Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort, CARE, Act and the College Access and Affordability Act because far too many families today are squeezed by the demands of caring for aging loved ones while working to give their children what all parents want for their kids--the opportunity to go to college and be successful. As a son helping to care for a mother with Alzheimer's disease and the proud parent of two college-age kids, I know personally the intergenerational demands families are facing and the sacrifices they are making to care for their loved ones. That's exactly why my first legislative initiatives in the United States Senate are to make higher education and long-term care more affordable and more accessible for New Jersey families and families across the country.

The CARE Act would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons.

There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home State of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country.

Caregiving families face unique strains. They are challenged with additional costs, and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care, and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Caregivers are also a valuable asset to keeping health care costs down. They are providing $257 billion in care annually, more than double the annual spending on home care and nursing home care combined. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price to their families and are a benefit to the greater good of our State and Nation. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work, sacrifice, and contributions to society.

The other bill I'm introducing today, the College Access and Affordability Act, will help open the doors to higher education for more young people by making financial assistance more flexible for students and by expanding and enhancing existing financial aid options.

I know the difference a college education can have on a young person's life. As the first in my family to go to college, and later law school, I had opportunities that would not have been available to me had I not been able to go to college. But financing a higher education was not an easy thing for my family. Federal financial aid helped ensure that I could go to college and that I could pursue my dreams. I know first-hand the important benefits of receiving Federal aid--not only did it help me finance my dreams of college, but it also gave me the extra confidence that I needed to succeed.

So, I am committed to ensuring that other promising young people get the same chance that I did and that we, as a Nation, will be there to help everyone in this country achieve their dreams of college, regardless of background, race, language, or income level. One of the great foundations of this country is that the doors of opportunity are open to anyone who works hard. We must follow through on that promise by providing a path for young people to have access to and attend college. If we do not lead the way to ensure that our colleges are full of the brightest minds and fullest potential, we are failing to prepare our future generations and we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation.

The College Access and Affordability Act will make financial aid more flexible and accessible to more students, such as extending Pell Grant eligibility to students who attend school year-round. It will also make substantial changes to the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, a useful tool in helping cover the costs of a higher education. Since the Credit was enacted in 1997, the maximum credit has not increased to reflect the rising cost of tuition. This bill would raise the award by $1,000 and allow the credit to be claimed for all 4 years of college, instead of the current 2 years. It will also make more families eligible for the credit by expanding the eligibility limits.

Finally, in recognizing that many of our communities are in need of qualified individuals to serve in essential public service positions, this bill would help attract dedicated college graduates who serve low- income communities in positions such as science, math, bilingual, or special education teachers; nurses; first responders; and child welfare workers.

Too many students do not pursue a college education because they think it is out of their reach. We must commit to providing sensible tools and adequate resources so that financing a college education is not more of a burden on families, and achieving the dreams of a higher education is not beyond the reach of our Nation's young people.

On any given day, families across New Jersey, and indeed, across this country, face the daunting challenges of making ends meet--putting food on the table, clothing their children, and putting a roof over their head. If that weren't enough, add the challenge of trying to pay for college or care for an aging parent, or in many cases, both, and you have what many times is an insurmountable challenge. But that's exactly what's happening to more and more people everyday. And the intergenerational demands will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges on both fronts--from providing affordable long-term care and encouraging future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, to ensuring that anyone who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to go to college and succeed. That's what this country is all about, and that's why I've made these initiatives my first priorities in the U.S. Senate. I'm hopeful that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to address these important challenges facing American families.

Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006.'' This bill is necessary to address some of the major problems in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that took effect on January 1 of this year. As we all know, the reaction of our seniors has been widespread disappointment, mass confusion and downright anger.

Let me describe some of the problems that I am hearing from people in Michigan about this new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

First, many drug companies have previously issued discount cards and are currently providing drugs to low-income people and seniors at a nominal or no cost. These are individuals usually at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is 19,600 for a single person or $26,400 for a couple, while to qualify for the Medicare low-income subsidy, their income must be $14,700 for a single person or $19,800 for a couple. Many of these programs are being discontinued, and seniors are losing a vital method of obtaining low cost prescription drugs.

Second, prescription drug plans can drop a drug from its list of covered drugs with 60 days notice at any time during the calendar year. This is particularly egregious for a senior who relied on a particular medication being available and covered when the senior chose that particular plan.

