Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to again commend the Senator for reminding the Senate of the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that Americans are quite concerned they are going to lose their civil liberties. They certainly want the Government of the United States to in fact prosecute the war against terrorists, but they don't want our society, because of our protection of civil liberties, to change into some other kind of society. Would the Senator agree that is the substantial majority opinion in this country, to protect our civil liberties?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years, hundreds of Americans have died from the poisonous carbon monoxide emitted from portable gas generators. Congress needs to step in and act quickly to stop these needless deaths. That is why today I am introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act. As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in their exhaust. Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere about people injured or killed by poisoning caused by portable gas generators. From 1998 to 2003, the most recent year of official statistics, at least 228 carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. At least one person was killed and seven were hospitalized near Miami, FL, this fall after being overcome by carbon monoxide fumes. And over the last two hurricane seasons in Florida, at least twelve people died from poisoning caused by poorly ventilated portable generators. These people died because portable generators are not manufactured to automatically cut off when high carbon monoxide rates are reached and because many manufacturers fail to place adequate warning labels on generators. Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths: The Consumer Product Safety Commission has known for years that people were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an increasingly alarming rate. In study after study, the Commission has recognized the high death rate from portable generators, and Commission staff has found that portable generator warning labels are often inconsistent, vague, and incomplete. Yet the Commission has continued to let the generator industry police itself--without any mandatory Federal safety standards. Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation--which works in some settings--clearly is not working here. Congress must now step in and do its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths. My bill--the Portable Generator Safety Act--takes some simple, commonsense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of the passage of the bill. The new regulations would have three components. First, every portable generator must have a sensor that automatically shuts off the generator before lethal levels of carbon monoxide are reached. Other products, such as portable heaters, already contain these types of sensors, which save lives. Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warning labels on the packaging and on the generator itself. These labels must include a pictogram that visually depicts the safety hazard from carbon monoxide. What I am talking about here is labels that are easy to read and can quickly be understood by people who are desperate for power in emergency circumstances. Third, every instruction manual that accompanies a portable generator must clearly explain the safety hazards associated with operating the generator. How many more innocent people must needlessly die before we require the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the portable generator industry to take some sensible, pro-consumer steps? It is my goal that after the next hurricane season, we will not be back here asking these same questions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years, hundreds of Americans have died from the poisonous carbon monoxide emitted from portable gas generators. Congress needs to step in and act quickly to stop these needless deaths. That is why today I am introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act. As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in their exhaust. Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere about people injured or killed by poisoning caused by portable gas generators. From 1998 to 2003, the most recent year of official statistics, at least 228 carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. At least one person was killed and seven were hospitalized near Miami, FL, this fall after being overcome by carbon monoxide fumes. And over the last two hurricane seasons in Florida, at least twelve people died from poisoning caused by poorly ventilated portable generators. These people died because portable generators are not manufactured to automatically cut off when high carbon monoxide rates are reached and because many manufacturers fail to place adequate warning labels on generators. Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths: The Consumer Product Safety Commission has known for years that people were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an increasingly alarming rate. In study after study, the Commission has recognized the high death rate from portable generators, and Commission staff has found that portable generator warning labels are often inconsistent, vague, and incomplete. Yet the Commission has continued to let the generator industry police itself--without any mandatory Federal safety standards. Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation--which works in some settings--clearly is not working here. Congress must now step in and do its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths. My bill--the Portable Generator Safety Act--takes some simple, commonsense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of the passage of the bill. The new regulations would have three components. First, every portable generator must have a sensor that automatically shuts off the generator before lethal levels of carbon monoxide are reached. Other products, such as portable heaters, already contain these types of sensors, which save lives. Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warning labels on the packaging and on the generator itself. These labels must include a pictogram that visually depicts the safety hazard from carbon monoxide. What I am talking about here is labels that are easy to read and can quickly be understood by people who are desperate for power in emergency circumstances. Third, every instruction manual that accompanies a portable generator must clearly explain the safety hazards associated with operating the generator. How many more innocent people must needlessly die before we require the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the portable generator industry to take some sensible, pro-consumer steps? It is my goal that after the next hurricane season, we will not be back here asking these same questions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Talent, proudly submit 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 rise today to introduce the Equal Access to Medicare Act of 2005 to combat the growing practice of health care often called ``concierge'' medicine. As my colleagues may recall I introduced similar legislation in the past two sessions of Congress to deal with the growing problem of doctors shutting down their practices and opening new ones, only accepting those patients willing to pay a membership fee. These fees range from $60 to $15,000 annually. By charging these extraneous and unwarranted dues or requiring patients to purchase non-Medicare covered services, doctors can shrink their practices, maintain a high profit margin, and continue billing Medicare, all on the backs of low and middle-income beneficiaries. This is a dangerous model that causes significant disparities in the care available to Medicare beneficiaries. A doctor receiving Medicare reimbursement should not be allowed to turn away Medicare beneficiaries who cannot or choose not to pay membership fees or fees for other non- Medicare covered services. My bill simply prevents Medicare from providing payments to doctors who charge their patients membership fees or any other incidental or extraneous fees, or who require the purchase of non-Medicare covered services as a condition for the provision of Medicare covered services. Since the introduction of this bill in 2001, the practice has been expanding with versions in many States. According to a recent GAO report, the number of physicians practicing concierge medicine has increased by more than 10 times in the past 5 years. As an increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries voice their concerns, it is time for Congress to act. Should this practice proliferate, a doctor shortage for low and middle-income Medicare beneficiaries is likely, exacerbating an already ailing health care marketplace. I must emphasize that this bill does not interfere with the ability of doctors to limit the size of their practices or to be adequately compensated; it simply applies the same standard private insurance companies apply to their providers--that doctors may not select patients based upon willingness or ability to pay an entrance fee. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping Medicare keep its promise of accessibility to seniors who have paid a lifetime of ``premiums.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equal Access to Medicare Act of 2005 to combat the growing practice of health care often called ``concierge'' medicine. As my colleagues may recall I introduced similar legislation in the past two sessions of Congress to deal with the growing problem of doctors shutting down their practices and opening new ones, only accepting those patients willing to pay a membership fee. These fees range from $60 to $15,000 annually. By charging these extraneous and unwarranted dues or requiring patients to purchase non-Medicare covered services, doctors can shrink their practices, maintain a high profit margin, and continue billing Medicare, all on the backs of low and middle-income beneficiaries. This is a dangerous model that causes significant disparities in the care available to Medicare beneficiaries. A doctor receiving Medicare reimbursement should not be allowed to turn away Medicare beneficiaries who cannot or choose not to pay membership fees or fees for other non- Medicare covered services. My bill simply prevents Medicare from providing payments to doctors who charge their patients membership fees or any other incidental or extraneous fees, or who require the purchase of non-Medicare covered services as a condition for the provision of Medicare covered services. Since the introduction of this bill in 2001, the practice has been expanding with versions in many States. According to a recent GAO report, the number of physicians practicing concierge medicine has increased by more than 10 times in the past 5 years. As an increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries voice their concerns, it is time for Congress to act. Should this practice proliferate, a doctor shortage for low and middle-income Medicare beneficiaries is likely, exacerbating an already ailing health care marketplace. I must emphasize that this bill does not interfere with the ability of doctors to limit the size of their practices or to be adequately compensated; it simply applies the same standard private insurance companies apply to their providers--that doctors may not select patients based upon willingness or ability to pay an entrance fee. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping Medicare keep its promise of accessibility to seniors who have paid a lifetime of ``premiums.