Susan Davis

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing because when people deal with these issues, they are not dealing with it in a political context. This is not political. This is about the lives of people, their businesses and how they conduct themselves. When the public hears the kinds of statements made by those traders, they look to us, they look to us for help, for support. That is why it is important that this House which represents the people, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, needs to respond; and that is why this was such a disappointment today.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, H.R. 3866, and commend my colleagues from the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Energy and Commerce for their hard work on this legislation. Fourteen years ago, the passage of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act banned the use of steroids, but since then steroid precursors have emerged in the marketplace. These products, which are not considered steroids under current law, react like steroids once ingested and yield similar effects. Use of precursors is also associated with the same kinds of bad side effects associated with sustained steroid use, such as aggression, liver tumors, and extreme mood swings, just to name a few. Since these substances are not legal under current law, some of them are marketed as nutrition or dietary supplements and are readily available over the counter. This has resulted in another detrimental development: widespread use of precursors among young people, ranging from college age to kids as young as middle school students. Pressured by athletic competition and peers, these young people turn to these substances for a competitive edge. Numbers released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse for 2003 show an alarming trend of increased precursor use among adolescents since the early 1990s. It is clear that our current law must be updated to reflect the times. We must take action to protect our loved ones. H.R. 3866 modernizes the list of anabolic steroids regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration to include about two dozen new substances and increases the maximum penalties for trafficking steroids close to a sports facility. However, I am concerned about what is not in this legislation, namely, the steroid hormone DHEA. Like my colleagues in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I am disappointed to see DHEA exempted from H.R. 3866. Both the National Institutes of Health and the dietary supplement industry have declared their concern about potentially dangerous health effects. The questions and concerns raised in this discussion show why the regulatory framework for dietary supplements must be updated. Under current law, consumers and the Food and Drug Administration do not have access to the information or tools they need to make informed decisions about dietary supplements. With the support of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I introduced the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act, H.R. 3377, in order to establish commonsense consumer protections. The measures and education programs contained in H.R. 3377 will enable the FDA to gather solid data about the dangers some dietary supplements pose and make sensible informed decisions about supplements such as DHEA. In turn, consumers will have greater assurance than they currently have about the safety of dietary supplements on the market. So, my colleagues, I would certainly encourage support of this legislation today. I believe it is sensible. But it also opens up the way for us to provide for consumers who choose to take dietary supplements more education and more information awareness.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an amazing generation of Americans, a generation that possessed both the courage and the strength to defend the United States against its fiercest enemies. I refer, of course, to those who served our great nation during World War II, the brave Americans who stormed the beaches of Europe and who fought to defend our territories in the South Pacific. Just this weekend, Mr. Speaker, we gave our World War II veterans the commemoration they earned and deserve with the dedication of a new memorial on the National Mall. Visiting this new monument in person made me think about all of the great sacrifices this generation made on our behalf. Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine the enormous pressure they faced. The Japanese had already sunk some of our greatest battleships and were gaining ground in the Pacific and across Asia. German and Italian forces were marching across Western Europe and were gaining ground against our allies. With the goal of world dominance, the freedoms and liberties of the United States were in jeopardy like never before. We would have to defeat some of the most powerful military forces in history if we were to keep our independence intact and to prevent a new era of tyranny around the world. Despite this intense pressure and the great dangers before them, our young men signed up by the thousands and were willing to take on any task no matter what the risk. They would fight in heroic battles and many of them would never return home or would spend a lifetime with severe injuries. Working closely with my veterans in San Diego, I have heard firsthand accounts of the heroics on the battlefield and what our young men had to endure to win the war, including one who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, another who fought in the famous Battle for Midway, and one who was held as a prisoner of war by the Japanese for several years. We achieved victory only because these service members were willing to fight and willing to do whatever it took to win. We must also not forget the others who were crucial to our great victory. Women were not eligible for full military status at the time, but this did not prevent them from making vast contributions. Women worked as laborers, engineers, and managers to produce the equipment our soldiers relied upon in the battlefield. Women also put themselves directly in harm's way by working as medical personnel in battle zones. Women performed so well and were so crucial to our victory, the War Department would soon establish women's corps in the different branches leading to full military status for them. We also broke stiff racial barriers during World War II. The Tuskegee Airmen, a squad of African-American pilots, were among the most elite who flew during the war and are credited with contributing to the desegregation of the Air Force. We must also remember those from other nations who took up arms for the United States--specifically the Filipino veterans who fought alongside American soldiers in the Pacific. As we dedicate the World War II Monument on our National Mall and celebrate the 60th Anniversary of D-Day, I hope we will remember the commitment by all of those who were crucial to our victory. Please join me in paying tribute to those who would become known as the ``Greatest Generation.''

