John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my understanding we are now on the fiscal year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act. I will have a lot to say about this 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill, but I would point out to my colleagues that it is loaded down with 4,752 earmarks, totaling $3.7 billion; six bills, totaling $450 billion; 1,351 pages long, with 409 pages of earmarks. Spending on domestic programs is increased by 14 percent. Veterans spending is increased by 5 percent. That shows the priorities around here. Let me repeat that. Domestic spending programs are increased by 14 percent. Military construction and veterans spending is increased by only 5 percent. Here we go again. Just a matter of months ago, in March, the Senate passed a monstrous $410 billion, 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill that was loaded up with over 9,000 earmarks. At that time, those of us who complained about the ridiculous amount of waste were ignored. In fact, the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, said in an interview that ``this is last year's business. . . . We want to just move on''--a truly remarkable statement coming from the man the President put in charge of the government's budget. In March, the majority leader placed the blame for the omnibus spending bill at the feet of President Bush. Senator Reid said: . . . we have a lot of issues we need to get to after we fund the Government--something we should have done last year but we could not because of the difficulty we had working with President Bush. So what is the excuse this time? Where will the blame be placed now? Is the majority leader having difficulty working with President Obama? We have had all year to work on 12 annual spending bills, and we only enacted 5 of them through the regular order, and 1 of those 5 was passed and sent to the President before the new fiscal year began. We should be embarrassed by this process. Here we go again--faced with a whopping 1,350-page omnibus appropriations conference report, which contains six bills, spends $450 billion, and is loaded up with 4,752 earmarks, totaling $3.7 billion. Meanwhile, people are out of jobs, they are out of their homes, unemployment in my home State is 17 percent, and we are going to spend money on things such as $2.7 million--get this; I am not making it up--$2.7 million for supporting surgical operations in outer space--supporting surgical operations in outer space--at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; $30,000 for Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative; $13.9 million for fisheries in Hawaii--the list goes on and on and on and on--$200,000 to renovate and construct the Laredo Little Theatre. We should not be spending American taxpayer dollars to replace worn auditorium seating and soundproofing materials. The list goes on and on and on: $800,000 for jazz at the Lincoln Center; $3.4 million for a rural bus program in Hawaii--you will note that Hawaii pops up all the time here--$1.6 million to build a tram between the Huntsville Botanical Garden and the Marshall Flight Center in Alabama; $750,000 for the design and fabrication of exhibits to be placed in the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa. I am not making these up. This is the same party and President that promised to scrub each one of these appropriations bills and get rid of the unnecessary ones. So we will be talking a lot about this bill. But I want to point out again what is before us to the American people: six bills--not one--six bills, totaling $450 billion; 409 pages of earmarks, 4,752 earmarks, totaling $3.7 billion; and spending on domestic programs is increased by 14 percent; MILCON and veterans spending is increased by 5 percent. I have met recently with the Governor of my State. We are suffering under incredible economic difficulties. We are having the greatest financial crisis in the history of my State. Couldn't they use some of this $3.7 billion in earmarks to pay for some of the essential services that are having to be cut back, not only in my State but all over America? No. The beat goes on. It is business as usual here in Washington. And do not be surprised at the anger of the American people over this way of doing business--bills 1,351 pages long, filled with earmarks and pork that have nothing to do with the betterment of our Nation. So we will be talking a lot more about many of these porkbarrel amendments that are in it. But it is awful: $200,000 for ``design and construction of the Garapan Public Market'' in the Northern Mariana Islands. We will be hearing a lot more about it.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. The CPI was minus 1.3 percent, not to mention 10 percent unemployment in America, not to mention people not being able to stay in their homes, not to mention the hardest economic conditions in history, certainly, since the Great Depression. Spending on domestic programs is increased by 14 percent. What brings that down to 12 percent is they only increased veterans spending-- veterans spending--by 5 percent. But opera houses, rural bus programs, music programs--$300,000 for music programs at Carnegie Hall. Do you think Carnegie Hall needs $300,000 for music programs?

Mr. McCAIN. The stimulus bill has nothing to do with that, I would say to my colleague, and we all know that. This is entirely new, six appropriations bills, totaling nearly $450 billion which, by the way, the majority leader wanted to pass by unanimous consent. Remarkable.

