Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the majority leader for making reference to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and I just wanted to remind our distinguished majority leader that Hurricane Wilma, which hit the State of Florida, hit at a point on the southwest coast picking up steam as it crossed the Everglades so that the back end of the hurricane gave a huge punch to the southeast coast where we have 20,000 structures uninhabitable and where the winds were clocked at Lake Okeechobee at 150 miles an hour. That is a category 5. So I just don't want us to forget Hurricane Wilma and the people who are suffering in Florida at this time. Would the majority leader just keep that in mind as we address these problems?

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a very serious amendment to this Defense authorization bill, but I am compelled to add a couple of words to the colloquy that I had with the distinguished majority leader regarding the hurricanes. In the huge tragedy that occurred with Hurricane Katrina and the continuing observations of the reconstruction efforts, attention has been lost to the severe losses that have occurred in the last week and a half in my State of Florida with a hurricane that hit with the force of a category 3 on the southeast coast of Florida and parts of that area having had winds of a category 5, with 20,000 residences lost. We have now under consideration in the Department of Commerce appropriations subcommittee conference committee deliberations additional personnel for the National Hurricane Center, which hopefully the Senate's position will be taken which provides that additional personnel. But one huge, potential downfall is that we need some kind of backup for the high-flying jet, the G-4, the Gulfstream-4, that measures the steering currents that is owned by NOAA. In the middle of this storm, that jet had to go down for maintenance. Lord knows what would happen if that jet had an accident and could not fly. The accuracy of our predictions of where the hurricane is going is 25 percent greater by being able to fly at 41,000 feet measuring those steering currents. It is my hope that we can see coming out of the Senate a provision for a backup for NOAA, perhaps a jet shared with another agency, such as the Air Force or NASA, but that would give us that protection, and that accuracy, as we know all too well, is so important to warn people in the accurate path of that storm because then prediction becomes a matter of life and death. Mr. President, I am honored today to speak about an amendment that is necessary to fix a longstanding problem in our military survivor's benefit system. The system in place right now, even with the important changes we have made recently, does not take care of our military widows and the surviving children in the way it should, and we should act now to correct this deficiency. We don't have to go any further than the Good Book to remind us that one of our greatest obligations is to take care of the widows and the orphans. That is what we have. This amendment will protect the benefit of widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military retirees and those who die on active duty. I will give some background on how this problem developed. Back in 1972, Congress established the military Survivor Benefit Plan--SBP for short--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. If we have a military retiree and they are deceased, we want to protect the income of their survivors. This benefit plan is a voluntary program, and it is purchased by the retiree or it is issued automatically in the case of servicemembers who are active duty and who die on active duty. Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. So it is a plan that has been in place since 1972 which the retired military person can purchase, and they do. Surviving spouses or dependent children of service-connected 100- percent disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation under the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a separate program. So these surviving spouses or dependent children of service-connected disabled veterans are entitled to indemnity compensation. So there are two different laws, two different eligibilities, but watch what happens under current law. The annuity paid by the Survivor Benefit Plan and received by a surviving widow or a child, what they pay for on the pie chart that is in red, this is already paid for for the surviving widow or the child. Under current law, they are also entitled, as a service-connected disability, to that under the Veterans' Administration. Under current law, one offsets the other. So what happens is the amount of the SBP is reduced by the amount of the DIC under current law, and a big slice of the pie, almost half of it, is lost when, in fact, the survivor is entitled under the law to both. So this big slice shows what they are losing. I wish to introduce my colleagues to Jennifer McCollum. She is from Jacksonville, FL. This is her with her son and a photo of her husband, a U.S. marine who was killed in 2002 while deployed in support of the war on terror. Jennifer was 4 months pregnant when he was killed, and now she has realized that her survivor benefits are being taken away by that offset that I just described. That is what this amendment is going to stop. Jennifer's situation is unacceptable, and we have to fix it for the sake of the widows and the orphans. I do not know of any other annuity program in the Government or private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from another plan or program. That is the necessity for this amendment I am offering today. It also makes effective immediately a change to the military SBP program that was enacted back in 1999. The Congress has already agreed that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for 30 years should stop paying a premium. We agreed back in 1999 that when a person reached the age of 70 and they had paid their SBP premiums for 30 years, they ought to stop paying a premium. But what happened? Recently, we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. The program began over 30 years ago. Under current law, people who signed up at the beginning must pay long beyond the 30 years that