John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record for H.R. 4. American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, VA, Jan 12, 2007. Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Capito: On behalf of the 20.8 million adults and children living with diabetes in the United States, we write to let you know that the American Diabetes Association remains neutral on the issue of requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower drug prices. We understand that leading up to the debate on the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 (H.R. 4) your office received a letter from one of the Association's local offices asking that you vote against H.R. 4. While we respect your right to have read the letter you received on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 12, 2007, we must retract the opposition offered in that letter. The structure of our Association is one in which all policy positions come out of the National Office and the letter you received was crafted in error. With regard to H.R. 4, the Association took no formal position. Please know that the availability and cost of medications is of great importance to the Association. However, we have historically not been involved to the level of supporting or opposing specific strategies through which to lower prices or make medications available. When Part D was proposed and debated, for example, we remained neutral on the actual market-based construct of the program. Thank you for your understanding of this situation. And, again please accept our apologies for the confusion. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss our position, please have your staff contact Andrea LaVeccia, Associate Manager of Government Affairs and Advocacy at (703) 253-2323. Sincerely, James Schlicht, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs & Advocacy.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act. This much-needed legislation will make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rate in half for undergraduates who take out subsidized Stafford loans. Because subsidized loans are need- based loans, the primary beneficiaries of this legislation will be low- and middle-income families. In Michigan's 15th Congressional District, the average amount borrowed under the subsidized loan program is about $14,000 per student. If this legislation is enacted, students who take out loans this fall will save $2,300 over the life of the loan and students starting in 2011 will save nearly $4,500. This is a significant amount of money, especially for a college student. I would like to point out that despite all of the arguments I've been hearing about how much this bill will cost, I am proud to say that the Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility and have drafted this bill to fully comply with the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgetary requirements passed earlier this month. The PAYGO rules require any new spending to be offset in other spending areas. The costs of this legislation are entirely offset by six modest reductions in subsidies to lenders and guaranty agencies, five of which were proposed by President Bush in his budget for fiscal year 2006. Our goal of creating a highly skilled and innovative domestic workforce begins with a college education. This bill is a bold step in the right direction towards advancing America's competitiveness in the global marketplace. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future on additional measures such as increasing the maximum Pell grant, which will contribute to our mutual goal of higher education for all Americans.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 510 of House Resolution 6 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to 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.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous matter.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 40 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and that they each be permitted to control their own time in their own way.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. This legislation is bipartisan. It is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits for the millions who depend on that section. The bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition that prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and ensures that our friends in the executive branch take this opportunity seriously. It requires the Secretary to negotiate. This legislation is simple and common sense. It will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers. The American public subsidizes more than three-quarters of the part D benefit, paying the bulk of premiums and 80 percent of catastrophic costs. They also pay for most or all of part D medicines used by the lowest-income Medicare beneficiaries. These savings add up. It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. H.R. 4 does not preclude private plans from offering drug coverage under Medicare from getting better or additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. H.R. 4 does not interfere with the ability of doctors to prescribe a particular drug for their patients by establishing a national formulary. In fact, page 2 of the legislation reads: ``Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.'' I do not think that there is any clearer way to state these matters than in that fashion. I have confidence that Secretary Leavitt can cut a good deal with the bargaining power of 43 million beneficiaries of Medicare behind him without restricting access to needed medicine. H.R. 4 does not require price controls. Quite the contrary, the bill gives the Secretary an additional power and makes him an additional player with whom drug companies must negotiate. And I say with some sympathy for the drug companies that they have been doing so well that I can understand their opposition to this matter. H.R. 4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. The most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings by the seven largest drug manufacturers based in the U.S. show that, on average, these companies spend more on marketing, advertising and administration than they do on research and development; and those who insist that the sky is falling if the drug companies negotiate lower prescription prices are arguing that those drug companies should continue to skin a fat hog at the expense of the taxpayers and the beneficiaries. I further note that H.R. 4 does not require HHS's Secretary to use Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule or to adopt a VA-like system. In fact, you will not find the words ``veterans'' and ``affairs'' in this legislation. Independent studies confirm that Medicare overpays drug companies in purchasing medicines. I will repeat that: Medicare overpays drug companies in purchasing medicines. One study has found that half of the top 20 drugs used by senior citizens fall into that category. Medicare drug plans paid at least 58 percent more than the prescription program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even if the Secretary does not get those same discounts, it is clear that Medicare can do better, and we must see that they do so. Senior citizens and people with disabilities deserve better, and after the past 6 years of pillaging the Treasury of the United States, our taxpayers deserve better. While this legislation is an important step forward, H.R. 4 does not address other problems with part D. I anticipate we will be doing so at an early time. The list of wrongs that need righting in connection with this legislation is long, and, as I said, we will introduce legislation and deal with these matters in other ways. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Let the Secretary of Health and Human Services use the power of 43 million beneficiaries to get a better deal for their prescription medicines, for them, and for the taxpayers [From the New York Times, Jan. 12, 2007] Negotiating Lower Drug Prices From all the ruckus raised by the administration and its patrons in the pharmaceutical industry, you would think that Congressional Democrats were out to destroy the free market system when they call for the government to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Yet a bill scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives today is sufficiently flexible to allow older Americans to benefit from the best efforts of both the government and the private drug plans. The secretary of health and human services should be able to exert his bargaining power with drug companies in those cases in which the private plans have failed to rein in unduly high prices--leaving the rest to the drug plans. The result could be lower costs for consumers and savings for the taxpayers who support Medicare. Under current law, written to appease the pharmaceutical industry, the government is explicitly forbidden from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. That job is left to the private health plans that provide drug coverage under Medicare and compete for customers in part on the basis of cost. The Democrats' bill would end the prohibition and require-- not just authorize--the secretary of health and human services to negotiate prices with the manufacturers. That language is important since the current secretary, Michael Leavitt, has said he does not want the power to negotiate. No data is publicly available to indicate what prices the private health plans actually pay the manufacturers. But judging from what they charge their beneficiaries, it looks like they pay significantly more for many drugs than do the Department of Veterans Affairs--which by law gets big discounts--the Medicaid programs for the poor, or foreign countries. The administration argues, correctly, that the private plans have held costs down and that there is no guarantee the government will do any better. The bill, for example, prohibits the secretary from limiting which drugs are covered by Medicare, thus depriving him of a tool used by private plans and the V.A. to win big discounts from companies eager to get their drugs on the list. The secretary does have the bully pulpit, which he can use to try to bring down the cost of overpriced drugs. The bill also does not require the secretary to negotiate prices for all 4,400 drugs used by beneficiaries. A smart secretary could simply determine which prices paid by the plans seemed most out of line with the prices paid by other purchasers and then negotiate only on those drugs. The private plans are explicitly allowed to negotiate even lower prices if they can. This sort of flexibility should pose no threat to the free market. It is time for the Medicare drug program to work harder for its beneficiaries without worrying so much about the pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentleman from California, for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, for 3 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, a very able Member of this body, 1 minute to our distinguished friend and colleague from Florida, Kathy Castor.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 2 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, valuable member of the committee, Ms. Eshoo, 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our able colleague and dear friend, Mr. Gene Green of Texas.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) 2 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) 2 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member of this body, our colleague from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my friend from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) 2 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon, a member of the committee, Ms. Hooley, 2 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to Dr. Christensen, the distinguished representative of the Virgin Islands, a leader in health care, 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a member of the committee.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee.