[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1203-1207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2255. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to 
prohibit removal of covered part D drugs from a prescription drug plan 
formulary during the plan once an individual has enrolled in the plan; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
along with Senators Collins, Dorgan, Snowe, Bingaman, Chafee, Clinton, 
Schumer, Murray and Boxer to ensure that when a senior signs up for a 
Medicare prescription drug plan, the drugs covered by their plan cannot 
be removed or changed throughout that year.
  Under the legislation, if you sign up for a plan in January, the 
drugs covered by your plan will continue to be covered the rest of that 
year.
  If you become eligible for Medicare during the year, for instance you 
turn 65 in May, and you sign up for a plan, the drugs covered by your 
plan when you enroll in it will continue to be covered the rest of that 
year.
  At the end of the year, if a plan wants to change its coverage, it 
can do that. The bill does nothing to prevent plans from changing their 
drug coverage for the coming year. However, that can only happen at the 
end of the year, at the time all Medicare beneficiaries have the option 
to switch plans.
  Seniors deserve the peace of mind to know that the drug plan they 
enroll in will cover the drugs it says it will all year.

[[Page 1204]]

  Under current law, a prescription drug plan can change its formulary 
as many times as it wants throughout the year so long as it gives 
notice to its enrollees.
  However, seniors have no recourse other than going through a lengthy 
appeals process if their drug plan suddenly drops their medicines. At 
the end of that appeals process, there is still no guarantee that 
seniors will get their drugs.
  Under current law, they have to wait until the next open enrollment 
period which may be as much as nine months away. That is unacceptable.
  Seniors can't and shouldn't have to wait all year to obtain 
lifesaving and life sustaining drugs they thought would be covered by 
their drug plan.
  The bill allows a prescription drug plan to add drugs to its 
formulary--for instance in cases where a new drug is approved by the 
FDA or a generic alternative to a brand name drug becomes available.
  The bill also allows a prescription drug plan to remove a drug from 
its formulary if the FDA issues a clinical warning about the drug, if 
the FDA pulls a drug from the market like in the case of Vioxx, or if 
the drug has been determined to be ineffective.
  But, in those instances, the prescription drug plan must notify the 
HHS Secretary, affected enrollees, physicians, and pharmacies of the 
change.
  Seniors in California have an overwhelming array of prescription drug 
plan options. There are at least 110 drug plan options for 
Californians.
  It can take days, if not weeks to determine which plan is best based 
on your drug needs and health status.
  Unless this bill is approved, seniors have no guarantee that their 
drugs will be covered throughout the year.
  I think that is wrong. This legislation will change that.
  Some might argue why this bill is necessary now. We are one month 
into the new Medicare drug benefit and what we have witnessed 
throughout the Nation is widespread confusion. Seniors are being turned 
away at the pharmacy counters and they are being incorrectly asked to 
pay hundreds of dollars for their drugs.
  States are absorbing the costs to provide drugs for a Federal 
program. So far, California has spent more than $18 million of its own 
money. I support efforts to reimburse States fully for the drug costs 
they've absorbed as a result of implementation errors by this 
Administration and I support transitional relief for the so-called 
``dual eligible'' Medicare beneficiaries whose transition from Medicaid 
to Medicare has been disastrous.
  The Administration contends that this legislation isn't necessary 
because plans can't change their formularies without notifying the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and enrollees first 
and that CMS won't allow plans to make changes to their formularies 
that hurt seniors.
  This ``just trust us'' argument being used by the Administration is 
anything but reassuring, especially given all the major program 
implementation problems it has caused due to poor planning and 
inadequate foresight.
  I believe seniors deserve more and they deserve the protections 
guaranteed under this legislation.
  We must act now to protect all Medicare beneficiaries from the type 
of ``bait and switch'' tactics like signing up for a plan thinking you 