Congress intended. Do my colleagues know who this group is largely made up of? It is made up of World War II veterans. We call them the ``greatest generation.'' Well, what it creates is the ``greatest generation'' tax in SBP, and we should not be delaying their relief any further. This chart is going to give an example of the ``greatest generation'' tax. A lieutenant colonel or a commander in the Navy who joined SBP in 1972 when it began has paid 33 years and will continue to pay under the current law until 2008, for a total of 36 years. But someone of the same rank who retired 6 years later also will stop paying in 2008 under the current law, but they will have paid less. The older retiree will have paid 30 percent more over that time period. Of course, many of those fighting men and women are going to pass away by then and never enjoy the paid-up status that Congress intended for them. This amendment I am offering today will fix the SBP system to make sure it provides what Congress intended for our military retirees. The United States owes its continued strength and protection to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. We owe them and those they leave behind a lot--no less than a President who suffered through war, President Lincoln, instructed us that ours is an obligation to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan. Too often, we have fallen short of this care. I believe we must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as the service they and their families have rendered. We need to continue to do right by those who have given this Nation their all and especially for their loved ones they leave to us for our care. Remember the instructions of the Good Book: The greatest obligation is to take care of the widows and the orphans. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, my amendment would prevent a hike in Medicare premiums for our 42 million senior citizens. In the bill, doctors' fees are increased in their reimbursement. In my amendment, that is paid for with drug company money that would be staying the same under the existing law where the drug companies have to give discounts under the Medicaid law as they transition into Medicaid HMOs. This saves our seniors over $1 billion in increased premiums. This amendment is supported and endorsed by the AARP. I want to welcome the bipartisan support of the Senate for this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire, to point out that the offset to the amendment that would freeze the Medicare Part B premium for senior citizens is not as the Senator from New Hampshire had been led to believe in Medicare Part D, which is the prescription drug benefit. No, the offset is in the new proposed changes to Medicaid that would make Medicaid be distributed through the States through managed care. Under the current law, the prescription drugs that are available through Medicaid have to be discounted and provided to Medicaid recipients. The new waivers to the States allowing Medicaid to be dispensed through HMOs is going to allow those discounts to go away, and it will be a negotiated item. There is a savings of up to $2 billion if one does not allow that law to be changed so that the discount goes away by law. Therefore, Medicaid recipients very possibly pay more. It is that savings, by keeping that discount of up to $2 billion, which is the offset that we pay for, keeping senior citizens whole by not raising their Medicare Part B premiums.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we reach a major watershed point now as we consider the budget, for contained in this budget is an increase of $1 billion required of senior citizens in the payment of their Medicare Part B premiums. This amendment that I am proposing cuts out that increase and offsets it. I am pleased to be joined by a number of colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment. Senator Kerry had wanted to speak on it, and it is my understanding that he is not here at this late hour, but he may speak later. This is an amendment to protect seniors from these drastic increases in their Medicare Part B monthly premiums. I thank all the Senators who have worked with me on this amendment. What our senior citizens are facing is when they pay a monthly premium, when they enroll in the Part B premium, that premium covers physician care, home health care, skilled nursing services, physical therapy, and other services. There are 42 million people in this country who are Medicare beneficiaries. Three million of them are in Florida. They are legitimately concerned about the growing out-of-pocket health care expenses. Why should they be? Let's look at history. Over the past 3 years, the part B beneficiary premium has increased 50 percent. In 2006, the premium will increase by another 13 percent, to $88.50 per month. That represents a $10.30 increase over last year's monthly premium. Our seniors simply cannot afford another premium increase on their fixed incomes. If anybody doubts what I am saying, remember gasoline used to be $1.50. Gasoline has approached $3. We have senior citizens in my State and all of the States who cannot afford to drive to the doctor anymore because they are on a fixed income. And now this bill would tack on an additional billion dollars more in Part B premiums. This Senator does not believe that at this particular time seniors should bear this burden of another billion dollars in spending out of their pockets. I believe we should and I believe we can fix the physician payment rate without increasing the Part B premiums. Another part of this reconciliation bill gives physicians a 1-percent payment update in 2006. This would avert what would be very unfortunate for physicians--a 4.3-percent cut under the sustainable growth rate formula used to update physician payments. I have supported and I continue to support improving the reimbursement rates for Medicare providers, including physicians. Without action in this area, we are going to continue to see individuals and communities underserved because no quality providers, including physicians, are going to be available to offer these services if they keep getting cut. However, when the cost of physician care goes up, the Medicare Part B premium under the law must rise to cover it. Any change