Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a missed opportunity. In Michigan, where the average price of gas is 12 cents higher than the national average, energy prices are a sore subject. Gas prices are too high, the U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil, and yet the majority party refuses to allow expanding our domestic supply of energy sources.

This bill misses the mark. H.R. 2776 is certainly creative in how it spends taxpayer dollars. Under this legislation, $6 billion will be given away to States for just about any project that has the word ``energy'' in it.

Republicans in the Ways and Means Committee debated this new spending scheme at length during the bill's markup. During that debate, we found out that States could use taxpayer money to buy hybrid Lexuses for State employees, construct indoor rainforests, distribute complimentary copies of Al Gore's ``An Inconvenient Truth'' in every classroom, or hand out energy-efficient light bulbs.

In my view, the new tax credit bond programs this legislation creates will fail to do anything to secure our Nation's energy independence because there is no requirement that they reduce greenhouse gases or increase energy production.

The bill, however, does have a few bright spots. It includes measures I have supported on plug-in vehicles, solar energy and energy-efficient programs for appliances and homes. I believe these initiatives have the potential to have significant impact on energy conservation.

I am disappointed the underlying bill does nothing to promote hybrid and advanced-technology diesel vehicles. In 2005 the Energy Policy Act was enacted. It included legislation that provided tax credits to consumers for the purchase of a new hybrid and advanced-technology diesel vehicle. With this tax credit, Americans can knock hundreds or thousands of dollars off the sale price of a clean fuel car or truck. This bill does nothing to help consumers better afford hybrid or advanced technology diesel vehicles.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First, I would like to make one point perfectly clear. Republicans support health care for low-income children. We support reauthorizing the program we passed in 1997. And that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. After all, it was the Republican majority that created the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did it in a bipartisan manner.

Today, sadly, we do not have a bipartisan bill before us. When we talk about insuring the Nation's needy children, we should talk about it in a bipartisan way. And if the majority had crafted a bill that was just about helping low-income children, we would stand here today ready to overwhelmingly approve that legislation.

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't focus on low-income children. Instead, it draws scarce resources away from these needy children in order to take a giant leap toward universal, government-controlled health care.

Worst of all, this dramatic step comes at the expense of Medicare, seniors' health insurance, in order to give middle-class and even upper middle-class families a new Federal health benefit.

These are not minor cuts in senior health care. The majority's bill cuts or eliminates many Medicare benefits and services: $157 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, which are health plans that offer additional benefits to low-income seniors like disease management, vision, dental, and hearing benefits, and improves the quality of care they receive; billions in cuts to hospitals; billions in cuts to home health care services, to wheelchairs, to patient rehab facilities, to nursing homes, to dialysis patients, and to oxygen treatment. And because of a new insurance tax on every insured American, health costs to seniors and all Americans will go up.

I don't know about you, but I can't look a 75-year-old widow in the eye in my district and honestly ask her to give up her benefits so that a 45-year-old couple making $80,000 a year or more with a 21-year-old can receive government health care.

This bill did not have to be this way. It should not be this way. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I urge the majority to bring us back a bill that focuses on helping low-income children. That is a bill we can all support.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I just have one speaker remaining, Mr. Speaker.

Reserving the right to object, if I can inquire of the gentleman, are there only two speakers?

I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.

The Chair will note that the gentleman from California will yield his \1/2\ minute to the Speaker. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This rule will raise $7.5 billion in taxes on U.S. employers. Higher taxes are just one consequence of today's rule. It turns a blind eye to the 58 tax treaties that have been negotiated by this Nation since the 1950s.

By ignoring those treaty obligations, that invites the retaliation other speakers have talked about. These are our friends and neighbors who work for these employers, over 5 million of them in the United States. And these aren't necessarily obscure businesses you've never heard about. The effect of this provision may be on companies like DaimlerChrysler, Michelin Tires and Miller Brewing. And I say ``may'' because we don't really know. We've never had a hearing. We've never had testimony. It is part of the American fabric that people have a chance to speak about laws and provisions that may affect them. There has been no voice given to the people that may be affected by these rules, the 5 million employees.

