[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   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, 
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 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, the 
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.

                          ____________________