Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am here to talk about health care and health care reform today. A lot is happening today. The chairman of our Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, is, as we speak, making his chairman's mark become available publicly. Then later on today, around noon, he is going to have a public statement about it. Clearly this is one of the most pressing issues. Throughout this long hot summer we have had, people across the country have debated this issue, discussed it. It has helped lay the groundwork for where we are right now on this historic issue. I personally believe the President of the United States is committed that we are going to pass health care reform legislation. I believe the President of the United States back in the early 1990s was equally committed, but it did not happen. I think the big difference between then, in 1993, and now is that in fact it is going to happen. I want you to know this Senator is optimistic that when it gets around to 60 votes in this Chamber in order to shut off debate, I think we will get those 60 votes, and I think we will get them in a bipartisan fashion. Of course, right now all the commentary you hear is what is this problem and what is happening on this fight and who is not on board, and so forth. That is all natural. That is natural kind of talk. But when the moment of truth comes in casting yea or nay on this floor, I think people are seeing, day by day, examples of why we have to have health care reform. This happened just this past week in my own State of Florida. A woman undergoing cancer treatments has a reasonable degree of success by virtue of the enormous advances in cancer treatment. As the research doctors will tell you, people can live with cancer now. This lady was told by her insurance company they were disapproving the payments for the continuation of her treatments for cancer. That is the kind of stuff we cannot tolerate. It is another example of how insurance is not available even if an American citizen can afford it. I will give another example. One of the prominent citizens in a big city in Florida told me, for her corporation the health insurance is being jacked up 47 percent. This is for a major telecommunications company that has thousands of lives they can spread the health risk over, and it is being jacked up 47 percent. She said they negotiated that down from 55 percent. The question of affordability is there as well as the availability. In other words, the American people need stability when it comes to them knowing that health insurance and health care are going to be there for them. That is what we do not have and that is why this Senator is optimistic that when the moment of truth comes that we have to indicate to the President of the Senate if our vote is yea or nay, we are going to have 60 votes to cut off debate to get to the bill to start the amendatory process. We are going to start that amendatory process in the Finance Committee of the Senate next week. The chairman is going to come out with a mark--the chairman's suggestion, called the chairman's mark-- today. There is a bunch of stuff in there this Senator doesn't agree with. But we are going to have an opportunity to change it. Every one of us has received a lot of commentary about this from our constituents. In our office, just in the last few weeks, just on this issue we have received 56,000 calls or e-mails or letters. I happen to think this is good. It is bringing out passions. Unfortunately, it is bringing out, sometimes, hot passions. During August I was inside giving a speech to the greater Miami Chamber of Commerce while outside on the road were demonstrators with signs. Along came a pickup truck, a fellow got out, got into an argument, and he hauled off and knocked out a 65-year-old demonstrator. Of course, the TV cameras arrive when the poor 65-year-old is just coming to consciousness. There is no place for that, but that indicates some of the hot passions this has brought out. Remember what President Lincoln said: With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. He was specifically talking about the way we do government and the way we make law in this country. Recall also what President Kennedy said about 50 years ago. He said specifically about health care: The consent of the citizens of this country is essential if this or any other piece of progressive legislation is going to be passed. He was specifically talking about health care. So every one of us Senators can say, from the personal meetings, the calls, the letters, the e-mails--we can tell you there are a lot of folks out there who do not have access to affordable health care or in many cases to quality health care. We can tell you the stories we have heard about people being systematically excluded by some of the Nation's major managed care insurance companies and/or just insurance companies. Unfortunately, those are not rare cases. That is why we are here, to do something about it. Regardless of where you stand on the specifics of the issue, I think we can agree the current system, if continued, would be unfair, too costly, and as a result it needs to be fixed. It affects every one of us. It is also a truth that sooner or later every American, 9 out of 10 times, 9 out of 10 of us are going to end up in the hospital at some point. What do we do? I think the President laid down a good marker. His speech before the joint session was excellent. It gave some clear answers about his views on reform. It is true he has been more hands- off and is letting it be done by the Senate and the House. But, interestingly, when he got more specific, as he did in his speech to the joint session, he described or tracked pretty close to what is coming out in Senator Baucus's mark that the Finance Committee is going to take up next week. This legislation is going to let folks who are happy with their insurance keep it, including our senior citizens who are on Medicare and our veterans who have their health care. But it is also going to create a marketplace, a marketplace called the health insurance exchange, for those who do not have insurance. And in the case of the State of Florida, I will give you a percentage. That is 21 percent of our people who do not have insurance in Florida. That number is a little less nationwide, but if you take Florida as a bellwether, it is 21 percent who do not have insurance. This legislation is going to create an exchange, a health insurance exchange, for those who do not have it, cannot get it, or those who are unhappy with their coverage. They can go get it at an affordable price. It is a private sector solution of insurance companies competing with an insurance co-op, which is owned by the policyholders, not a government-insurance company, where in that competition of the free marketplace, they can offer insurance at lower prices. And for those poor souls who all they can get is not a group policy because they do not get insurance through an employer, the only way they can get it is to buy an individual policy, and, therefore, because it is an individual policy their rates are through the Moon--they are going to have an opportunity also to go into this health insurance exchange where they can get good coverage at a lower price. So what the legislation is going to do, in the creation of this health insurance exchange, it is going to hold the insurance companies' feet to the fire to require them to cover everyone and prevent them from dropping people when they get sick. That is called ``guaranteed coverage'' without any exemption from preexisting medical conditions. That is why a lot of people cannot get insurance. They have had a heart attack before or they had some malady or you have heard the horror cases that they had a skin rash previously 3 years ago, and the insurance company will not cover them because they said that is a preexisting condition. We are going to stop all of that with this legislation that I think will ultimately become law. It is going to contain several additional measures aimed at reducing other medical and prescription drug costs, and it is going to go right at the waste and the fraud in the system. This is a starting point. This is not the end all to be all. This is the starting point. We are going to do the amendments probably for 2 weeks in the Finance Committee. Then it is going to come out here, and it is going to get amended here. Then it is going to go to a conference committee, and it is going to get amended more. There are some concerns I want to share with the Senate and anybody who is listening through the lens of that TV camera. We have emphasized the importance of making sure that the insurance available on that health insurance exchange is affordable. We emphasized the importance of addressing the high health care costs of retirees who are not yet ready, because they are not eligible, for Medicare. We have urged and expressed our concerns about how small business is treated under this bill. Then, when it comes to senior citizens, those who are on Medicare, who generally are very favorable about their Medicare coverage, it is certainly a concern of this Senator who has a substantial population in my State of Florida of senior citizens on Medicare that they not have something taken away from them they have come to expect and to rely on in Medicare. That particularly is so with regard to a program called Medicare Advantage, which is a fancy term for a Medicare HMO, a health maintenance organization. The way the system was set up in a bill that passed 5 years ago, which this Senator did not vote for because it was severely flawed--nevertheless, it is the law and it has been the law for the last 5 years. It set up a system whereby Medicare HMOs, called Medicare Advantage, bid for senior citizens by offering them attractive premiums that are below what the standard Medicare fee-for-service is in a community. The law requires whatever that differential is between what the Medicare HMO has bid and what the fee for service is, that a quarter of that has to be given back to Medicare, but 75 percent of that differential is given to the senior citizen's Medicare beneficiary, through either lower premiums or no copays, or through extra benefits, such as hearing devices, or eye glasses or maybe even a membership in a fitness club. Needless to say, the senior citizens who have this do not want it taken away from them. Although people will say these high subsidies to Medicare Advantage, to those insurance companies need to be adjusted, I think it would be intolerable to ask the senior citizens on Medicare who have it to give up substantial health benefits they are enjoying under Medicare. For hundreds of thousands of seniors who did not conceive of Medicare Advantage but who have come to rely on it, this Senator is going to offer an amendment that will shield them from those benefit cuts on existing senior citizens on Medicare. I do not think we can punish senior citizens who signed up, and if changes need to be made for the future solvency of Medicare, then the senior citizens currently with Medicare Advantage should be grandfathered in. That is what my amendment is going to be. It is going to say that on the date of the bill, once it is signed into law, those who have that benefit should not have it taken away, and that a competitive arrangement for Medicare Advantage in the future would be done on a going-forward basis. I have another reason I am offering that amendment, because Senator Claude Pepper was one of the people who nurtured me along as a young Congressman in the House of Representatives. A lot of young people today do not remember who Senator, then Congressman, Claude Pepper was. He had been a Senator back when Roosevelt was President. He came back into the Congress after a 12-year hiatus out of office as a new Congressman from South Florida. He became the champion of the seniors of America, first, chairman of the Aging Committee in the House of Representatives, and then as chairman of the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives. What Claude Pepper said everybody listened to, because he spoke with great credibility and he spoke with great passion and eloquence. He spoke for a good cause, and that was standing up for the rights of senior citizens. He had been there at the outset. He had been a Senator when Social Security came into being in the midst of the Great Depression. Claude Pepper, who died in office at about age 87, on many private talks would say: Bill, I want you to look out for our seniors. Someone has to look out for them. I have never forgotten those admonitions, those