Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I see others who wish to speak, and I will make a couple of brief comments. In the comments of the Senator from Virginia, his final couple of comments recalled for me a statement made in the closing of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, when on the back of the chair of the presiding officer was a sunburst. Someone opined in that Constitutional Convention: Dr. Franklin, is that a rising sun or is it a setting sun? And Franklin ventured to say that with the birth of the new Nation, with the creation of the new Constitution, that he thought it was a rising sun. Indeed, it is that hope, that optimism of which the Senator from Virginia has just spoken--uplifting words--that are the feelings that generate this Senator from Florida to get up and go to work every day, and to look at this Nation's challenges, not as a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, but as an American problem, that need to be solved in an American way instead of a partisan way. We have had far too much partisanship over the last several years across this land, and, indeed, in this Chamber itself. And of the Senators who are leaving this Chamber, I think they represent the very best of America, and on occasion have risen in a bipartisan way. It has been this Senator's great privilege to work with these Senators: Allen of Virginia, Burns of Montana, Chafee of Rhode Island, Dayton of Minnesota, DeWine of Ohio, Frist of Tennessee, Jeffords of Vermont, Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sarbanes of Maryland, Talent of Missouri. As the Good Book in Ecclesiastes says: There is a time to be born and a time to die. There is a time to get up, and a time to go to bed. There is a time for a beginning, and there is a time of ending. For these Senators who are leaving, it is clearly not an ending. It is an ending of this chapter in their lives, but this Senator from Florida wanted to come and express his appreciation for their public service, to admonish those where admonishment is needed when this Chamber, indeed, this Government, has gotten too partisan, but to express this Senator's appreciation for the quiet moments of friendship and reflection and respect in working together, which is the glue that makes this Government run. Whether you call it bipartisanship, whether you call it friendship, whether you call it mutual respect, whatever you call it, the way you govern a nation as large and as complicated and as diverse as our Nation is--as the Good Book says: Come, let us reason together--that is what this Senator tries to be about. And that is what this Senator will try to continue to do in the new dawn of a new Congress. So I wanted to come and express my appreciation for those Senators, who will not be here, for the great public service they have rendered. Mr. President, I am truly grateful for their personal friendship and for their public service. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while my colleague from Rhode Island is here, I want to ask him a couple questions. He is my friend, and he is one of the truly knowledgeable Members of the Senate on matters having to do with the defense of our country. With all the things that the Senator has outlined, which are certainly true--the lack of equipment; the wearing out of equipment; the fact that some of our troops went into Iraq and did not have the proper equipment, even body armor; the fact that, as the Senator has stated, the recruitment goals are not being met; the fact that more and more of the load is being put on the Reserves and the National Guard, which is taking particularly the National Guard away from its initial responsibility with regard to the States--my question to the Senator would be, since these two Senators were quite impressed with the candor of Dr. Gates, is he going to be able to make a difference in his advice to the President? Will the President listen?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is well said. Let me ask my colleague one further question of his opinion, Mr. President. My question would be that one of the things this Senator was struck with yesterday in hearings, basically all day, was that he came to the table refreshingly open in a nonpartisan way, much more in a bipartisan way. We certainly have not seen a lot of the conduct of this war in the past several years being done in a bipartisan way. I ask the Senator: How do you think Dr. Gates, as the new Secretary of Defense, is going to be able to involve that process, where those of us on both sides of the aisle will be able to participate and assist him in his role as Secretary of Defense?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I say to the Senator, thank you. I thank the Senator for his responses. And his responses mirror the feelings of this Senator from Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and announce that I had voted for Dr. Gates in the committee because I was impressed by a number of these attributes that the Senator from Rhode Island and I have discussed. And among them, clearly, are that this Senator grew up in an era in which it was understood that partisanship stopped at the water's edge. In other words, when it became matters of the defense of this country, that partisanship was over, that we came together in a bipartisan way. Sadly, I can say that I do not think that is the way this war has been conducted with regard to reaching out across the aisle and involving both sides, who all have the constitutional responsibility of reflecting and representing the will of the American people. It is very hard to sustain a war unless you have the support of the American people. If that is not done in a bipartisan way, then sooner or later that good will is going to run out. That is one of the things I was impressed with and pressed Dr. Gates about yesterday in the hearings: not only what appeared to be refreshing candor from him but also his approach, in a nonpartisan way, to these issues of war and peace. When we talked to him--as in the discussion recently in this Chamber, in the colloquy with the Senator from Rhode Island about the Guard and Reserves--he recognizes that is a problem. And he recognizes that what he is going to have to do is have a more responsible and direct way of utilizing existing