Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these four bills, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2006, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2006, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2006, and the Homeowners Protection Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the problem that, when our Border Patrol apprehends illegal aliens, they have no place in which to process them, no detention beds, so 90 percent in some parts of this country are released. Guess what. They never appear for their formal appearance and they melt into the economy and add to the existing problem. The chairman has addressed this already. Whereas the current law adds 8,000 of these detention beds per year, and that is on top of a base of only 20,000 detention beds nationwide--the chairman's bill adds a one- time additional 10,000 new beds over and above the 8,000 beds per year. This amendment will double that by adding a one-time 20,000 new beds above the 8,000 beds per year. It is very simple. That is it. I thank the chairman of the committee for being willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, since I seem to be the only thing in between now and the Senate adjourning, I will not take the 10 minutes and will make it very short at the request of the chairman. I call up amendment No. 3998, with a modification which is at the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the distinguished assistant minority leader.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the underlying bill we are discussing is an attempt at a much needed reform of the health insurance system of this country. If you wonder why there is the organization of health insurance in this country that we have, it is as a result of a historical accident. It was when all the veterans were coming home after World War II that employers, in order to get them to come and work for their company, would offer fringe benefits, one of those fringe benefits being health insurance. Therefore, a system developed in this country of organizing health insurance around an employer. As time grew and things got more complicated, health insurance offered by an employer that was a large employer, with hundreds and thousands of employees, could offer a cheaper rate because of the principle of insurance; that is, you take the health risk, you spread it over the most number of lives, and therefore you bring down the per-unit cost or the cost to the individual for the health insurance premium. Because in a much larger group, you have young and old, you have sick and well; instead of a group being smaller and smaller--especially if it is a mom-and-pop store that wants to insure their employees--there are not many lives over which to spread that health risk, and therefore the cost of that health insurance is going to be so much more than on a large group. That is why we have used the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan as an example we should try to achieve. There are approximately 9 million people in that health insurance plan. So you have 9 million people over which to spread the health risk, and therefore you can bring down the per-unit cost. You can let it be private enterprise with the individual insurance companies competing for that business. And you give the consumer the choice: do they want a ``Cadillac'' policy with a lot of bells and whistles or do they want a ``Chevrolet'' policy, which is much more pared down? Now, that is the ideal we ought to achieve, and that is what the Enzi bill is trying to achieve. The problem is that the Enzi bill has a fatal flaw; that is, there is no regulation of the insurance companies. That is the fatal flaw. Now, I can inform the Senate, this Senator from Florida, prior to coming to the Senate, had the privilege--and I might say the toughest job in my entire adult life of public service--to be the elected insurance commissioner of the State of Florida. And through one crisis and another, you kind of, in that crucible, start to learn something about insurance. One of the things I learned is, if insurance companies are not regulated, then, guess what, insurance companies will want to insure the lower risk--in other words, the healthier people, the younger people who are not going to get sick--and if they do insure the sicker and the older, the price is going to go up through the roof. You need a regulator to regulate the business of insurance, to protect the interest of the public. That is why, in the 1930s, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, passed by the U.S. Congress, left to the 50 States the regulation of insurance, and that is why departments of insurance are set up in most States--most of which, by the way, have an appointed insurance commissioner; very few States have an elected insurance commissioner--and they are there for the purpose of protecting the consumers of a product which is not a luxury and has now become a necessity. In the case of health insurance, we Americans look at it as almost something that is, if not a right, clearly something that is a necessity for the good health we all want to have. So what is wrong with the Enzi bill? I can tell you, there is not a finer Senator than Senator Enzi. There is not a finer gentleman than Senator Enzi. So as I have talked to Senator Enzi about the deficiency of his bill, the fatal flaw--the idea of pooling is great, but when insurance companies are not regulated, as is the case in his bill, what is going to happen? The price is going to get jacked up. The group is going to get smaller and smaller. It is going to get older and older. It is going to get sicker and sicker. And the insurance premiums are going to continue to go up. So I have talked to Senator Enzi, and I have said: Let's correct this deficiency by amending