Congress makes to increase physician payment rates under reconciliation will be reflected in a beneficiary premium for senior citizens for Medicare Part B in 2007. Under the current law, if the physicians are going to get the increase instead of a cut, that means that in order to pay that under the current law, the senior citizens are going to have to increase their Part B Medicare premium payments by approximately $1 billion. In response, what we are offering to do in this amendment is protect our seniors, for this amendment would exclude from the Part B premium the cost of the reconciliation package payment increase for physicians. Senior citizens would be held harmless from the effect of the reconciliation package and would, therefore, not see an increase in their premiums due to this physician fix, and it is going to keep the physician fix in place by increasing their reimbursements. This amendment is revenue neutral. How is it paid for? Where is the offset? It is paid for by negotiating lower prescription drug prices for Medicaid's HMOs. This amendment would help to ease the financial burden on our parents and grandparents without harming the physicians who serve them. We have to look out for these grandparents and parents who are on fixed incomes. I hope we are going to get some bipartisan support. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in this effort to protect our Nation's senior citizens. Mr. President, I have been waiting for quite a while to offer this amendment. I said that I was going to be less than 10 minutes. I am happy to conclude in less than 10 minutes, but the import of this amendment is far beyond the time I have used to offer the amendment tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Since this Senator was disciplined in his comments as promised, would the Senator be surprised that this amendment causes no increase in the Part B premium to senior citizens by offsetting what would be the enhanced payment to drug companies under the Medicaid increase that is going to the drug companies when they go over to HMOs from the current law that holds the drug companies to a discounted rate?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on this point?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Ten minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I inquire? There are two amendments that I will be offering in tandem. What is the procedure that the Senators would like me to use in offering those amendments? They deal with the same subject.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a final question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Given the fact that there are 42 million seniors who would be affected, would the Senator be surprised to know that this is a total of $1 billion that will come out of the pockets of seniors by the increased Medicare Part B premiums?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will put it in the form of a question. Will the Senator be surprised to know that instead of it being $1.80, it is more like a $3- per-month increase in the Part B premium for seniors, on top of the 18- percent increase that is, in fact, going to be added just in this present year?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President. As we judge this question of whether we have any fiscal sanity here, I thought, in the old days, when I came here 27 years ago and was a freshman member of the House Budget Committee, that fiscal conservatism was that we tried to balance the budget and that we did so through the very painful process of spending cuts and tax increases. Yet we have been on a course since I came back to Washington 5 years ago, having entered into a fiscal condition of this country where we had a very healthy surplus, that is exactly the opposite. We have gone on a course that calls for tax cuts and spending increases, and, ``va- boom,'' suddenly the big surplus has vanished. We have a huge deficit and a huge deficit that is projected for years into the future to add to the national debt by some $5 trillion over the course of the next decade. Is it any wonder that some economic sectors of the economy are getting a little shaky? I can tell you that the demands on spending are not going to subside. I just came back from Florida yesterday, from a very poor section of Florida that got hit with winds clocked as high as 158 miles an hour coming off of Lake Okeechobee at Belle Glade and Pahokee and South Bay. And those communities are devastated. They need help in jobs. They need help with infrastructure. They need help with trying to exist. Yet we are facing a budget brought to the Senate today to cut social programs in order to finance additional tax cuts. Something is wrong with this picture. It is not bringing America back to the fiscally conservative position of moving toward balancing the budget. We had a fiscal year ending with a deficit of over $400 billion. We are moving to a deficit in this fiscal year of over $300 billion and all of that is adding to the national debt. We have a budget that, in fact, is providing $39 billion in savings, but next week we will consider a budget that is going to take away all of those savings with $70 billion in tax cuts, for a net of $31 billion more in debt. Is this the kind of fiscal policy we ought to be conducting and an annual deficit that keeps going up and up, that took us out of surplus, and is taking us into the red more and more with the national debt? I don't think so. I thank my former chairman and the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, who says this Senator has been consistent in saying exactly this. It seems it is wrongheaded and reverse conservative economics. When we look at where some of these spending cuts are coming from, they are coming from student loans, $7 billion in cuts and increased fees. By the way, I visited two of our State universities this past weekend, visiting with the administration of two of the distinguished universities in Florida. Florida tuition rates are going up. The minority communities, particularly in Historically Black Colleges, are having a very difficult time. They have dropping enrollment because those students are not able to get the financial assistance. Is this the equal opportunity society we want for America? I don't