John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true, as much as we respect the Congressional Budget Office and their figures as to the amount of money that can be saved by implementing meaningful medical malpractice reform, such as is the case in the State of Texas, that it doesn't reduce the costs as far as litigation is concerned? Not only that, but I don't believe it is calculated using the way they calculate costs: The incredible increase in health care costs associated with the practice of defensive medicine, with doctors prescribing unneeded, unnecessary and, many times, because of the nature of the procedure, unwanted additional tests and procedures because that physician is practicing what we call defensive medicine, which is the fear of finding themselves in court; and not only because of the increasing premiums for medical malpractice but also obviously the time, the effort, the energy, including damage to reputation that could accrue from a lawsuit brought against that physician.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, isn't it absolutely incredible that in the name of reducing health care costs, and with the burden that rising health care costs impose on every American family, that there should not be one provision--one meaningful provision--for medical liability reform, which is, in the judgment of any objective observer--except maybe the trial lawyers--something that must be implemented if you are going to have a serious effort at reducing the cost of health care in America?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from South Dakota on a very important statement. I see the Senator from New Hampshire and others on the floor waiting to speak on this issue. I will be brief. As the majority leader begins discussions behind closed doors to create the Senate bill that he is going to bring to the floor, I think it is important for the American people to understand the impact these policies will have on the cost of health insurance premiums, tax rates, and our economy for generations to come. I think we should understand the smoke and mirrors used to make the Democrat proposal appear to improve the budget over the next 10 years. The following taxes start next year. If you have insurance, $201 billion is raised in excise taxes on health plans. If you don't buy a plan, or you buy one that the government doesn't think is good enough, the concept proposal raises $4 billion in fines on the uninsured. If you are an employer who today cannot afford to provide health insurance to your employees, which is the case with small business, the ones hurting the most--not Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan but the small businesses--the concept proposal raises $23 billion in employer penalties and contributions. If you use medical devices, such as hearing aids or artificial hearts, the concept proposal raises taxes by $38 billion on medical device manufacturers. Who will pay for that in the long run? The user. If you take prescription drugs, the concept proposal raises $22 billion in new taxes on medicines. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Americans will face higher health insurance premiums, while waiting 4 years for the reform proposal to begin. This gimmickry is incredible. The President and Senate Democrats claim the proposal is under $1 trillion and slightly reduces the deficit over 10 years. That is a joke--ten years of taxes but only 5\1/2\ years of implementation. To get the true 10-year cost of implementation, you should look at the 10 years beginning in 2013. Using the CBO numbers, we are told that the proposal spends $1.8 trillion. That is the real cost of this proposal. You might be justified in wondering what Americans get for that $1.8 trillion. The answer is more government, with 13 million more people placed into the failed Medicaid Program. Medicaid is a program that is busting the Federal budget and State budgets all over America. Medicaid is a program that fails in patients having access to physicians. Forty percent of doctors will not see Medicaid patients. Medicaid is a program that fails in health outcomes for low-income Americans. We are not going to give low-income Americans more options for better health coverage; we are just giving them the status quo. It is bad enough that the proposal massively increases government regulation of health care and insurance, massively expands the government-sponsored Medicaid Program--which the States cannot afford to pay for, as we all know--massively cuts Medicare and drives up insurance premiums in the process. But the proposal ignores what Americans want: less government, less taxes, more freedom, and more choices. The concept paper in the Senate Finance Committee--it is not even a bill--slams Americans with an entitlement program that will grow faster, according to the CBO, than the economy, while at the same time dramatically increasing the tax burden on all Americans. Let's restate the obvious about the Senate Finance Committee concept proposal. As the majority leader conducts his closed-door process to create the Senate bill he will bring to the floor, it is important for the American people to understand what impact these policies will have on the cost of health insurance premiums, on tax rates, and on our economy for generations to come. I have seen recent information that the Medicare Part D Program, which is touted as a success--which I voted against because it wasn't paid for--is now having--guess what--increased costs. The problem is that we are not addressing the fundamental problems that cause a dramatic increase in health care costs in America. In fact, we are continuing a process that we have done, which is new entitlement programs, without ways to pay for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we take up the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriations bill, it spends approximately $33.9 billion. Let's not forget Congress has already appropriated over $92 billion to energy and water-related projects between the emergency appropriations provided in the 2009 supplemental, the continuing resolution, and the stimulus bill. Equally as important is what this bill doesn't fund. The bill provides only $197 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, putting this project on life support. The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars and decades studying the suitability of Yucca Mountain as the Nation's repository for spent nuclear fuel and defense waste. Consistently, the science has borne out that Yucca Mountain is the best site to dispose of nuclear waste. The President has made a point of telling all who would listen that his administration would be guided by science and not politics. At the same time, the President and the Secretary of Energy are saying that Yucca Mountain is no longer an option, even though science has proven that Yucca is safe. The fact that this administration has political problems with moving forward with the Yucca Mountain storage facility doesn't change the fact that the government has a legal obligation to take this spent waste and that the licensing process is already underway. Shelving the Yucca Mountain facility will slow the deployment of new nuclear generating facilities, constrain our most abundant clean energy source, and hinder efforts to combat climate change. The conference report that accompanies this bill contains 1,116 congressionally directed spending items--a fancy term for earmarks, which is a fancy term for porkbarrel spending, which is a fancy term for corruption--totalling over $1.05 billion and almost doubling the number of earmarks that were included in the Senate-approved bill. Get that: 1,116 earmarks in this bill--over a $1 billion. I know that is not much when we consider we have already run up a $9 trillion deficit over the next 9 years, but a lot of Americans would be surprised and think it is a fair amount of money. None of these projects were requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to judge whether or not these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer's dollars. They are in this bill for one reason and one reason only--because of the self serving prerogatives of a select few members of the Senate--almost all of whom serve on the Appropriations Committee. Sadly, these Members chose to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayer. During Senate consideration of this bill I filed 24 amendments to strike these earmarks. The American people are tired of this process, and they are tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. Not surprisingly, my amendments were defeated at every turn by appropriators and Members on the other side of the aisle. ``Here are some examples of the earmarks contained in this bill: $2 million for the Algae Biofuels Research, WA; $750,000 for the Algae to Ethanol Research and Evaluation, NJ; $1.2 million for the Alternative Energy School of the Future, NV; $6 million for the Hawaii Energy Sustainability Program, HI; $6 million for the Hawaii Renewable Energy Development Venture, HI; $2.25 million for the Montana Bio-Energy Center of Excellence, MT; $10 million for the Sustainable Energy Research Center, MS; $450,000 for the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, VT; $1.2 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Dispensing Station, WV; $1.25 million for the Long Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Development of a Coal Liquefaction Sector in China, WV; $1 million for the Alaska Climate Center, AK; $5 million for the Computing Capability, ND--whatever that is; $1 million for the Performance Assessment Institute, NV; $1 million for the New School Green Building, NY. This bill also includes a $106 million increase in funding over the President's request for hydrogen fuel cell research. The Secretary of Energy had pushed for the elimination of this funding but has since changed his mind after bullying from Senate appropriators. Before his change of heart, Dr. Chu explained his reasoning for cutting the funding by stating, ``We asked ourselves, `Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was no.'' Unfortunately, Dr. Chu caved to demands and has decided to no longer object to funding research investments that many call a ``dead end.'' This bill dedicates $5.3 billion to the Army Corps civil works program, which is $180 million higher than the President's request. As my colleagues know, the Corps is burdened with a $60 billion backlog as a result of years of abusing the energy and water appropriations bills and the Water Resources Development Acts as hot tickets for loading up new pet projects. As one would expect, this year's appropriations process was no different from previous years as the Senate Appropriations Committee received 256 requests to fund new projects. Imagine our surprise when we learned that the committee rejected every single one of these requests for funding new projects--a nod, albeit a modest one, to the tenets of fiscal responsibility. While I applaud appropriators for attempting, in a way, to address our current backlog, we can't deny that our system for funding existing Corps projects is not working. Currently, there is no way to know which projects warrant taxpayer dollars because the Corps refuses to give Congress any kind of idea of what it views as national priorities. In fact, even when Congress specifically requests a list the Corps' top priorities, they are unable to provide them. That leaves it up to politicians on Capitol Hill to blindly throw money at flood control, hurricane protection, navigation and environmental restoration projects--in some cases matters of life or death--without knowing which projects may or may not benefit the larger good. We owe it to the American people to do better. Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. It is abundantly clear that the time has come for us to eliminate the corrupt, wasteful practice of earmarking. We have made some progress on the issue in the past couple of years, but we have not gone far enough. Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks. While that was a good step forward, the bottom line is that we don't simply need more disclosure of earmarks--we need to eliminate them all together. The time has come to get serious about how we are spending hardworking American's tax dollars and there is no better way to prove we're serious than by ending the wasteful practice of earmarking funds in the appropriations bills. The process is broken and it is long overdue to be fixed.'' Madam President, we are here in this postcloture motion period, consuming it because of the simple fact that the Senator from Oklahoma had an amendment which required greater transparency. The Senator from Oklahoma, while wanting a recorded vote, was assured by the managers of the bill that a transparency provision would be added to the final conference report which would then be passed by both Houses of Congress and for the President's signature. Unaccountably, that provision, which was simple transparency so that all Members of the Senate would know what information the Senate appropriators received, would be shared by all, was dropped in conference. Understandably, the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, whom I view in many ways as the conscience of this body, is upset and concerned that the American people--much less now their Representatives--are not able to obtain information which is obviously very important in the decisionmaking process that goes on here. It is unfortunate and it shows, again, what has happened here in the process of legislation, that the Appropriations Committee now seems to override not only the wishes of the American people with projects such as those I outlined but also even the other Members of the Senate. The good news, probably, for Members of the body and for the citizens of this country--but bad news for the appropriators--is that we will be back. We will be back again and again and again. The American people all over this country are having tea parties, they are having uprisings. They know the debt and deficit that we have laid on future generations of Americans and they are not going to stand for it. They are going to find out whether we need to spend $450,000 for the Vermont energy investment corporation; whether we need $1 million for a performance assessment institute in Nevada; and whether we need to spend $1 million for the new school green building in New York, not to mention all those projects that abound that will send our tax dollars to the State of Hawaii as well as Mississippi. I can warn my colleagues again, we will be back. We will be back. We will talk not only here on the floor of the Senate but across this country about this egregious practice of the waste of their taxpayers' dollars, of their hard-earned dollars, and the way this earmark and pork-barreling process is still completely out of control and a disgrace. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 2626 to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration or, if necessary, set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 2626.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with an amendment that would eliminate another unneeded and unwanted earmark which is suggested by the President of the United States. Before I go into that, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from this morning's Washington Post entitled ``Ex- Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I quote from the beginning of it, something that is well known but continues to be authenticated about the corruption of the process that we go through in appropriations. It says, ``Ex-Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds.'' In the coming year's military spending bill, members of a House panel continue to steer lucrative defense contracts to companies represented by their former staffers, who in turn steer generous campaign donations to those lawmakers, a new analysis has found. Not an astonishing finding but, again, authenticating of the corruption that goes on around here and the reason Americans are fed up. The Center for Public Integrity found that 10 of the 16 members of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations obtained 30 earmarks in the bill worth $103 million for contractors currently or recently employing former staffers who have become lobbyists. The analysis by the Washington watchdog group found that earmarks still often hinge on a web of connections, despite at least three criminal investigations of the practice that became public in the past year. Mr. President, I bring forward another amendment--this will be my sixth--to eliminate a program and the appropriations for it that the President of the United States has asked for. I often quote from this document. This will be the sixth one. This document is entitled, ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010.'' Again, I would like to read from the introduction. This comes from the administration. It says: The President's 2010 Budget seeks to usher in a new era of responsibility--an era in which we not only do what we must to save and create new jobs and lift our economy out of recession, but in which we also lay a new foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. Making long overdue investments and reforms in education so that every child can compete. . . . It goes on and on. In the next paragraph: Another central pillar of a sound economic foundation is restoring fiscal discipline. The administration came into office facing a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion for this year alone-- By the way, I think that is up to $1.4 trillion now-- and the cost of confronting the recession and financial crisis has been high. While these are extraordinary times that have demanded extraordinary responses, we cannot put our Nation on a course for long-term growth with uncontrollable deficits and debt. It goes on to talk about the problems we face. [T]he President has announced a procurement reform effort that will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40 billion, and at the Cabinet's first meeting, he directed agency heads to identify at least $100 million in administrative savings. Then it says: This volume is the first report of that effort. In it, the Administration identifies programs that do not accomplish the goals set for them, do not do so efficiently, or do a job already done by another initiative--and recommends these programs for either termination or reduction. We are talking about the administration speaking. We have identified 121 terminations, reductions, and other areas of savings that will save approximately $17 billion next year alone. It goes on to describe what they are: Half of these savings for the next fiscal year come from defense programs and half come from non-defense. No matter their size, these cuts and reductions are all important to setting the right priorities with our spending, getting our budget deficit under control, and creating a Government that is as efficient and it is effective. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this will be the sixth amendment I have offered to support the President's request for reduction or termination of unneeded or unwanted programs. I am confident this will be the sixth time that the appropriators on both sides of the aisle will vote down the President's request--not my request, not my assumption, but that of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget. By the way, had the Senate agreed with my amendments--which they did not--and supported the call of the President to end programs that do not accomplish the goals set for them, we would have saved the taxpayers $87 million. In this day and age with multitrillion-dollar deficits, $87 million is not a lot around this town, but it certainly is back in my home State of Arizona. What this amendment does, and I quote again from the President's document, and I will read from it: The Budget supports public broadcasting through increased appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and eliminates the unnecessary Public Telecommunications Facilities Grant Program. Let me make it clear. The administration is supporting increases in public broadcasting but is trying to eliminate the unnecessary Public Telecommunications Facilities Grant Program in the Department of Commerce. PTFP funding equals less than 4 percent of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding and has in recent years supported the transition to digital television broadcasts which will be completed in fiscal year 2009. The administration goes on to say: Since 2000, most [of these] awards have supported public television station's conversion to digital broadcasting. Digital broadcasting facilities mandated by the Federal Communications Commission will be completed in fiscal year 2009, and there is no further need for this program. Again, it goes on to say: The Administration proposes to support public broadcasters through CPB, and the Budget includes $61 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2010, which is in addition to the $420 million enacted advance appropriation, for total proposed 2010 resources of $481 million, nearly $20 million above 2009. The Budget also includes an advance appropriation request for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2012 of $440 million to support public broadcasters. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds can support the same types of capital projects as PTFP funding as well as stations' operating and programming costs. . . . The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Commerce Department bureau that has administered this program, was provided $4.7 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to implement the new Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Terminating this program will enable the NTIA to focus its efforts on BTOP, [the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program] a major challenge for this small Commerce Department bureau, and one which will aid the nation's economic recovery and help promote long-term competitiveness. These are not my words. These are the words of the President of the United States. We are talking about $20 million savings by eliminating this program. One of the arguments we are going to hear, and one of the great sacred cows around here, is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This does not affect the increase in funds for public broadcasting. It simply terminates a program that the President of the United States believes is not necessary because its mission has been completed. I imagine we will lose again with appropriators on both sides of the aisle voting not to eliminate a program--again, the sixth amendment I have had trying to implement the recommendations of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget, and while we are staring at a $1.4 trillion deficit for this year and a $9 trillion debt for the next 10 years. Those estimates have been completely underestimated. I tell the managers, the American people are mad. They are very angry. There is going to be another tea party in my home State this weekend. You know we are mad because we are stealing their children's money; 43 cents out of every dollar we are spending today is on borrowed money. Who is going to pay it back? They know they are. They know our kids and grandkids are. We cannot even eliminate a program or programs the President of the United States requests that we terminate. There will come, and it will come fairly soon, a day of reckoning. The reason I added this article from the Washington Post this morning is because, I say to my friends and colleagues, there is corruption, and there is corruption in the earmarking and porkbarrel process that goes on. The American people are tired of it. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is another attempt to agree with the President's request to cut some unneeded spending. This time, it is only $20 million, which around here is obviously chicken feed. But the President has requested that this $20 million be cut. It is not needed. The program it was funded for is complete. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have to have the regular order at some time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate turns to the conference report for H.R. 2997, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This bill spends about $120 billion in direct and mandatory spending. This is on top of the $108 million that was provided under the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, as well as the infamous economic stimulus package, which provided another $26.5 billion in Ag spending. I acknowledge that many of the programs funded by this bill are valued for providing important services to the agriculture community at large, and I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for reporting this bill in a timely manner. I agree that we should ensure that our farmers stay out of the red, and that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low-income families under nutrition programs. Unfortunately, Congress once again has conformed to the practice of diverting precious taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest pork projects which have not been authorized or requested by the administration. When the bill passed the Senate shortly before the August recess, the bill carried with it 296 ``Congressionally Directed Spending Items'' a fancy new term for earmarks--totaling over $220 million. Now that conferees have had their chance to feed at the trough, the number of earmarks has grown to 461 totaling over $360 million. None of these projects were requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized, or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to judge whether or not these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer's dollars. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill: $2 million for a fruit laboratory in West Virginia; $819,000 for catfish genome research in Alabama; $360,000 for a corn ethanol research plant in Washington, DC; $75,000 to promote childhood farm safety in Iowa; $250,000 for the Iowa Vitality Center; $700,000 to improve cattle health in Maine; $300,000 to develop ``Best Practices in Agriculture Waste Management'' in California; $1.3 million for greenhouse nurseries in Ohio, which weren't requested by the administration; $2.9 million for shrimp aquaculture research in Arizona and Massachusetts; $693,000 for beef improvement research in Missouri; $165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont; $195,000 to research how to increase the lifespan of peach trees in South Carolina; $349,000 for pig waste management in North Carolina; $500,000 goes to the National Wild Turkey Federation in Nebraska, and $250,000 for the Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation for a workforce development program. The largest earmark in this bill goes to Hawaii. The Aloha State bags $5 million to continue construction of an Agriculture Research Service Center to study agriculture practices in the Pacific. As my colleagues know, ARS construction is one of the most heavily earmarked accounts in government. So much so that the President's budget actually proposed zeroing out ARS construction for fiscal year 2010 because: Congress routinely earmarks small amounts of funding for [ARS projects] located throughout the nation. The result of scattering funding in this manner is that . . . few if any of the projects are able to reach the critical threshold of funding that would allow construction to begin. Funding construction over such a long time significantly increases the amount of money needed to fully complete these projects, as well as postponing their completion for many years. So here we have a program that is earmarked so severely that it delays and drives up the costs of approved construction projects. Not only are we funding this Hawaiian facility, but conferees approved 21 earmarks totaling over $71 million for ARS facility construction, some of them airdropped in conference. During Senate consideration of this bill, I filed over 300 amendments to strike every earmark as well as cut funding to several USDA programs that the President proposed for termination including the ARS facilities account. It should come as no surprise that my amendments were defeated at every turn by appropriators on both sides of the aisle. These projects may be meritorious and helpful to the designated communities, but considering our current budgetary crisis, it's inappropriate to include them on this year's agriculture spending bill, especially when they have been identified for termination or reduction. I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this agriculture bill. This bill is intended to address farmers, women, children, and rural communities with the greatest need, not for piggybacking pet projects that garner the support of special interest constituents. I know that many of my colleagues have spoken about the economic struggles of America's hardworking farmers and low-income families. The farmers and struggling families I know are their tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I will oppose this conference report and every other pork-laden bill that comes before this body.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration--amendment No. 2629.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished manager, the Senator from Maryland, that I will be glad to interrupt my amendment upon the return of the Senator from Alabama, if he wishes to speak, and then I will continue after that. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her hard work and excellent explanation of the legislation before the Senate. This amendment would lower health care costs for Americans immediately. It would provide access to safe, less expensive imported prescription drugs. For far too long, powerful lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry have stood in the way of Americans' access to affordable imported drugs. Their enormous political campaign contributions made in return for political support of their agenda and their secret unsavory deal with the White House in exchange for their support of the health care reform have further contributed to the American people being prevented from accessing cheaper prescription drugs. Instead, Americans continue to pay 60 percent or higher for the same prescription drugs that are sold in Canada. This amendment is necessary because Americans need access to lower cost drugs now. They need it now due to these difficult economic times. We all know about unemployment. Americans' salaries are being cut, household budgets are slim, and millions of Americans are struggling to make their monthly mortgage payments. For these reasons, and so many more, Americans should not be forced to wait another day to purchase safe and affordable prescription drugs from outside the United States. While Americans all over the country are having to choose between their next meal and their necessary prescriptions, the large pharmaceutical companies continue to pressure Congress to delay consideration of any legislation to allow the importation of safe and lower priced prescription drugs. I would like to also point out this is legislation on an appropriations bill, something I have long opposed, and still oppose. But there has been an unusual process taking place, and that process is one which has forced me to come to this situation. On two separate occasions the majority leader of the Senate assured me that legislation would be taken up before the Senate, and both times he