forces because, in the short run, he is not going to be able to increase the forces considerably. And he ruled out, in my question to him, any return to the draft. So that means he has to make the military, particularly the Army and the Marines, attractive in order to get the reenlistments and the enlistments. Certainly, he has his hands full there, while being able to keep the Guard's ability to respond to their respective States in those times of emergency. Clearly, he had a refreshing candor about the question of what was the size force that was going to be needed, not only in Iraq but around the world. He recognizes that we have a problem right now in Al Anbar Province, that General Abizaid recently had told us he was going to increase the presence there by 2,200 marines in a Marine expeditionary unit, that that is a part of the country that is clearly not under control. So I found our deliberations with him to be refreshing, direct, with the candor that ought to be forthcoming from a member of the President's Cabinet in his interaction with the Members of Congress. After all, this is a constitutional government, one in which there are shared powers--some powers with the executive branch but some powers with the legislative branch. The way to have this machine humming is to have those branches cooperating with each other. My first impression of Dr. Gates is he is going to be that kind of Secretary of Defense to help us continue to work together. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address two matters that will be taken up by the Senate in this lameduck session. The first will be after we come back from the Thanksgiving holiday. We will be taking up a tax bill that will include a group of what we call tax extenders. These are tax breaks that are in existing law which are running out of time. They are going to cease to exist by the 1st of the year, unless we extend these tax breaks. One of those tax breaks is very important to our State of Florida. In fact, six States in this Union do not have a personal income tax at the State level. Whereas, those 44 States that do have the personal income tax are able to deduct that State income tax in the calculation of their Federal income tax, in those six States that do not have the State income tax, they have no such deduction. But their main revenue stream is a State sales tax. The deduction of that State sales tax has been a major help to constituents in those six States, including my State of Florida. It has saved, for example, the people of the State of Florida $750 million per year in Federal income taxes by being able to deduct their Florida State sales tax. It is my understanding that this is all worked out; that, in fact, we are going to be able to extend all of these tax extenders and that it will be done in the week of the lameduck session when we come back after the Thanksgiving holiday. That, of course, is enormously important. I had a hand, along with Senator Hutchison of Texas, in passing that bill to begin with, but that bill was effective for 2 years. That 2 years is about to expire at the end of this calendar year. So we certainly need that extended.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I also want to speak on a matter that Senator Vitter and I will introduce shortly, for there will be in front of the Senate an appropriations bill that will fund the Food and Drug Administration. Senator Vitter will offer, on behalf of himself and myself, an amendment that we had offered to the Senate on a different appropriations bill several months ago--and passed--that would allow Americans to purchase low-cost prescription drugs from Canada. Every year, millions of Americans, who cannot otherwise afford their prescriptions at pharmacies, seek those same FDA-approved prescriptions from Canada at significantly lower prices. Back in July, Senator Vitter and I introduced a separate amendment on this issue to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Our amendment prohibited Customs from stopping the importation of FDA- approved prescription drugs by American citizens. The amendment was in response to a new policy implemented by U.S. Customs which resulted in over 38,000 prescription drug shipments being detained by Federal officials. Our amendment received overwhelming bipartisan support when it was added to the Senate bill. This Senator started receiving complaints as far back as 2\1/2\ years ago. They had been ordering prescriptions from Canada for years, and suddenly Customs was confiscating their prescriptions. Customs has admitted that it was to the tune of almost 40,000 prescriptions. To a senior citizen who is so desperate to make financial ends meet-- and, in fact, sadly, in America in the year 2006, some senior citizens are having to make a choice because of their financial condition between buying their groceries or buying their prescription medicines. They are forced to do things such as cutting their medicine tablets in half to try to stretch it out when, in fact, their doctor tells them that is not what they should be doing. Yet it is happening. Over and over again, seniors have been able to order from Canadian pharmacists at half the cost of their prescription medicine. It is not a question of safety because it is made by the same manufacturer and even with the same packaging. Back in the summer, Senator Vitter and I saw an opportunity on an appropriations bill to prohibit Customs from using the appropriated moneys for the seizure of those kinds of individual purchases for a small duration of time--no more than a 90-day supply of their prescriptions and only from Canada. We passed it in the Senate overwhelmingly. It goes down to a House- Senate conference committee, and they watered down that provision to say that it can be done to bring those small, limited, individual supplies of prescription drugs from Canada but only if you bring it personally back from Canada. That may help my two colleagues who are from the State of North Dakota because they are right next to the Canadian border. But clearly for the States of Senator Vitter and myself and the States in the Southeastern United States, that doesn't help at all, particularly since some of our seniors have been accustomed to ordering these much less expensive drugs by mail or by e-mail or by telephone calls. When