So I think to unexpectedly change these rules for these employers with zero debate is a dangerous precedent, and I will vote down the rule.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of my amendment that would preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to the Medicare Advantage program.

My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing any policy that would prohibit a Medicare beneficiary from enrolling in Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors the option of receiving their Medicare benefits through a private health care plan.

Today, 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries, including millions of low- income minority and rural seniors, are receiving their health benefits through Medicare Advantage. Retired union workers are also attracted to this important program. In fact, in my home State of Michigan, 116,000 retired teachers, janitors, bus drivers and school cafeteria workers are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System.

Vulnerable beneficiaries choose Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare because it's often cheaper and comes with better benefits than traditional Medicare, like disease management programs and preventive care. Low-income seniors are more likely to enroll in Medicare Advantage, relying on the program's lower copayments and free preventive care. Medicare Advantage plans saved beneficiaries an average of $86 per month, compared to what they would have spent in traditional Medicare.

Additionally, Medicare Advantage provides protection against catastrophic health care costs not provided by traditional Medicare. For example, many beneficiaries can choose a Medicare advantage plan that would cap their annual out-of-pocket health care costs at $2,000. Minority beneficiaries are more likely to enroll in Medicare Advantage.

In fact, 40 percent of African Americans and 53 percent of Hispanics who depend on Medicare for their health care are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

The NAACP recognizes the importance of Medicare advantage saying: ``By providing more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans help racial and ethnic minority populations gain access to health care services that are critical to their long-term health and well-being.''

For the first time, seniors have access to Medicare Advantage, regardless of whether they live in big cities or in rural America, in districts like mine. Rural seniors have voted with their feet. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage has increased 300 percent since 2004 when just half of rural seniors had a Medicare Advantage plan in their area.

Rural beneficiaries clearly like their new options. Medicare Advantage is helping to provide flexible, affordable, modern health care benefits for minorities, low-income beneficiaries, seniors living in rural areas and union retirees. Congress must ensure that these health care benefits are available to qualifying beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to say that this is really a straightforward amendment. What it simply does is prohibit the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing any policy that would prohibit a beneficiary from enrolling in Medicare Advantage.

Now, obviously, if beneficiaries lose access to care by a reduction in funds to the Medicare Advantage program, and thereby benefits being reduced, that is something we want to try to avoid. This is a critically important program that, as I said, ensures millions of seniors that have seen rapid growth, and in particular parts of the country has made really great strides in covering low-income seniors, those in rural and urban areas, those in minority populations that might not otherwise have access to care, and we have seen enrollment increase 300 percent since 2004.

So I think in light of what is going on, it is important to reinforce our support for this strategically important program, but it is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a project that deserves the support of every member of this House. The Great Lakes Energy Research Park, which is to be located in the heart of the district I represent, will be the first Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle facility in the world to co-produce (1) over 728 Mw of electric power and (2) permanently sequester over 3.8 million tons per year of carbon dioxide which will ultimately recover over 180 million barrels of stranded oil. Let me repeat that--180 million barrels of stranded oil. I'm not talking about new drilling in environmentally sensitive areas and I'm not talking about opening up new wells. I am talking about finally tapping much needed resources that yesterday's technology simply could not drive out of the ground. Additionally, it is important to note that this bed of oil reserves is located in the geographic center of Michigan--not in the Great Lakes, and far from Hurricane Alley, where most of our crude wells lie. As we learned from Katrina, geographic diversity is as an important topic in the energy debate as is alternative energies. So, as we discuss utilizing new technologies, clean technologies to solve our dependence on foreign crude, we would be foolish to ignore the types of technology being put in place in Alma, Michigan.

This project, however, is about much more than recovering stranded oil. This facility is designed in such a way to virtually utilize every byproduct of energy production. With this type of forward thinking it is no wonder that the project has received support from a wide variety of local community groups, institutions, citizens and organizations. Included among the list of proponents are the City of Alma, Michigan, Firstbank of Alma, Michigan, the Gratiot Medical Center, Alma College, the Gratiot County Board of Commissioners and the Gratiot Area Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, as American families and businesses grapple with rising energy costs, the Great Lakes Energy Research Park can be a part of the solution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this unique effort to produce more energy here in America.

