[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24485-24486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 1763. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny 
the deduction for advertising and promotional expenses for prescription 
pharmaceuticals; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Protecting Americans from Drug Marketing Act. Health care spending is 
out of control, and this bill represents a small but significant step 
toward reigning in unnecessary health care costs.
  Right now, the Federal Government gives pharmaceutical companies a 
tax break every time you see a drug advertisement on TV--and for every 
free mug your doctor receives that has a pharmaceutical company logo on 
it. These tax breaks add up to billions of dollars of lost revenue for 
the Federal Government.
  Pharmaceutical companies are getting a huge boost at a time when 
thousands of Americans are going bankrupt because of health care bills, 
and millions more are struggling to pay for health insurance coverage. 
This legislation will remove these unfair tax benefits so 
pharmaceutical companies can focus their dollars on developing new 
drugs, not excessive marketing schemes.
  Nationwide, prescription drug spending rose 500 percent between 2000 
and 2005, from $40 billion to $200.7 billion per year. But while costs 
to patients are growing exponentially, the pharmaceutical industry is 
spending an astonishing $30 billion annually on marketing. Of course, 
these companies have the right to advertise. But taxpayers shouldn't be 
subsidizing these expenses.
  Research has shown that glossy advertisements and logo-laden pens 
don't add any value to our health care system. Instead, drug companies 
are trying to use both consumers and doctors as pawns in order to 
maximize profits. The Federal Government should not subsidize these 
activities.
  It is challenging enough to navigate our health care system; the 
recent explosion of prescription drug ads on television, on the 
Internet, and in magazines just confuses things further. Many ads 
encourage consumers to use expensive drugs over cheaper alternatives 
that may work just as well. Other ads provide a skewed view of what the 
drug does, minimizing the risks while overemphasizing the benefits. 
Health care already costs enough--taxpayers shouldn't be paying to 
subsidize these unhelpful and confusing messages.
  Drug companies are capitalizing on this confusion. Studies have shown 
that every dollar spent on advertising to consumers yields an 
additional $4.20 in sales for drug manufacturers. This is a very high 
return on investment, and so not unsurprisingly companies have 
increased spending on ads to consumers by 536 percent from 1996 to 
2007. That is 536 percent. In 2007 alone, pharmaceutical companies 
spent nearly $4.8 billion on these excessive marketing campaigns. This 
spending is passed on to consumers, resulting in higher prescription 
drug costs for Americans. This bill will simply take away tax breaks 
that encourage drug companies to do this.
  The Protecting Americans from Drug Marketing Act is also needed to 
make sure doctors and other providers are making decisions based on the 
best scientific evidence. Today, doctors frequently receive information 
about prescription drugs from the drug companies themselves. The 
Protecting Americans from Drug Marketing Act also takes away the tax 
break that drug companies receive for sending representatives to 
hospitals and doctors' offices to encourage them to use their drugs. 
These representatives are the ones who leave behind the pens and coffee 
mugs--or even nicer gifts--that you see at the clinic, logoed with the 
names of specific drugs.
  We have created a culture in which doctors receive far too much 
biased information about drugs--and how they can be used in unapproved 
ways--from pharmaceutical reps who aren't doctors, often have no 
scientific training, and most certainly have a vested interest in 
selling the newest, most expensive products. This bill won't end that 
practice, but it will end the lucrative tax breaks that encourage it. 
For this reason, it will help providers make medical decisions based on 
objective, peer-reviewed research--not on biased materials from 
companies standing to profit from doctors' prescription pads and 
patients' wallets.
  The Federal Government could save up to $3.5 billion every year by 
eliminating these tax breaks used every day by drug companies. In this 
small way, we can help stem the tide of confusing and misleading drug 
ads that you and your family see every day on TV and in magazines. Just 
as importantly, we can bring down the cost of health care, make 
prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans, and help pay for 
the cost of health reform that is so sorely needed.
  Americans are struggling just to keep their health insurance and pay 
their bills. Let us end this counterproductive subsidy and spend our 
taxpayer dollars more wisely. I thank Senators Whitehouse and Brown for 
joining me in introducing this important legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to work with us to include it in health reform legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brown, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Burris):
  S. 1765. A bill to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include 
crimes against the homeless; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hate Crimes 
Against the Homeless Statistics Act of

[[Page 24486]]

