Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored legislation with similar goals in the past and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that. Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. And yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15-20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy. It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has been a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves. Fortunately, situations like Ms. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed. Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications. State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law. All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives. This new Medicare benefit and education campaign will also lead to a reduction in litigation costs. By encouraging advance directives, cases like Ms. Schiavo's would be less frequent; therefore the long and costly litigation surrounding these unfortunate situations would be reduced. Senators Rockefeller, Lugar and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible. In addition, there are growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates who recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country. This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exceptions of the distinguished Majority Leader and Senator Coburn, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advance directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal. 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, my comments will come, appropriately, after the distinguished Senator from Oregon, about this program that was enacted a couple of years ago, the so-called providing prescription drugs for senior citizens. There are a number of Senators here who were promised, in order to get their votes, that this program would not cost more than $400 billion over a 10-year period. Of course, we know now that the result of the most recent studies is that it is not $400 billion, it is $720 billion. How many more cost estimates will go up and up? There is one thing we can do to this legislation, legislation that this Senator didn't vote for because I thought it was quite flawed--not only the true costs, which we were not given, but the fact that we are not allowing the principle of private enterprise to function. There is a provision in the bill that specifically prohibits the Federal Government, through Medicare, from negotiating bulk rate purchases, thus bringing the cost of the prescription drugs down. All of our colleagues embrace the private marketplace. Free market competition is where you can get the most efficient products at the least cost. Why wasn't that same principle of free market competition allowed to work here in the purchase of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients? It is certainly not new to the Federal Government. We have done this for almost 20 years in the Veterans' Administration--for the VA contracts for the purchase of prescription drugs in bulk and, therefore, the cost of the drugs to the Veterans' Administration is considerably less than retail price. If it is good for the Department of Veterans Affairs, why isn't it good for the rest of the Federal Government and for Medicare to do it? But we were not allowed to because the law specifically says we are going to violate the principle of free market enterprise, and you can't negotiate the price of the prescription drugs down. It seems to me that not only violates the principle, it violates good common sense. Now what do we do? The news has come out. No, the bill isn't going to cost what was promised, $400 billion over 10 years; it is going to cost a minimum of $720 billion over 10 years. We had better be minding our Ps and Qs or else we are going to continue to bankrupt this country by using faulty mathematics. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored legislation with similar goals in the past and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that. Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. And yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15-20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy. It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has been a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves. Fortunately, situations like Ms. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed. Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications. State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law. All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives. This new Medicare benefit and education campaign will also lead to a reduction in litigation costs. By encouraging advance directives, cases like Ms. Schiavo's would be less frequent; therefore the long and costly litigation surrounding these unfortunate situations would be reduced. Senators Rockefeller, Lugar and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible. In addition, there are growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates who recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country. This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exceptions of the distinguished Majority Leader and Senator Coburn, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advance directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal. 