Madam Speaker, there is an old saying in Washington, DC, that goes: if you want a friend, then you better get a dog. While Nancy, the kids and I did just get a dog, I have long considered myself lucky enough to have been in the Circle of Friends with Timothy Edward Bartlett. For that I thank him.

And for those of us who knew Tim, friend is the word that comes to mind when we think of him. He embodied the word and gave it greater meaning. He was more than a person you knew and liked. He was a person who inspired, excelled and, despite returning to God much too soon, he lived a full life.

Tim's obituary read in part that he was passing ``into an eternal community without limits.'' It will be the second such home he lives in, for Tim never allowed himself to be restrained. In that sense he was Myrna and Ed Bartlett's son. He took risks and was rewarded and as a result he set out and not only lived in his own home, but gave others the courage to do the same; he was active in his faith and improved our community; and his adventures led him to see and learn things many only dream about.

I remember one such trip to our Nation's capital. It was my great pleasure to show Tim the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was able to see the House Chamber firsthand. In fact, Tim came away from that experience with more than just a view of how laws are made, he came away with the Speaker's gavel. In all of my years serving in the House, no one but Tim has ever managed that.

And, while the Good Lord has gaveled Tim's session here on earth to a close, he remains my Friend; he remains an inspiration to us all. It is with deep sadness I say goodbye to my Friend, Timothy Edward Bartlett.

Lord, as many others did, I knew and liked this man. I know You will do the same. May You keep him close and may his spirit light your community of angels as he lit ours.

Madam Speaker, the events of the last few years have reminded us that ``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' The United States stands as a beacon of hope and liberty for the world because of the eternal vigilance of the men and women who have served and are serving in the United States military.

Marine Lance Corporal Ryan John Burgess was one such soldier. A patriot through and through, Ryan did not hesitate to answer the call to duty when his country went to war. Never an easy decision, and one that causes great concern amongst parents, Ryan enlisted and excelled as a marine. His leadership was often recognized by his superiors in the form of being granted additional responsibilities.

Today, I want to recognize on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the life and service of Ryan John Burgess--a life given in full so that our freedom may be preserved. Ryan's bravery serves as a stark reminder of the responsibility we have as stewards of this great country--the land of the free and the home of the brave.

So, as we salute heroes like Ryan John Burgess, we remember them with undying gratitude. And we resolve, though we cannot repay the debt we owe them, to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of their sacrifice.

May God keep Ryan; may God watch and comfort his family; and, may God continue to grant this Nation with the courage to defend life and liberty.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill before us today, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act, H.R. 518. Last year, the House of Representatives unanimously approved this bill. While the Senate failed to take action on this important legislation, I urge my colleges in the House to send it to the other body again.

This is an issue that transcends political partisanship. With the support of the entire Michigan delegation, and other Members representing Maryland and Virginia, H.R. 518 sends a strong signal to foreign countries, particularly Canada, that States should no longer be viewed as dumping grounds. The volume of foreign waste from Canada into Michigan continues unabated. Since 2002 Canadian

shipments of waste to Michigan have increased 83 percent. Not only do these shipments crowd our landfills, but they also pose environmental, public health, and even national security risks. It is long past that time States are lawfully able to regulate the amount of municipal solid waste coming across the border and into their communities. H.R. 518 gives States the legal authority to regulate this waste until the Federal Government implements a 21-year-old bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Canada on this subject.

H.R. 518 does not violate trade agreements. The House has done its due diligence in crafting this legislation to avoid any potential trade issues. Simply put, H.R. 518 provides the legislative authority for the United States to implement the 1986 bilateral agreement this country signed with Canada.

More specifically, the legislation authorizes and directs the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement and enforce the 1986 Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada. The Administrator is required to issue final regulations within 24 months after the date of enactment. Under the 1986 agreement shipments of hazardous waste require notification to the importing country and that country's consent before waste may be shipped. The agreement was amended in 1992 to establish similar requirements for municipal solid waste. H.R. 518 provides the legislative authority for the agreement to be implemented and ensure both governments provide proper notice and shipment information before dump trucks cross the U.S. northern border.