it so we impose what has been the delivery of insurance in this country since the 1930s; that is, the protection of the consumers with a regulator. But guess what. Senator Enzi is under the direction of the majority leadership, and the majority leadership says, in the consideration of this bill, they will not allow it to be amended. Now, isn't the Senate the place where deliberation is to occur? And if this Senator from Florida, on the basis of his experience for 6 years as an insurance commissioner, can point out an improvement to the bill that otherwise, if passed and went into law, would do one thing: jack the rates up--exactly the opposite that all the small businesses that are advocating for this bill want; it would have the exact opposite result, it would jack the rates up--is it not the business of the Senate to deliberate, to consider amendments, to amend, to perfect, to improve, and then, hopefully, pass a much needed piece of legislation to give small business some relief from this accident of history that started at the end of World War II with the veterans coming home, organizing insurance around an employer? Small business has it rough because small business cannot afford the cost of the insurance. Now, another amendment that, of course, we would like to entertain happens to do with health insurance as well. But it has to do with senior citizens' health insurance; that is, Monday, May 15, is a deadline for senior citizens signing up under the new prescription drug benefit. Increasingly, senior citizens are anxious because they have this deadline they are being forced into. Many of them--millions of them--not the ones who have automatically gone into the new program under the new law--I am talking about senior citizens who have to make a choice, knowing they are going to be penalized if, by Monday, they choose a plan, and then, if it is the wrong plan, it cannot be changed until the end of this year. So they are stuck. Or if they do not sign up for this plan by Monday, May 15, they are going to be penalized 1 percent a month. How many months is that between May and the end of the year? Six or seven. In other words, then, when they sign up, they are going to have to pay a 6- or 7- percent penalty. That is not right. We should not do that to our seniors. All we could do is amend this bill. OK. Do not take my position, which gives them to the end of the year. Well, let's give them 2 or 3 or 4 months before the deadline comes. But the clock is ticking, and it is ticking down to next Monday, May 15. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator's point is not only correct, but it is so pointed that anyone who hears it should suddenly say: Ouch.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. As a matter of fact, it is something the Federal Government has been doing for over two decades in the Veterans Administration. The Veterans Administration buys prescription drugs in bulk. As a result, the cost to veterans is $7 per month for their prescription drugs. Using the law of economics in the private free marketplace, buying drugs in bulk, you can negotiate the price down. But when this body passed the prescription drug bill 3 years ago, Medicare, the Federal Government, was prohibited from purchasing in bulk and negotiating the price down.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The distinguished Senator from Illinois understands correctly. If the deadline were extended until the end of the year, the administration's own figures are that an additional 1 million-plus senior citizens would sign up of that group of 6 or 7 million. If that is a million seniors who would not suffer the economic hardship of an additional 6 or 7 percent penalty or the economic hardship of not being able to have the right drug they need because they signed up with a mistaken decision of a wrong formulary, then is that not worth it for the sake of the senior citizens to grant a compassionate extension?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the distinguished Senator for his question. The answer is, I have asked representatives of the administration in two different committees this same question. The answer comes back, cold-heartedly: We have a deadline. We have to enforce that deadline or people will not make a decision. I understand the necessity of a deadline. The nature of human beings is that we often procrastinate. But there are compassionate exceptions that ought to be considered. This is one. Coming from a State, as I do, with a high percentage of our population made up of senior citizens, this certainly ought to be a compassionate exception.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is exactly right. In my State of Florida, being one of the States that has the highest percentage of senior citizens, indeed, they have been confused, they have been bewildered, and they have been frightened. They are confused because there are 43 plans in Florida they are trying to choose amongst. They are frightened because they know if they choose the wrong plan that maybe does not have the drug they need, they are stuck until the end of the year to make a change into another plan or they are frightened because if they are paralyzed to the point they cannot make a decision by next Monday, then they know when they do make a decision, they are going to be penalized 6 or 7 percent on the premiums they are going to pay. Either way, they are going to get hit, through no fault of their own. If only we would show some compassion here. As I said, as the Senator was coming to the floor, you do not have to take this Senator's position and delay it all the way to the end of the year. Why don't we get some compassion and delay it a few months so that, again, the groups that are out there that are trying to advise the seniors--one of the major concerns of the senior citizens is getting the health care they need; and prescription drugs today means so much to them, indeed, to us, as well, with regard to the quality of life we are privileged to have not compassionately extend this deadline a few months in order to give some relief? Yet we come to the floor, we try to do that, and we are prohibited through a parliamentary procedure of filling the amendment tree so that we cannot offer these amendments, whether it be this one or the one I spoke about earlier which is to correct the deficiency of the Enzi bill and have some provision for regulation of insurance companies in health insurance.