instructions that were done with such love and compassion. So I feel it is my duty to try to protect our seniors as we get into the midst of this debate. There are other areas where we can certainly improve what is expected to come out today at noon. Another amendment would require the pharmaceutical companies to provide rebates to Medicare, as they have been doing for years, for decades, to Medicaid. Medicaid has roughly 49 million people in this country. Medicare has roughly 44 million people in this country. We give big discounts because we are buying for 49 million Medicaid recipients. The drug companies give those discounts back in the form of a rebate to the governments, the Federal and State governments. Why shouldn't they do that with regard to the 44 million Medicare recipients? If it is good enough for Medicaid, and it makes drugs a lot cheaper, why not do it for Medicare recipients? By the way, it would save Medicare a ton of money. There are serious issues to be resolved. This Senator is optimistic, and I believe we are going to be able to achieve this goal of expanding affordable health care to nearly all Americans. We must do so without raising taxes on the middle class or upending their coverage. And we must do so without lowering the quality of health care for any American, including our senior citizens. I am, by nature, an optimist. In the midst of everything that is wrong about this health care bill, I remain an optimist. The moment of truth is coming when we cast that vote yea or nay. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask that the time I use be allocated on the Democratic time and that the Republican time be reserved.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, before I make some comments about our departed colleague, Senator Kennedy, I must comment on the gravity of the remembrance of this day in history several years ago. There is not a person living who was old enough at the time on that fateful day in 2001 who does not remember exactly where they were when the tragedy occurred and this Nation was struck by terrorists, struck from within. Our Nation had grown up in its history of always having been protected in the homeland, protected by geography, with two big oceans that kept us insulated from attack from without. Then suddenly we were shocked into the realization that we could be attacked on our own homeland. Of course, what America has done in reaction to that, in perfecting our defenses, in increasing our intelligence apparatus, so that we get the information before the terrorists can carry out their dastardly deeds. That has been significant in the protection of this Nation and its people. Of course, we remember exactly that fateful day, every one of us. This Senator was only a few yards from this Chamber on the west front of this U.S. Capitol building in a meeting with leadership. We were aware that the Twin Towers had been struck with the first and second planes. Somehow we wanted to continue our meeting, even though our minds couldn't stay on the subject matter of the day, when someone burst in the room--I believe it is S-219--and said the Pentagon had been hit. We leapt to the window overlooking the Mall in the direction of the Pentagon and could see the black smoke rising. It is interesting the reactions you have at a time such as that. My wife and I had, a few days before, moved into an apartment overlooking the southwest corner of the Pentagon. It is called Pentagon Row. Of course, I leapt to a telephone to try to get a message to her to get out of the apartment and get into the basement garage. Being unsuccessful to reach her, I came back into the room everyone had deserted and out into the hallway, seeing the hallway crowded with people going down the stairs and hearing the Capitol policeman at the bottom of the stairs saying: Get out of the building, run, run, get out of the building. Of course, the report had come in that the fourth airplane was inbound for Washington. It was a day that brought Senator Rockefeller and me together, as he beckoned to me to get into his car and, as we drove away from the Capitol complex, scrambling with our cell phones, trying to get office staff to tell them to get out of the buildings and get to a location where they could inform us away from the Capitol complex. Senator Rockefeller and I wound through streets in Washington until we got to a location where we could wait to try to get additional information. Since then, of course, our Capitol police force and the Department of Homeland Security have come through with procedures and instructions that are much more definitive than we had on that day. I will never forget on that day when Senator Rockefeller and I decided we needed to move away from the location we were--we wanted to get to a place we could get news; we went to his home--hearing not a sound in the sky since all air traffic had been ceased on order of the Secretary of Transportation, but then hearing that silent sky being pierced by the sound of F-15s overflying the Capitol. It was a day that we not only can remember but that we can take great lessons and instruction from to prepare not to let it happen again, one we remember today and those people who sacrificed, those people who were the victims.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator would amend that to include the Senator from Florida as well?