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, it is a privilege for me today to call to the attention of the Senate the very good relations the United States has with the country of Argentina. We are honored to have as our guest the Vice President of Argentina, Daniel Scioli, who, in his capacity, has the privilege of the floor because, as under the Argentine Constitution, so, too, under our Constitution, the Vice President of the country is also the President of the Argentine Senate. Since we have parliamentarians of the various parliaments of the world who have the privilege of the floor, it is my privilege to bring Daniel Scioli, a personal friend, to see the greatest deliberative body in the world, the United States Senate. Argentina has had quite an economic revival. Under Vice President Scioli and President Kirchner, they have had an economic turnaround in the course of the last couple of years, particularly evident within the last year because we have seen a number of their economic problems start to come under control. We have seen a lessening of their inflation. We have seen them attempting to deal with their debt that is owed to international institutions as well as to other countries. As a matter of fact, there are very significant negotiations going on now with Argentine bondholders that are held around the world as to whether there will be some kind of forgiveness. Of course, you can imagine the bondholders are resisting that enormously. But we do know this: For Argentina to increase its economic capacity as the leader that Argentina is in Latin America, as it is very reflective of an elected government and elected democracy, it is clearly in the interest of the United States that Argentina does well. We see that the Kirchner administration has benefited from the results of that economic revival, for President Kirchner and, no doubt, Vice President Scioli, in fact, are very high in popularity in the polls in Argentina. It is interesting that another country in Latin America that has had tremendous economic problems--Peru, under President Toledo--likewise, is coming up in their economy, but President Toledo does not enjoy the high standing in the polls in his country of Peru that the Kirchner administration is enjoying in the polls in Argentina. I think, over the course of time, we will see President Toledo begin to rise in the polls, but he has had a very tough time. The Vice President and I just had a discussion about a number of topics that are of mutual interest to our country. On his border with Brazil and with Paraguay, the Argentine-Paraguay-Brazilian border, called the triborder area, there is a city called Ciudad del Este, a place about which we are concerned because there is a lot of money laundering, there is a lot of fundraising for Muslim charities, there are a lot of knockoff goods that are being sold, contraband being sold. So those conditions are ripe for terrorists to infiltrate, and it is our hope that these countries in the triborder region, the three major countries, will continue to cooperate with us. I can tell you that Argentina has clearly cooperated with us. In the recent trip I took with Senator Dodd and Senator Chafee where we visited these areas, we were quite encouraged with the cooperation on terrorism getting a foothold in that region. We have seen terrorism move from the Middle East. We have seen it in Europe. We have seen it move into Africa. Our concern now is that terrorism is moving into Latin America. Another topic of enormous mutual interest to our two countries is the question of the direction that Venezuela will take and the direction that President Chavez is taking it. In a recent meeting with President Chavez with these other Senators, he was very friendly. He said that he was, in fact, clamping down on the FARC and the ELN, the guerrillas in Colombia coming across into Venezuela. He said, in fact, he had just returned nine FARC members to President Uribe of Colombia, and then, lo and behold, we find evidence to the contrary shortly thereafter. I have spoken with Vice President Scioli, as well as President Kirchner of Argentina, to intercede to see if there is any common ground with the President of Venezuela because Venezuela and the United States have a mutual interest. They sell half of their daily production of oil to us. We import 15 percent of our daily consumption of oil from Venezuela. Who knows, it could be a leader just like the leader from Argentina who is visiting with us today who could be the intermediary to help improve the relations if President Chavez is sincere. Mr. President, I wish to welcome our distinguished guest from Argentina, who has now become a personal friend of mine and my wife Grace, to this cradle of our democracy, this great deliberative body. Earlier today, he visited with our Vice President, Vice President Cheney. We are now glad to have him come and see the body over which the Vice President of the United States sits as the President of the Senate. Welcome, Mr. Vice President. I thank the Chair for this opportunity. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the national Future Business Leaders of America--Phi Beta Lambda, FBLA-PBL, and the Florida FBLA-PBL chapter that works to bring business and education together. From its first charter in 1942, this organization has grown to over 250,000 members across the Nation to include students in middle school and young men and women in postsecondary education. The first Florida chapter was founded in 1948 and has become one of the largest and most active State chapters in the country. The FBLA-PBL creed leads off with a quote that all of us can agree with, ``I believe education is the right of every person.'' FBLA-PBL works to prepare students for careers in business and other business related fields and promotes character, leadership, and a desire to serve in one's community. During the second week of February, its members celebrate national Future Business Leaders of America--Phi Beta Lambda Week. I congratulate them on all they have achieved and wish them continued success.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while it is true, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, that Alberto Gonzales has chartered an impressive path, the son of migrant workers rising from humble beginnings to establish an impressive record as a judge and a lawyer, I do not cast my vote because of his life story. I cast my vote in favor of Judge Gonzales because of two reasons: I believe it is the prerogative of the President to choose who is to serve in his Cabinet, and I believe Judge Gonzales is a smart and qualified lawyer. Judge Gonzales served in the U.S. Air Force, graduated from Harvard Law School, was a partner in a prestigious law firm, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and the chief lawyer for Governor Bush and President Bush. As a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, I have seen evidence of his independence and commitment to the rule of law in reaching decisions on controversial issues like parental notification for a minor seeking to terminate a pregnancy. While he may oppose it personally, he was able to set those feelings aside and issue a ruling based on the law. I believe that this is the Judge Gonzales who will serve as this Nation's Attorney General. I believe that this Judge Gonzales will appreciate the very important role he is to play as the top law enforcer who is charged with the duty of being the ``people's lawyer.'' The U.S. Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, but he does not serve to please the President. I believe that Judge Gonzales, the man I have met several times, is able to appreciate this important difference and will be faithful to fulfilling his responsibilities to enforce our laws and protect our freedoms. I, as many of my colleagues were, was very troubled by the ``Bybee memo'' submitted by the Department of Justice and the memo Judge Gonzales drafted advising the White House as to the inapplicability of the Geneva Conventions. As the President's lawyer, Judge Gonzales's responsibility was to represent the President and to provide legal advice in light of questions presented to him by the President. I believe that Judge Gonzales understands the different role he is to play as Attorney General in representing the people's interest as a nation that honors the rule of law.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have just returned from a weekend in three different parts of my State and of the State of the Presiding Officer. I was conferring with many of our constituents regarding what is anticipated to be the President's proposal that he will give in his speech tomorrow night regarding Social Security. Of course, this is of enormous importance to us, not only in America but especially in Florida because of the high percentage of our population who are senior citizens. In fact, it is 3 million Floridians, retirees, survivors, and people with disabilities who depend on monthly Social Security benefits. Social Security provides a guaranteed benefit, and it helps retirees live independently and with dignity. It is also the sole source of income for one-fifth of our Nation's seniors. In this day and age when you read daily in the newspaper about employer pensions becoming scarce, Social Security provides a lifeline to retirees such as Lucille Solana, a 57-year-old retiree from Davie in Broward County. She worked for United Airlines for nearly 36 years and retired when the company's bankruptcy cut her pay and her office in Miami was closed. She had done what she was supposed to do. She followed the rule of savings: one-third personal savings, one-third corporate pension, and one-third Social Security for her retirement. But it hasn't all gone according to plan. United Airlines is going to terminate her pension, and her personal savings have suffered with the market. About all she has left is her Social Security. I think we have a moral obligation to help people such as Lucille and our society's elderly citizens. Social Security also helps us provide financial security to spouses and dependent children if a worker becomes disabled or dies. Listen to this: 38 percent of all Social Security benefit dollars are paid to disabled Americans. That is 18 million individuals, their spouses, dependent children, and survivors. Without disability benefits, over half of the families with disabled workers would have incomes below the poverty line. I hasten to add that when we are talking about the spouses and dependent children and survivors, what does the Good Book tell us is one of the highest necessities? It has been told to us in both the Old Testament and the New Testament in Isaiah and James. The widows and the orphans are at the top of our list to be taken care of. Most families in America know what an important program Social Security is to all Americans. We don't have to convince anyone. But you also ought to hear the story by Gene and Lynda Christie of Beverly Hills, FL, two of our constituents who are concerned about the President's Social Security plan. They read about his projected plan in the papers. What they read and how it would be calculated, their senior benefits would be cut by $500 a month. They simply can't afford that kind of reduction. I will bet that some of you would have a difficult time accepting such a cut. I believe changes to Social Security cannot include cuts to benefits. But that is what privatization would do. That is what the President is expected to propose on Wednesday night as a central part of his plan. I will oppose diverting money from the Social Security trust fund, but I believe we should do something to keep Social Security solvent just as we have done successfully in the past. Two decades ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, Social Security faced a real crisis. It truly was on the brink of insolvency. You know what happened. Instead of this approach, ``it is my way or the highway,'' Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan got together and they formed a bipartisan commission. On that commission, leadership was given to Senator Bob Dole, to Congressman former Senator Claude Pepper. And the work of that bipartisan commission saved the system and built up the trust fund for the retirement of the baby boomers. When you put this into context, over the next three-quarters of a century, 75 years into the future, when you compare now with the projected insolvency, lo and behold, we find that the recent tax cuts that have been enacted will cost three times as much as the shortfall that Social Security is projected to face. According to the Social Security Trustees Report last year, Medicare expenditures are now projected to surpass Social Security spending in 2024. With Medicare expenditures over the next 75 years being far in excess of the shortfall in Social Security, the