were getting certain drugs only to find out down the road that those 
drugs were no longer covered.
  The bill is about parity for seniors. If seniors are prohibited from 
changing drug plans except during the annual open enrollment period, 
then they deserve to know that the plan they are locked in to is also 
locked in to covering the drugs it said it would.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feinstein, 
Collins and a number of my other colleagues to introduce the Medicare 
Drug Formulary Protection Act of 2006. This legislation will improve 
the new Medicare prescription drug benefit by preventing prescription 
drug plans from unexpectedly dropping coverage of prescription drugs 
that were covered when seniors enrolled in the plan.
  Although seniors enrolled in the new Medicare drug program are only 
able to change their health plans once a year, nothing prevents 
insurers from dropping drugs from their plans on a whim. Under current 
law, prescription drug plans can change which drugs they cover as long 
as they provide 60 days notice to their enrollees.
  It is difficult enough for seniors to navigate the confusion and 
complexity the Administration has built into the Medicare prescription 
drug benefit. They ought to be able to do so secure in the knowledge 
that once they have picked a plan, the plan will not change on them 
midstream. Seniors need the protection and certainty this legislation 
extends to them.
  I had some hopes for this new Medicare plan, but it has become a 
complete and utter mess. In North Dakota, we have 41 different plans 
being offered by 17 different companies, and we have the highest 
percentage of senior citizens in the nation with no prescription drug 
coverage.
  In North Dakota, 68 percent of seniors still do not have prescription 
drug coverage. With the sign-up period nearly one-third over, only 
9,000 seniors in North Dakota have voluntarily signed up for the 
program. More than 70,000 seniors still lack coverage.
  Other States in the northern Great Plains region are not far behind. 
Fully 67 percent of South Dakota seniors have no prescription drug 
coverage and in Montana 65 percent lack coverage. Wyoming also ranks 
high, with 61 percent of its seniors without prescription drug 
coverage.
  I have asked Secretary Leavitt to dispatch a survey team to North 
Dakota and neighboring States to determine why enrollment rates in the 
new Medicare prescription drug program are among the lowest in the 
nation in our region of the country.
  In the meantime, we need to enact the Medicare Drug Formulary 
Protection Act and other commonsense reforms like the Medicare Informed 
Choice Act and the Medicare State Recovery Act.
  The Medicare Informed Choice Act would extend the enrollment deadline 
until December 31, 2006. We need to enact this legislation right away. 
Seniors need more time to evaluate their options. Extending the 
enrollment deadline will also give Congress time to address some of the 
problems that have kept more seniors from enrolling in the benefit.
  The Medicare State Recovery Act will ensure States are reimbursed for 
the cost of prescriptions for low-income seniors and people with 
disabilities who were improperly denied coverage under Medicare.
  I want this new benefit to work. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
support these efforts to improve the benefit and make it less confusing 
for seniors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2256. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure the 
availability to all Americans of high-quality, advanced 
telecommunications and broadband services, technologies, and networks 
at just, reasonable, and affordable rates, and to establish a permanent 
mechanism to guarantee specific, sufficient, and predictable support 
for the preservation and advancement of universal service, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a special day to those of us who 
serve on the Commerce Committee and have served on the Commerce 
Committee ever since we have been in the Senate because today is the 
10th anniversary of the Telecom Act of 1996. I want to talk about a 
bill I am introducing today as the Internet and Universal Service Act 
of 1996, or the NetUSA, if you will.
  When I first came here and went to work, I was very much interested 
in telecommunications. The big reason is in my State of Montana we have 
only 900,000 people but we have 148,000 square miles. I remind my 
colleagues, if you drew a straight line from Yaak, MT, to Alzada, MT, 
it is farther than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC.
  So we went to work in telecommunications for the simple reason we had 
to