it got to the conference committee, they watered down the provision. That is what we are going to address today. I am waiting on Senator Vitter to come to the floor so we can offer this amendment. We have a new opportunity on an appropriations bill that includes the Food and Drug Administration appropriations. This does not assure Americans access to lower cost medications from Canada, since the FDA can still hold up the imports if they choose to do so under current law. That is why we are going to add this amendment to prevent the FDA from interfering with the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. A little bit of good news came out the last time we tried to do this with regard to the Customs Department. In October, Customs threw up its hands and said: We have more important things to do on the huge import of drugs that are counterfeit. That is what we are going after. We are not going to confiscate these individual purchases of a 90-day supply or less which are prescriptions from Canadian pharmacists. With that as a precedent, it would seem to me that the Senate would certainly go along with us and put this in the law right now with regard to the FDA to make sure that this policy is very clear. When Congress returns in January, we should look at, additionally, what is introduced by my colleague who is on the floor now, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Snowe, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act. This bipartisan bill, which I support, is going to set up a comprehensive system for importation of prescription drugs which will further help our senior citizens on lower prescription drug costs. Ultimately, we will have to debate the very essence of the problem in Medicare prescription drug benefits, Part D benefits. That is going to be a whole new debate that we will have out here on how to fill the doughnut hole which some people say would cost something like $26 billion. But there is a way to do that--by allowing Medicare to do what other parts of the Federal Government have done for years, including the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense; that is, use the bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices for drugs. As most people know, that was prohibited in the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But I think we are going to be addressing that because that is a huge stake in the heart of the purchasing power of Medicare for 43 million senior citizens to be able to negotiate those prices down by bulk purchases. It is clearly time for the Congress to stand up for our constituents and to help lower these prescription drug prices. I am looking forward to working with Senators in a bipartisan way to embrace this Vitter-Nelson amendment. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is a great privilege for this Senator from Florida to continue public service as a result of the will expressed in last Tuesday's election by the people of my State of Florida. It is a great privilege for a lifetime of public service. It is especially a great privilege serving in this body at this time in our Nation's history, with the challenges that are facing us. I believe there are many messages that have come from the American people in this election that we have just experienced. Clearly, the issue of Iraq and the policy of the United States Government toward Iraq is one. That was discussed during the election all over this country, and it was particularly discussed as two of the main items of interest in the two televised debates that we had in the Senate election in Florida. The other message coming out of this election, in addition to Iraq, is that the American people are tired of the partisan bickering. They have seen excessive partisanship operative in Washington. When they see that excessive partisanship overlaid with ideological rigidity, the result is gridlock. That is what we have had, in large part. People would like for their public servants to perform by reaching out to each other across the aisle and bringing people together in order to build that consensus in order to govern. That has not been the main theme in the American Government in the last several years. I hope that both the House of Representatives and the Senate are getting that message loudly and clearly from the American people. I can tell you, Mr. President, I know what Floridians are thinking. It is my business to know that. Interestingly, also, Florida is a microcosm of the Nation. People are tired of this bickering. Folks do not want a Republican or a Democratic solution; they want the right solution. If you do what is right, you can get a lot done. That is what the American people want. Certainly, a thorny problem, such as how to bring about stability in Iraq, is going to require a bipartisan solution. It is going to take a great deal of cooperation between the legislative branch, the Congress, and the executive branch, the President. The statements that we have heard by the new majority leaders of both the House and the Senate, as well as the statements made by the President, are certainly statements in the right direction. Now we will see if those statements can, in fact, become a reality in deeds and accomplishments. This Senator is dedicated to reaching out and building that consensus across the aisle, when you look at the enormous challenges that are facing this country in addition to Iraq--the whole war on terror, the defense of the homeland, the protection of our seaports; the stability of the U.S. budget, the attempt to bring the budget back into balance, an approach of pay-as-you-go; attending to the needs of our senior citizens, particularly senior citizens who have been lifted out of so much poverty as a result of these programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, and the protection of those programs and the proper financing of those programs; the need of the United States to address the needs of assisting State and local governments on education; the preparation for the big one that is surely to come in terms of natural disasters because, surely, we are going to have it--and the two Senators in the Chamber, both, are coastal Senators. A category 4 or 5 hit directly from the water on a highly dense urbanized area, and that will cause economic havoc that will be even over