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under the previous order, if I might inquire, the time is allocated to this side; is that correct?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, may I be recognized?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am not going to request time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Presiding Officer. I will raise the questions in a speech later on. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I understand that is the position of the majority. We will continue to fight this out over the course of this week. This is ``doing right'' by our seniors. As the Good Book says: Come and let us reason together. I am offering an extension for the entire year. We ought to have some coming together, to reason together, on some kind of extension, even if it is not for the remaining 6 months of the year in which we can help out our senior citizens. I will continue to press this in the course of this week's debate. I will continue throughout, as I have just indicated, to bring up this matter. I will continue to ask unanimous consent from the Senate that this matter be brought to the Senate because of the emergency nature of meeting the deadline a week from today, May 15, to help out our senior citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under the previous order, with the time being allocated to this side, I wish to speak on the Medicare prescription drug deadline that is fast approaching 1 week from today. Since this week is called Health Week In the Senate, it is strange we are not going to be discussing the extension of the deadline of May 15, a week from today. It is a deadline for all the senior citizens. For those who want to sign up for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, they have to do so by the deadline; otherwise, they get penalized 1 percent a month. If they sign up for the wrong plan, they are stuck for a year and they cannot change plans. Of course, senior citizens are having a very difficult time figuring out in this multiplicity of plans what the formulary is in a plan, if it would cover their prescription drugs. If suddenly they choose a plan that does not cover their prescriptions, they are stuck for a year unless they do not sign up, and then they are going to be penalized economically up to 12 percent a year. It is imperative we take up this legislation and extend the deadline and provide essential protections for Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of implementation of this Medicare prescription drug benefit. We have been advocating for some period of time providing seniors with a meaningful prescription drug coverage, not one that is overly confusing and one that fails to address the escalating costs of prescription drugs. The plan has passed. It passed several years ago, and it is being implemented. Our job now is to help the seniors who are going to choose to enroll in the program, to help them pick the plan that is right for them. The stakes are very high. We must provide them with the time and resources they need to make an informed decision. I have spoken with Medicare beneficiaries all across my State of Florida. They are understandably confused. They are concerned about this new prescription drug benefit. They are facing a number of private plan options. Sorting through all of these options is difficult for our senior citizens. This is not the first time the senior Senator from Florida has spoken in the Senate. I have offered this to the Senate several times. It has received majority votes, but we have not passed it into law. An example: In my State, there are 18 companies offering 43 standalone prescription drug plans. Each of these different options differs in terms of premiums, cost sharing requirements, drugs covered, and pharmacy access. Sorting through these plans is complicated and time consuming. Further complicating matters, the Medicare drug benefit has been marred by implementation problems. This adds to the confusion for the Senators. To give an example, in a rural community where there is only one pharmacy, seniors naturally want to get their prescriptions from that pharmacy. What happens if that pharmacy is not covered in the formulary of the plan they pick? They need time to sort through all of this. Yet the beneficiaries, the Medicare recipients who do not select their plan, 1 week from today, will face a substantial financial penalty. On the other hand, if we can delay the late enrollment penalties and give a Medicare recipient the chance to change plans once during the first year, we can make sure our senior citizen constituents are not forced to make a hasty decision they are going to regret later. I have introduced S. 1841, the Medicare Informed Choice Act. This bill extends the annual open enrollment period under the Medicare prescription drug plan through all of this year of 2006. It will not impose a late enrollment penalty and allows a one-time change in plans at any point in 2006. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we extend the deadline for all of 2006, over 1 million more senior citizens will sign up for the program. In addition, another 7.5 million seniors will pay lower premiums because they will have fewer penalties. Why in the world would we not be doing this for our senior citizens? A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrates the need for this legislation. In that survey, 4 in 10 elderly Americans still do not know the enrollment deadline for the new Medicare drug benefit is May 15. In addition, in that survey, nearly half of all the seniors are unaware they face a financial penalty if they delay. This bill I have filed, S. 1841, is a time-limited step to help ease the pressure of the first year of this new prescription drug benefit. It is time to stop playing politics with the health care of our seniors. It is time to start putting their needs first. The Senators have heard their citizens back home. They are very clear in what they would like us to do. I urge all of our colleagues, every time we bring this up--a majority favor this position, but it is always beat down, saying we have to have the deadline. There is no reason we should put this imposition on our senior citizens 1 week from today when they are going to pay the penalties. As we have already indicated earlier, I ask unanimous consent in the Senate that upon disposition of Calendar No. 417, S. 1955, the Enzi small business health care bill, the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of the bill I have just talked about, S. 1841, and that the Senate proceed then to its immediate consideration. That is my unanimous consent request.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Talent and DeWine, have proudly introduced a resolution recognizing May 20, 2006, as ``Negro Leaguers Recognition Day.'' Since 1885, long before Major League Baseball was integrated in 1947, African Americans were organizing their own professional leagues. These leagues did not succeed because of racial prejudice and lack of adequate financial backing. However, this changed dramatically with the inception of the first successful Negro league. On May 20, 1920, the Negro National League played its first game. Its creation was the result of the efforts of an African American player and manager named Andrew ``Rube'' Foster. Mr. Foster's success inspired the formation of other leagues. As a result, on October 3, 1924, the first Negro League World Series game was played between the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro National League and Hilldale of Philadelphia of the Eastern Colored League. This historic and exhaustive first series lasted ten games, covered a span of almost three weeks, and was played in four different cities. In the end, Kansas City claimed the championship. But the lasting legacy of the Negro leagues, as the six separate leagues between 1920 and 1960 are collectively known, are the tremendous baseball players they produced. Some of the names we know and some we don't. Among them is Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color barrier; Leroy ``Satchel'' Paige, who was considered one of the greatest pitchers of all time; Josh Gibson, who was a prolific home-run hitter; Larry Doby, the first African American to play in the American League in July 1947; and John Jordan ``Buck'' O'Neil, who was the first African American coach in the Major Leagues and who is now head of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. It is important that we remember and honor these players. In breaking down the baseball color barrier, these pioneers dealt a blow to hatred and prejudice across America. Today, we can honor them by declaring May 20, 2006 as, ``Negro Leaguers Recognition Day.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill ``To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1400 West Jordan Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the `Earl D. Hutto Post office Building' '' be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill ``To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1400 West Jordan Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the `Earl D. Hutto Post office Building' '' be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, and Senators DeWine and Sessions, to submit a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President posthumously award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Leroy Robert ``Satchel'' Paige in recognition of his amazing talent and contributions to baseball, our national pastime. Satchel Paige was born in Mobile, AL, on July 7, 1906, and has been described as one of the greatest baseball pitchers of all time. In 1933, for example, he pitched 62 consecutive scoreless innings. He won four consecutive Negro League pennants from 1939 to 1942, and a fifth pennant in 1946. Although Paige spent most of his career in the Negro Leagues due to racial segregation, his reputation as an amazing pitcher was known to both Black and White audiences. In 1948, a year after Jackie Robinson integrated major league baseball, Paige was signed to play with the Cleveland Indians, becoming the oldest rookie at age 42 to play at the Major League level. On August 20, 1948, as Paige pitched the Indians to a 1-0 victory over the White Sox, the night game's attendance, 78,382, set a record that still stands today. The Cleveland Indians went on to win the American League Championship and the World Series in 1948. In his career, Paige threw an estimated 300 career shutouts. In 1971, he became the first Negro League player inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. As one of the greatest players of the 20th century, he was nominated to the All Century Team by Major League Baseball, and was selected by the Postal Service as one of the 50 Legends of Baseball. Satchel Paige passed away on June 8, 1982, but his talent and electric style of play are still remembered by baseball fans today.