[[Page 1205]]

do something about distances, and we did. But it took almost 6 or 7 
years before we came up with a bill that overhauled the old Telco Act 
of 1935. What we were trying to do is deal with the 1990s technology 
with a 1930 law and we found it almost impossible to do, so the whole 
act had to be rewritten.
  Since the Telecom Act, the only thing that is certain is change. With 
change, several trends have emerged, including the development of new 
technologies, industry consolidation and convergence, and product 
bundling.
  The pace of technological change has been astounding. We have a 
plethora of new technologies including WiFi and WiMAX, and all new 
words in telecommunications--wireless Internet access, voice over 
Internet protocol, which we refer to now as VOIP, the telephone service 
using the Internet and broadband over powerline--BPL--for Internet 
access via electrical lines.
  While the Telecom Act promised industry and technology convergence, 
only recently is it materializing--with telephone, cable, and wireless 
companies invading one another's turf. Cable companies are offering 
television service over the Internet, telephone companies are offering 
video services over their facilities. New technologies have brought 
consumers a variety of choices for local, long distance, video, 
wireless, and Internet services, and many companies are offering 
bundled services.
  The radical transformation of the industry has led some to call for a 
complete rewrite to the Telecom Act. Central issues in the debate today 
are the reform of the Universal Service Fund--the USF, reform of 
intercarrier compensation, franchising issues for video providers, and 
net neutrality are some among a whole host of other challenges.
  As Congress begins working to rewrite the telecom laws, my central 
focus will be encouraging broadband deployment in every corner of the 
U.S. and preserving and improving universal service. Broadband 
deployment is more vital now than ever before, and it is a key to our 
future. In the 21st century, how do we compete against workers who work 
in economies of scale and their salaries are a little bit less than 
ours? We ensure that U.S. workers can obtain broadband services at 
affordable prices no matter where they live in this great country.
  The GAO recently agreed, recommending the Government make more 
broadband infrastructure investments to improve the U.S. workforce's 
human capital and skill level. I think the President talked much about 
this in his State of the Union.
  Technology provides a greater chance to live where you want and hold 
a good job. If a community does not have broadband, it is at a huge 
competitive disadvantage. It is just that simple.
  Even though the technologies were developed in the United States, we 
still lag behind other countries in the deployment of broadband. We 
need to provide incentives for companies to continue to expand their 
broadband facilities and to ensure all Americans have access to the 
Internet, regardless of where they live--particularly since, although 
Internet penetration has grown in rural communities, a gap still exists 
between them and the suburban and urban communities.
  One way I will provide such incentive is to continue my support of 
universal service, although it may take a little bit different 
direction in the distribution. The nearly 100-year commitment Congress 
and this Nation have had to USF has been indispensable in providing the 
same opportunities for rural America to participate in the Nation's 
education and health care systems that exist for Americans in urban 
areas, and for every American to participate fully in the Internet 
economy.
  Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to the surge in 
economic growth and raised the living standards across rural America, 
universal service plays the same role in the Internet era. We didn't 
get electricity on my farm until early in the 1950s. I can remember 
when you used to go to town and that electricity seemed like a pretty 
special thing. Had not the Government created the REC, or the rural 
electrics, I contend that out on the farm we would still be watching 
television by candlelight.
  Without universal service support, phone bills in rural areas across 
the country, such as Montana, would increase dramatically. Universal 
service also helps to ensure that schools and libraries receive access 
to the Internet at rates they can afford. Because of universal service, 
the Internet now reaches almost all school-age children, no matter 
where they live. Universal service helped link rural health facilities 
to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine. My State of Montana 
is on the cutting edge of that. Many people in remote communities would 
not have access to health care just using the Internet. The all-
important issue in Montana is where these counties do not even have a 
doctor. I have 13 counties that have no physician.
  For those who say universal service no longer makes sense, or that it 
should be repealed or scaled back, I encourage them to visit my State 
and see the fund in action. As one official from a carrier serving a 
remote corner of Alaska recently commented, universal service is ``more 
than a line item on a bill. . . . [It] provides a link to the outside 
world.''
  That is not to say that changes do not need to be made in universal 
service. They do need to be made. It is a different world. Technologies 
are different and we must respond. As the length of time that new 
technologies emerge shortens, we must be able to deal with them. As 
consumers switch to new technologies such as wireless service, e-mail, 
voice over IP, universal service is slowly taking in less money every 
year. Therein lies the problem.
  At the same time, the amount of money we disburse is increasing. This 
situation is obviously not sustainable, nor is it acceptable to 
Congress.
  Additionally, we need to ensure the universal service is distributed 
where it is needed. The Senator from Alabama understands universal 
service and the impact it has on rural Alabama. In revising universal 
service to adapt to the changing technology landscape, it is essential 
to maintain the commitment levels to universal service programs to 
foster the continued availability of telecom and advanced services in 
rural communities, and to strengthen and improve the overall fund.
  My proposed legislation will speed up deployment of broadband in 
rural areas and preserve and improve universal service.
  Some things my bill seeks to do are to ensure that companies that 
receive universal service funds will invest in deployed broadband 
services; to ensure that universal service support contributions are 
assessed in a fair and competitively neutral manner; ensuring the 
integrity of the Schools and Libraries Program to deter waste, fraud, 
and abuse by strengthening the FCC's management and oversight, 
including imposing sanctions on applicants or vendors who repeatedly 
and knowingly violate the rules. That is what my bill does, in part. 
Lastly, improving the effectiveness of rural health care programs. It 
is unbelievable what we can do for rural health care when we can move 
massive amounts of information.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative 
solutions to these issues that are so vital to our Nation's future. It 
is the 10th anniversary. It took us almost 50 years--in fact, a little 
over 50 years, to change the act in 1996. This time, we had to act a 
little bit quicker because emerging technologies wait for no man. They 
are there, they are being used, and we must deal with them as they 
emerge.
  I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me this little time and 
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the passage of the 
universal bill in this body.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 2257. A bill to provide for an enhanced refundable credit for 
families who resided in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area on August 
28, 2005; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane

[[Page 1206]]

