[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 84 (Monday, June 8, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6233-S6234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT OF 2009

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I take the floor this afternoon to discuss 
the issue of importation of prescription drugs and the amendment, which 
is No. 1229, which is pending but may be made nongermane because of a 
vote, if cloture is invoked.
  There has also been some discussion about the fact that I am holding 
up the bill because of my desire for this amendment. I am not. I am 
simply asking for 15 minutes or even 10 minutes of debate and a vote. I 
understand there are other amendments, such as one by Senator Lieberman 
and one by Senator Burr, that also should be considered. I wish to 
point out that I am not holding up the bill nor putting any hold on the 
legislation. The fact is, importation of prescription drugs is 
certainly germane and should apply to this legislation before us.
  Last week, the majority leader was kind enough to say he would see 
about this amendment and when it could be considered. He has just 
informed me that he has discussed the possibility that it be brought up 
on the health care legislation when it comes to the floor. One, the 
issue cannot wait and, two, that is not an ironclad commitment. As much 
as I enjoy people's consideration around this body, from time to time I 
have found that without an ironclad commitment, sometimes those 
commitments of consideration go by the wayside. But I do appreciate 
very much the majority leader seeking to help me address this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate begins 
consideration of H.R. 1256, it be in order for the Senate to consider 
amendment No. 1229 regarding prescription drug importation, the text of 
which is at the desk, and I ask that the amendment be considered in 
order, with 15 minutes of debate on the amendment equally divided 
between both sides, and that at the disposition of such time, the 
Senate vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In my capacity as a Senator from 
the State of Virginia and at the request of the leadership, I object.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. I am not surprised. But if there is to 
be any allegation that this bill is being held up because of this 
amendment, that is simply patently false. In fact, I am more than eager 
to vote on this legislation because it has been before this body for a 
long time and it is a very clear-cut issue. The pharmaceutical industry 
has spent millions of dollars to sway lawmakers against the idea of 
drug importation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from The Hill newspaper.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, June 3, 2009]

                     PhRMA Defends Vulnerable Dems

                    (By Aaron Blake and Reid Wilson)

       What a difference a Speaker's gavel makes.
       Just a few years ago, before Democrats took control of 
     Congress, the pharmaceutical industry was busy funneling 
     millions to Republican candidates, at times giving the GOP 
     three dollars for every one headed to Democrats.
       Over the last two cycles, though, drug makers have been 
     much more generous with the other party. In the 2008 cycle, 
     pharmaceutical companies gave the two parties about $14.5 
     million each, and this year the industry has given $714,000 
     to Republicans and $721,000 to Democrats.
       But the industry's main lobbying arm in Washington is now 
     going beyond writing a check. The Pharmaceutical Research and 
     Manufacturers of America, better known as PhRMA, spent the 
     congressional recess running advertisements thanking four 
     vulnerable Democratic freshmen for their early work in 
     Congress.
       The advertisements are running on behalf of Reps. Parker 
     Griffith (D-Ala.), Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Tom Perriello (D-
     Va.) and Frank Kratovil (D-Md.). They cite the four 
     freshmen's votes for the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (SCHIP) and for extending healthcare benefits to 
     unemployed workers, a measure contained within the stimulus 
     package passed earlier this year.
       PhRMA is also running advertisements for a few Republican 
     candidates, though the group declined to provide their names.
       Nonetheless, Democrats are encouraged by the group's ads on 
     behalf of the four members, all of whom won in 2008 by the 
     narrowest of margins.
       PhRMA ``has really stepped it up and shown a willingness to 
     work with us where our policy interests intersect,'' one 
     senior Democratic aide said.
       The group isn't the only one that gives overwhelmingly to 
     Republicans that has had to change its approach lately. In 
     February, the Chamber of Commerce put out press releases 
     praising Democratic votes in favor of the stimulus 
     legislation, and the National Federation of Independent 
     Businesses backed Democrats on the credit card bill last 
     month.
       PhRMA itself has grown more bipartisan. In recent years, 
     Democratic strategist Steve McMahon has crafted many of the 
     organization's advertisements, and former Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee political director Brian 
     Smoot has been helping its efforts as well.
       The group said the ads are part of a yearlong campaign run 
     in conjunction with the Healthcare Leadership Council. Both 
     groups say they ``share the goal of getting a comprehensive 
     healthcare reform bill on the president's desk this year,'' 
     according to PhRMA Senior Vice President Ken Johnson.
       Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican 
     Congressional Committee, said the question going forward is 
     ``whether or not Democrats in Congress will choose to do for 
     the healthcare industry what they have done for General 
     Motors. That is a concern many in the healthcare community 
     share with Republicans in Congress.''--R.W.
                                  ____

       No partnership among brothers when it gets down to 
     promotions.
       Republicans are Republicans and Democrats are Democrats.
       Except, that is, when it comes to House members eyeing the 
     Senate.
       The start of the 2010 election cycle has been marked by a 
     pretty overt attempt by House campaign committees--
     specifically the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 
     (DCCC)--to push members of the opposing party into statewide 
     races.
       Problem is, those statewide races are pretty important, 
     too. And when the pressure on people like Reps. Mark Kirk (R-
     Ill.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.) pushes them out of their House 
     seats and into their states' open Senate races, they could 
     seriously hamper Senate Democrats' efforts to win those much 
     rarer seats.