Stopping trash coming into Michigan from Canada must be done through statute--not handshakes. H.R. 518 accomplishes this goal. This bill represents the first real opportunity in a long time to ensure States know in advance what is coming into their communities and where it is going.

The Michigan delegation in the House of Representatives has done a terrific job of helping bring H.R. 518 to the floor for a vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I am hopeful the Senate will soon consider the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1562, the Katrina Housing Tax Relief Act of 2007, which was introduced by my friends, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It is unfortunate that we continue to deal with the aftermath of the devastating hurricanes of 2005. The imprint left by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the Gulf Coast has been well documented. Unfortunately, the slow pace of recovery has also been well documented, despite substantial efforts by the Ways and Means Committee and the Congress as a whole to provide direct and indirect support to the rebuilding efforts.

As part of that effort, the Congress enacted the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. Among its provisions, the measure authorized a tenfold increase in Section 42 low-income housing tax credits for States in the Gulf Opportunity Zone. At the time, our hope was that putting a fast expiration on those credits would lead to the rapid rebuilding of this much-needed housing. Our experience, however, has shown otherwise. Delays in getting necessary permitting and insurance, combined with the high cost of materials and a shortage of skilled labor, have created a situation in which many of the allocated credits are likely to go unused by the current December 31, 2008, deadline.

The good news for the GO Zone is that credits not used by the end of 2008 will not be lost. Instead, they will revert back to the State for future allocation. But the difficulties on the ground create uncertainty as to whether these projects will be placed in service by the end of 2008.

Witnesses at an Oversight Subcommittee hearing earlier this month warned that many deserving projects that had been allocated credits in Louisiana and Mississippi by the State housing agencies are going unfunded and therefore will not be built by the end of next year.

The measure before us makes several changes to the rules governing low-income housing tax credits in the GO Zone. These changes expire at the end of 2010. Hopefully, the modifications we are making today will allow the States to get these housing projects financed and constructed long before that sunset date.

It is my understanding from the Joint Committee that the cost of this bill is not the result of additional credits being used. Rather, it is that credits will be used more quickly than expected under current law.

Under these circumstances, I believe the changes in the bill before us are an appropriate response to the unique and unprecedented challenges in the gulf coast region and will help ensure that goals of the 2005 legislation are met. Unique circumstances sometimes require unique solutions.

Finally, I would like to comment on a provision of the bill being used to offset these costs. As originally considered by the committee, the measure would slightly alter the circumstances under which the government can levy the assets of an employer for unpaid employment taxes. During committee considerations, questions were raised about the provision, and I am pleased that the bill we are considering today contains an important modification to the provision that ensures that employers who unknowingly fall behind in their payment of employment taxes are properly protected.

On that count, particular thanks are due to the chairman, the staff of the IRS and the Treasury and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their help in working through this difficult but important issue.

Mr. Chairman, let me again express my appreciation to you and your staff for working across the aisle to craft this measure that I hope will make it possible for thousands of residents of the gulf States to go home soon.

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

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

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

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that aims to help propel the introduction of plug-in hybrid vehicles by automobile manufacturers. These clean, efficient, high performance vehicles have the potential to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, lower emissions, and help the nation's auto manufacturer's move forward into the nextgeneration of advanced technology vehicles.

Government mandates are no substitute for the power of capital markets. That is why my bill is aimed squarely at consumers. Providing tax credits to consumers for the purchase of any type of plug-in hybrid vehicle, allows people to pick and choose the model that suits their needs and preferences. The goal of this legislation is to stimulate consumer interest in these new vehicle technologies.