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to try to help our senior citizens from the state of confusion that many of them are now experiencing since the prescription drug benefit started 2 days ago and being signed up. If other Senators are hearing from their senior citizens as I am--and I met with a group on Monday in West Palm Beach--they will find that many of them are confused, bewildered, and in some cases even frightened because they are afraid of making a choice and then making a mistake, and under the current law--and we need to clean up some of this current law anyway--they could not rectify that mistake for a whole year. And now in trying to make an intelligent decision on something that is as important to a senior citizen as prescription drugs, they are being confronted with a multiplicity of plans. I had one senior in West Palm Beach tell me they were actually looking at 103 plans. In other parts of the State, you are looking at 18 companies offering 43 stand-alone prescription plans and, in addition, another 37 companies will offer a total of 257 different Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans. And each of these has differing premiums, cost-sharing requirements, different drugs, and pharmacy access. What about the senior citizen who has one or two pharmacies in their small community and then they have to worry about finding the plan that fits with that pharmacy? Or what about the senior citizen who has a prescription and depends on it, goes and finds the plan that covers that prescription and then what happens if the doctor in the course of the year changes that prescription and then that prescription is not contained on that particular plan's formula? Sorting through these plans is complicated and time-consuming, and that is what has led our seniors to be confused, in some cases bewildered, and, very sadly in cases that I saw, even frightened. We can rectify that with this amendment. All it does is give them more time instead of the deadline coming down like an ax in the night next May. It extends that deadline for 6 months, and it allows them, if they make a choice within the course of that year, 2006, the first year that the prescription drug law takes effect for Medicare, if they make a mistake, to rectify it. And if they make a choice to go with the Medicare prescription drug benefit and then realize they want to go back with their former employer's prescription drug plan, they have that option. That is the essence of this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2601.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, so much of what the Senator from Iowa has said simply has not been the case--hundreds of plans that seniors are having to choose between. I move to waive the relevant parts of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, all of you have heard from your senior citizens. With the implementation of the prescription drug bill, our seniors have so many plans to choose from that they are confused-- and, in some cases, they are bewildered; in some cases, they are frightened about making the wrong choice by the deadline and then not having the opportunity to correct it for 1 year. This amendment would extend the deadline from May to December. I hope for the sake of our seniors that you will vote for this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator and I thank the Senators from South Carolina and Michigan for giving me the privilege to share with the Senate what I have experienced since I have returned from a meeting in West Palm Beach with senior citizens concerned about the implementation of the prescription drug benefit for Medicare which starts tomorrow. This prescription drug benefit, which many in this Senate opposed because it was faulty, it was a meager benefit, and it broke the principles of free enterprise economics by not allowing the Federal Government, through Medicare, to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs downward by bulk purchases, as has been the case in Government for the past two decades through the Veterans' Administration, as well as the Department of Defense. Veterans today pay $7 per month for their prescription drugs. Part of that is subsidized. But a large part of that is the fact that the Veterans' Administration buys prescription drugs in huge quantities and therefore negotiates a lower price. Not so with the prescription drug benefit passed for Medicare in this Senate, of which almost half--maybe not quite half of the Senate, including this Senate--voted against. But, nevertheless, it is the law. It is being implemented tomorrow. The current law says the senior citizens of this country have until next May in order to make a determination which one of these plans-- often they may be through an HMO or they may be through some organization created for the dispensing of the drugs--but which one of these plans they will choose, or choose nothing, especially if their former employer, now that they are retired, is providing under their retirement a prescription drug plan. It sounds, on the surface, that a decision could be made. But the fact is a senior citizen in West Palm Beach this morning told me there were 103 plans that senior citizens were trying to choose between. There is confusion. There is concern. There is fear that if they do not choose the right plan, then they are not going to be able to change for a whole year. There is all of this confusion and additional concerns. Maybe the senior citizen lives in a small town that has only one or two pharmacies, and naturally the senior citizen wants to continue to get their prescription drugs from that pharmacy. But what happens if the plan they choose does not use that pharmacy? Again, concern for instability, concern for not being able to get the kind of drugs