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is equally a solemn subject on which I rise to remember our friend and colleague Ted Kennedy who died at the young age of 77. I say ``young age'' because it was another one of our colleagues, Senator John Glenn, who flew on a 10-day spaceflight at age 77. Today, 11 years later, he still looks as young as he looked back then. So 77 is way too young an age for cancer to take our friend Ted Kennedy. From the funeral and the remembrances, we know that he was the youngest of nine children. He had four brothers. He was born in 1932 and elected to the Senate in 1962. He spent 46 years in the Senate, longer than all but two of our colleagues. He loved this institution, and he loved his fellow Senators. Of course, so many pieces of major legislation affecting the well-being of the American people if they don't have his name on it, certainly bear his fingerprints. Many of those pieces of legislation reflect the work of his pen. He fought tirelessly for the sick, the poor, the disabled, the children, the old. He was the driving force behind efforts to guarantee rights to the disabled, to provide family and medical leave, and to ensure a fair minimum wage. He also remembered individuals, both his colleagues, his staff, and his constituents. He was the first person to call during hard times. Why do you think that yesterday, our most esteemed colleague, Senator Byrd, in his bent-over, physically disabled condition now, was wheeled to this floor in his wheelchair, and his voice rose to the occasion in memorializing his friend. I remember Senator Byrd telling me how thoughtful Senator Kennedy was on a major birthday in his 80s, when Senator Kennedy had sent him the requisite number of roses. Of course, no matter what your political persuasion, you could see Ted Kennedy as an example of public service. He devoted his entire life to public service. He did so despite his easy financial condition. He did so despite numerous opportunities elsewhere. He did so despite seeing his three brothers sacrifice their lives in service to their country. I want to quote from our colleague Ted Kennedy, a quote from April 2006. He said: The defining aspect of our country is opportunity--the hope that you can do better, that your children can do better. But you need an even playing field. To do that, you can't be sick and in school. You've got to have health care. You've got to have an economy working to give people a chance to get ahead. It is not guaranteed. But you do have to have an opportunity. Our country is big enough and strong enough and wealthy enough to give that kind of opportunity to everybody. That's what I work on every day. What an example for all of us. There is something else I wish to say about our colleague, because much has been made of his flaws. But who among us does not have flaws? Maybe Senator Kennedy realized so much his flaws that he decided despite those, he was going to do the best he could do for his fellow humankind. So he dedicated his life to the poor, the sick, the young and old, and the disabled. He fought against discrimination of all types. Indeed, he stood up for the least among us. Who cannot admire that, in being a champion for the least among us. Godspeed, Ted Kennedy.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, momentarily, the Vice President will arrive to conduct one of the most important and very signal events of an individual's life, and that is being sworn in as one of 100 Senators representing the United States. As our new Senator, George LeMieux from Florida, assumes his duties, he will find that, indeed, he will understand that this has been called one of the greatest debating institutions designed by mankind to exist on the face of this planet. It is a great privilege to be a part of an institution that values democracy, that values free debate, that values the opinions of others. In this mix of two Senators representing each of our States, we come together to build consensus in order to lend our part to this constitutional process. For George LeMieux, this is going to be a red-letter day. I want to share with the Senate that it is a privilege for me to have the new Senator as my colleague. Our colleagues know the special relationship I had with Senator Martinez who I have had the privilege of having a 30-year personal relationship with. We continued that in our professional relationship here. Now with the new Senator duly appointed according to Florida law by our Governor, we have him coming to join us in this august body representing our State of Florida. That opportunity is now upon us since the Vice President has entered the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I speak with a good degree of regret, because he knows the heartfelt sentiments I am going to express, because I have tried for now the better part of 3 months to talk him out of this particular day. I did not want him to resign. It has been good for Florida the way the two of us have worked together professionally, because it is built on a personal friendship that goes back over 30 years. There was not a day we were in session here that Mel and I did not talk. Of course, this floor of the Senate is the place that you can get away from the other distractions, and, in fact, can come together and have those conversations you want. And that was so important in us looking out for the interests of Florida. So it is with a great deal of regret that this day has come. I think it is important that the two Senators from a State get along, and that is particularly true of two Senators who happen to be from different parties. It is my hope that the kind of relationship that we had both privately and publicly as the two Senators from Florida sends a message to our people that you can transcend partisan differences in order to get things done. I believe that is the relationship we have had now going on in the Senate for a little over 4\1/2\ years. I only wish that relationship were going to continue for another year and a half, to the remainder of Senator Martinez's term. But for personal reasons he has made this decision. It is incumbent upon me as the senior Senator of Florida and the newly appointed Senator to have the same kind of relationship for the good of our country, for the good of our State, to transcend political differences, to have a good personal relationship so we can get work done in a bipartisan way. I intend to do that. I assume that the new Senator will do likewise. Let me say that a lot of you do not know, with regard to Senator Martinez, that 30-- now going on 31, 32 years ago when we were a lot younger, he was already back then a very prominent trial lawyer. I was a pup State legislator trying to run in a congressional district that included the east coast of Florida and the interior, including Orlando. Mel was one of those high profile, very respected attorneys in Central Florida. And lo and behold, Mel and his wife Kitty, as I campaigned for that congressional seat in 1978, went out and went door to door for me. We have kept up that relationship over the years. So it has been my privilege to have had that personal relationship turn into the professional relationship as colleagues in the Senate. I say to Mel Martinez and to Kitty, God speed.