think so. Why are we cutting student loans? The ability of America to be competitive in the global marketplace depends on us having an educated public. So we are adopting, if this budget is passed, a policy that says we do not think student loans and financial assistance are a priority. That is like the farmer who goes out and eats his seed corn and then he doesn't have any corn the next year to plant for the crop. This is not the kind of policy we should have. On the other side of the Capitol, the House has cuts in their budget that will come to conference, and of course they will insist in conference committee that their cuts prevail--food stamps, cut $844 million. They had $9.5 billion cut in Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Food stamps, the food program for the poor. Child support enforcement, $5 billion cut in the House. I thought we were in a society that wanted to encourage going after deadbeat dads to support their children. Are we going to cut this enforcement of child support? That is what is coming over from the House. Federal foster care assistance; how many children do we have today who need foster care? We need to promote adoption, but we do not get all of the adoptions completed. There are children who need homes. And we are going to cut that Federal support for foster care? Somehow if we continue down the line of this kind of thinking, we are continuing to push this country to a country of haves and have-nots. That is not where we want to go. I am going to offer an amendment next week when we have the tax section of this budget reconciliation to say if we are going to have tax cuts, true fiscal conservatism, we are going to have to pay for them. What the American people want, if we are going to have spending increases and if we are going to have additional tax cuts--which is the drop in revenue the American people want--is for spending increases and tax cuts to be paid for. We have one right here. It is Senator Conrad's amendment. We will have another one next week and it will be my amendment. Let's start supporting some fiscal conservatism around here. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, due to my travel to survey the damage caused by Hurricane Wilma, I missed the vote on Senator Byrd's title I amendment on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. If I had been present, I would have voted to waive the Budget Act and approve Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of John Richard Smoak for appointment to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Mr. Smoak has long served his Nation, from his highly decorated service in Vietnam to his efforts to improve the judiciary system in Florida. He has resided and has practiced civil law for over the last 30 years in Panama City, FL. During that time, he represented a wide variety of clients from doctors to small business owners to truckdrivers to national corporations in many areas of the law. This broad experience will serve him well as a Federal judge. Mr. Smoak is a well-regarded and highly qualified attorney. I, along with Senator Martinez, believe he will make a great addition to the Federal bench and urge our colleagues to vote in support of his nomination.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to express my thoughts on the passing of a true civil rights pioneer. Rosa Parks' actions almost 50 years ago in Montgomery, AL, ignited a movement that dramatically changed the face of America and the world. Even before her refusal to give up her seat on December 1, 1955, Mrs. Parks was already actively involved in the civil rights movement as the secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP. But her actions that day laid the groundwork for the civil rights movement in the years to follow. As a result of her actions, a local public bus boycott ensued that garnered national attention and resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibiting bus segregation, mass demonstrations throughout the South ensued, and Martin Luther King, Jr. becoming a national civil rights leader. Mrs. Parks' refusal to give up her seat on December 1, 1955, was a simple but dangerous action that highlighted the inequalities faced by millions of Americans living under segregation. Former U.S. poet laureate, Rita Dove, wrote, ``How she sat there, the time right inside a place so wrong it was ready.'' America was ready for change and that change continues today. As the world grieves, let us remember her courage and work to ensure that her legacy continues.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like the Record to reflect that I was necessarily absent for the votes on the confirmations of Brian Edward Sandoval to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada, Vote No. 265, and Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Vote No. 266, on Monday, October 24, 2005, so I could assess the impact of Hurricane Wilma on Florida. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted in favor of both nominations.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Today, the entire Senate is on record. This amendment affirms the Senate's concerns over the free dissemination of radical and violent ideology and calls on the administration to add al- Manar to the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Today the Senate adopted unanimously the Nelson-Smith amendment which puts the Senate on record supporting the placement of al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. Al-Manar is a global satellite television operation dedicated to broadcasting inflammatory and radical Islamic propaganda. Al-Manar, a television station funded by Hezbollah, promotes hatred, anti-Semitism, and glorifies suicide bombing. The actions of this network are truly appalling and frightening. Viewed via satellite throughout the Muslim world, al-Manar promotes suicide attacks against American and Israeli targets and encourages Iraqi insurgents to attack U.S. troops. It includes particularly shocking children's programming, aimed at shaping the beliefs and values of the next generation of Muslim youth. The station broadcasts programs that spread anti-Semitic material, perpetuating myths about Jewish history, which resulted in the station's recent ban from French airwaves. This is