and above what we have seen, and the potential of insurance losses in excess of what we experienced in the 2005 and 2004 hurricanes that hit a lot of our Southeastern States. When the economic loss and insurance loss hits $50 billion, there is no one State, no one insurance company that can withstand that kind of loss. That is another challenge facing us. Then there is the straightening up of FEMA and its ability to respond, and respond quickly, which I have great hopes under Administrator of FEMA Paulison that we are much better prepared than we were in the 2004 and 2005 hurricane cycles. As we go down the list of the challenges that are facing this country--and there are many that I have not named--these cannot be solved as a Democratic or as a Republican solution; they have to be solved with the right solution; otherwise, you will never get consensus, particularly in the Senate. So this is my profound hope, and I want to express it to the Senate on this first day after the Tuesday election of November 7. The message has been clear: Stop the partisan bickering. Reach out across the aisle. Bring people together with the enormous geographical and philosophical differences as are expressed in this Senate, reflecting the opinions of the people of the United States to reach out across these partisan lines and bring people together. Mr. President, again, I appreciate the privilege of continuing my service to our country as I express this heartfelt opinion.

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 support the extension of the Higher Education Act. However, I would like to raise two issues. First, I would have preferred a clean extension of this act as the other extensions have been. Second, I am concerned about the impact this extension will have on the many other graduate students nationwide who rely on financial assistance, including students at Florida's Nova Southeastern University. Nova Southeastern University's student body is unique with eighty percent pursuing graduate studies. This is the opposite of typical institutions where 80 percent of students are at the undergraduate level. Nova holds the distinction of leading the Nation in postgraduate degrees awarded to Hispanic students. Nova is also the largest originator of School as Lender loans in the country, and thus, is disproportionately affected by changes to the School as Lender Program. The School as Lender Program allowed Nova to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in low-cost loans to students. Premiums from the sale of those loans provided the university with millions of dollars annually which it used to educate its students. Nova maintains it helped keep their tuition rates down. Denying Nova its ability to use these premiums for all students will hurt thousands of Nova students each year. This extension also eliminates the ability of school lenders and eligible lender trustees to issue low-cost PLUS loans to graduate students. This change could increase the cost of graduate school for many students who need multiple loans to finish their degree. For these reasons, I am disappointed this is not a clean extension, and I will continue to engage our Senate Education Committee leaders about this issue in the months ahead.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, every year, millions of Americans who cannot otherwise afford their prescriptions at pharmacies in the United States seek the same FDA-approved prescriptions from Canada at significantly lower prices. However, on November 17, 2005, U.S. Customs quietly implemented a new, stricter policy on prescription drug importation. The new policy has resulted in over 37,000 prescription drug shipments being detained by Federal officials. The new policy has limited the ability of American consumers to purchase these legally prescribed medications from FDA-approved facilities in Canada. Mr. President, I can tell you that my constituents are extremely disturbed by the actions being taken by our Federal Government. Silently implementing a stricter policy without adequately informing the public puts the health of those who have relied on the prompt delivery of these medications at risk. That is why I offered an amendment with Senator Vitter to the Senate version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Our amendment prohibits Customs from stopping the importation of FDA- approved prescription drugs by American citizens. The amendment received overwhelming bipartisan support when it was added to the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the language agreed to by a House-Senate conference committee will only allow Americans to buy and carry home Canadian prescription drugs for personal use, while continuing to prohibit consumers from ordering their prescriptions from Canada by mail. Although the original Nelson-Vitter provision would have given all Americans greater access to affordable prescription drugs through the mail, the diluted version that emerged from conference committee will help only a few Americans from one part of the country. This language helps almost no Floridians who live thousands of miles from the Canadian border. While I am pleased that Americans living near the border will now have greater access to low-cost prescription medications, I believe that this provision discriminates against Floridians and others who do not live near Canada. However, this provision is a small step in the right direction. I believe that its passage will open the door to expanding access to lower-cost medications from Canada for all Americans, regardless of where they live. We have made progress but I intend to keep pushing the issue until all Americans can get the medications they need at an affordable price.