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for what are heartfelt words. I was able to spend some time privately with the judge to get to know her from a first impression. Usually, in my 37 years of public life, I have been able to size up a person, and it has proven to be a fairly accurate measure of a person. My sense from that private meeting is that here we have a judge who will use a lot of common sense in making judicial decisions. I think that is important. I think it is also important that a judge have deference in the rule of law to precedent that has already been established. I believe that to be the case with this judge. Since it is the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will also have the final determination on what a law does or does not say. In that case, I think we not only want a judge who is extremely sharp, intelligent, well schooled in the law, with a long history in the law, with common sense, but of moderate disposition. I think that is what Judge Sotomayor brings to this position of the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe Judge Sotomayor will be a fair, impartial, and an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. I am very proud that I will be able to cast my vote for her in a few minutes. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of the Senate, and thank the Pentagon for its dogged pursuit in finding the evidence of CPT Scott Speicher, U.S. Navy, the pilot of the F-18 Hornet who was shot down on the first night of the gulf war back in 1991. This saga has evolved over the last 18 years. The Pentagon became lax in the 1990s and did not pursue the finding of evidence, and there were all kinds of reports that Captain Speicher may have been alive and held in a prison. You can imagine the trauma, the emotional ups and downs, that occurred to the family, which included the children who were quite young at the time and are now at the age that they are in college. Fortunately, the Pentagon, about 8 or 9 years ago, got serious about the search. When we invaded Iraq in 2003, they even created a search team. Again, there were all of these false leads that there had been the sighting of a pilot. An Iraqi refugee said he saw an American pilot in a prison. It went on and on. Of course, the hopes of the family were that CPT Scott Speicher was going to be found alive. Our Pentagon even went so far--and I commend them--that one of the first sets of questions on the debriefing of any Iraqi detainee--and especially the high-value detainees--the question would be asked, ``Do you know about an American pilot?'' All of these leads turned out to be false or they led to nothing. So it was that we expected that what would happen to find the final evidence would be a Bedouin tribe that would have been in the area of the Iraqi desert at the time Captain Speicher punched out, or ejected, from his jet that was hit. The irony was that Scott was not even supposed to fly that first attack wave, but another member of the squadron got sick and he filled in. Either he was hit with a ground-to-air missile or somehow in the aerial combat of the darkness of that night, and he ejected from his airplane. The rest has been a mystery until a Bedouin, thought to have been a younger child at the time, in 1991, remembered a pilot being buried. He could not identify the location, but knew of another Bedouin who was an adult at the time, and that Bedouin ultimately led the marines to the site and an extensive investigation and excavation that occurred on the Iraqi desert floor. So all who have participated--the Army Reserve, Major Eames, who led the Scott Speicher search party, and who extended his duty voluntarily for an additional 6 weeks way back in 2003, because he was absolutely intent that he was going to find this downed pilot. For all of those, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CNO, who have now brought this to closure, because last weekend they found the remains of Captain Speicher, with a positive identification through one of his jawbones with his military dental records, to be confirmed even further by DNA evidence. We know now that Captain Speicher can be brought home and his family can have final closure. I will conclude by saying that a mistake was made that we never want to repeat. Because of him being mistakenly declared dead at a press conference the next morning after that first night attack in the first gulf war--he was mistakenly declared dead by the Secretary of Defense-- we did not send a search and rescue mission. Every military pilot has to have the security of knowing that if he has to eject, a search and rescue mission is coming after him. That is the mistake we will not make again. For the family, and on behalf of them, I want to say to the Pentagon and to the other Senators who have participated in this 18-year quest on behalf of Scott's family in Florida, thank you from the bottom of their hearts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to share a story I heard about retired MSG Michelle Fitz-Henry. Michelle served our Nation for over 20 years. Her husband, Senior Chief Petty Officer Ted Fitz-Henry, was a Navy SEAL who served our Nation for 21 years. Michelle told me that before her husband left home for the Middle East they went into the living room. He said to her, you know if anything happens to me, SBP is there for you. When he said SBP, he was referring to the Survivor Benefit Plan, an annuity that the Department of Defense (DOD) pays to survivors--the widows and orphans--of two groups of servicemembers. The first group of survivors includes those who lost a loved one serving on active duty. In 2001, Congress passed a law allowing active duty servicemembers who are not eligible for retirement to be included in the SBP program. The SBP program provides the survivors of these fallen heroes with a monthly payment based upon the age of the spouse and the year the servicemember entered the service. This was the right thing to do. It showed the Nation's gratitude for servicemembers' sacrifice. If a servicemember dies on active duty because of a military-connected cause, the servicemember and his or her family are automatically enrolled in the SBP program. There is a second group of survivors who can also enroll in the SBP program. A veteran who is classified