The current bottleneck for producing plug-in vehicles is battery technology. The Administration has proposed millions of new research dollars aimed at advanced battery technology. This type of research is important. Breakthroughs are needed to usher today's concept plug-in vehicles into the showrooms and ready for customer purchase. To date, the types of batteries needed to power cars and trucks are too heavy, too expensive, and too limited. I am confident, however, that America's ingenuity and desire to take a global lead in battery research will soon overcome the current barriers to entry that exist for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

My bill stimulates consumer demand by providing taxpayers a maximum tax credit of 10 percent of the cost of any plug-in hybrid vehicle up to a maximum $4,000 in the case of a plug-in with a 4kWh battery. Each additional kWh would get an extra $250 credit. This model is based on the electric vehicle tax credit.

Most auto manufacturers are already working on plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies. I believe with greater consumer demand, Detroit's automakers can, and will produce vehicles that meet the demands of consumers and address concerns over foreign oil, high gas prices, and cleaner air. My bill is just one of many ideas to help bring about this desired result.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join Representative Richard Neal and introduce legislation to make permanent the Subpart F exception for active financial services income. Under current law, the provision will expire next year.

I have long been an advocate for this legislation. While Congress has extended Subpart F for active financial services income on an ad hoc basis, such inconsistency does not make for good tax planning or tax policy. Besides ensuring consistency, Congress must develop policies that help businesses invest and keep jobs here in the United States. Allowing tax benefits to expire is a direct tax hike on employers, and it is a direct assault on every American job.

This legislation ensures that U.S. financial services firms can continue to defer U.S. tax on their earnings from their foreign active financial services operations until such earnings are paid as dividends back home. No other developed country in the world imposes current tax on financial services income earned outside their country. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in the global marketplace, the Federal Government must not put our companies at a tax disadvantage. Without the legislation we are proposing, American financial services companies will lose out on business to foreign firms. When American companies lose customers, American jobs are lost.

Overseas operations are important to American companies' domestic success. For example, if North American profits dip, these companies can use their global profits to offset losses. And, as I mentioned before, domestic jobs are gained when a business has more customers to sell to. Domestic jobs support overseas operations, increased product exports, and product development.

Failure to make permanent this current law provision would be a critical mistake for the U.S. economy. If U.S. financial services companies have to pay current U.S. tax on the active financial services income they generate overseas, they will have higher costs than their foreign-owned competitors. Their customers will turn to non-U.S.-owned firms. Given the thousands of U.S. jobs at stake, I do not believe our tax policy should allow this to happen.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act. I want to thank Representative Pascrell for introducing this bipartisan legislation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I authored similar legislation in the last two Congresses.

Sewer maintenance is a serious problem for Michigan and the Fourth Congressional District. Many of the sewers in this country, including several in my State, were built during the 19th century. The problems associated with old sewer lines are especially rampant in low-lying coastal areas such as Michigan, where water runoff collects.

Sewer overflows discharge untreated or partially treated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, debris and disease-causing organisms into the environment and pose a grave threat to the environment and public health. In 2005, there were over 1,000 reported sewer overflows across the State of Michigan. These events spilled 20 billion, and I repeat 20 billion, gallons of sewage and wastewater onto the ground and into rivers, lakes and streams.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the total cost for repairing every sewer line in the country is $140 billion. Local governments clearly cannot fix this mess alone and meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act.

The Water Quality Investment Act goes a long way toward ending the public health and environmental crisis associated with sewer overflows by authorizing Federal funds to repair and replace outdated systems. I urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 569 today.

I would like to thank those individuals who helped move this legislation forward, including Mr. Pascrell, the sponsor, and for his long support of this legislation; Mr. Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and Mr. Mica, the ranking member of this committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him also for his distinguished service in the United States Congress, the United States Air Force, seven of those as a prisoner of war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this nonbinding resolution. And I share with my colleagues, our servicemen and women and their families, the wish that this war was over and won. It is not, and the resolution before us today does nothing to resolve this conflict, does nothing to reduce the loss of American life, does nothing to stabilize Iraq and does nothing to advance our security.

I would like to use my time today to relate some of the comments that I have received from my constituents in the Fourth District of Michigan. From Big Rapids: ``The Congressmen and women who are opposed to these plans should come up with better solutions! Don't penalize our military men and women by making politics a part of their safety and well-being!''

From my hometown of Midland: ``Please stop playing politics with our lives and the lives of young people who are defending our country.''