they want and need. Another concern voiced to me this morning in that meeting in West Palm Beach was, What if I choose a plan that, in fact, provides the drugs my doctor prescribes for me now, but what happens if the doctor changes the prescription to a drug that is not covered by that particular plan? They are stuck, and they are stuck for a year, until at the end of that year when they can change plans. These are the questions senior citizens are asking all around this Nation. And they are asking these questions in my State of Florida. What should we do? A very practical approach is to extend the deadline so senior citizens will have more time to make up their mind, to evaluate the plans, to be counseled in order to get the right plan. Remember, with the advances of modern medicine through the miracles of prescription drugs, so often the quality of life is dependent upon the right prescription and that prescription being available to the person and especially so to the senior citizen. It is my hope the Senate will recognize we need to buy some time for our seniors. I have filed a bill that extends the deadline from May until December. That legislation would also allow, in the course of that year, up to the end of 2006, if the senior citizen makes a mistake and chooses the wrong plan and then realizes their mistake, they will be able to change their plan. Furthermore, for those with the great uncertainty of whether they are going to stick with their former employer-based prescription drug plan, that if they choose and make a mistake and want to go back to their employer, they have that grace period of 1 year up to the end of December of next year in order to be able to go back to their employer-based plan. Is this too much to ask for our seniors? Out of all of the confusion, out of all the concern and what is now turning into fright for our seniors, this is, after all, what was enacted, and was supposed to help senior citizens. The Department of HHS, so you can clarify this, Mr. Senior Citizen, says you can go on our Web site. Senators, I bet you all have a number of senior citizens who are not accustomed to using the computer and going on the Web. We need to give them some relief. Now, the bill I filed, I am looking for the legislative vehicle to attach it to as an amendment. I wanted the Senate to know, directly expressed to me in this meeting this morning, the great confusion and consternation that is being felt out there among many of those in what Tom Brokaw labeled the ``Greatest Generation,'' those who have helped us to enjoy the freedoms we have. I think for us to do less than to help them out would certainly be less than the honor we should pay to our seniors. At an appropriate time, with an appropriate legislative vehicle, I will offer this bill as an amendment. In the meantime, I thank the leadership of our Senate Armed Services Committee for the great job they have all done in handling this legislation. And I thank them for the privilege of serving on that committee. It has been a great blessing to me to work with people of the caliber we have on our Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005. This bill would provide States with the resources they need to rid our schools of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I believe steroid use doesn't begin at the professional level. I am very concerned about performance-enhancing drug use among young athletes--specifically, high school athletes. Steroid use among high school students is on the rise. It more than doubled among high school students from 1991 to 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, a study by the University of Michigan shows that the percentage of 12th graders who said they had used steroids some time in their lives rose from 1.9 percent in 1996 to 3.4 percent in 2004. This is unacceptable and a health risk to our children. Last year, the Polk County School District became the first in Florida to establish random testing for high school athletes, and the Florida House passed a bill that would have made Florida the first State to require steroid testing for high school athletes. That bill stalled in the Senate, but now Florida and other States are considering a similar law. Currently, less than 4 percent of U.S. high schools test athletes for steroids, and no state requires high schools to test athletes. Schools and States say that cost is usually the reason they don't test. In response, I am introducing this legislation to help States with the resources they need to curb the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. My legislation would provide Federal grants directly to States so that they can develop and implement performance-enhancing drug testing programs. The Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005 would authorize $20 million in grants to States to create statewide pilot drug testing programs for performance-enhancing drugs. States that receive the grants would be required to incorporate recovery, counseling, and treatment programs for those students who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Stopping the use of performance-enhancing drugs goes beyond testing. That is why my legislation also would require States that receive grants to allocate no less than 10 percent of the funding to establish statewide policies to discourage steroid use, through educational or other related means. In addition, at a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing on this issue, I called on all of the heads of the major professional sports leagues and their unions to begin a major, multi-sport, national advertising campaign. This campaign should be paid for by the leagues and their players, and directed at young people. It should focus on discouraging the use of performance-enhancing drugs. We must get the message out about the dangers of these drugs, and who better to send that message to young people than the leagues they watch and the players they idolize? There is no simple solution to the issue of steroids in sports. Congress can do its part by enacting the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005. But the sports leagues, their players, coaches, and parents all must play an active role. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, for the last 4 years I have been talking about the unfair and painful offset of the Defense Department's Survivors Benefits Plan against Veteran's Affairs Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC. This offset mistreats the survivors of our service members 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 we have got to fix it. Taking care of widows and orphans is a cost of war. 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, American troops are lost every day. We must never forget that the loved ones left behind by our courageous men and women in uniform bear the greatest pain. Their 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. The Department of Defense has provided the Senate several objections to our amendment. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to answer each objection. First, just because the Pentagon objects to the amendment does not mean we should not act. The Pentagon's objections have not stopped Congress from correcting military benefit inequities before. They should not stop us now. The Pentagon objected to TRICARE For Life. And the Congress supported it anyway. The Pentagon objected to concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. And the Congress supported it anyway. Last year, the Pentagon objected to eliminating the age-62 SBP benefit reduction. And Congress fixed that inequity anyway. I remind my colleagues that it is Congress' responsibility to ensure our widows and retirees are treated fairly. We are the ones who must recognize that the Nation has an obligation to those who give their lives for our country. The Defense Department argues that a VA Disability Benefits Commission is studying this, so we should not take any action. There is no indication whatsoever that the commission is actively looking at either of the issues addressed in my amendment. We understand that they are about to ask for a 1 year extension. The fact is that nothing will come out of that commission until at least fiscal year 2009. That is too late to help the World War II and Korean era retirees who should already be ``paid up'' in their SBP. We don't need to study these issues for several more years. The inequities are clear. The Defense Department argues that SBP and DIC are fully funded and that the offset is consistent with other Government programs. They are not fully funded from the beneficiaries' perspective, because one offsets the other. The fact that other Government programs have offsets is irrelevant when you consider the sacrifices of military members and widows for the rest of the country. This same argument was used to argue against concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability compensation, but the Congress rejected it 2 years ago. When military duty causes the disability or death of a servicemember, all comparisons with other Government programs seem hollow. The Defense Department argues that they refund the premiums for the SBP that is not paid to the widows of our 100 percent disable retirees. I know a thing or two about insurance. When someone buys an insurance policy and then dies, no insurance company in America could get away with saying, ``sorry, we're not going to pay; here's a refund of your premiums.'' Not only that, but the Government does not even pay interest on the refunded premiums. However, let a widow get an overpayment from the Government, and the Government insists on collecting interest from her. These widows are rightly saying ``keep your premium refund; give me the benefit we purchased.'' The Department of Defense argues that the law lets widows assign the SBP benefit to their children and, in fact, draw both their VA and SBP benefits. This is not true for the vast majority. It applies only to widows who have children and only to those whose husbands were killed since November 24, 2003. It does absolutely nothing for more than 90 percent of widows affected by this inequity. Even for those widows with kids, who do have the option, it poses a terrible choice. If they assign the benefit to their children, they lose it completely after their children reach age 18, or 22 if they go to college. One Army Sergeant Major's widow in this situation had two children in college. She made the choice to assign the SBP to them to help them stay in school. But the price of that decision is she will lose her annuity as soon as they graduate, and will have to live on $993 a month. We shouldn't put widows in a position of sacrificing their long-term financial health for the immediate needs of their families. As usual, the Defense Department says fixing this inequity would cost money. We all acknowledge that this will cost money. Everything we do costs money. But when something is the right thing to do, then we do it. Sometimes we compromise to pay the cost over time. But we find a way to do it. And that is what we should do now. The Defense Department argues that we shouldn't fix the SBP/DIC offset or the ``Greatest Generation'' SBP tax because we raised the age-62 SBP benefit last year. Not true. For the vast majority of the people affected by my amendment, last year's SBP fix did nothing. Many widows affected by the SBP/DIC offset still have their entire SBP annuity eliminated by the DIC offset. They get zero benefit from last year's change to SBP. One big reason for that is most servicemembers being killed on active duty today are junior--not 62 years old--and they