Third, the situation of so-called ``dual eligibles'' is clearly worse now than before enactment of the prescription drug benefit. These are former Medicaid beneficiaries who are being forced into Medicare prescription drug coverage, often putting them in plans with more restrictive formularies and higher co-payments, in other words leaving them worse off.

Fourth, many Michigan residents are retirees from good paying jobs and currently have a good prescription drug plan. This has changed for the worse with the creation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit because many companies have decided to scale back or eliminate that retiree coverage. As a result, many of those retirees are worse off than they were before the bill became law.

Fifth, Medicare is specifically barred from negotiating lower drug prices for all of its beneficiaries.

Finally, the coverage gap from $2,250-$3,600 in prescription drug expenses per year, commonly referred to as the ``doughnut hole,'' is unconscionable. Many seniors do not yet understand that this huge coverage gap is looming in their future and that during this gap, they are still expected to pay their monthly premiums, although they are getting no prescription drug coverage assistance.

To address many of these concerns I, along with my colleague Senator Stabenow, today am introducing the Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006, and I hope the Senate will immediately consider these positive reforms. My legislation has four goals and I will briefly outline them.

First, this legislation would prohibit prescription drug plans from removing drugs from the plan's list of covered drugs until January 1 of the following year. This will give seniors the opportunity to make an informed decision during open enrollment at the end of each year if one plan decides to remove a particular drug from the plan.

Second, my legislation clearly states that the discount cards that pharmaceutical companies are providing to our lower income seniors are permissible and that seniors should be allowed to participate in these programs. There has been some confusion as to whether companies can legally continue these programs and, if companies do continue their assistance, questions have arisen as to whether that assistance will count towards the ``true-out-of-pocket'' costs for that beneficiary, which plunges them into the ``doughnut hole'' when they reach $2,250. My legislation mandates that there will be no negative consequences for pharmaceutical companies continuing to provide discount cards to our low-income seniors.

Third, my legislation would allow former Medicaid beneficiaries now receiving their medications under Medicare to continue to receive their prescription drugs even if they cannot meet the worsened co-payment requirements.

Lastly, the legislation would specifically give the Federal Government the authority to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors. Current Medicare law prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices, as we do for veterans in our VA health programs. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries do not have the benefit of the bargaining power of Medicare.

All of us are hearing from our constituents that we need to improve Medicare Part D. Congress needs to fulfill the promise it made that Medicare Part D would lower prescription drug prices, not increase them. This bill will help us begin to keep that promise.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006.'' This bill is necessary to address some of the major problems in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that took effect on January 1 of this year. As we all know, the reaction of our seniors has been widespread disappointment, mass confusion and downright anger.

Let me describe some of the problems that I am hearing from people in Michigan about this new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

First, many drug companies have previously issued discount cards and are currently providing drugs to low-income people and seniors at a nominal or no cost. These are individuals usually at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is 19,600 for a single person or $26,400 for a couple, while to qualify for the Medicare low-income subsidy, their income must be $14,700 for a single person or $19,800 for a couple. Many of these programs are being discontinued, and seniors are losing a vital method of obtaining low cost prescription drugs.

Second, prescription drug plans can drop a drug from its list of covered drugs with 60 days notice at any time during the calendar year. This is particularly egregious for a senior who relied on a particular medication being available and covered when the senior chose that particular plan.

Third, the situation of so-called ``dual eligibles'' is clearly worse now than before enactment of the prescription drug benefit. These are former Medicaid beneficiaries who are being forced into Medicare prescription drug coverage, often putting them in plans with more restrictive formularies and higher co-payments, in other words leaving them worse off.

Fourth, many Michigan residents are retirees from good paying jobs and currently have a good prescription drug plan. This has changed for the worse with the creation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit because many companies have decided to scale back or eliminate that retiree coverage. As a result, many of those retirees are worse off than they were before the bill became law.

Fifth, Medicare is specifically barred from negotiating lower drug prices for all of its beneficiaries.

Finally, the coverage gap from $2,250-$3,600 in prescription drug expenses per year, commonly referred to as the ``doughnut hole,'' is unconscionable. Many seniors do not yet understand that this huge coverage gap is looming in their future and that during this gap, they are still expected to pay their monthly premiums, although they are getting no prescription drug coverage assistance.

