Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is the widows or orphans amendment. You have already voted on this, 92 to 6, last fall. It is eliminating the offset between two different programs taking care of widows and orphans. It is a cost of war, just as providing equipment and ammunition. It is a cost of war to take care of our widows or orphans. On the one hand, the service member pays for taking care of the survivors in the survivors benefit plan. On the other hand, the Veterans Department takes care of the dependents indemnity compensation. But those two are offset in current law. This eliminates the offset. I urge you to support the widows and the orphans.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, am I allocated 1 minute?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Do I need to call up amendment No. 3001?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my understanding that by unanimous consent my amendment is next in order.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, to introduce a bill to create an Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach within the Federal Trade Commission. Pyramid schemes, too-good-to-be-true business opportunities, miracle weight loss products--these are all examples of how average Americans are taken advantage of on a daily basis. These schemes have the potential to deplete an innocent person's bank accounts and ruin their finances and credit record for years to come. Some even damage people's health permanently--all for sake a making a few bucks. Unfortunately, Hispanics are twice as likely as other Americans to become victims of consumer fraud. In fact, 14.3 percent of Hispanics will fall prey to this type of crime. It's hard to know exactly why this is affecting Hispanics disproportionately. Some believe that disreputable businesses target certain communities because they believe victims are less likely to report crimes. In fact, data has shown that Hispanics are less likely to report incidents of fraud than other segments of the population. The Federal Trade Commission has levied an increasing number of complaints against deceptive Spanish-language advertisements, including fraudulent driving permits and junk computers in recent years. Two of these complaints were filed against businesses in South Florida that targeted Spanish speakers with advertisements for ``scientifically unfeasible'' weight-loss pills. The Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach created by this bill will provide information to targeted consumers in these communities on how to protect themselves against fraudulent schemes and where to seek redress if they become a victim. The Office will work with law enforcement to track and investigate fraud schemes that target immigrants, the elderly, minorities and other communities. This legislation will create, develop, and manage an anonymous tip program that will allow individuals to report fraud schemes that specifically target their community. The tip program will allow anyone with knowledge of a fraud scheme involving deceptive advertising to get a reward for reporting it directly to the experts who work at the Federal Trade Commission. To help publicize the reward program, the number for this newly created hotline would be included in a Spanish-language public service advertising campaign produced by the Federal Trade Commission that warns against consumer fraud and provides the number for this newly created anonymous hotline. Finally, the Office will work with law enforcement to increase their level of participation in the Consumer Sentinel database system. This database, currently in existence, collects information from local, State and Federal agencies on consumer complaints to assist in the tracking and investigating of consumer fraud issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, to introduce a bill to create an Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach within the Federal Trade Commission. Pyramid schemes, too-good-to-be-true business opportunities, miracle weight loss products--these are all examples of how average Americans are taken advantage of on a daily basis. These schemes have the potential to deplete an innocent person's bank accounts and ruin their finances and credit record for years to come. Some even damage people's health permanently--all for sake a making a few bucks. Unfortunately, Hispanics are twice as likely as other Americans to become victims of consumer fraud. In fact, 14.3 percent of Hispanics will fall prey to this type of crime. It's hard to know exactly why this is affecting Hispanics disproportionately. Some believe that disreputable businesses target certain communities because they believe victims are less likely to report crimes. In fact, data has shown that Hispanics are less likely to report incidents of fraud than other segments of the population. The Federal Trade Commission has levied an increasing number of complaints against deceptive Spanish-language advertisements, including fraudulent driving permits and junk computers in recent years. Two of these complaints were filed against businesses in South Florida that targeted Spanish speakers with advertisements for ``scientifically unfeasible'' weight-loss pills. The Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach created by this bill will provide information to targeted consumers in these communities on how to protect themselves against fraudulent schemes and where to seek redress if they become a victim. The Office will work with law enforcement to track and investigate fraud schemes that target immigrants, the elderly, minorities and other communities. This legislation will create, develop, and manage an anonymous tip program that will allow individuals to report fraud schemes that specifically target their community. The tip program will allow anyone with knowledge of a fraud scheme involving deceptive advertising to get a reward for reporting it directly to the experts who work at the Federal Trade Commission. To help publicize the reward program, the number for this newly created hotline would be included in a Spanish-language public service advertising campaign produced by the Federal Trade Commission that warns against consumer fraud and provides the number for this newly created anonymous hotline. Finally, the Office will work with law enforcement to increase their level of participation in the