don't have a very large SBP benefit. Their benefit would be much less than the $993 a month in VA DIC their survivors will receive. But that doesn't mean their loved ones aren't entitled to that small benefit. Also, last year's law did nothing for the World War II and Korean-era retirees who already have paid almost 20 percent more SBP premiums than later retirees, and who will end up paying one-third more if we don't change the law this year. These benefit changes affect different populations. Just because we brought fairness to one part of the retiree population last year doesn't mean that the others don't deserve fairness too. The Department of Defense argues that this change isn't needed because we raised the death gratuity to $100,000 and raised Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, to $400,000 earlier this year. It is correct that Congress made those changes, but the idea that fixing the SBP-DIC offset is now unnecessary couldn't be further from the truth. I am proud to have supported those changes to the death gratuity and SGLI, but they did nothing to help the vast majority of DIC widows and they certainly didn't help our ``Greatest Generation'' retirees. They only help the survivors of those killed in combat since 2001. Thousands of servicemembers gave their lives and their health for their country in hot and cold wars before that date. Their survivors have had no relief and most are living on $993 a month. That is just wrong. We have gone around and around on this issue over the years. We are in a dangerous and long term war with an evil and intractable enemy. We owe those who go in harm's way the assurance that the loved ones they leave behind will get all the care a grateful Nation can provide. It is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a number of letters from military and veterans groups around the country.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this amendment is all about the painful offsets of the Department of Defense survivor benefit plan against the Veterans' Affairs Department's dependency and indemnity compensation. This offset that we have in current law mistreats the survivors of our military who die on active duty and also mistreats our 100-percent disabled military retirees who purchase this benefit at the end of their career. It is wrong, we know it, and we are going to fix it. Taking care of widows and orphans is a cost of war. It is our solemn duty to take care of the widows and orphans. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I defer to my distinguished chairman. Amendment No. 2424

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 to introduce the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005. This bill would provide States with the resources they need to rid our schools of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I believe steroid use doesn't begin at the professional level. I am very concerned about performance-enhancing drug use among young athletes--specifically, high school athletes. Steroid use among high school students is on the rise. It more than doubled among high school students from 1991 to 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, a study by the University of Michigan shows that the percentage of 12th graders who said they had used steroids some time in their lives rose from 1.9 percent in 1996 to 3.4 percent in 2004. This is unacceptable and a health risk to our children. Last year, the Polk County School District became the first in Florida to establish random testing for high school athletes, and the Florida House passed a bill that would have made Florida the first State to require steroid testing for high school athletes. That bill stalled in the Senate, but now Florida and other States are considering a similar law. Currently, less than 4 percent of U.S. high schools test athletes for steroids, and no state requires high schools to test athletes. Schools and States say that cost is usually the reason they don't test. In response, I am introducing this legislation to help States with the resources they need to curb the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. My legislation would provide Federal grants directly to States so that they can develop and implement performance-enhancing drug testing programs. The Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005 would authorize $20 million in grants to States to create statewide pilot drug testing programs for performance-enhancing drugs. States that receive the grants would be required to incorporate recovery, counseling, and treatment programs for those students who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Stopping the use of performance-enhancing drugs goes beyond testing. That is why my legislation also would require States that receive grants to allocate no less than 10 percent of the funding to establish statewide policies to discourage steroid use, through educational or other related means. In addition, at a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing on this issue, I called on all of the heads of the major professional sports leagues and their unions to begin a major, multi-sport, national advertising campaign. This campaign should be paid for by the leagues and their players, and directed at young people. It should focus on discouraging the use of performance-enhancing drugs. We must get the message out about the dangers of these drugs, and who better to send that message to young people than the leagues they watch and the players they idolize? There is no simple solution to the issue of steroids in sports. Congress can do its part by enacting the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005. But the sports leagues, their players, coaches, and parents all must play an active role. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2424.