as a retiree--someone who has served for at least 20 years--is eligible to enroll in the program. After they leave the service, retirees can contribute a portion of their retirement pay to SBP. This contribution entitles their survivors up to 55 percent of the retiree's base retirement pay after his or her death. Since 1972, retirees have paid into the program with a portion of their retirement income in order to improve their family's financial security upon their death. Some retirees have paid into the program for over 30 years. What Michelle and Ted did not know was that the SBP they thought they could count on--approximately $1,200 per month--would be reduced, dollar-for-dollar, by another benefit from the Department of Veterans Affairs dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC, program. DIC is a monthly benefit payment to the survivors of all servicemembers who have died from a service-connected condition. That includes both those who die on active duty and veterans whose deaths resulted from a service-related injury. What many SBP participants and their future survivors do not know is that the SBP-DIC dollar-for-dollar offset can leave widows and orphans with up to $1,200 less per month than they had expected to receive. When planning a family budget this unforeseen reduction can be devastating. For example, if a widow's husband served for over 20 years, retired, paid into the SBP program and then died of a service-connected disability, she may think that she is entitled to both the full SBP and DIC payments. However, if she planned to receive $1,300 per month from SBP and $1,200 per month from DIC, she could be surprised to learn that the dollar-for dollar offset would reduce her $1,300 SBP payment by the $1,200 DIC payment and she would be left with DIC intact, but only $100 in SBP per month. As this body knows well, for 8 years I have fought to repeal the law that offsets the monetary payments between the SBP annuity and the DIC benefit. This body may recall that in 2005 we took a step in the right direction and passed by 92-6 an amendment to repeal the unjust SBP-DIC offset. In the 2008 Defense authorization, we cracked the door to eliminating the offset by getting a ``special payment'' of $50 per month. This special payment, called the special survivor indemnity allowance, is received by the widows and orphans whose SBP payments are offset by the DIC they receive. This year, the Congress increased the special payment to $310 per month, by 2017, for the widows and orphans impacted by the SBP-DIC offset. This increase came from savings found in the tobacco legislation, which became law on June 22, 2009. Michelle allowed me to speak of her case, but she isn't alone. When widows, veterans, and constituents speak to me in support of my efforts to repeal this offset, they often tell me that they did not know that the offset existed. If Michelle and Ted, with 39 years of combined service upon his death, didn't know about this offset then we have a bigger problem out there: the Services don't adequately educate our servicemembers and their families about their benefits, especially the offsets to their benefits. This year, we will change that. The amendment I filed to the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Senate Amendment No. 1808 to S. 1390, will increase servicemembers' and their families' awareness of their service-related benefits during transitions and events in a servicemember's career. My amendment will require the Services to provide information to servicemembers and their families about their disability, death, education, and survivor benefits, including any offsets. My amendment requires the Services to provide this information when a servicemember enters or leaves the service either through retirement or at the end of his or her service. The services must also provide information when a servicemember is classified as having a service- connected disability and is unfit to perform their duty. We all believe it is important for servicemembers and their families to receive certain benefits because of their service to the Nation. It is my guess that we also believe that servicemembers and their families should know about those benefits. We sometimes take for granted that we're doing enough, but I believe we can do more and benefits education is a small but important step toward taking better care of our people. Now I want to be clear, the Services are making honorable efforts to educate our troops about their benefits, but we all agree that we can do better. I asked the Services about their procedures, and I was surprised that there are few standards or requirements that compel the Services to educate servicemembers and their families about disability, death, education and survivor benefits. Thus, I believe that our joint approach with the Services will go a long way to bring uniformity of content and access to all servicemembers and their families. So, after gathering the information, I spoke with the Pentagon about the changes I was proposing and the possibility that I would file legislation. The Department provided numerous improvements to the legislation, including additional requirements for more information to be provided to servicemembers and their families. I appreciate their engagement and their thoughtful responses. I think it made for a better bill and a better amendment. Requiring benefits education about service-related benefits will help achieve the basic goal of raising awareness, not only about servicemembers' benefits, but also about the offsets to those benefits. This legislation is another step in the right direction; another step toward raising awareness about the law that requires the unjust SBP-DIC offset. However, as awareness is raised we must continue to work hard to enact a law that will repeal the unjust offset. Our servicemembers not only earned or purchased this annuity; they and their survivors rely on the government to provide them with accurate information and the benefits they expect and deserve. We must continue to right these wrongs.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up en bloc amendment Nos. 1852 and 1893, as modified.