Medicare deficit will be three times as much as the shortfall in Social Security. Based on these numbers, it is clear that a more real crisis lies in the exploding health care costs. Privatization will not fix Social Security. In fact, it will actually worsen the country's overall fiscal health. When money is taken out of Social Security to pay for private investment accounts, you won't have enough to pay for current beneficiaries. Some have suggested that the Government should borrow $2 trillion to plug this hole. I just came from the Budget Committee. When we are facing upwards of $430 billion and more in deficits in this particular year, and you take another $2 trillion over the next 10 years and add it to it, that would swell the Federal debt and increase our dependence on foreign creditors such as the banks in Japan and China. Rather than cut the benefits or borrow trillions of dollars, I believe we should pursue other ways to help Americans supplement Social Security and save for their retirement. Social Security was intended to be a social safety net. Social Security was not intended and never was meant to be an investment program. By linking benefits to the volatile stock prices, privatization shifts the risk to seniors and it weakens Social Security's guaranteed safety net. Look at the wake of cases recently of corporate wrongdoing. We all know too well the dangers of relying on the stock market for retirement. Just listen to Michael Pesho of Sanford, FL, who wrote to me this December. He says: Dear Senator, I am a 56-year-old who had to work since the age of 14. I lost both my parents when I was 16, and I have had to provide for myself all these years. I am also a victim of the WorldCom fiasco. I was laid off at WorldCom and lost my entire retirement portfolio when it was converted into worthless WorldCom stock. I'm tired and would very much like to retire in 9 or 10 years but in order for me to do that Social Security will have to be in place for me to have any kind of retirement foundation to work off of. He says: I implore you to ensure Social Security benefits will be there when I need them. Michael doesn't want his Social Security entrusted to the same market that devastated his retirement savings. It is too risky. I intend to fight for people who worked hard and played by the rules. I will fight against cuts to Social Security benefits. I will fight against any plan that relies on massive borrowing and increases in debt. I take the fiscally conservative position and I will fight to protect this program that provides a safe and reliable source of retirement income for millions of Americans. I intend to work with the President, not to cut, but to strengthen Social Security. I agree with him that we have a moral obligation to fix it for future generations. Currently, I am working with other Members of the Senate to put together a moderate and more sensible plan that strengthens Social Security and expands opportunities for all Americans to save for their retirement. This plan would give workers additional tax breaks to save for retirement on their own with a personal account over and above Social Security. Now is the time to reach out and to bring the various factions together. Now is the time to be conciliators and in the spirit of Ronald Reagan and ``Tip'' O'Neill who saved the Social Security system in a bipartisan fashion back in the early 1980s. We need to bring the factions together. We need to build mutual consent on how to protect Social Security for the retirees of today and future generations. I am very hopeful this can be achieved. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Conservancy of Southwest Florida for its 40th year of service in protecting the environment of my great State. In 1964, citizens joined together to save Rookery Bay from over-development, and since that day the conservancy and its many supporters have worked to preserve the breathtaking natural habitat and the quality of life in southwest Florida. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida has created so many wonderful institutions that all Floridians, young and old can enjoy. This includes the Conservancy Nature Center, which allows kids and adults alike to work hands-on to learn about the ecosystem and the varied wildlife that inhabits the area. Whether it is testing water quality, acquiring at-risk lands or rehabilitating nearly 2000 animals a year, the conservancy makes Florida a better place to live. Throughout my years in public service, the conservancy has been an ally and a friend in the work of preserving Florida's natural resources. I hope that for the next 40 years and beyond, this wonderful organization will continue to help Florida and its citizens enjoy the beauty the state has been blessed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on January 25, I submitted S. Con. Res. 4, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated November 19, by Secretary Rumsfeld, be printed in the Record in support of this resolution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Corzine, Hagel, Durbin and Dayton, I am honored to introduce legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long- standing problem in our military survivors benefits 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 surviving children the way it should. We should act to correct this in this session. I have sought and found inspiration on this from Holy Scripture. In fact, a simple yet powerful passage in the Book of Isaiah captures so much of what we are all about as a Nation theses days and what this legislation is trying to do. In Isaiah we are told, ``Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed.'' And then we are admonished to, ``Defend the orphan. Fight for the rights of widows.'' Also in the first chapter of James, verse 27 we are told that in God's eyes the true measure of our faith is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. This is powerful and clear direction that speaks to our hearts. Last year, under Senator Reid's leadership and at the Senate's insistence, the Defense authorization bill corrected a long-standing inequity by allowing 100-percent disabled military retirees to receive concurrently their full retired pay and disability compensation. That correction in law was long overdue and we need to continue to work to extend this change to include retirees with lower disability ratings. But there is another related injustice that needs to be addressed. The legislation that we offer today will extend the same protection of benefits to the widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military retirees and those who die on active duty. Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits plan--or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the retiree or issued automatically in the case of service members who die while on active duty. Retired service members 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. Surviving spouses or dependent children of 100-percent service- connected disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation from the Veterans' Administration. But the annuity paid by the survivors' benefits plan and received by a surviving widow or a child is reduced by the amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation received from the VA. I know a little something about insurance and income security plans. And I don't know of any other annuity program in the government or private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce their payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from another plan or program. The legislation that we are proposing today also makes effective immediately a change to the military SBP program that we enacted in 1999. We have 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. But we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further. The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of liberty everywhere. We owe them and those they leave behind a great debt. As Abraham Lincoln instructed us, 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 fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families have rendered. We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. I appreciate the cosponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Corzine, Hagel, Durbin and Dayton--and look forward to working with everyone in the days ahead. 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, on behalf of myself and Senators Corzine, Hagel, Durbin and Dayton, I am honored to introduce legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long- standing problem in our military survivors benefits 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 surviving children the way it should. We should act to correct this in this session. I have sought and found inspiration on this from Holy Scripture. In fact, a simple yet powerful passage in the Book of Isaiah captures so much of what we are all about as a Nation theses days and what this legislation is trying to do. In Isaiah we are told, ``Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed.'' And then we are admonished to, ``Defend the orphan. Fight for the rights of widows.'' Also in the first chapter of James, verse 27 we are told that in God's eyes the true measure of our faith is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. This is powerful and clear direction that speaks to our hearts. Last year, under Senator Reid's leadership and at the Senate's insistence, the Defense authorization bill corrected a long-standing inequity by allowing 100-percent disabled military retirees to receive concurrently their full retired pay and disability compensation. That correction in law was long overdue and we need to continue to work to extend this change to include retirees with lower disability ratings. But there is another related injustice that needs to be addressed. The legislation that we offer today will extend the same protection of benefits to the widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military retirees and those who die on active duty. Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits plan--or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the retiree or issued automatically in the case of service members who die while on active duty. Retired service members 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. Surviving spouses or dependent children of 100-percent service- connected disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation from the Veterans' Administration. But the annuity paid by the survivors' benefits plan and received by a surviving widow or a child is reduced by the amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation received from the VA. I know a little something about insurance and income security plans. And I don't know of any other annuity program in the government or private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce their payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from another plan or program. The legislation that we are proposing today also makes effective immediately a change to the military SBP program that we enacted in 1999. We have 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. But we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further. The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of liberty everywhere. We owe them and those they leave behind a great debt. As Abraham Lincoln instructed us, 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 fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families have rendered. We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. I appreciate the cosponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Corzine, Hagel, Durbin and Dayton--and look forward to working with everyone in the days ahead. 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 feel strongly that any reduction in the size of the Nation's carrier fleet is not in the best interest of national security. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to require the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers. I am pleased to be joined by my co-sponsors, Senator Martinez, Senator Allen, and Senator Sessions. America's aircraft carrier fleet has played and continues to play a critical role in the global war on terrorism. Carrier based strike, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance aircraft, and even more importantly, special operations forces have provided the most responsive and capable support throughout operations in the Gulf region. Nothing has changed in the strategic environment to suggest that America is more, or as secure with eleven carriers as we are with twelve. The operational tempo of our aircraft carriers has never been higher and it is hard to imagine that it will slow any time soon. The range of strategic threats and opportunities that face the Nation at this moment in the war on terror does not support the idea that we can reduce our carrier fleet without creating significant and unavoidable risk to our global reach and sustainability. I urge my colleagues to join with us to ensure the Navy's global flexibility and striking power. Cutting our carrier fleet now increases strategic risk and reduces our combat power and capability, all for relatively small budgetary savings. I look forward to working with Chairman Warner and Senator Levin to gain the Armed Services Committee's approval of this legislation, and its passage by the full Senate. Identical legislation is being introduced in the House by Representative Ander Crenshaw, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in both houses to see that this vital national security legislation reaches the President's desk. 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, today I rise to submit a concurrent resolution on behalf of myself, Senators Allard, Allen, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Sessions and Enzi expressing the sense of the Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, in particular the periodic national and world Boy Scout Jamborees. I ask unanimous consent that, the attached letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I feel strongly that any reduction in the size of the Nation's carrier fleet is not in the best interest of national security. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to require the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers. I am pleased to be joined by my co-sponsors, Senator Martinez, Senator Allen, and Senator Sessions. America's aircraft carrier fleet has played and continues to play a critical role in the global war on terrorism. Carrier based strike, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance aircraft, and even more importantly, special operations forces have provided the most responsive and capable support throughout operations in the Gulf region. Nothing has changed in the strategic environment to suggest that America is more, or as secure with eleven carriers as we are with twelve. The operational tempo of our aircraft carriers has never been higher and it is hard to imagine that it will slow any time soon. The range of strategic threats and opportunities that face the Nation at this moment in the war on terror does not support the idea that we can reduce our carrier fleet without creating significant and unavoidable risk to our global reach and sustainability. I urge my colleagues to join with us to ensure the Navy's global flexibility and striking power. Cutting our carrier fleet now increases strategic risk and reduces our combat power and capability, all for relatively small budgetary savings. I look forward to working with Chairman Warner and Senator Levin to gain the Armed Services Committee's approval of this legislation, and its passage by the full Senate. Identical legislation is being introduced in the House by Representative Ander Crenshaw, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in both houses to see that this vital national security legislation reaches the President's desk. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Very good.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as we are awaiting the final moments of this session of Congress, there are deliberations going on in the Capitol about an agreement to come forth with legislation--my understanding, already passed by the House--that will allow Internet service to be provided to schools and libraries. This is the very popular and widely acclaimed E-Rate Program that had been set up back in the nineties. The idea was that we lower the cost of providing Internet to schools and libraries so that students who would not otherwise have an opportunity of experience on the Internet would be able to get it at school. I visited such a school last week in Tallahassee, FL. It is a school that is state of the art in all of the electronic provisions but yet, as part of the school system of that county, Leon County, is able to afford it because virtually all of their schools do have the Internet provided. This particular school, Roberts Elementary, in a rural section outside of Tallahassee in Leon County, has a diverse student population. It spans the socioeconomic spectrum and, indeed, there are a number of students at this school who, if they did not have Internet experience at school, would not have the opportunity to learn how to use the Internet and have available to them the services on the Internet. The long and short of it is we would be depriving, because of socioeconomic status, a significant part of our student population an equal opportunity to an education, and that is a standard we all hold up as something that is worthwhile to strive for. It all comes down to tonight. The E-Rate Program is going to stop, not because there is any diabolical movement here to take it away, because there certainly is not--it is widely acclaimed and widely popular--but because of a new accounting glitch in one of our agencies. I won't go into the details of this new method of accounting. It is, in essence, saying you are going to have to take away the fund that would supply the Internet to schools at a reduced rate. The alternative to that is--and this is not a very palatable alternative--that