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an important issue facing our community: the affordability of long-term care. People today are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average life expectancy was 23. In the United States today, life expectancy at birth is 80 years. While this increased life expectancy is allowing us to live fuller lives, it is also presenting us with serious financial challenges. Half of all older Americans who live alone will ``spend'' themselves into poverty after only 13 weeks in a nursing home. My own family had to make difficult emotional and financial decisions when my father needed care. My dad was a pediatrician, and always lived a full life. When he needed care, my sister and I struggled to find the perfect place for him to live. We wanted to make sure he was happy and received high quality medical care. We searched for months to find the right place for our dad and we learned very quickly how expensive long-term care is. Fortunately, we had the financial resources to take care of him, but many families do not. My experience with my dad renewed my commitment to improve our long- term care system. I took on this mission in Congress and I am pleased today to reintroduce the Long Term Care Support and Incentive Act. This much needed legislation will make a real difference for San Diegans caring for older family members. First, the bill will give a $4,000 tax credit for seniors with long- term care needs and their caregivers. We know how many sacrifices families make to take care of their loved ones. They miss work, or in some cases are forced to give up their jobs. They pay for expensive medical supplies and equipment, and bare the burden of enormous medical bills. This tax credit will help ease their financial burden. The second section of my legislation will establish a tax deduction for long-term care insurance premiums. As the long-term care needs in our community increase, we must face the reality that many seniors do not have family or friends to take care of them full time. This is particularly important to women. Women live longer than men. Often times, women are the primary caregivers for their husbands. After their husbands pass away, there is often no one around to take care of them. Long-Term Care Insurance can help fill this gap, but premiums can be expensive. My legislation will make long-term care insurance more affordable by allowing individuals over 65 to deduct 75 percent of the cost of their premiums and individuals under 65 to deduct 50 percent of the cost of their premiums. In addition, I have included several important consumer protections in the bill to ensure that people are purchasing responsible insurance plans that will adequately meet their long-term care needs. The bill requires plans to include: Mandatory Inflation Protection. A Lifetime Deductible Requirement that ensures policy holders must only pay their deductible one time in their lifetime. Mandatory Interchangeability so that individuals can determine where their benefits are spent. A Care Coordination program that ensures seniors receive assistance in planning and securing the services they need. By encouraging people to plan ahead for the future and purchase Long- Term Care Insurance, we can ensure that seniors live dignified and independent lives. I urge all of my colleagues in Congress to work with me to pass it quickly into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who has championed this issue for many years.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows military personnel and their family members serving overseas to use their own funds to obtain safe, legal abortion service in overseas U.S. military hospitals. As a former military spouse who lived overseas, I understand what this amendment means for the more than 100,000 women who presently reside on overseas military bases. Current law leaves our servicewomen with two grim options. They can go home after they receive authorization and find space on a military transport or they can seek an abortion in an unsafe, unsanitary foreign hospital. Any way you look at it, both options force them to gamble their health. These women, who have already sacrificed so much, must also forfeit their privacy, their health and the very liberties they are fighting to protect. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that they deserve better. So let me clarify a few points about this amendment. No Federal funds would be used. This amendment affects only U.S. military facilities overseas and it does not violate host country laws. It does not compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle to perform one. It will, however, open up reproductive services at bases in countries where abortion is legal. I hope Members will support our servicewomen by supporting the Davis- Sanchez-Harmon amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this bill. This bill contains important provisions for our troops, including a well-deserved pay raise and additional force protection equipment. I would like to thank my colleague from San Diego, the distinguished chairman of the committee, for resisting calls from the Defense Department to grant further relief from important environmental laws. Despite the great provisions in this legislation, some serious questions remain, and I will address one. If you ask the Defense Department today to tell you the number of contractor personnel serving in Iraq, you will get a shrug. That represents a fundamental area of concern. The events in Fallujah and the images of Abu Ghraib remind us of the role that contractor personnel play and how their actions can affect the military mission. We must come to terms with contractor participation and performance on the battlefield. The questions that must be answered include: Why are so many contractors being used in Iraq and other places? Does anyone really know how many are present? Who is responsible for ensuring contractors are properly trained and qualified? And to whom are the various contractors accountable? Are they providing security for the military, or is it the other way around? This bill authorizes an additional $25 billion for operations in fiscal year 2005, a figure that should have been included in the President's budget request. So before this Congress approves additional funding, we must come to terms with money being spent on contractor personnel. Mr. Chairman, lives are at stake.