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am introducing a Resolution to recognize Mr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield for his outstanding service to our country in his capacity as head of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. He is retiring and I could not let Max retire without thanking him for all he has done to save countless lives and protect billions of dollars of property over his 34-year career. I have reached out to Max on numerous occasions over the last 2 years when Florida was in the path of eight hurricanes. His straightforward assessment of the risks and accurate predictions were a source of comfort and strength for all of us who live in hurricane-prone areas. For those reasons, Max is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on hurricanes. During his tenure with the National Hurricane Center the accuracy of hurricane forecasting has improved dramatically. Over his long career, he has earned many awards including NOAA's Bronze Medal for creating a public-private partnership to support the nation's disaster preparedness, the Francis W. Reichelderfer Award, an Outstanding Achievement Award, the Richard Hagemeyer Award, and a Presidential Rank Award from President George W. Bush. Max and his colleagues also have been recognized by the Department of Commerce with Gold Medals during Hurricanes Andrew and Isabel, and a Silver Medal during Hurricane Gilbert. On behalf of all Americans, thank you Max and best wishes in your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, although we have accomplished much to be proud of in this Defense authorization bill, I am profoundly disappointed that once again we have failed to eliminate the SBP-DIC offset. For the last 5 years I have been talking about the unfair and painful offset of the Defense Department's survivors benefits plan against Veterans Affairs' dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC. This offset mistreats the survivors of our servicemembers who die on active duty now and our 100 percent disabled military retirees who purchased this benefit at the end of their careers. It is wrong, we know it, and the Senate has tried to fix it--but we have fallen short again. I have reminded the Senate of the Good Book's words, that in God's eyes the true measure of our faith is how we look after orphans and widows in their distress. And they are in distress. We are in a violent struggle around the world with brutal and vicious enemies. Sadly, Americans are lost every day. We must never forget that the families left behind by our courageous men and women in uniform bear the greatest pain. Their survivors' lives are forever altered; their futures left unclear. They suffer the enduring cost of the ultimate sacrifice, and the Nation that asked for that sacrifice must honor it. We are the ones who must recognize that the Nation has an obligation to those who give their lives for our country. This conference report does not include the Senate's provision to eliminate this offset. In the Senate, we included the funds necessary to support this change in our version of the budget resolution. Accordingly, the Armed Services Committee included a provision to eliminate the offset, thanks to our chairman, Senator John Warner. However, the conference could not find a way to bring this to closure. Our eligible survivors are again let down. Mr. President, I have felt honored over the years to champion this important change in our survivor benefits system. And, although disappointed, I am no less honored or resolved to continue this fight. I thank my many Senate colleagues who have felt as strongly as I about taking care of our military widows and orphans. I look forward to working with them again when we bring this to the Senate again in our next session. Our military men and women, and their survivors would never give up; neither will we.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today, September 21, 2006, marked the successful conclusion of the STS-115 Space Shuttle Atlantis mission with its safe landing at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This 12-day mission was the 116th shuttle mission and the 19th to visit the International Space Station. STS-115 marked the resumption of International Space Station construction for the first time since 2002. The Atlantis crew delivered and installed a large space station truss segment, two solar arrays and associated equipment, significantly increasing the electrical power generation capability on the space station. STS-115 included three critical spacewalks to install the truss and solar panels, laying the groundwork for the future doubling in size of the space station. I applaud the skill, bravery, and accomplishments of the STS-115 crew--Commander Brent Jett, pilot Christopher Ferguson, and space walking mission specialists Daniel Burbank, Steven MacLean, Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, and Joseph Tanner. This successfu mission is a testament to the thousands of people who work on the Space Shuttle and Space Station Programs. We must continue to fly space shuttle in order to complete the construction of the International Space Station, honor commitments to our international partners, and utilize this laboratory for its intended purpose--extending our presence in space and increasing our understanding of the space environment for future explorers. Equally important, we must work together to preserve the workforce that will soon become the backbone of the new Orion crew exploration vehicle and the next human space project.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, given the fact that is the case, that we cannot proceed, and given the fact we have 1 week left in order to avoid this penalty, it is my hope there may be a vehicle that will come along, and that since Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have been trying so hard to get this legislation up, they may find an appropriate legislative vehicle on which to attach it to bring this needed relief to the senior citizens of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for the passion she brings to this issue in pointing out the fact that, indeed, there are major industries in this country that are desperately in need of a labor pool. Agriculture, as the Senator has so articulately pointed out, construction, the tourism industry--three industries that affect our State and the Senator's State--all three of those industries are enormously important. If we want to do something for immigration and actually make what is, in effect, amnesty now, because the law is not being obeyed, at the time the Senator and I served in the House of Representatives in the 1980s, in which we voted for that immigration bill, there were only an estimated 2 million people in the country illegally. Now it has swelled to something like 12 million. Amnesty is the condition we have right