From Alma: ``I am sick of the partisan politics. We went into Iraq united, but we have let politics divide us. It is time to realize some things are bigger than the political parties!''

Friends, we may often disagree. But the facts are, regardless of how it began, and irrespective of the benefit of hindsight, we are at war and Iraq is the central battleground.

Islamic extremists are waging a jihad against us, and they are struggling to make Iraq a base camp. Our focus must be on winning; and, disturbingly, I see no mention of winning, succeeding, or victory in this resolution. That in itself is telling of just how the other side perceives this conflict: not in terms of defeating an enemy of America, but in terms of defeating a political foe.

Our troops deserve better. The American people demand more from their leaders.

Again, in the words of one of my constituents from Bannister: ``I hope Congress is tough enough to do what works, not just what is politically correct. We need to move carefully and deliberately, showing a united front, or we are again going to be the victims of some outrageous terrorist attack.''

Sadly, the new majority does not seem to understand what so many Americans readily grasp. ``If you support the troops, you must support the mission or you send the wrong message to the enemy,'' as it was so aptly put by a constituent from Ashley.

From Farwell: ``Congress needs to get behind the President and help, not hurt, the morale of the soldiers that are fighting. They believe in their mission!''

And I believe in them, which is why I cannot and will not support this resolution.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to leave you with two comments. The first is from Traverse City: ``We should all pull together and get the job done.''

And the second, from an airman from Corunna: ``Thank you for the much needed support of me and my fellow airmen.''

I hope that once we dispose of this nonbinding resolution, our focus turns to supporting our servicemen and women, making America more secure and achieving the victory our military personnel are putting their lives on the line for.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that reducing America's consumption of foreign oil and gas is important. But, sadly this legislation is a missed opportunity. In fact, it will likely increase the country's dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

H.R. 6 will increase taxes on domestic oil and gas producers and place the additional Federal revenues in a fund that will pay for future legislation to subsidize alternative energy programs. Imposing higher taxes one sector of the economy that is responsible for creating millions of jobs and accounts for 3.5 percent of total national employment is nothing short of terrible economic policy. H.R. 6 is a recipe for layoffs, lowered U.S. investment, and higher prices at the pump.

One of the main provisions in the bill is to deny tax benefits enacted in 2004 to oil and gas companies. The tax benefits in the 2004 bill did not single out the oil and gas industry. In fact, the 2004 legislation lowered the corporate tax rate for all domestic manufacturers. The goal of the bill was to encourage companies, from tool and die manufacturers to the film industry, to remain in the United States instead of moving operations to lower-taxed

countries. By singling out oil and gas companies and raising their taxes, H.R. 6 will have the effect of encouraging them to expand production overseas, limit U.S. investment, and cut their American workforce.

Another source of concern is the millions of Americans who invest their pension and retirement savings in the oil and gas sector. Many State and local pension funds, as well as individual stockholders, invest in these companies. Retirees and investors depending on high performing stocks will likely be negatively impacted by Congress's decision to single out this sector.

I am also concerned that H.R. 6 will force companies who signed leases with the Federal Government in 1988 and 1999 for drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico to renegotiate the terms of the contracts they signed. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Interior failed to insert a clause in these contracts that would require firms to pay royalty fees when the price of oil exceeded a certain amount. Now, realizing the mistake, the Government has begun to renegotiate the leases on a voluntary basis with the affected companies. Some of them have agreed to begin paying royalty fees while others have not. The Government should continue to voluntarily negotiate with these firms. But, for the Government to force companies to pay new, higher fees as a penalty for not renegotiating legitimate contracts seems akin to what a Russian, Venezuelan, or Bolivian government would do.

As a sponsor of legislation to expand tax incentives for solar energy and hybrid vehicles, I am committed to the improvement of energy conservation and new technologies. Reducing oil and gas consumption is important, but I do not believe H.R. 6 is not the right policy for achieving this objective. I urge my colleagues to resist policies like H.R. 6 that arbitrarily penalize American oil and gas companies and practically incentivize them to move operations overseas.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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.