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong condemnation of the atrocious behavior of a few, who have denigrated the values of all our armed forces. I salute the overwhelming majority of Americans who have treated prisoners with respect; their actions have gone unheralded. Sadly, this dreadful behavior has cast a cloak of mistrust on all our brave men and women and could result in more lives being lost. Mr. Speaker, we can't ignore the role that contractors and other government agencies have played and their complicity in these crimes. Their actions, as well as our policies, contributed to a terrible atmosphere. That's why I am disappointed this body failed to add a clause regarding U.S. civilian contractors personnel and other U.S. civilians. We must shed light on their role and hold everyone accountable. The Attorney General and Secretary Rumsfeld should publicly commit to cooperate to apply swift and firm justice.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 598 honoring teachers in military-impacted schools. Mr. Speaker, this is Teachers' Week, honoring all teachers, but we especially thank those who work in our communities that have large numbers of military families. San Diego is the proud home of the largest number of Marine and Naval personnel and their families in the country. And we are all very well aware of the sacrifices of these families, including members of the Reserves and the National Guard are making as their loved ones have deployed to Iraq. Many have had their tours extended or have just returned to Iraq for a second tour. To give these members of our armed services peace of mind, it is important that they can count on their children having a stable and caring school environment. Every one of us can surely recall how difficult it is to concentrate on our work when our lives are disrupted. For children, the anxiety of a parent leaving for the battlefield for an indeterminate amount of time is especially traumatic. Having a loving teacher who understands that a child may be tense or anxious or unable to concentrate because he has just said good-bye to a parent is important, not only to that child, but also to the parents. Nearly 40 percent of the students in Coronado, one of the communities in my district, are related to the military, with many living in housing on base. So we know that every day, teachers and administrators in the district are seriously impacted by the fact that we have many, many people serving overseas today, and they are there with loving hugs and caring for the children. Sometimes, as it has been stated here today, we undermine their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us not to do that, because we need to salute their efforts so that teachers, the administration, and staff in this district and every other district in the country that receives Federal Impact Aid, we say a special thank you today.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, during the first session of this Congress, the Subcommittee on Benefits of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs held a hearing concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) fiduciary program. When a veteran has difficulty managing his own finances, the VA appoints a guardian or a ``fiduciary'' to oversee his benefits. During the hearing, I was surprised to learn that there is no mechanism in place to provide replacement of benefits for VA beneficiaries whose benefits have been misused by a VA recognized fiduciary. Unfortunately, some of our veterans have lost out on their VA benefits because of fiduciary misuse. According to an investigation by the Inspector General, one woman embezzled over $60,000 in VA payments from 1997 to 2001 from a disabled veteran under her care. In another case, a fiduciary defrauded his uncle out of nearly $55,000 in VA payments. A good number of our veterans must live on limited budgets and rely primarily on their VA payments. When they lose even a portion of their benefits, the impact on the quality of their lives can be significant. I was also surprised to learn that Congress has not improved on the safeguards for veterans who depend on fiduciaries in over 25 years. It is time we do something to prevent fraud against our veterans and to provide remedies when benefits are misused. Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Veterans Fiduciary Act of 2004,'' which would provide veterans and their families new protections and new avenues to recoup their losses. This bill would require the replacement of benefits in cases when the VA has been negligent in failing to investigate or monitor a fiduciary and in certain other circumstances. It will also require the VA to conduct background checks before recognizing a fiduciary and will give the VA new mechanisms to deter misuse, including civil monetary fines. Again, I strongly believe we should be doing more to protect the VA benefits our veterans rely upon. I am proud to introduce legislation to give our most vulnerable veterans the protection they deserve.