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, first, I would like to recognize the efforts of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran and the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Bennett. These leaders have a hard job to balance the many interests involved in their vital legislation. I would like to focus on the decision of the Senate Appropriations Committee to ban new Army Corps of Engineer projects from being receiving funding in this bill. I want to make a point that, when it comes to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, CERP, a strong case can be made that the two authorized projects that this legislation does not fund are not new starts. I am speaking of the Indian River Lagoon project and the Site One Impoundment project, both of which have been duly authorized by Congress. They are elements of the CERP that was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. At the time of its authorization, CERP was a plan that envisioned over 60 separate modifications to the old Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, C&SF Project. It is clear to me that CERP is an extension of the old Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, C&SF Project. The disastrous flood of 1947, which followed a severe drought in 1945, and the serious intrusion of saltwater gave rise to a demand for a new and effective water management system. In response to public demand, the Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District conducted public hearings throughout South Florida to collect information on how best to revamp the water management system. A comprehensive report was prepared by the Corps and submitted to Corps headquarters in December of 1947. The report cited the problems of flood protection, drainage, and water control and determined that the St. Johns, Kissimmee, Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee, and Everglades drainage areas composed a single system and economic unit. The report included a plan to deal with the problems of water management. This plan became the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, C&SF Project. The C&SF project was approved by Congress as a part of the Flood Control Act of 1948. The stated goal of the plan was to ``restore the natural balance between soil and water in this area insofar as possible by establishing protective works, controls, and procedures for conservation and use of water and land.'' But this project worked too well and caused far-reaching and devastating environmental impacts. In response, Congress directed a Restudy to modify the C&SF Project and to restore the Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for the other water-related needs of the region. The Restudy developed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, CERP, that was submitted to Congress and authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This chain of events shows that indeed CERP and its individual units are part of the C&SF Project that has received hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funding over the years. The Corps fiscal year 2009 budget request document states: ``The C&SF Project includes the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).'' The language of WRDA 2007 includes the term ``Central and Southern Florida'' when describing the Indian River Lagoon, Picayune Strand, and Site One Impoundment projects. These projects are a modification of an existing project that remains under construction. In its fact sheet for the fiscal year 2009 budget, the Corps states the following: ``The C&SF Project includes the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)'' I also would note that in the Secretary of the Army's Annual Report for fiscal year 2007 on Civil Works Activities the following appears in paragraph 76: ``CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, INCLUDING COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN'' I think it is clear that we do not have a situation of separate projects involved in CERP. CERP is a unified and comprehensive continuation of the old Central and Southern Project. Senator Martinez and I have filed amendments to put the projects back in the bill. The Florida Congressional delegation made sure the projects were fully funded and included in the House-passed bill. Therefore, when the legislation goes to conference, I urge the leaders of the full committee and the subcommittee to consider this unique situation involving these two components of the CERP--the Indian River Lagoon and the Site One Impoundment projects. I respectfully ask them to keep an open mind on this issue in conference and would further add the House version of the legislation would fund those projects. Now may I say a few words about these projects. Mr. President, I grew up on the Indian River Lagoon. It is a wonderfully diverse area. The St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon are periodically devastated by discharges from Lake Okeechobee and the areas surrounding the estuaries. The local citizens of Martin County have assessed themselves to raise money to buy land to be restored and used for reservoirs for the project. So far they have spent some $50 million. They have done their part. The Site One Impoundment project will save water from being discharged to sea and use it to benefit the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and provide benefits, including improved water quality, to downstream estuaries. It will also improve water flow into the Everglades, protect local water supplies, and provide environmental benefits to Water Conservation Areas. These projects are vital to restoring America's Everglades. I again urge the leaders of the Committee to consider these facts in conference.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this has been agreed to by both sides. I would ask for a voice vote.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, on behalf of the majority leader, Senator Reid, I object.