[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            THE NON-NEGOTIATION CLAUSE IN THE MEDICARE BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard since the passage of the 
Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act that this law is a 
Republican giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Why, or maybe more 
importantly, who is telling American seniors this important legislation 
is bad for them but good for the drug companies? In this election year, 
it seems that some individuals are using disingenuous political 
rhetoric to scare our seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss one provision in the bill that 
is called out as the ``drug company giveaway.'' There is a clause in 
the legislation that directly states, ``Noninterference. In order to 
promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the 
Secretary may not interfere with the negotiations between drug 
manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plan sponsors; and 
may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure 
for the reimbursement of covered drugs under part D.''
  Simple enough, right? The government cannot interfere with 
negotiations between private entities and cannot set price controls. 
The marketplace, free enterprise, will set the price of prescription 
drugs and do a much better job of driving down prices than some 
government bureaucrat.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a new idea. This language has been used in 
the same context before by one of the prescription drug bill's biggest 
detractors. This may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, but it is probably an even bigger surprise to 
the American people who are listening to the rhetoric from the 
opponents of the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act.
  Let me quote a section from a prescription drug bill introduced in 
the Senate by the minority leader, Tom Daschle. Mr. Daschle's bill 
reads: ``Noninterference. In administering the prescription drug 
benefit established under this part, the Secretary may not require a 
particular formulary or initiate a price structure for benefits; may 
not interfere in any way with negotiations between private entities and 
drug manufacturers or wholesalers; or otherwise interfere with the 
competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through 
private entities.''
  Democrats have been blasting the ban on negotiations as a giveaway to 
the drug industry. Yet their Senate minority leader included in his own 
bill a provision with the exact same effect as the non-negotiation 
provision found in H.R. 1. It seems to me that the minority leader and 
the Democrats are not being straight with America's seniors. On the one 
hand, the Senate minority leader says a non-negotiation clause is a 
Republican-led, taxpayer giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry; and 
on the other hand, he includes the very same provision in his own 
prescription drug bill. Plain as day, in black and white. It can be no 
clearer.
  As a side note, Mr. Speaker, just in case my colleagues were 
wondering, the non-negotiation language also appeared in legislation 
introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), Democratic Representatives, in 2000, 
a bill by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in 2000, which, by 
the way, 204 Democrats voted for as their floor alternative to H.R. 
4680 in the previous Congress; and in the other body, Mr. Speaker, the 
noninterference or non-negotiation clause was used in legislation 
authored by Democratic Senator Wyden in 2001 and again in the Jeffords-
Breaux-Landrieu legislation in 2002.
  A version of the noninterference language also appeared in the 
underlying Senate Medicare bill that passed the Senate June 27, 2003, 
by a bipartisan vote of 76 to 21. Thirty-five Democrats voted for it, a 
number of Senators, and I will not name their names, but a number of 
Democratic Senators all voted for that bill.
  So why, Mr. Speaker, if this language has appeared so many times in 
legislation sponsored by both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of 
Congress, do we continue to hear the negative rhetoric about such a 
great bill for our seniors? My guess, Mr. Speaker, it is just political 
posturing during an election year.

                          ____________________