Mrs. SUSAN DAVIS of California

Mrs. SUSAN DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I am here today because I am deeply concerned about the devastating impact House Concurrent Resolution 393 could have on my community of San Diego. As many of you know, my home state of California is in the midst of its own budget crisis. To cope with our oversized deficit, the Governor and State Legislature have had to make significant cuts to many of our most vital programs and services. And as our State struggles to rebuild its economy, I am concerned that we are not taking the right steps here, in Congress, to provide States like California with the resources they need to maintain even the most basic day-to-day functions that our citizens have come to depend upon. And when I look at the cuts this budget resolution makes to education, housing, the environment, veterans health care, homeland security, local law enforcement, and Social Security--I am concerned that this legislation fails to reflect the needs and priorities of San Diego's families and businesses. To illustrate this point, I would like to talk about a few key areas that have been left behind by this resolution. For example, this budget resolution deeply undercuts funding for homeland security, State and local law enforcement, and the community- based COPS Program. People often forget just how much we rely on our local law enforcement personnel to defend our homeland security. Short-changing police at the State and local level ultimately weakens our ability to defend our cities, ports, and borders. With the terrorist bombing in Madrid just a few weeks ago, we are reminded of the need to expand our policing efforts to protect vulnerable targets like mass transportation. Yet there are simply not enough law enforcement personnel in my district to patrol this critical infrastructure, and without adequate funding, it will remain that way. San Diego is home to a busy international airport, a major port, Navy installations, Marine bases, and is adjacent to the busiest border crossing in the country. We cannot afford these massive cuts in State and local law enforcement and homeland security. Like so many other localities, our dedicated policemen and women want to help. But their hands are tied. Mr. Chairman, the other issue I want to talk about today is just how destructive cuts to the section 8 program could be for San Diego. My family and I have lived in San Diego for more than 30 years, and I will be the first to tell you how wonderful it is to call such a beautiful community home. Unfortunately, with an average median home cost of more than $468,000, it has become unbearably difficult for many hopeful homebuyers to live in our great city. And it is not just home prices that are increasingly out of range for the average citizen. The average apartment rent in San Diego is over $1 thousand, and families need to earn more than $22 per hour to afford to rent a two- bedroom apartment. Our waiting list for section 8 vouchers averages about 25 thousand individuals, many of whom have been on the list for 6 or 7 years before finally receiving a voucher. I hear all too often stories of individuals or families struggling to make ends meet, yet are still unable to afford San Diego's housing or even rental costs. I know of a retired minister in his seventies with a serious heart condition, who is constantly faced with the choice of filling his heart medication prescription or paying his rent. There are residents in my district, who have been displaced and-- unable to afford rent anywhere else--have been forced to live in motels or even in their own cars. A San Diego paramedic with a wife and small children struggled to get by until they finally qualified to live in an affordable housing development funded by our local Housing Commission. But just imagine--this man was saving lives in our own community and yet he was unable to afford to live there! Mr. Chairman, it is just not right for our first responders and police officers to be priced out of the very community they put their lives on the line to protect each day. Section 8 is a vital, successful program, and my community simply cannot afford to withstand the cuts proposed in this measure. We should be doing more--not less--to help hard-working Americans find safe, affordable places to live, and I ask my colleagues to consider the critical shortfalls included in this budget when we vote on this resolution.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I participated in a number of homeland security simulations with the National Defense University, and I learned that one of the most significant issues in homeland security is the importance of the local response. This local response falls squarely on the shoulders of our first responders, which is why I am concerned that this budget fails to provide them with the support that they need. By cutting homeland security funding below the President's request, this budget provides no remedy to address the President's cuts in first responder spending. People often forget how much we rely on our local first responders to protect our homeland security. Although we have adopted new systems, new technologies, and meaningful homeland security, it requires dedicated people to work the front lines. I believe that we can play a much stronger role in supporting our first responders. In fact, we have played that role in the past by providing them with the funding and the resources they need. Is now really the time, Mr. Chairman, to cut back?