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, most people know that tourism is certainly a vital part of my State's economy. I know that many of our Florida cities, just like so many cities elsewhere around the country, offer some of the finest and most competitive prices on hotels and conference facilities. So you can imagine that I was absolutely floored when I found out that some Federal agencies are blacklisting Florida cities and other cities in the country for travel and conferences because they are looked at as a vacation or resort destination. The hotel industry in Florida is already reeling, it is facing a significant decline because of the recession. Orlando hotels are filling only about 64 percent of their rooms. That is a drop of 8 percent from last year. So you can imagine that I was stunned when I found out that in a Wall Street Journal article last week they had listed Orlando and Las Vegas as cities mentioned in e-mails from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice as no-go-to destinations. Well, what they ought to be looking at is what is most cost-effective for the government if it is going to an out-of-town location from wherever that particular agency is to have a conference. When you compare, for example--I could be talking about any city in Florida and many other cities in this country, but let me take Orlando, for example. When you compare the cost of a hotel room in Orlando during the season with the cost of a hotel room, let's say, in Washington, DC, during the season, you will find that the Orlando hotels on average are $100 less per night than the other city in that comparison. Likewise, if you look at the cost of airfare as a destination, you will find that the round-trip airfare to a place such as Orlando is considerably less. But some agencies in the Federal Government, because Orlando is looked upon as a resort or vacation destination, have gotten so sensitized to the fact that we saw the Wall Street bigwigs going haywire, with all their perks and all of their extra emoluments, that they want to avoid the perception of going to a resort destination. I wish it hadn't come to this, but I have had to draft legislation to make it illegal for the Federal Government agencies to design travel policies that blacklist certain U.S. cities simply because they are looked at as destination cities for a lot of tourism. Talk about a double whammy in tough economic times when we have seen tourism and business travel dropping like a rock. It is one thing to avoid nonessential trips for the government to save taxpayers money, but it is taking it a little far when it is another thing that if it is legitimate travel and you then avoid certain cities just because they are where they are. My Senate colleague, Senator Martinez, is helping me with this issue, and working together we ought to be able to put an end to any such practice. I certainly hope it is not going to take me having to push through this legislation. I am asking the head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and the head of the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture, if they will dig down into the bowels of their organizations and root out this kind of narrow thinking that is going on and expressed in those e-mails as reported by the Wall Street Journal last Wednesday. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Levin-McCain amendment, Senate amendment No. 1469, to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Ending production of the F-22 and support for the Levin-McCain amendment reflects the best judgment of the President, Secretary of Defense Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen, the unanimous Joint Staff including the Chief of Staff of the Air Force Schwartz and Secretary of Air Force Donley. These individuals have carefully considered and weighed the current and likely threats to the nation. They have considered the Nation's national security priorities, policies, and budget, including the defense budget, and have reached the unanimous conclusion to end production at 187 aircraft. On July 16, Secretary Gates said in Chicago that ``the grim reality is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar devoted to--diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity, whether for more F-22s or anything else, is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and one that I will not take.'' I agree with Secretary Gates; therefore, I voted to strike the $1.75 billion to fund just seven more F-22 aircraft--not even a full squadron. Not only do I support the administration's budget request in this regard, but I also support the excellent work of the Armed Services Committee. Under the leadership of Chairman Levin and Senator McCain, the committee funded the urgent research and development priorities of the Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter Program; the high but unfunded priorities of the Navy; and the all-important operations and maintenance needs of the Army. As Secretary Gates said, ``we have entered a zero-sum game'' and every defense dollar counts. If the $1.75 billion F-22 funding stayed in the bill it would cut $850 million from operations and maintenance--O&M--accounts--this is money that would be used to perform depot maintenance on our Navy aircraft and ships at Navy and industry locations around the country including facilities located in Jacksonville, FL. The Chief of Naval Operations identified these funding priorities in the fiscal year 2010 unfunded programs list, UPL. Mr. President, I will ask to have printed in the Record the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy's UPL. If we authorize and fund continued procurement of F-22, then these critical shortages will not be addressed. Other accounts reduced to pay for the $1.75 billion unwanted F-22 procurement include funding for aircraft maintenance for the Air Force and mission support and training activities for Special Operations Command. Furthermore, $400 million would be cut from military personnel accounts. Reductions in military personnel funding will affect unit readiness by hindering the Services' ability to meet manning goals for end strength and operational units prior to deployment. It has indeed become a zero-sum game; thus, I support the effort of Chairman Levin and Senator McCain to restore funding for these vital accounts for readiness, support, and personnel. I support the military and professional judgments of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff to end the F-22 program at 187 aircraft. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy's UPL to which I referred.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside in order that I might call up amendment No. 1515.

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