now because the law is not being obeyed by the people who are supposed to obey it and the U.S. Government is not enforcing the law which allows all the more illegal entrants into the country. The solution, in the interest of the United States, it seems to me, to get our hands around the problem of illegal immigration, is to pass a law that has some teeth, that will be obeyed and, at the same time, provides the labor pool so we do not wreck our economy in the meantime. The Senator from California has just pointed out industries in her State, agricultural interests in her State that, in fact, are having difficulty getting workers to harvest the crops. It is another one of the little ironies, that people are saying amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, and what we have right now because the law is not being obeyed. We ought to pass a bill, a bill that controls the borders--of course, there are more reasons for controlling our borders than just immigration, with terrorists coming into our country--a bill, in addition, that will address the labor needs. Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 2810 I address the Senate on another subject with regard to seniors and their prescription drug coverage. We have long advocated there be meaningful prescription drug coverage. Two or 3 years ago we passed one. It ended up showing there are quite a few deficiencies in the prescription drug coverage Medicare Part D for senior citizens. However, it was passed and it is law. It is our job now to improve that law and correct the deficiencies, plug the loopholes, and make the appropriate changes to this program that are going to help seniors afford the cost of prescription drugs. Over the past several months, as we have been dealing with this issue, I advocated extending the enrollment period under the Medicare prescription drug program and the elimination of the late enrollment penalty. Under the current law, which was passed several years ago, seniors who did not sign up by May 15 of this year--that was the deadline--and who enroll at a later date, when they do enroll for the Medicare prescription drug program, they are going to pay a penalty of 1 percent of their premium tacked on for each month they delay the enrollment. If they wait to sign up until the end of the year, they are going to pay a late enrollment penalty of 7 percent. If the whole idea of giving senior citizens some financial help with a prescription drug program is to help them financially, and now we are going to slap a 7 percent late enrollment penalty on them, it works at counter purposes to what we are trying to do to help the seniors. The Congressional Budget Office says that three million seniors are going to have to pay these higher premiums because they will have the penalties assessed. Many of the senior citizens in this country simply are not aware this penalty exists. The Kaiser Foundation did a survey and found that nearly half of the seniors are unaware they face a financial penalty if they did not sign up by May 15. We tried, before May 15, to get Congress to extend the enrollment deadline. We got well over a majority of the votes, but we could not get the 60 votes to cut off debate. I believe we ought to at least waive that penalty for those who did not enroll and want to do so at the end of this year. We filed a bill, S. 2810, the Medicare Late Enrollment Assistance Act, that allows Medicare beneficiaries to sign up during the next open enrollment period without a penalty. Last May, after the deadline had just passed, this Senator worked with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to introduce this bill. The bill now has 45 Senators cosponsoring it. The enrollment period for next year is fast approaching. We need to pass this bill before we adjourn. We have less than a week and a half. We have a week and 2 days until the Senate adjourns. It is imperative the Congress pass this legislation and not just continue to talk about it. It is wrong to penalize seniors who could not enroll by the deadline. What we all ought to be doing is to make this Medicare prescription drug program more senior-friendly. That includes exactly what this bill is. It was filed on a bipartisan basis. It is time to stop playing politics with the health care of our seniors. Waiving that enrollment penalty, backed by Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, is the compassionate thing to do. We are not alone in this. Listen to the organizations that have come out in favor of S. 2810, the Medicare Late Enrollment Assistance Act: AARP; American Diabetes Association; Alzheimer's Association; American Autoimmune Related Disease Association; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; Epilepsy Foundation; Lupus Foundation; Men's Health Network; National Alliance for Mental Illness; National Council of Community Behavioral Health Care; National Family Caregivers Association; the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry; the National Health Council; the National Osteoporosis Foundation; the AIDS Institute; the Arc of the United States; United Cerebral Palsy; and the National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease. That is a pretty broad spectrum of people who deal in health care, particularly with regard to seniors. Now, somebody may say: Well, it is not paid for. Members of the Senate, it is paid for. The bill is estimated now to cost $500 million over 5 years. And this cost is offset by using part of the stabilization fund which was set up in the Medicare drug law. That fund was to be used to subsidize and entice private companies into the Medicare Program. But the fund is sitting there, and it is not needed because private plans are abundant in the Medicare market. There is money available, and it is time not to penalize our seniors. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately take up and pass S. 2810.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Well, indeed, thank you, Mr. President. The Senator from Maine is exactly correct. There is the flexibility in the amendment for the Department to make that determination because it is specifying the implementation of a program for examination of containers for radiation at ports of entry.