2009. I am joined in this effort by Senator Collins. I am also joined 
by the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown, Senator Mikulski, Senator 
Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer.
  This week marks the 1-year anniversary of the tragic murder of John 
Robert McGraham. Mr. McGraham was a well-known member of the Wilshire 
neighborhood of Los Angeles, CA, for more than 20 years. On October 9, 
2008, he was doused with gasoline and set ablaze as he slept. By the 
time neighbors and residents ran to his rescue, his clothes had been 
burned off and his face blackened. The attacker apparently had a 
dislike toward homeless individuals. Known for rarely asking for money 
and not bothering anyone in the community, Mr. McGraham lost his life 
because of his homeless status. Days after his murder, hundreds of 
people gathered at the spot of his death and created a memorial for 
him.
  Mr. McGraham is just one of many homeless individuals who have 
suffered hate crimes because they were homeless. In a popular men's 
magazine, under the blurb titled ``Hunt for the Homeless,'' the 
following was displayed: ``Kill one for fun. We're 87 percent sure it's 
legal.'' We have heard the horrific stories: A woman sleeping was 
pushed into a river; a man was beaten, soaked in beer and urine and 
covered with trash; a woman was beaten in the face with a tire iron; 
and many more unfortunate stories. This behavior should not and cannot 
be tolerated in our society. What kind of society would we be if we 
allowed these types of attacks to continue without standing up against 
them?
  The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Department of 
Justice to collect data from law enforcement agencies about ``crimes 
that manifest evidence of prejudice based upon race, religion, sexual 
orientation or ethnicity.'' In 1994, Congress expanded coverage to 
require reporting on crimes based on disability. Data collection 
provides the needed information to policymakers, law enforcement, and 
communities so they can make informed decisions as to how best to 
proceed with the problem presented to us. The Hate Crimes Against the 
Homeless Statistics Act will again expand coverage by adding ``homeless 
status'' to the list of categories required to be reported on by the 
Department of Justice.
  In order to measure the level of bias-motivated crimes, data is 
needed. Currently, there is a significant problem in establishing a 
baseline for meaningful comparison. The best way to prove or disprove 
an issue's validity is data collection. According to the National 
Coalition for the Homeless, which has tracked these types of attacks 
since 1999, they have reported an increase in the number of hate crimes 
targeted at homeless individuals in the last decade. If we take the 
statistics provided by this coalition and compare them to the available 
statistics currently being collected by the FBI under the Hate Crimes 
Statistics Act, the results are startling.
  The number of hate crimes resulting in death among listed members, 
those in the statute, is lower than the known number of fatal attacks 
on homeless individuals. Between 1999 and 2007, there were 94 hate 
crime fatalities among the listed individuals, compared to 218 
fatalities in the same period directed at homeless individuals. I am 
introducing this bill today in an effort to get uniform data collection 
on these attacks so that we have a uniform basis on which to know how 
serious the problem is.
  There are approximately 3.5 million people a year who are likely to 
experience homelessness. They are mothers, fathers, and children, and 
they are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Veterans 
account for 20 percent of our homeless population. Families displaced 
because of domestic violence make up another 28 percent of the homeless 
population. With increased funding to provide housing for the homeless, 
the previous administration had seen a 20-percent drop in family 
homelessness. However, because of the current economic crisis, an 
increase in the homeless population has been reported.
  The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to Congress revealed that 
the number of homeless families, particularly those in suburban and 
rural areas, has increased. The number of families seeking shelter has 
increased by 9 percent overall and by nearly 56 percent in suburban and 
rural areas. Our current economic crisis has reversed the progress that 
we made between 2005 and 2007. There is also evidence that when State 
and local budgets are cut, homeless services are affected. With an 
increase in the vulnerable population, with the government unable to 
provide funding, at a minimum we have a duty to report senseless 
violence against this risk population.
  That is what I am asking, pure and simple, that we find out exactly 
how many homeless people are being victimized in a uniform way by 
having reliable data and information so that we, the policymakers, can 
make the right policy decisions.
  Homeless people are part of America. Every day we see veterans, men, 
women, and families who have been forced by circumstances to live on 
the streets. We have walked by them on our way to work or to school. In 
an effort to monitor bias-motivated violence, the first step is to 
realize the scope of the situation by gathering the data.
  I urge my colleagues to support this modest legislation so that we 
are better prepared to deal with this challenge.

                          ____________________