Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is also a nurse, for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez). (Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We would be happy to cooperate. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that we can rise for the unanimous consent request to say that we oppose the bill?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. Lowey asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I said earlier today when I heard the long list of people who support this bill. We have to ask ourselves do they know what in the world is in it? Because we certainly do not. Seniors, we do know, are drowning from the high cost of prescription drugs and the Republicans are telling them to swim towards an HMO. To paraphrase the old saying, ``Congress giveth and Congress taketh away,'' but in this case it mostly takes away. Congress takes away any hope for meaningful prescription drug coverage. It takes away the existing employer-provided benefits and low-income protections from retirees, and it takes away Medicare as we know it. It lures seniors with the promise of generosity and then gives them a pittance. But when this bill does give, it is wonderfully generous. The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act is a boon for the pharmaceutical industry and for the insurance companies but does absolutely nothing to control the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. In fact, the bill forbids the government from doing anything about it. Drug prices have risen dramatically in the last 20 years, increasing 256 percent since 1980. For years seniors have called our Congress to do something about these crushing drug prices, but this plan does nothing to freeze or reduce the out-of-control prices of medications. What it does do, as I said, is prevent the government from using its market power to bring the prices down. The Veterans Administration has had great success in reducing drug prices by bargaining with the drug companies. Why would we purposely tie our own hands? Our health system is crumbling under the burden of the prescription drug costs. Tossing billions of dollars at insurance companies to get them to do what they do not want to do and 70 billion to corporations to get them to do what they should do and a boon to pharmaceutical companies by not allowing reimportation to please them is not going to buttress this health care system. That money would have been far better spent on the prescription drug program. But saddling the elderly with even greater drug costs and our children with even greater deficits is no way to solve a public health crisis. A few years ago, I organized a busload of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medicine at a fraction of the prices charged in the American market. We had dozens more people interested in the trip than we could accommodate, but the savings were anywhere from $100 to $650 on a 3-month supply of medication. Would it not be wonderful if the seniors could save that much at their local drug store? Unfortunately, this bill will not let them go to Canada anymore. Despite having passed the House twice, money-saving drug reimportation would be banned. The out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs would continue to consume more and more of the seniors' fixed income. Almost 40 years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress created the Medicare program and promised to help seniors with the burden of their health care costs. Private insurers did not want to offer the health insurance to older people any more than they do now. The premiums were raised to unaffordable levels, and seniors were dropped from health coverage altogether. Companies saw older people as a threat to the bottom line. So the Federal Government stepped in and filled the void in the marketplace. And now we face a similar situation. If insurers thought they could make a dollar or two by offering prescription drug coverage to seniors, the plans would have already been in the marketplace. The bill creates a new benefits program unwisely relying on insurance products that do not exist. The Republicans are hoping that a $12 billion slush fund will entice the private insurers to develop prescription drug insurance. But the lucrative pharmaceutical industry with about a 30 percent profit yearly is the big winner in this game. A blank check is being written to the big drug companies, and in the first 8 years of this program, the companies stand to make a windfall of $139 billion over and above their current profits of 30 percent annually. The market recognizes this plan as a boon for drug companies because the stock prices of the major companies went up just over the news that this bill is nearing completion. The proponents of privatizing Medicare also win. The scheme takes the first giant step to privatize Medicare. In six metropolitan areas, Medicare's guaranteed coverage would be replaced with what is essentially a voucher program to purchase private insurance with public money if they can find it. This ``demonstration'' could force up to 10 million seniors who want traditional fee-for-service Medicare to pay the higher premiums or turn to HMOs. Once Medicare is gone, there will never be another program ever like it in the United States paid for by payroll taxes. I am worried about the seniors that I represent, and it would be devastating for the seniors in western New York to lose those guaranteed benefits. Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, and the insurance industry had far more access to the negotiations than the Democrats did, as the Members have heard that story before, and I will not belabor it. But I do want to say something about the AARP. President William Novelli's endorsement of this plan is no surprise. The support is waved around as if it is the seal of approval of every American senior. But 210 national, State, and local organizations oppose the plan, and seniors from coast to coast are ripping up their AARP cards. Interestingly, Mr. Novelli is the founder of the firm Porter Novelli, the group behind the television ads that brought down the efforts to reform health care in the 1990's. Do any of the Members remember ``Harry and Louise''? Is Mr. Novelli hostile to meaningful health care reform, or can he just be paid to do anything, because $20 million in this bill goes to AARP? This is not the first time that Congress has messed with Medicare. Congress passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 without even providing the Members sufficient opportunity to read its pages, much like tonight, and the fine print. The result was a momentous backlash. American seniors were outraged with the legislation, so outraged that Congress was forced to repeal the law the very next year. Congress later created a Medicare+Choice program, which was also a failure. Within a few short years after its conception, private insurers dropped Medicare+Choice beneficiaries by the thousands, leaving them with no health benefits at all. My constituents are asking, does this face them again? I hope we remember our history and not repeat these mistakes and vote against this bill. But the prescription drug proposal before us is a placebo, not a cure. It fails seniors, the out-of-control cost of prescription drugs will remain unchecked, and some will argue that this scheme is better than nothing. But believe me, a bad bill is worse than no bill. Medicare must be preserved. To dismantle this historic program is to break the sacred promise that Congress made to seniors. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)