[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 17665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 17665]]

WE SHOULD NOT SUBSIDIZE AN INDUSTRY THAT OVERCHARGES AMERICAN CONSUMERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, because of my commitment to expanding 
international trade, I voted in favor of H.R. 4986 in committee. I must 
say that I was forced to cast that vote under very strange 
circumstances, with very limited information about the full content of 
this bill because of the way it was brought up. Because of the secrecy 
surrounding this bill and the deceit surrounding it, I am reconsidering 
that vote and will expand on the concerns that I just expressed in the 
discussion with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark). On pharmaceuticals, I question why it could possibly be right 
to subsidize an industry that overcharges American customers and sells 
the very same product made in America in other parts of the world for 
less. Why should there be a subsidy designed to encourage lower prices 
for seniors in other parts of the world for American pharmaceuticals 
than right here at home? The high cost of prescription drugs represents 
an injury to American consumers, but it really does add insult to 
injury to reward pharmaceutical companies with a tax break with 
reference to those foreign sales in addition to the gouging of the 
American consumer.
  It is very important for our colleagues to understand that H.R. 4986, 
which will be coming up for a vote later today, was considered under 
the most extraordinary and unusual circumstances before the Committee 
on Ways and Means. There was no public hearing. There was no report 
that has yet been published. There was even an attempt to limit the 
ability of the members of the committee to ask questions to any 
resource witnesses about the nature of this bill. The lead official for 
the administration on this, Secretary Eizenstat, was rushed out of the 
committee before he could answer a single question about the bill. 
Highly unusual that an administration official would be unwilling to 
publicly answer questions about a bill that will cost American 
taxpayers $4 billion to $6 billion each year. Apparently the entire 
process for putting this bill together was to gather in a room outside 
of public purview those people who would benefit, like the 
pharmaceutical industry, from the tax break and work with them to 
figure out how they could get the most tax break without any input from 
anyone other than those who stood to gain from the tax subsidy.
  It is particularly ironic that we would be taking this bill up today, 
because we have just had released this morning a new study concerning 
the very highly addictive quality of nicotine; that it takes a child a 
very short period of time of being exposed to a cigarette before they 
become addicted to nicotine. Yet one of the principal beneficiaries of 
this piece of legislation are the giant tobacco companies. They are 
involved in a worldwide effort to spread the plague of death and 
disease associated with tobacco use. We have learned today that tobacco 
is even more addictive than previously known for children.
  Phillip Morris, for example, runs these ads all the time, they are 
spending millions of dollars to tell us how they do not put their logos 
on clothing; they do not sponsor youth-oriented activities; they do not 
try to attract children to smoke in the United States. While such 
claims are very questionable even here at home, none of them apply 
abroad. Phillip Morris is directly targeting the world's children, as 
are other tobacco companies.
  Under this piece of legislation, the American taxpayer will be an 
unwilling accomplice of this attempt to addict children around the 
world. The tobacco industry, if this bill is passed, will get at least 
$100 million every year in special tax breaks for the purpose of 
allowing it to go around and do the same thing to children in other 
parts of the world, particularly in the developing countries, that it 
has done to our children. Nor does the American tobacco industry need a 
special tax break in order to enjoy a competitive advantage. Big 
tobacco companies have already gained extensive experience as they 
abused American children, as they successfully addicted millions of 
American children who grew up to die of emphysema and lung cancer and 
heart problems as a result of their exposure to tobacco.
  Big tobacco has the tremendous marketing expertise, paid for with 
millions of lives in this country, to apply to Eastern Europe, to Asia, 
to Africa, to South America, to addict the children in that part of the 
world. And, as I indicated, they have specifically refused to apply any 
of the very modest limitations on marketing to children that they now 
apply in this country to their efforts to addict children around the 
world.
  Why should we reward this malicious industry with $100 million a year 
tax cut? That is what the members of this Congress will have to answer 
this afternoon when this bill comes up.

                          ____________________