Consumer Sentinel database system. This database, currently in existence, collects information from local, State and Federal agencies on consumer complaints to assist in the tracking and investigating of consumer fraud issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I can sum this up in 60 seconds. The choice here is between a direction by the Congress to definitely extend the deadline, or the alternative Senator Grassley is offering, which is to give the Secretary of HHS the discretion to extend the deadline. The policy of the administration is clear. I asked Dr. McClellan, the head of CMS, his position on extending the deadline and he said: Senator, we are not supporting that legislation at this time. So I think it is clear, the choice is clear for the Senate between these two amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would proffer a unanimous consent request that since the Senator from Iowa is not able to be here right now--it is my understanding he is delayed in traffic--I be able to proceed by offering my amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment be my amendment instead of the regular order of the Grassley amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is the deadline amendment on the Medicare prescription drug, Medicare Part D, that the Senate has heard about now over the course of the last 6 months. Each time we have been in a parliamentary procedure where we have been able to receive a majority of votes, in excess of 51 votes, but because of the parliamentary procedure we have found ourselves in, a 60-vote majority was required. Not so today. This amendment can pass with a simple majority vote, according to how many Senators are here, whatever is the simple majority. It is an amendment all of our Senators have been hearing a lot about. As we have gone home to our States, clearly every Senator has received an earful from senior citizens of their States in which the seniors have not only implored but in some cases begged for an extension of the May 15 deadline for signing up for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Why? Why are senior citizens confused and bewildered and, in some cases, frightened? They are confused because they are facing a multiplicity of plans. For example, in my State of Florida, 18 companies are offering 43 stand-alone plans, 43 prescription drug plans that a senior citizen is to try to make a determination about which is the best for them according to the prescription drugs they need. They are confused and bewildered and, in some cases, frightened. Why are they frightened? Because they know if by the deadline they don't make a choice, they are going to be penalized 1 percent of the overall drug premium prices per month or 12 percent a year. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, in determining what is the cost of this amendment over 5 years, has taken that into account and has said it is going to be an additional cost on average to a senior citizen of 6 to 7 percent. Our senior citizens cannot afford that. So they are frightened. They are also frightened in knowing if by the deadline they are confused and they pick a plan hastily in order to satisfy the deadline, they know if they happen to choose the wrong plan, they are stuck for a year. That causes considerable consternation and fright, because the medicines they take often are life giving. And thank the good Lord, we have progressed to the point that now the miracles of modern medicine through prescriptions have become an opportunity for us to have a much higher quality of life. A lot of the ailments that afflicted us 20, 30, and 40 years ago that had to be dealt with in a hospital by surgery and hospital procedures today can be taken care of, in large part, by prescription drugs. Naturally, senior citizens are confused. They are bewildered and, in some cases, they are frightened. Every one of the Senators here has been hearing from their folks back home who are saying: Help us. Yet this body has taken a position. We are looking out for Medicare instead of looking out for the people Medicare serves. It is the beneficiaries of Medicare, the senior citizens of this country, we ought to be looking out for. So we have had this issue twice in front of us with a majority vote. We are going to have another opportunity today. The stakes are high because simply we need to provide our seniors with the time and the resources they need to make an informed decision. In some cases, this is a matter of life or death, especially for those who are frail. How do we expect an artificial deadline to be handled with someone who has the onset of dementia? Further complicating matters, the Medicare prescription drug benefit has been marred by implementation problems. These appear to be widespread, and they are clearly adversely affecting vulnerable beneficiaries. How many news stories have all of us read that talk about the senior citizen who is distraught because they go to the pharmacy and the pharmacy says: Your particular prescription is not on the formulary of the new plan. We saw that in what is called dual eligibles, in the shifting of Medicaid recipients over to Medicare. Hopefully that is going to be worked out, but it is all a part of this implementation of a new program that is having difficulty. Hopefully we will get it right, but we need to give senior citizens a break and not hold them with the guillotine over their head with an artificial deadline of May 15. If we pass this amendment by delaying the late enrollment penalties and giving every beneficiary a chance to change plans once during the first year of the prescription drug benefit, then we can make sure our citizens are not going to have to make hasty decisions. This amendment that I offer on behalf of a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Snowe of Maine, instructs the Senate Finance Committee to extend the annual open enrollment period under the Medicare prescription drug program through all of 2006 without imposing a late enrollment penalty and to allow a one-time change in the plans at any point in 2006. We are going to hear some Members oppose this amendment by saying that the Congressional Budget Office recently rescored the cost of extending the deadline. When the amendment was here before us a month or so ago, CBO had scored it at about a $300 million cost over 5 years. CBO now says it is going to cost $2 billion