supporting the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 in increasing adoption and the efforts the Act has spurred including National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month, and encouraging adoption throughout the year.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.