telephone rates for the Universal Service Program are going to go up to provide this money to continue to provide Internet service to schools and libraries. It can all be taken care of so easily--and I do not know of any disagreement on the substance of the issue--if we pass this bill tonight. It is my understanding there are a couple of Senators who have a hold on this for completely different reasons unrelated to any of this subject matter. There are discussions going on in this U.S. Capitol Building right now over the lifting of those objections so at the last few minutes, the clock is showing, of this session of the Senate, we can take up the House bill and pass it. That is all we have to do and do it by unanimous consent with no objections. If we do not do this tonight, then we are going to have to come back and go through the whole process again--pass it in the House, pass it in the Senate--and in the meantime have schools such as Roberts Elementary in Tallahassee, FL, be concerned whether they are going to have an e-rate, at the same time threatening telephone subscribers by thinking their bills are going to go up in order to pay for this worthwhile program, and none of that is necessary. I call on cooler heads to prevail and allow this program that is so necessary for the education of so many of our children to achieve that objective we all embrace, which is an equal opportunity for an education for all children. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana has just come in. Just so I may inform him, I have just given this Senator's impassioned plea for the E-Rate Program and why we need to pass this bill tonight. I have laid out the reasons, and I want the Senator from Montana to know a specific example of a school I visited last Friday, Roberts Elementary in Tallahassee, FL. The Senator well knows not only universal service and the importance of universal service to the rural areas of his State, as I do with mine--no matter how long the lines are that have to be run out there-- but that in that Universal Service Program is this funding mechanism for providing Internet service to schools and libraries. The final point I wish to make for the Senator, who missed my remarks earlier, is that this is so important because there are many students whose families cannot afford Internet at home, and, therefore, their only experience of this is going to be getting it at school. That was clearly evident to me at Roberts Elementary in Tallahassee, FL. It is my hope that now with the mellifluous and golden tones coming forth from the Senator from Montana, that he would bring us some good news about the negotiations of passing this bill tonight. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I commend the Senator for his leadership on this issue. Just to back up, about what the Senator was saying, I have a letter to the leadership of both the House and Senate signed by 34 Senators, bipartisan, pleading that we pass these items. So I ask the Senator, with this kind of broad support--there is really no opposition to the substance of this--what is holding it up, and what are the prospects in these final few minutes of this session of Congress that we are going to be able to disgorge this tonight?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to make a statement in regard to an important provision in the conference report: Section 4071, Watch Lists for Passengers Aboard Vessels. I would like to first commend the cruiseline industry for all of its proactive measures to enhance passenger vessel security. Both the cruise industry and I share the same commitment--that is to ensure the safety and security of the millions of passengers and crew traveling on their vessels each year, in addition to securing our ports. In an effort to clarify the intent of the provision included in the Intelligence Reform Conference Committee Report, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the current procedures in place at the Department of Homeland Security in regard to passenger vessels and express support for the increased security procedures undertaken in this area. Currently, passenger vessels electronically transmit advance passenger information through the Federal APIS reporting system or through the 96-hour advanced notice of arrival. This allows the government to review all passenger and crew manifest information and check against numerous Federal agency databases to ensure that all passengers and crew are cleared for sailing, though not always before departure. The purpose of section 4071 is to prevent terrorists or suspected terrorists from physically boarding cruise vessels that depart from U.S. and U.S. controlled ports. Currently, both Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard require the submission of passenger and crew manifests. This provision would codify the reporting requirement for vessels, and ensure that both manifests are checked against one consolidated terrorist watchlist prior to departure. The provision also includes language which would allow the Secretary to waive the requirement for vessels embarking at a foreign port if the requirement is impractical, however, in such cases the passengers and crew would continue to be screened prior to arrival at a U.S. port according to the 96-hour rule.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. To my good friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I am yielding back Senator Byrd's time. He still has time left. I stated specific parameters, 5 minutes for Senator Lieberman and the additional 5 minutes that I stated.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. No. If the Chair will clarify my statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman for their comments and support on this important issue. Our efforts here today are focused on encouraging the Department of Homeland Security to further increase passenger vessel security. I urge the Department to work closely with the cruise line industry in crafting this rule to prevent any unnecessary departure delays from occurring. terrorist sanctuaries definition