Universal Health Coverage Act of 2007

Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am filing today that will establish universal health coverage called Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing this bill.

Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their health care needs met and to train their health care professionals.

In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide top-quality health care.

The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type of investment of our public funds.

The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country must have health insurance.

We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no health insurance.

We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that we have universal health coverage in America.

Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more costly and less efficient. We can do something about it.

Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the uninsured actually come from working families. These are working families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance.

My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects government-sponsored health programs.

We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or it could be an employer-sponsored health plan.

We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot find an affordable health care plan.

The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community.

Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State.

This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This framework will give States the incentive to move further along. Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable.

I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which all Americans have access to that quality care.

Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am filing today that will establish universal health coverage called Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing this bill.

Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their health care needs met and to train their health care professionals.

In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide top-quality health care.

The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type of investment of our public funds.

The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country must have health insurance.

We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no health insurance.

We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that we have universal health coverage in America.

Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more costly and less efficient. We can do something about it.

Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the uninsured actually come from working families. These are working families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance.

My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects government-sponsored health programs.

We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or it could be an employer-sponsored health plan.

We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot find an affordable health care plan.

The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community.

Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State.

This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This framework will give States the incentive to move further along. Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable.

I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which all Americans have access to that quality care.

Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase.

If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch.

That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will work.

The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re- evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit.

The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's recommendation.

Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC recommendations.

It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget.

This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to honor a fallen officer of the Epsom, NH, Police Department, Officer Jeremy Todd Charron, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office.

Born on March 18, 1973, Officer Charron was the third of five children to Bob and Fran Charron. Originally from Pittsfield, NH, Jeremy and his family moved to Hillsborough in 1977. Throughout his early life, Jeremy grew intensely goal orientated, a trait that persisted throughout his shortened life, and by the time he had reached second grade he knew his calling was to one day serve as a U.S. Marine.

Although he was an outstanding athlete in many sports, he excelled at playing defense on the soccer field. The same tenacity that Jeremy used on the soccer field, he carried with him off the field. One poignant example of Jeremy's developing leadership occurred as a friend lost his hair from cancer treatments and was teased by fellow classmates. While it may have been easier for most students to ignore the taunting of other classmates, Jeremy actively defended his friend. Throughout Jeremy's life, he stood up for what he thought was right and protected those who could not defend themselves.

During Jeremy's high school years at Hillsborough-Deering High School, he grew into a leader, quickly becoming active in all aspects of the school community. His peers voted him ``most spirited'' and elected him class president. At the same time, he had convinced 8 classmates to join the Marines with him following graduation. Together, they would dedicate their weekends to training for their future service in the Marine Corps.

After graduating high school in 1992, Jeremy entered the Marine Corps and proudly served his country for 4 years. As his enlistment term drew to a close, he had a new aspiration, which was to become a New Hampshire State Trooper, and looked forward to starting a family.

To achieve this objective, Jeremy enrolled at the New Hampshire Technical College in Concord to study Criminal Justice, and was hired by the Epsom, New Hampshire Police Department as a part-time and then full-time police officer.

Sadly, Jeremy's dream was cut short. On August 24, 1997, the morning after he attended the funerals of New Hampshire State Troopers Leslie Lord and Scott Phillips, Officer Charron was responding to a report of a suspicious car, which contained two men. Tragically, while Officer Charron questioned one of the men, the individual pulled out a gun and opened fire. Although Jeremy was wearing a bullet-proof vest, one of the bullets struck him in an unprotected area. Despite his fatal wounds, Jeremy heroically returned fire until he collapsed, forcing his two killers to abandon their car and steal a near-by truck that could be identified by police, eventually leading to their capture.

Had Jeremy's dreams not been cut short at the age of 24, he would have achieved his goals of becoming a State Trooper and having a family of his own. Jeremy's murderers stripped our Nation, the State of New Hampshire and the community of a true patriot, citizen, and role model, as well as a loving friend and family member.

Ten years have gone by since Jeremy's passing and a new generation of 7 nieces and nephews know Jeremy's stories. People of Hillsborough, NH, still have stories to share and lessons to learn from their very own American hero. As the years move forward, the citizens and future generations of Hillsborough will always remember Jeremy and share anecdotes about his life when they visit the Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office Building.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military and Family Medical Leave Act, bipartisan legislation that extends the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, for up to 6 months for children, spouses and parents of soldiers who have been injured in combat. This legislation implements a key recommendation made last week by the Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy and Brown whose partnership on this legislation reflects the fact that supporting our families and service-members is a bipartisan, common sense issue.

The families of our servicemen and women face extraordinary demands as they struggle to care for loved ones injured in service to our Nation. Yet, currently, family members of these injured servicemembers receive no additional leave to accommodate the support they need.

The Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors was established in March 2007 with the specific goals of conducting a comprehensive review of services the Government currently provides to our wounded warriors and delivering recommendations to the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

In its review, the commission found that 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reserve component, and 37 percent of retired/separated servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while

they were in the hospital. In addition, 21 percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve component, and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their caregiver.

To address this situation and help support these caregivers, the commission recommended strengthening family support programs by extending the FMLA for up to 6 months for the family members of seriously injured soldiers. This is a step we can make immediately that will make a real difference. Our men and women in uniform have made tremendous sacrifices on our behalf and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure they have the care and support they need.

The Military Family and Medical Leave Act will enact this recommendation by amending the FMLA to allow up to 6 months leave for a family member of a servicemember who has a combat-related injury and meets the eligibility requirements in the law.

It is my hope that my colleagues will join Senators Dole, Mikulski, Graham, Kennedy, Brown and me in supporting this important legislation.