not a media outlet sharing the news; it is a propaganda tool used by a terrorist organization to spread its message of violence and hatred. The U.S. Government placed al-Manar on the Terror Exclusion List which prevents persons associated with the channel from traveling to the U.S. There is a much stricter list, the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list, which allows much harsher penalties, including financial sanctions against individuals, groups, and banks that do business with al-Manar. So far, the Government has not placed al-Manar on this list. The case is clear and obvious: al-Manar is supporting and promoting terrorism. This warrants placement on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. In August, 51 Senators sent a letter to the President, urging him to place al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Stabenow and Harkin as we introduce the Medicare Informed Choice Act of 2005. This bill provides additional essential protections for Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Medicare beneficiaries are understandably concerned and confused about the new benefit. They face a number of private plan options and sorting through these plans will be complicated. Medicare beneficiaries will have to make many difficult decisions about what is the best course of action for them. Choosing the right plan will be a challenge for all beneficiaries, but it will be most difficult for those who are frail and living with problems like dementia. The task will be virtually impossible for Hurricane Katrina victims who do not have permanent addresses and, therefore, won't even be able to obtain Part D materials. Yet, beneficiaries who do not act by the May 15, 2006 deadline and who enroll at a later date will face a substantial financial penalty. In response, we are introducing this legislation which will provide added protections for beneficiaries during the first year of the new program. By delaying late enrollment penalties and giving every beneficiary a chance to change plans once during the first year, we can make sure that our constituents are not forced to make hasty decisions they may later regret. The Medicare Informed Choice Act of 2005 contains three important protections: 1. Delays late enrollment penalties: The bill expands the existing six-month open enrollment period to the entire year of 2006. This will give people added time to do the research and make the best decisions for themselves. 2. Protections against bad choices: The bill gives every Medicare beneficiary the opportunity to make a one-time change in plan enrollment at any point in 2006. Given the importance of the decision they make, it is appropriate to give beneficiaries a one-time chance to correct an initial mistake made during the first year of implementation. 3. Protections for employer-provided retiree benefits: This provision would protect employees from being dropped by their former employer's plan during the first year of implementation, so that beneficiaries have time to correct enrollment mistakes. The Medicare Informed Choice Act is a small, time-limited step that would help ease the pressure of the first year of this new drug program. It is also critical for all those beneficiaries who face hurdles in obtaining Medicare Part D materials or are unaware that they will be penalized by failure to act. We urge all of our colleagues to join us in this effort to help protect Medicare beneficiaries during the benefit's implementation period. 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 am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Stabenow and Harkin as we introduce the Medicare Informed Choice Act of 2005. This bill provides additional essential protections for Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Medicare beneficiaries are understandably concerned and confused about the new benefit. They face a number of private plan options and sorting through these plans will be complicated. Medicare beneficiaries will have to make many difficult decisions about what is the best course of action for them. Choosing the right plan will be a challenge for all beneficiaries, but it will be most difficult for those who are frail and living with problems like dementia. The task will be virtually impossible for Hurricane Katrina victims who do not have permanent addresses and, therefore, won't even be able to obtain Part D materials. Yet, beneficiaries who do not act by the May 15, 2006 deadline and who enroll at a later date will face a substantial financial penalty. In response, we are introducing this legislation which will provide added protections for beneficiaries during the first year of the new program. By delaying late enrollment penalties and giving every beneficiary a chance to change plans once during the first year, we can make sure that our constituents are not forced to make hasty decisions they may later regret. The Medicare Informed Choice Act of 2005 contains three important protections: 1. Delays late enrollment penalties: The bill expands the existing six-month open enrollment period to the entire year of 2006. This will give people added time to do the research and make the best decisions for themselves. 2. Protections against bad choices: The bill gives every Medicare beneficiary the opportunity to make a one-time change in plan enrollment at any point in 2006. Given the importance of the decision they make, it is appropriate to give beneficiaries a one-time chance to correct an initial mistake made during the first year of implementation. 3. Protections for employer-provided retiree benefits: This provision would protect employees from being dropped by their former employer's plan during the first year of implementation, so that beneficiaries have time to correct enrollment mistakes. The Medicare Informed Choice Act is a small, time-limited step that would help ease the pressure of the first year of this new drug program. It is also critical for all those beneficiaries who face hurdles in obtaining Medicare Part D materials or are unaware that they will be penalized by failure to act. We urge all of our colleagues to join us in this effort to help protect Medicare beneficiaries during the benefit's implementation period. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.