has changed his mind. The majority leader resisted consideration of an amendment to allow for the importation of prescription drugs during debate on the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. At the time, the majority leader said on the Senate floor: This is something that should have been done, I am sorry to say, years ago, not weeks ago. This issue is important legislation. If it should have been done years ago, then why wasn't it brought up for consideration immediately after the tobacco bill in June? While the stand-alone bill to allow importation--S. 1232--was placed on the Senate's calendar on June 11, 2009, there has been no further effort by the majority leader to call it up for consideration. Instead, he sent me a letter stating: I committed to take up legislation that would permit the safe importation of lower-cost prescription drugs as soon as practicable. The practicable time was back in June. There is no practical reason to prevent the majority leader from calling up this bill for a vote at any time. I was told verbally by the majority leader as short a time as 3 weeks ago that upon the completion of consideration of the Defense appropriations bill that this legislation would be brought to the floor of the Senate. Then a week later I was told, no; that is not going to be the case. So I have been waiting for ``as soon as practicable,'' and so have millions of Americans who are looking for cheaper alternatives to the high-priced prescription drugs. The majority leader also stated in his letter: If this issue is not addressed during the full Senate's consideration of comprehensive health reform, I guarantee that I will move to proceed to S. 1232 before the end of the year. The majority leader of the Senate assured me it would be taken up after completion of the Department of Defense appropriations bill, which we have completed. Given the fact that it is possible that the health care reform bill will be brought up under a truncated pressure timeline, I have little faith that real, in-depth consideration of prescription drug import legislation will come about; therefore, I have no choice but to bring this issue up today as an amendment to this appropriations bill. In the 2008 election cycle, pharmaceutical companies gave almost $30 million in campaign contributions to Members of Congress. Just this year, according to an article published in The Hill, the prescription drug industry has given more than $1 million to Republicans and Democrats, and the companies whip up their protector in Congress each time we bring forward legislation to help Americans get the imported prescription drugs they need. Earlier this year, I read an e-mail sent by the top lobbyist for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA-- this was back in June--which stated: The Senate is on the bill today. Unless we get some significant movement, the full blown Dorgan or Vitter bill will pass. We are trying to get Senator Dorgan to back down, calling the White House, and Senator Reid. Our understanding is that Senator McCain has said he will offer regardless. Please make sure your staff is fully engaged in this process. This is real. That was an e-mail from a lobbyist of PhRMA, which has given millions and millions in campaign contributions. Guess what. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson: I'm back. I am back on the Senate floor, trying to help millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, struggling to put food on the table, by giving them the opportunity to save on their prescription drugs immediately. Recently, the White House struck a deal with a pharmaceutical company to further protect its profits. The deal was bragged about by the head of the company's trade association, who cashed in for millions of dollars once he wrote the Medicare prescription drug benefit legislation as a Congressman. He was quoted in an article in the New York Times, published August 6, 2009, stating that the White House ``wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else.'' The same article stated: 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. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. Analyze that comment by the head lobbyist of one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. He is saying the White House agreed to move away from--in other words, not support--ideas such as government negotiation of prices. Government negotiation of prices is absolutely necessary. We did it in the prescription drug bill, and it has reduced costs. In other words, the pharmaceutical companies would have to compete for Medicare contracts. One would think that is an obvious solution to bringing down costs. The second, of course, is the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. Here everybody is talking about reducing health care costs. We know that importation of less expensive drugs would save health care costs for the American consumer. But the White House apparently, according to Mr. Tauzin, agreed they would not support importation of less expensive drugs from Canada--a remarkable comment. You know, people wonder why the tea parties are going on, why the approval rating of Congress is so low--amazing. The Fraser Institute found in 2008 that Canadians paid on average 53 percent less than Americans for identical brand-name drugs. Specifically, the institute found that the most commonly prescribed brand-name drug, Lipitor, is 40 percent less in Canada, Crestor is 57 percent less in Canada, and the popular arthritis drug Celebrex is 62 percent less expense in Canada. Americans would love a 60-percent-off coupon for prescription drugs and deserve such a discount now more than ever. I have been working on this issue for many years, and I will continue to do so. Americans should not have to wait a day longer for relief from higher prices for drugs. Inexplicably, the majority leader keeps delaying consideration of this needed legislation, which has now forced me to offer an amendment on the current appropriations bill. However, I believe it is necessary to protect all Americans' interests in obtaining affordable prescription drugs. The amendment states that no funds can be used to prosecute those who seek to import prescription drugs that have been approved by the FDA. If the big drug companies are getting an $80 billion savings, shouldn't we give a savings