over 5 years. It is important to note that the new score by CBO is mainly due to the fact that the enrollment program has gone so poorly. The new cost reflects the fact that 10 million fewer people will be signing up for the drug benefit than previously estimated. That is not the senior citizens' fault. Why should they be penalized by saying this is going to cost more when, in fact, it has had such a problem in its implementation and it is not quite as attractive to seniors as the administration had once thought? According to CBO's new estimates, if we extend the deadline for signing up through all of 2006, 1.1 million more beneficiaries will sign up before the end of the year. In addition, 10 million beneficiaries will pay lower premiums because they will have fewer penalties. So on the one hand, CBO is saying it is going to cost more because the enrollment program has gone so poorly, but on the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office is saying, indeed, if we extend it, we are going to have more beneficiaries sign up, over a million more, they are saying, will sign up if we extend the deadline. And they are saying the beneficiaries who sign up--they are estimating 10 million--will pay lower premiums because they will have fewer penalties. What Senator would want to vote against this amendment and, therefore, increase the cost to the senior citizens? By opposing this amendment, if, indeed, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, is going to oppose it, it would seem that those who would oppose would suggest that you don't want to allow an additional million beneficiaries to enroll in the program. I would think we would want to enroll everybody as much as possible. And why would we want to punish 10 million beneficiaries with higher premiums through penalties? It is kind of arcane language but also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, they have reevaluated the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and it is now projected over the next 5 years, the overall program, to cost $5 billion less than originally estimated by CBO. They also say by extending the deadline, it is going to cost another $2 billion over 5 years. That means that net, it is going to be costing $3 billion less than originally anticipated. So in every way we look at it, it is a win-win. It is a win for the seniors. It is certainly a win for the seniors in taking them out of the confusion and bewilderment. It is a win for the seniors in them not paying more on their premiums with the penalties that the CBO estimates. And it is also a win in that the overall cost of the program would be net less than what it was originally expected to cost. This is a time-limited, very important step which would help ease the pressure of the first year of this new drug program. So I think it is time that we now go on the record with a majority vote and pass the extension for the relief of our senior citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up amendment 3009.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I understand the good intentions of the Senator from Iowa in what is a difficult situation for him. The Senator from Iowa has indicated he had a number of townhall meetings, of which there seemed to be complete acceptance and happiness with this prescription drug benefit. I want the Senator to know that I, too, have had innumerable townhall meetings in my State of Florida, and I get exactly the opposite result. Perhaps that is because it is a demographic fact that Florida has a higher percentage of senior citizens than most States. Perhaps it is that our senior citizens are very aware and current on events and on news. Perhaps it is also because there is a great deal of activity in our State of Florida with regard to wanting to sign up for this plan, because we have the beneficence of the fact that so many seniors around the country, including from the State of Iowa, the State of the Senator, retire and move to the State of Florida. So there is great consternation, I want the Senator to understand, among seniors in our State. The Senator mentioned earlier in his comments--and I don't take the comments personally--he said there was a politicizing of this particular issue. This Senator from Florida has an obligation to stand up and fight for his people. I can tell you that the senior citizens of my State are concerned and they are confused and they are bewildered and, in some cases, they are frightened because of this. I will concede to the Senator from Iowa that what he said is true, that normal human behavior is when we have a deadline, we wait until it is close to that deadline to sign up. However, I would suggest to the Senator in his consideration of this issue, and to the Senate as they decide between the amendment of the Senator from Iowa or this Senator's amendment, we should be looking at what is not best for the Medicare Part D benefit but what is best for the beneficiaries, the senior citizens. When the Senator from Iowa tells us in fact his amendment is going to give the discretion to the Secretary of HHS, look what the Secretary has said; he throws it right back to the Congress. He says: If people haven't had time to enroll, that is a policy decision that Congress has to make. He said that a month ago, the Secretary of HHS, a distinguished Secretary in the President's Cabinet. I would suggest to the Senator if we are going to make the policy here, let's consider these people, these senior citizens who are anguished at this point. I will simply close with this: Medicare first thought they were going to have about 35 million seniors enrolled in this program. Now they are expecting that they are going to be about 10 million short, that there is going to be only about 25 million enrolled. CBO has estimated if we extend the deadline, we are going to get at least another million enrolled this year, and over the life of the program we will get that additional 10 million. So why would we not want to go on and extend the deadline and prohibit those penalties that CBO said will average to senior citizens 5 to 7 percent? Why would we not want to go on and extend that deadline instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question about this amendment?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for answering the question. I would inquire of the Chair, under the previous order, does the Senator from Florida have time to discuss the Senator's amendment?