Mr. McCAIN. I would also respond to my friend, it has to be in the context of a revision over 10 years, recently, by the Office of Management and Budget from a $10 trillion to a $12 trillion deficit. The deficit for this year is $1.4 trillion, and I am not sure what it is next year. But they could not have known that in the Appropriations Committee when they passed spending measures such as this. The point is, in the face of massive, unprecedented deficits, unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, where we are asking Americans all over to tighten their belts--in my State essential services are being cut because they do not have enough money--this is the same business as usual that we have seen for years. I saw a poll yesterday--it was in a Hotline poll or one of those-- that the approval rating of Members of Congress is below that of used car salesmen. I have not met those who express their approval. So we should not be surprised at some very interesting things that may take place in the elections coming up this November. But it is unfortunate, that is all.

Mr. McCAIN. Forty-three cents. And do you know who they borrowed it against? Our kids and our grandkids. They are the ones who are going to have to pay for it. I do not think I will. It is our kids and our grandkids whom we are laying it on. This is a colossal act of generational theft that we have committed. And believe it or not, the American people have figured it out.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Is there a previous agreement on time?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the amendment which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would provide an estimated $100 billion or more in consumer savings over 10 years. That is unique to this bill. It is unique to this legislation. It actually saves the taxpayers money. I think it is important for us to go back and see how we got here-- again, with the administration and the President reversing his previous position in favor of drug reimportation, the President's Chief of Staff, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, reversing his position on drug reimportation. Again, a lot of it has to do with the deals that have been made. I refer, to start with, to the August 6, 2009, New York Times article. Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion. Then it goes on to say: ``We were assured: We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. ``Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don't keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.'' The pressure from Mr. Tauzin to affirm the deal offers a window on the secretive and potentially risky game the Obama administration has played as it tries to line up support from industry groups typically hostile to government health care initiatives, even as their lobbyists pushed to influence the health measure for their benefit. Here is the important part of the article--and I ask unanimous consent the entire article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. The important quote is: Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. ``They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else,'' he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. My goodness. ``They blessed the deal,'' Mr. Tauzin said. That is how we got here, with the administration coming over with a letter last night basically saying they would oppose or certainly impede the ability of Americans to import drugs from Canada. What have we seen happen in the interim? Here again is a New York Times article entitled ``Drug Makers Raise Prices in Face of Health Care Reform.'' Here is a graphic demonstration of it. This little line right here, I would say to my colleagues, is inflation in this country. If you look at it for the year 2009, inflation is actually minus 1.3 percent. Now look at the wholesale drug prices. The annual change is 8.7 percent. While inflation has gone down 1.3 percent, actual costs of drugs have gone up 8.7 percent. The article from the New York Times says: Even as drug makers promise to support Washington's health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation's drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years. In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation's drug bill. . . . Let's get the math right. The drug companies have offered to save the American consumer $8 billion a year, and guess what. They have increased their prices, where it will add more than $10 billion to the drug bill of America's citizens, including our seniors. The math is, they agreed to an $8 billion reduction. They actually already this year have seen an increase of more than $10 billion. So they are on track to make a $2 billion profit off their deal. No wonder they made a deal. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation's drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. . . . This is the consumer price index right here, which has fallen by 1.3 percent. Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending incoming years. That is what this is all about. They increase the prices so it reaches a certain level, and that is what they will negotiate on. They already are in line to experience $2 billion more in profits than the $8 billion they say they intend to cut. What a Ponzi scheme this is. ``When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run- up in price increases,'' says Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. He has analyzed drug pricing for AARP, the advocacy group for seniors that supports the House health care legislation that the drug industry opposes. A Harvard health economist, Joseph P. Newhouse, said he found a similar pattern of unusual price increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago, giving tens of millions of older Americans federally subsidized drug insurance. Just as the program was taking effect in 2006, the drug industry raised prices by the widest margin in a half-dozen years. We have seen this scam before. What is the administration going to do? The administration sends a letter, I believe last night--not to the sponsor of this legislation, Senator Dorgan, but to another Member basically saying they would have to examine the health and safety. Since when is a prescription drug imported from Canada a threat to Americans' health, since they obviously have the same standards that we do? The letter is to Senator Carper. It is signed by Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. It is--I am not making this up. I am not making this up. ``The Dorgan importation amendment seeks to address these risks.'' It talks about our amendment. We commend the sponsors for their efforts to include numerous protective measures in the bill that address the inherent risks of importing foreign products and other safety concerns relating to the distribution system for drugs within the U.S. However, as currently written, the resulting structure would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive. Let's get this straight. According to the CBO, if we pass this, we would save consumers $10 billion--excuse me--$100 billion. According to CBO, we would provide an estimated $100 billion in consumer savings over 10 years. That is what the CBO says. But what this obviously heavily overburdened Margaret Hamburg, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, says is: However, as currently written, the resulting structure would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive. Oh my God. I am going to have to include, for the Record, the number of employees over at the Food and Drug Administration. I am sure they are full up with their responsibilities at present. In addition, there are significant safety concerns related to allowing the importation of non-bioequivalent products, and safety issues relating to confusion in distribution and labeling of foreign products-- When we see something come in from foreign countries, it is so confusing when you look at the labeling of it. It is remarkably challenging for the American consumer---- relating to the distribution and labeling of foreign products and the domestic product that remain to be fully addressed in the amendment. ``But''--she goes on to say, to Senator Carper, who is a fine and great Member of this body but not the sponsor of the amendment----

