[Congressional Record: June 21, 2002 (House)]
[Page H3819]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr21jn02-94]
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND AMTRAK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have come to address the issue of Amtrak<
/strong>,
but I just cannot resist making some comments regarding one of the most
bizarre and tortured speeches I have ever heard given by a Member who
preceded me in the well.
Yes, it is true Americans pay more than twice as much as most people
who live in industrialized nations around the world for our
pharmaceuticals, many of those pharmaceuticals manufactured in the
United States by United States-owned drug manufacturing firms and
somehow exported from the United States and sold for half or 30 percent
of the price overseas where they still make money. He said all we need
is a bigger dose of the free market in the Republican approach to this
bill.
We certainly do not want a government program like Medicare, that
would actually rein in the price of drugs by negotiating it down using
the market power of the 40 million people in Medicare, just like Blue
Cross/Blue Shield does with their patients, just like the Veterans
Administration does with their clients. Why? Because the pharmaceutical
industry, who hosted the Republican fundraiser, the most successful in
history, earlier this week, is bitterly opposed to that. They do not
want the free market to work here in the United States.
But what he was really commenting on was the fact that overseas they
control the outrageous price of these drugs and the companies still
make a profit. So it was one of the more bizarre and tortured speeches
I have ever heard trying to get around the fact their bill will do
nothing about the outrageous price of pharmaceuticals, and that in fact
they are introducing and passing legislation written by the insurance
and pharmaceutical industry.
Now, on to Amtrak, another looming disaster. On Monday, the
administration has a critical decision to make: Will they guarantee a
loan for Amtrak to continue its operation, or will they kill <
strong>Amtrak and
kill our national rail system once and forever?
Will we become the only major industrialized Nation on Earth without
a national rail system? What happens the next time there is a 9-11 when
there is no rail alternative? Where are those people going to go? What
are our alternatives?
This administration is rehashing again there another free market
mantra. My God, Amtrak should not get subsidies. Well, yes, th
e
trucking industry gets subsidies; automobiles get huge Federal
subsidies; and, yes, the aviation industry got more subsidies in one
day than Amtrak has gotten in 15 years. But Amtrak, no, they should not
get a penny, because they compete with the regional airlines, and they
are not liked by the freight companies.
So the administration is falling back on this: let us make it like
the British rail system. That is as credible as the idea of modeling
our electricity on the British system, which we have done.
Deregulation, the disaster in California, was modeled on what they have
done in Great Britain. And, in fact, what they are proposing for Amtrak
is modeled on what they have done in Great Britain.
When I was over there earlier this year for aviation security issues,
the paper was filled day after day after day with disasters, capacity
problems, safety problems, crashes, dissatisfaction of the public.
Divide off the rails from the actual providers of service. Yes, the
Brits did that. It is a disaster.
No, this is plain and simple an excuse to kill the system. And if the
administration does not sign this loan on Monday, they have just signed
the death warrant of the national rail system in this country, which
would be a horrible tragedy.
In my region, we have grown, with minuscule investment, rail
passengers by 600 percent in 8 years. If we can turn it into a truly
high-speed system, of course then it might compete with the aviation
industry, we could get people to Seattle just about as quickly as they
could get there and deal with the traffic problems coming to and from
the airport in Oregon and the airline schedules.
{time} 1530
But they do not want to have that kind of a system. They do not want
that alternative. They do not want it to be successful. They want to
kill it.
I challenged the administration on Monday, give them that loan
guarantee and let Congress work its will in terms of reforming Amtrak,
making it work better. We can do that, but do not just kill it with the
lame excuse you want to make it like the failed British system.
Why should we emulate the failures of governments overseas when they
are well known and well publicized? And if you want to kill it, just be
honest about it and say you want to kill Amtrak, in particular
because
a few airlines are concerned about their routes in the east coast and
other quarters where rail is actually carrying almost as many
passengers, and in Europe where, in fact, on less than 400-mile flights
they do carry more passengers. It is a more efficient way to get there.
If that is what the agenda is, at least be honest about it.