[[Page S6234]]

       The equation is really pretty simple: If you're a random 
     Democrat somewhere, even if you are guaranteed to win that 
     House seat--one of 435--do you really want Kirk and Castle to 
     run for Senate, where they have a good chance at winning one 
     out of 100 Senate seats?
       That goes double when the upper chamber often requires 60 
     percent of the votes to prevail. After all, one House seat is 
     pretty expendable when you are close to an 80-seat majority, 
     but one Senate seat is golden when you have an 18- or 20-seat 
     edge in the filibuster-able Senate.
       The latest example is Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), about whom 
     our colleague Jeremy Jacobs writes in today's Campaign 
     section.
       Sure, Democrats want his ripe Long Island seat in their 
     hands, but polling has also shown him within 11 digits of 
     Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and he has the right kind 
     of profile to be competitive for her seat.
       King was bound and ready to run for Senate when it looked 
     like Caroline Kennedy would win the Senate appointment, but 
     he has since backed off. Now Democrats are working hard to 
     put pressure on him, emphasizing that the State Legislature 
     might make his reelections much harder in the next round of 
     redistricting.
       Democrats have also been applying pressure to another 
     frequent target--Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.). Gerlach is a 
     centrist in the same vein as Kirk, Castle and King, and he 
     could pack some bipartisan appeal in a run for Senate.
       Of course, the tactic isn't solely a Democratic province. 
     Republicans have sought to put pressure on Reps. Peter 
     DeFazio (D-Ore.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) and 
     Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) to seek their states' governors' 
     mansions.
       --A.B.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it says:

       Just a few years ago, before Democrats took control of 
     Congress, the pharmaceutical industry was busy funneling 
     millions to Republican candidates, at times giving the GOP 
     three dollars for every one headed to Democrats.
       Over the last two cycles, though, drug makers have been 
     much more generous with the other party. In the 2008 cycle, 
     pharmaceutical companies gave the two parties about $14.5 
     million each, and this year the industry has given $714,000 
     to Republicans and $721,000 to Democrats.

  Which helps to explain the e-mail sent by the top lobbyist for the 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, 
which stated:

       The Senate is on the tobacco bill today. Unless we get some 
     significant movement, the full-blown Dorgan or Vitter bill 
     will pass. . . . We're 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.

  It really is real. It is real that it would provide savings to the 
millions of Americans who have lost a job, millions of Americans who 
are struggling to put food on the dinner table, and millions of 
Americans who are struggling with health care costs and the high cost 
of prescription drugs.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this amendment 
would save American consumers $50 billion over the next decade. Let me 
repeat--$50 billion. Why is that? 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 expensive in Canada. 
Americans would love a 60-percent off coupon for prescription drugs and 
deserve such a discount now more than ever.
  This morning, President Obama met with his Cabinet and announced that 
he intended to accelerate the distribution of the $787 billion stimulus 
funds, which, by the way, were all supposed to be shovel-ready, but 
that is the subject of a different debate. Many have lamented the slow 
pace at which the stimulus funds are being spent. This amendment would 
provide an immediate stimulus to each and every American if enacted. 
Over half of all Americans must take a prescription drug every day, 
according to a 2008 poll by Kaiser Public Opinion, and millions more 
take prescription drugs when diagnosed with a virus or other ailment. 
Many Americans who are cutting household expenses cannot afford to cut 
out the prescription drugs they must take each day for their health. We 
must help these Americans by enacting this amendment.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that this amendment should not be 
considered on legislation regulating tobacco and my efforts to add this 
amendment to the bill are actually holding up the bill.
  The amendment is directly relevant to the underlying legislation. The 
bill would require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco 
because of its well-known negative health effects. This amendment would 
require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the importation of 
prescription drugs from importers declared safe by the FDA. I reject 
any argument that this amendment is not related.
  Furthermore, it is well documented that smokers have higher health 
costs than nonsmokers. So this amendment is necessary to assist those 
who have experienced so many health issues due to smoking. Smoking 
kills. I have supported stricter regulation of tobacco products for 10 
years. In fact, this bill contains many of the provisions included in 
the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act I 
introduced and fought for weeks on the floor of this Senate to achieve 
passage.
  I don't seek to hold up consideration of the bill. I merely ask for 
an up-or-down vote on the amendment. Therefore, I think the American 
people deserve better than the monetary influence buying by PhRMA, an 
organization that has spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the 
American consumer from being able to acquire prescription drugs, 
screened by the FDA, at a lower cost. That is what this is all about. 
It is the special interests versus the American interests, and special 
interests--in this case, PhRMA--have won rounds 1 through 9. We will 
not quit this fight because the American people deserve it, 
particularly in these difficult economic times.
  We may be blocked on this bill. We may be blocked on the next bill. 
But we will come back and back and keep coming back. That is my message 
to the other side and those at PhRMA. We will succeed in allowing 
Americans to acquire much needed, in some cases lifesaving, 
prescription drugs at a lower cost for themselves and their families. 
That is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________