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, does his amendment waive the penalties to senior citizens or does it give the Secretary of HHS discretion to waive the penalties?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator, if the Secretary waives the requirement--so the Senator's amendment gives the Secretary discretion to waive the requirements of the May 15 deadline?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this amendment is what Senators have been hearing from their senior citizens. They want to extend the deadline. My amendment would put it in law that the deadline is extended. Why be for a program instead of being for the people? They are confused. They need more time. They are bewildered and, in some cases, knowing that that 1 percent-a-month penalty is hanging over their heads, they are frightened. They are also frightened if they choose the wrong program, then find out they can't get the prescription drugs they need for their quality of life. I urge Members to vote for the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the question is, do you want to help the program or do you want to help the people? Members have all heard from their senior citizens. They are confused, they are bewildered, and in some cases frightened about this deadline coming up. They want some additional time. They are confused with this multiplicity of plans. Senator Grassley's amendment would only give discretion to the Secretary of HHS. They have already testified they do not want to extend the program. Members are going to have an opportunity to vote on the amendment that follows that will actually extend the deadline for the rest of the year, 2006.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Smith, Bingaman and Clinton as we introduce the Home and Community Services Co-payment Equity Act of 2006. For years now, I have advocated providing seniors and the disabled with meaningful prescription drug coverage. No one in this country should ever have to choose between their meals and their medications. In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act, which created a Medicare prescription drug program. I did not support this legislation, because I believe it created a program that contains several major flaws. However, I think that our job now is to do our best to help beneficiaries by fixing the underlying law. The Medicare prescription drug program exempts the lowest income nursing home residents from all prescription drug co-payments. However, it leaves out the equally vulnerable group of low-income beneficiaries who live in assisted living and other home and community-based facilities. These are often beneficiaries with serious mental illnesses who have been stabilized on medications, and people with developmental and physical disabilities who have little or no incomes and previously received prescription drug coverage under Medicaid. In my home State of Florida, thousands of individuals with mental illnesses are integrated into community-based programs such as assisted-living facilities. Unfortunately, many patients in these facilities are forgoing their medications on account of the new Medicare co-payments. Reports also indicate that patients have been hospitalized because they have been unable to afford their essential medications due to the new cost-sharing requirements. In response, we are introducing the Home and Community Services Co- payment Equity Act of 2006. The legislation would waive co-payments for low-income beneficiaries residing in assisted living and other home- and community-based facilities. This bill is a small step that will go a long way towards ensuring that low-income patients get their prescription drugs. This issue boils down to just one goal--helping low-income seniors and people with disabilities afford the medications they need. I urge all of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this vital effort.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for yesterday's vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Leo Maury Gordon, of New Jersey, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade. I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Smith, Bingaman and Clinton as we introduce the Home and Community Services Co-payment Equity Act of 2006. For years now, I have advocated providing seniors and the disabled with meaningful prescription drug coverage. No one in this country should ever have to choose between their meals and their medications. In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act, which created a Medicare prescription drug program. I did not support this legislation, because I believe it created a program that contains several major flaws. However, I think that our job now is to do our best to help beneficiaries by fixing the underlying law. The Medicare prescription drug program exempts the lowest income nursing home residents from all prescription drug co-payments. However, it leaves out the equally vulnerable group of low-income beneficiaries who live in assisted living and other home and community-based facilities. These are often beneficiaries with serious mental illnesses who have been stabilized on medications, and people with developmental and physical disabilities who have little or no incomes and previously received prescription drug coverage under Medicaid. In my home State of Florida, thousands of individuals with mental illnesses are integrated into community-based programs such as assisted-living facilities. Unfortunately, many patients in these facilities are forgoing their medications on account of the new Medicare co-payments. Reports also indicate that patients have been hospitalized because they have been unable to afford their essential medications due to the new cost-sharing requirements. In response, we are introducing the Home and Community Services Co- payment Equity Act of 2006. The legislation would waive co-payments for low-income beneficiaries residing in assisted living and other home- and community-based facilities. This bill is a small step that will go a long way towards ensuring that low-income patients get their prescription drugs. This issue boils down to just one goal--helping low-income seniors and people with disabilities afford the medications they need. I urge all of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this vital effort.