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for an additional 30 seconds to finish.

Mr. McCAIN. ``We appreciate your fine leadership on this important issue and would look forward to working with you as we continue to explore policy options to develop an avenue for the importation of safe and effective prescription drugs from other countries.'' Translated: The fix is in. We will be back on the floor on this. I strongly urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator, I know, is aware and has talked about this. How does the Senator account for the fact that there is a nearly 9- percent increase in the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, while the consumer price index this year has gone down 1.3 percent? I understand this is the highest increase in the history, or in most recent years, in the cost of prescription drugs. What is the explanation between the divergence of those two lines?

Mr. McCAIN. Would that have anything to do with the anticipation of incoming reductions or reductions in the increase of costs of pharmaceuticals?

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator another question. We understand you can buy lettuce from overseas. You can buy many other products from overseas. You can buy dairy products. You can buy almost any item except perhaps prescription drugs. Yet the Canadians, in particular, as well as the countries that are included in the Senator's amendment, all adhere to the same standards or higher standards than the United States of America does. Now I understand one of the Senators--not the Senator from North Dakota--has received a letter saying this is still a problem. I don't get it. Maybe the Senator from North Dakota can explain it a little better.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator another question. Isn't it true a letter was written to one of our colleagues from the Administrator of the FDA, the organization that would basically make sure any product that goes to American consumers along these lines, that go through that bureaucracy, said it would require a significant amount of assets and resources? I have since been told there are 11,000 employees of that bureaucracy. I wonder what he thinks about that argument; and, again, was the Senator from North Dakota informed about this position, which, by the way, is the same position as the previous administration?

Mr. McCAIN. So it would require no additional funding from the taxpayers.

Mr. McCAIN. Do these countries that are included in the Senator's amendment--do we have absolute assurance, can we look at the American people and say: Those countries and the agreements we would have with them, you can have products that are safe, you can safely buy, and it would not pose any hazard to anyone's health?

Mr. McCAIN. Wouldn't the pharmaceutical companies say it costs $424 because we have to absorb the cost of all the research that went into developing Nexium?

Mr. McCAIN. Do the seniors from his State and other citizens from his State travel to Canada and buy these prescription drugs because they know and are confident that they are getting, at a much lower price, the same product? Unfortunately, citizens in my State have to go south, and it is unfortunate when they have to do that because we do have a much larger problem there, I am sorry to say.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator, isn't it true the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this measure of the Senator from North Dakota, this modest measure of only countries that are of the highest level of quality of inspection, of all the standards that we have, would save the American consumer $100 billion; is that true?

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, I wish to ask the Senator, what is the basis of the argument against the Senator's amendment? What possible reason, frankly, except for the influence of a special interest in this, our Nation's Capitol?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make an additional comment.