To address many of these concerns I, along with my colleague Senator Stabenow, today am introducing the Medicare Part D Reform Act of 2006, and I hope the Senate will immediately consider these positive reforms. My legislation has four goals and I will briefly outline them.

First, this legislation would prohibit prescription drug plans from removing drugs from the plan's list of covered drugs until January 1 of the following year. This will give seniors the opportunity to make an informed decision during open enrollment at the end of each year if one plan decides to remove a particular drug from the plan.

Second, my legislation clearly states that the discount cards that pharmaceutical companies are providing to our lower income seniors are permissible and that seniors should be allowed to participate in these programs. There has been some confusion as to whether companies can legally continue these programs and, if companies do continue their assistance, questions have arisen as to whether that assistance will count towards the ``true-out-of-pocket'' costs for that beneficiary, which plunges them into the ``doughnut hole'' when they reach $2,250. My legislation mandates that there will be no negative consequences for pharmaceutical companies continuing to provide discount cards to our low-income seniors.

Third, my legislation would allow former Medicaid beneficiaries now receiving their medications under Medicare to continue to receive their prescription drugs even if they cannot meet the worsened co-payment requirements.

Lastly, the legislation would specifically give the Federal Government the authority to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors. Current Medicare law prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices, as we do for veterans in our VA health programs. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries do not have the benefit of the bargaining power of Medicare.

All of us are hearing from our constituents that we need to improve Medicare Part D. Congress needs to fulfill the promise it made that Medicare Part D would lower prescription drug prices, not increase them. This bill will help us begin to keep that promise.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Carmen Shahrzad Kulcsar, a 15-year-old Australian national currently living with her aunt and uncle in San Marcos, CA.

I have decided to offer private relief legislation on Carmen's behalf because I believe that removal from the United States would not only be tragically unfair to her, but also to her aunt and uncle who have taken Carmen into their home and treated her like a daughter after the tragic events that brought her to America. Furthermore, Carmen's removal could put her aunt's, her uncle's, and her own life in grave danger.

Carmen's parents separated due to physical abuse, alcohol abuse, and allegations of affairs. In 1992, at the young age of two, Carmen witnessed her father shoot her mother point blank range in the head.

Her father--David Kulcsar--was convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 to 16 years in prison. Fortunately for Carmen, her American aunt Manieh Varner was granted sole guardianship and custody of her niece by an Australian court.

Carmen entered the United States on a temporary Visitor's Visa and has resided here for the past 13 years with her aunt and uncle.

Carmen is a model student at her high school. She takes honor classes and has worked hard to earn a cumulative grade point average of 3.5. Her report card has multiple comments regarding her outstanding citizenship and as being a pleasure to have in class.

Carmen is a member of the competitive Academic Decathlon Team. Her future can be a bright one and it is unlikely that she will become a burden on the State or Federal Government.

Carmen's aunt has always wanted to adopt her niece and begin the path to legal residency. However, there has always been one problem. Carmen's father never wanted Carmen to go with her aunt and made repeated threats for revenge against Mrs. Varner. Adopting Carmen requires notifying Mr. Kulcsar about the adoption and Mrs. Varner believed always, as she does now, that doing so would put her and Carmen's life in risk.

Mrs. Varner cannot pursue adoption now because time constraints prevent the process from being completed before Carmen's 16th birthday; thus, adoption would have no bearing for immigration purposes.

Mr. and Mrs. Varner have done their best to try and create a life for Carmen that would otherwise have been impossible for her in Australia.

Both U.S. citizens, Mr. Varner is a high school teacher while Mrs. Varner is employed by the State of California's Department of Transportation. Along with a daughter of their own, they have made the best possible situation of a horrible tragedy.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, the choices available to Carmen are grim. Clearly it would be impossible for her to go back to Australia.

The only memory she has of that country is the memory of her mother's murder at the hands of her father. The only family in Australia is that of her unstable, recently released from prison father. She would be forced to live illegally in the United States through no fault of her own. America is the only land she has ever known. It is her home.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I offer this private relief bill on behalf of Carmen Shahrzad Kulcsar. We have the opportunity to make a just and fitting solution for this wonderful family. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.