Katrina Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2006. I am proud to introduce 
this bill, along with Senators Landrieu, Durbin, and Kerry, to keep a 
promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of 
Hurricane Katrina. Last week the Senate approved a $70 billion bill 
laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. This bill, 
which costs less than 1 percent as much, uses a proven tool in our tax 
code--the child tax credit--to extend aid to low-income working 
families affected by Hurricane Katrina.
  Currently, the child credit allows families with qualifying children 
to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income 
tax. Unfortunately, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit 
from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out 
of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which 
has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full 
benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, 
or even more if the child has siblings. And if her parents' income does 
not keep up with inflation, for any reason, the value of the credit 
drops or even disappears.
  We all know of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. It will 
be a long time before families on the Gulf Coast can rebuild their 
lives. Many of them have seen their homes destroyed, their jobs 
eliminated, their families separated, and their lives irrevocably 
changed. Unfortunately, the Federal response so far has been inadequate 
to get these families effectively back on their feet. We are now 
learning of thousands of evacuees getting kicked out of their hotel 
rooms because FEMA has stopped paying the bills.
  We can do better for these families. Life was hard for many of them 
even before Katrina hit. Prior to the hurricane, there were over 2 
million people living below poverty in the affected States. In some of 
the affected counties and parishes, more than 1 in 4 children lived 
below the poverty level.
  In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 
900,000 children under 17-years-old were so poor that they got no child 
tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest 
rates in the Nation of children too poor to get the full credit.
  This bill will provide necessary assistance to many of these 
families. The bill eliminates the income threshold that excluded all 
children in families with less than $11,000 of income. With this bill, 
the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane 
Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit.
  It's simple: if you work, your kids get a benefit. This bill provides 
a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income 
for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. You 
work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit.
  That's a commonsense way to support families with children, 
especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological 
and financial--of a natural disaster.
  This bill is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It 
provides short-term support targeted at families affected by the 
hurricane, and its costs can easily be absorbed within the $97 billion 
already committed to hurricane relief.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will enable hundreds 
of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children to see an 
increase in their credit. Katrina offered a reminder of poverty in our 
own country. Let's not forget so quickly. We owe it to the American 
people to do something to provide a chance for our neediest children to 
rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 2259. A bill to establish an Office of Public Integrity in the 
Congress and a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to 
build on the excellent work my colleagues began with the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act.
  That bill would close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and 
lobbying jobs. It would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and 
travel, and it would shine a bright light of monitoring and public 
disclosure on lobbyists' operations, secret conference committee 
negotiations and last-minute special-interest provisions.
  These are important steps forward that should be approved by this 
Congress and signed into law. The first bill I am introducing now 
builds on these steps by focusing on enforcement. We can pass all the 
new ethics rules in the world, but if we don't establish a body that 
can monitor and enforce those rules, it'll be easy to break them.
  My legislation will establish a nonpartisan, independent 
Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission that would investigate 
ethics violations and report their findings to the public.
  The idea of an independent Commission to conduct initial 
investigations is not new. It is modeled on successful efforts in a 
number of States including Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee. Similar 
commissions in those States have a track record of working well and 
making the ethics enforcement process much more effective.
  My commission would be staffed with former judges and former members 
of Congress, and it would allow any citizen to report a possible ethics 
violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. It would have the 
authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and provide 
public reports to the Senate Ethics Committee or Department of Justice 
so that any wrongdoing can be punished accordingly.
  To prevent this Commission from being manipulated for partisan 
political purposes, the bill establishes stiff sanctions for the filing 
of frivolous complaints, and prohibits the filing of complaints three 
months before an election.
  Although, the ultimate power to reprimand members would remain with 
the Ethics Committees in Congress and the Department of Justice, the 
new Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission would make these bodies 
more effective by removing political pressure from the initial fact-
finding phase of ethics investigations. In addition, the Commission's 
independent capacity to issue public findings would encourage the 
Ethics Committees to act.
  I am proud that this legislation has support across the political 
spectrum, earning the endorsement of both Common Cause and Norm 
Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said this about 
my enforcement bill: ``This approach to ethics enforcement is just the 
kind of balanced and reasonable alternative we need. ... It deserves 
strong bipartisan support.''
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in creating this 
Commission to restore credibility to the body on the enforcement of 
ethics.
  I am also introducing legislation to build on the CLEAN UP Act (S. 
2179) that I introduced last month.
  The CLEAN UP Act was written to provide for greater transparency in 
the legislative process and in conference committees in particular. It 
has won the support of eight of my colleagues, and I hope the 
Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act that I am introducing today 
will gain their support, as well as the rest of my colleagues.
  The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require that 
information about all earmarks, including the name of the lawmaker 
requesting it and a justification of why they want it, be disclosed 72 
hours before they are considered by the full Senate.
  The bill would also place some common-sense limits on earmarks. 
Members would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have 
a financial interest in the project or its recipient. Earmarks also 
could not be used to secure promises from lawmakers in exchange for a 
vote on a bill. Finally, earmark recipients would have to disclose the 
amount that they spent on lobbyists in order to get their project 
passed. These earmark reforms won't solve every abuse, but the idea is

[[Page 1207]]

this: if you're proud enough about an earmark to issue a press release 
about it, then you should be able to defend it to the public.
  Several of these ideas are contained in a bill introduced by Rep. 
David Obey. I am grateful for his leadership on this issue in the 
House.
  I know this is not the only proposal on earmarks before the Senate. 
But I believe this combines the best ideas without creating procedural 
roadblocks to legitimate projects in our communities. This is a 
balanced approach that I believe a majority of the Senate can--and 
should--support.

                          ____________________