to American consumers? Why not now? Again, I want to say there is going to be a point of order raised on this bill, and with righteous indignation people will say it doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. We just finished a Defense appropriations bill loaded--and I will have a list of them--with unauthorized appropriations on that bill. Every appropriations bill we take up has unauthorized appropriations, ranging from $300,000 for a museum in Nebraska to the addition of C-17s for $2.5 billion. The argument that somehow we should not be taking up this legislation on this bill flies in the face of what has been common practice around here, even though I do not agree with it. Let me say this, too. If I had full and complete confidence that this amendment would get a full and complete airing as an amendment on the health care bill, I would be glad to withdraw this amendment. I will be glad to withdraw this amendment if we have assurance this amendment will be taken up on the health care bill. There are all kinds of things that are going to be done in passage of the health care reform legislation--so-called--on the floor of the Senate. I see my friend from North Dakota here. I have appreciated his efforts for a long time. He and I have been working on this for a long time. It is a fact that I received the word of the majority leader that this bill would be taken up and that has not happened. That has happened twice. I must say it has never happened to me before in the years I have been a Member of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times article of August 6, 2009, ``White House Affirms Deal on Drug Costs.'' I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Senator Reid to Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, and to me.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to say again that we have been told time after time that this legislation would come before the Senate. It has not. I do not know what process the majority leader will use-- reconciliation, fill up the tree, vote on cloture, make this amendment nongermane. I have no confidence. If I had the confidence that this amendment would be taken up in a regular order fashion and that the full Senate would vote on it on the health reform bill, I would have some confidence we could get it done. In the absence of that, I will seek a vote on this amendment. If there is a budget point of order on this amendment, let no one be fooled: It is not because they do not want to violate the budget rules of the Senate, because they violated them in every possible way in previous appropriations bills, to the tune of billions of dollars. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I am very grateful for the leadership Senator Dorgan has shown on this issue for many years and it has been a pleasure and an honor to work with him on that and many other issues. I ask my colleague, does the letter that was sent by the majority leader to you and to me and to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe--I know you have read it--does it concern you that the last paragraph of the letter says: Not withstanding these obstacles, I stand by my earlier commitment to make sure the Senate considers S. 1232 as soon as practicable. And then this is the question I have for the Senator from North Dakota. If this issue is not addressed during the full Senate's consideration of comprehensive health reform, I guarantee that I will move to proceed to S. 1232 before the end of the year. My question to the Senator from North Dakota is: Why would there be any question in the majority leader's mind that you or I and Senator Snowe would let a health reform bill go to the floor and be voted on without it being passed? It seems to me, and may I say, because I have been told twice by the majority leader we would take it up--and those commitments have been reversed--would it not concern you a little bit when it says: `` . . . if this issue is not addressed during the full Senate's consideration of comprehensive health reform . . .'' That is my question. That is what I am concerned about, that parliamentary procedures would be used. You and I have seen it before. The tree filled up. Cloture invoked, et cetera, where there have not been amendments that were clearly important to that legislation, not allowed to be considered. That is my question to my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. McCAIN. Would you not feel better if the letter said--I know I would feel better if the letter said: I expect this issue to be brought up in the health reform bill. Instead, there is a loophole, with all due respect, that if it isn't addressed during the full Senate's consideration, ``I guarantee I will move to it before the end of the year.'' Each day going by, seniors and, in fact, all citizens are paying a higher price for prescription drugs. Frankly, we should never have made that agreement when the tobacco bill was taken up because we could have passed it. Today seniors could be paying as much as 60 percent less for their prescription drugs. But we know what happened. The pharmaceutical companies weighed in with all of their clout. I urge the Senator from North Dakota to go back and get this language changed. The majority leader looked me in the eye and said: We will take this up after we finish the Department of Defense appropriations bill. And then decided not to do it. Maybe the Senator from North Dakota understands why I am skeptical about the interpretation of a letter that could be interpreted so that we don't take it up in the health care reform bill.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield further for one final question.

Mr. McCAIN. I have great sympathy for attempting to schedule legislation in this body. I think our friend Trent Lott maybe didn't invent it, but he used to say that it is like herding cats, conducting business in the Senate. I agree with that. I know the Senator from North Dakota is aware that no matter what the problems are, if the majority leader says: I will take up this bill, then you have to take his word. My question to the Senator from North Dakota is, can we get a commitment from the majority leader that parliamentary procedures will not be used to block consideration of the issue of importation of pharmaceutical drugs?

Mr. McCAIN. The letter is ambivalent.