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission Report said: [O]pportunities for terrorists to do us harm are as great-- or greater--in our shipping ports as they are in commercial aviation. We have done a pretty good job in tightening up the security of our airports but not so in our seaports. That is the purpose of this whole bill on port security. A respected policy center that studies terrorism looked at what would happen if a 10-kiloton bomb was detonated in a seaport--in this particular simulation, the Port of Long Beach, CA. They pointed out that 60,000 people would die instantly, and another 150,000 would suffer radiation poisoning, and some 2 to 3 million people would have to be relocated as a result of the contaminated land. Of course, the cost to our Nation's economy would be enormous--about $1 trillion under that scenario. Most experts agree that our ports are not only vulnerable but also the damage resulting from an attack could be catastrophic. Where are most of the ports located? Mostly, they are snuggled up to, close to, a downtown, a highly dense urban community. The State I represent, Florida, is home to 14 deepwater ports, so we have the task we are trying to address in this bill of protecting these ports and protecting the peace and security of our people. The outcome of this fight has very broad implications for our country. All of our Nation's 88 ports that handle cargo containers still remain vulnerable. Only--we are estimating--6 percent of all the cargo coming into these ports is fully inspected. Our own Department of Homeland Security says three out of four American ports do not have the equipment to screen for nuclear weapons or for a dirty bomb, which is a conventional weapon designed to spread radioactive material. And the Congressional Budget Office says the President's proposed plan falls about $130 million short of what is needed to protect these ports. I recall my former colleague from Florida, the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, former Senator Bob Graham, recently warned that the increase in Federal spending was not enough to adequately protect ports. This former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that if he were a terrorist, he would know exactly how to go about wreaking havoc--he would head for a port with lax security and then do his dirty work. In the legislation before us, we have taken a giant step in the right direction. We are proposing to secure 22 of our Nation's busiest container ports. But what about the other 66 domestic container ports? Shouldn't they receive the scrutiny? And shouldn't we protect the additional 273 secondary sea and river ports in the United States? Certainly, we should. That is why I offer this amendment today, which will direct the Homeland Security Secretary to develop a strategy for the deployment of radiation detection capabilities at every U.S. port. I believe it is going to make all of us a little bit safer. There has been enough delay. Now it is time to do this. And we should do it right. So this legislation is the implementation of a program for the examination of containers for radiation at ports of entry described in the bill, not just the 22 major ports.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Before I call up an amendment, I will say a word about Senator Baucus. It is a measure of the man in times of tragedy how one will stand tall and be a healing force among the bereaved. In this terrible tragedy his family has had, the son of his brother being killed in Iraq, Senator Baucus was able to bring comfort to his family, and particularly to his brother, by going to the Air Force Base and receiving the body of his nephew and then escorting the coffin all the way to Montana, and returning that body, as the Good Book says, from dust to dust. I want to add my personal comments of appreciation for the life of Senator Baucus and especially for his public service. Amendment No. 4968 Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4968.

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. President, now is the time that if the United States were to supply some direct financial assistance to dissidents, it could start to have a salutary and immediate effect on what is happening on the island. Clearly there is going to be a transition; we just don't know when that transition is going to come. What we hope is it is going to be a transition ultimately to a democratic government. The news this week marks an opportunity that we have been anticipating for decades. We can only hope that it is a real opportunity for the Cuban people to move forward, leaving behind a dictatorship and the repression they have experienced for a half century. But we must remind ourselves that the true celebration is going to come on the day that the Cuban people have a democratically elected government of their own choosing. While it seems that we are one step closer toward our shared goal, we should remind ourselves of the need to continue our support for the true Cuban heroes: the brave dissidents who struggle every day to demand and to plead for the very basic human rights, including the ability to read what they want to read, to say what they want to say, to live where they want to live, and to study what they want to study-- things that we take for granted in this country, but where, only 90 miles from Key West, people do not have those freedoms. These heroes in Cuba don't win medals. They are not honored in ceremonies. Instead, Castro throws them in jail for decades after show trials in kangaroo courts. Their families are harassed, denied employment and other basic necessities. Those who are not thrown in prison are greeted regularly by mobs of government thugs who threaten and embarrass them in front of their neighbors. As recently as a few months ago, one of those mobs attacked and beat Marta Beatriz Roque, a prominent dissident who advocates for democracy on the island. These are the people who every day choose to fight for democracy through simple acts of defiance. They risk their limited freedom by continuing to mobilize and speak out for the basic rights that every human being deserves. They run independent libraries. They clandestinely write stories for illegal independent press. They pass along information to their neighbors or they very bravely sign petitions calling for democracy. You will recall a few years back, even