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it jeopardizes Even Start for children and families.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join my colleague from Nebraska, Tom Osborne, in support of House Resolution 491, which recognizes the critical role of mentors in our children's lives. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, ``It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.'' I can think of no better way to summarize the true reward of mentoring than by recognizing the inherent truth in this statement. The mentoring partnership is unique, because it is one of the few relationships where both sides stand to benefit immensely. Both individuals bring their own--and oftentimes, very different--set of life experiences to the table, and this has the pleasantly surprising effect of forcing us outside of our own comfort zones. It is easy for us to relate to those with whom we share obvious similarities, but venturing outside of that comfort zone gives us the opportunity to view the world from an entirely different perspective. While it may seem too difficult, or uncomfortable at first, you will find that you are a richer person for it in the end. My experiences as the executive director of the Aaron Price Fellows Program have also taught me a great deal about the rewards of mentoring. Being a mentor is not about rescuing someone--but it is about helping young people to discover their own hidden strengths and talents. In today's world, children need more than a sense of right and wrong. They need knowledge, and they need someone they can trust to provide it to them. The risk factors that face teenagers today are not only dangerous--they are prevalent. If we fail our responsibility to educate young people on the choices they face, then we fail to prepare them to make the right decisions. And the decisions they make will impact them for the rest of their lives--for better or for worse. In these situations, the most important information they can receive will come not from a textbook, but from the wisdom and experience of someone who cares; someone who has taken the time to invest in that young person's life and to share the lessons life has to offer. It is here that we have the greatest potential to make a difference. Believe it or not, the relationship built on trust and mutual respect can be the one that finally opens the door to knowledge. It leads the way to a stronger sense of self and an ability to confront life's challenges wisely. To put it in the simplest of terms--mentoring matters. No matter what side of the mentoring relationship you find yourself on, the rewards will last a lifetime.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks expressing my opposition to this bill, which fails to provide women with the affordable and reliable Medicare prescription drug coverage that they desperately need. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about older women and their need for a real prescription drug benefit. The legislation we have before us represents a hollow substitute for a bona fide Medicare prescription drug benefit. Every week, I hear from seniors overwhelmed with the cost of prescription drugs. Many find themselves juggling their expenses--often putting off paying some bills--in order to buy their medication. These seniors, our parents and grandparents, who have worked their whole lives and contributed to making our nation great never imagined they would spend their retirement struggling to make ends meet. Congress must act and provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit. Our seniors--especially older women who, literally, are the face of Medicare--are counting on Congress to provide a real solution to the rising cost of prescription drugs. However, this debate has moved beyond providing prescription drugs to seriously undermine Medicare. The Medicare conference report before us disportionately harms older women in the following ways: Women account for the majority of people who are on both Medicare and Medicaid. However, this proposal prohibits Medicaid from continuing to provide the poorest and sickest women with drugs that certain Medicare drug plans may not cover. Older and sicker beneficiaries, often women, have not joined HMOs and tend to rely on the traditional Medicare program. This conference report is harmful to older and sicker women because its ``premium support'' provisions would undermine the traditional Medicare program and cause costs in that program to rise. Nearly eight in ten women on Medicare use prescription drugs regularly. This legislation is harmful to women because it prohibits the government from negotiating price controls on drugs, leading to higher drug costs for both seniors. Where is the benefit for women who are living on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket during the coverage gap? Where is the benefit for the women who, because they were stay-at- home mothers and did not earn a pension, cannot afford the prescription drugs they desperately need? For my constituents, this legislation is not good enough. I cannot support this legislation when I know we can do better. We are doing more than providing prescription drugs, we are legislating the future of Medicare.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I support providing our seniors with prescription drug benefits under Medicare. It is one of the most important efforts we have undertaken this session, and, I believe, one of the most attainable. This is why I rise, with regret, to oppose this Medicare Conference Report. The legislation before us fails our seniors and places them at the mercy of private plans and insurance companies. There are some good items in this legislation. For example, the increased funding for hospitals and hard-working physicians is greatly needed in our communities. Unfortunately, the overall bill does not accomplish what our seniors need. When I reviewed this legislation, I needed to answer the following questions: ``What are the benefits for our seniors?'' and ``What do the changes mean in the long run?'' In the very limited amount of time I had to review this legislation, I have concluded that, in reality, this Medicare bill will hurt seniors by making health care less reliable and more costly. We needed a prescription drug bill. We received, instead, legislation that has been called a ``Medicare monstrosity.'' It mandates huge changes to Medicare, but evades the underlying issue of providing seniors with a comprehensive prescription drug benefit. This legislation ends Medicare's guarantees to seniors. It gives billions for managed care, for tax shelters, and for many other special interests unrelated to prescription drugs. It significantly worsens current levels of coverage for millions of Medicare beneficiaries with increased Part B premiums and threats of disappearing employer benefits. Are all of these changes worth a weak drug benefit that will disappoint millions of seniors? No. Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better! At townhall meetings and in thousands of letters, phone calls and emails, seniors have told me that they want a prescription drug benefit that is affordable, comprehensive, and guaranteed, and they would like the coverage provided in the current Medicare system. The bill before us meets none of these standards. Instead this bill will make our seniors anxious--anxious about substantial cost increases; anxious about having to switch doctors; and anxious about losing he security that Medicare has provided for almost 40 years. The Conference Report before us is a missed opportunity. I hope Congress does the right thing by going back to the drawing board, and giving seniors a reliable and affordable prescription drug benefit. We can do better or our seniors--and we must! Join me in defeating this bill and working to pass legislation that truly addresses our seniors' needs.