under the Cuban constitution, that 10,000 people signed a petition, petitioning for the basic right of going in front of the Congress to fight for basic freedoms and economic freedom. Mr. President, 11,000 very brave souls signed that petition, and many of them have been harassed. Now, we here in the United States continue to support the brave Cubans who struggle every day to fight for democracy and basic human rights. Despite the regime's attempt to silence them, the work of these brave dissidents becomes even more important as the opportunity to foster a real transition in Cuba gets closer and closer, and those brave Cubans, those dissidents, will be the catalyst that pushes any post-Fidel government toward democracy. Let me say that again. Those brave dissidents will be the catalyst that pushes any government after Fidel toward democracy. Therefore, it is more important now than ever that we support the dissidents and the activists in Cuba through direct financial support. Senator Ensign, who is in the Chair, Senator Martinez, all of us have introduced the Cuban Transition Act of 2006, and that includes the Senate majority leader as one of the cosponsors. This legislation will authorize such funds to directly support dissidents in Cuba. Now, that has been filed. We are trying to get it hotlined. There are some Senators I understand on both sides of the aisle who have objected to bringing it up, so what we will do is continue to work with them over August to see if we can get agreement. Mr. President, amendment No. 4853 which I have just offered appropriates $40 million in emergency money to support the efforts of dissidents in Cuba. It is important that at this time we send a clear message of support and commitment to the Cuban people as they continue their struggle. We will continue this support to the people of Cuba until the day they have a free democratic government that respects human rights. The overall bill that we filed which we are going to have to work on over August would authorize, over 2 years, $40 million. We already send stuff--goods. However, under current law, we do not send money to the dissidents to encourage them. So using the Defense appropriations bill as a vehicle is very timely. It is to promote in transition a democratic form of government in Cuba, and the appropriation would be $40 million. Now, you wonder under this amendment: What would be some of the activities that would be supported? For example, to support an independent civil society in Cuba, to expand international awareness of Cuba's democratic aspirations, to break the information blockade put in place by the regime of Fidel, including activities to promote access to independent information through the Internet and other sources; to provide for education and exchanges for the people of Cuba, including university training from third countries and scholarships for economically disadvantaged students from Cuba that are identified by independent, nongovernmental entities and civic organizations in the United States and third-country universities. Another activity would be to support international efforts to strengthen civil society in the transition planning in Cuba. If the President of the United States determines that there exists either a transitional government in Cuba or a democratically elected government in Cuba, as those terms are already defined in the statutes, and he submits that determination to Congress, then the funds made available may be used at the discretion of the Secretary in accordance with set guidelines. The Secretary of State shall ensure that none of the funds made available in this section are provided to the Government of Cuba. So the intent of this legislation, while the island of Cuba is front and center in the eyes of the world, is for the United States to take a strong stand and start providing some assistance so that those brave people--the dissidents in Cuba--can look forward to the day of a democratically elected government. I and my colleagues all look forward to that day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there is a lot of news south of Florida, 90 miles from Key West. We don't know the condition of Fidel Castro. Clearly, there is obviously a major medical problem and, for days now, Raoul Castro, his brother, has been invisible. Even though the Cuban Government released information which said President Castro had ended up going in for intestinal surgery, basically, we just don't know. But what we do know is he is 79, going on 80, and we do know that none of us are immortal and, therefore, what we know is that there are a limited number of days of this totalitarian regime, and then there is going to be a transition to something else. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4853.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while we consider legislation regarding the hard-earned pension benefits of American workers, we have before us a good bill, but flawed bill, which is long overdue. It strengthens company pension plans and ensures that money promised is there to pay for millions of workers' and retirees' benefits. It also enhances retirement savings and retirement security by encouraging more companies to use automatic enrollment in 401(k) pension plans, which ensures workers save more for retirement. Yet despite these positive steps and necessary reforms, I have grave reservations over the inequities contained in the airline relief portion of the bill. We are not here to pick winners and losers in certain industries, yet the differential treatment contained in this legislation would offer one company an unfair advantage over another. Last year's Senate-passed bill contained equitable relief for all, which is the correct approach, and I am appreciative of the work the Senate Finance and the Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committees put into that effort. This House-passed bill takes a different approach and deals a better hand to some at the expense of others. It is not my intention to delay or hold up the bill because of this provision, but I am seeking assurances for the 13,475 American Airlines workers and retirees in Florida who are counting on us to make changes, in whatever way possible, that will put them on equal footing.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.