Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about recent remarks made by the Director of the CMS, Mr. Tom Scully. Last month, speaking to an audience of health care providers in Lancaster, PA, Mr. Scully made the following comments on the Medicare Program.

Mr. Scully has the agency that oversees the Medicare Program, so this is particularly disconcerting given the way he described the Medicare Program. He used the phrase ``an unbelievable disaster.'' The person who is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said: Medicare is an unbelievable disaster. We think it is a dumb system.

I could not disagree more. While I disagree with his views, at least I admire his candor because when it comes to Medicare, a lot of people are pretending to strengthen it and improve it when in fact they agree with Mr. Scully.

Medicare, along with Social Security, is a great American success story. Medicare has been in place since 1965. It is the only part of our health care system that is a universal system, meaning that once a person is age 65, they have access to health care. Regardless of who they are in this country or if they are disabled, they have access to health care. This is the only part of our system, the only group of people, who know that there is a guarantee of health care for them; that is, those who are under Medicare.

We have almost 40 million people now under Medicare, and because of Social Security and Medicare, we have brought millions of seniors and the disabled out of poverty into a better quality of life. I call that a great American success story. I do not call it a ``dumb system.''

It is important to talk about what is happening right now in the debate about Medicare and where we are. The day after the State of the Union Address this year, President Bush went to Grand Rapids, MI. We always welcome a President of the United States to my home State. He came to promote his Medicare reform plan. However, he barely mentioned it during his speech. When he did mention it, he indicated that only those who choose to go into private Medicare plans--not Medicare as we know it but private sector plans--would be allowed to get prescription drug coverage. Those who could not get into a private plan or who wanted to stay in traditional Medicare to see their own doctor, would be, unfortunately, out of luck under this plan.

So we have a system that has been in place and has worked for seniors and the disabled since 1965, providing health care. Now we are hearing about proposals which say that if someone wants to get help for prescription drugs, they have to go back to the system the way it was before, they have to go back to private insurance plans.

When the President said that, Republicans, Democrats, and health care providers roundly criticized this particular plan. Many pointed to the fact that private sector Medicare plans are currently not a viable option in most of the country. They are just not there, let alone in rural areas.

In fact, the President, ironically, went to Grand Rapids, MI, to talk about the virtue of private Medicare plans when even in the area where he was, in western Michigan, there are no private sector plans. So everyone listening to him would not have access to help pay for their prescription drugs under the proposal that was made because the proposal that was made was based on something called Medicare+Choice, which has been a failure in Michigan as well as across the country.

The overall experience of the private sector plan, in fact, is that it has not worked. I will share the numbers. Nationwide, 2.5 million seniors have been dropped from private sector HMOs under Medicare+Choice plans. In fact, I have to say my mother was one of them in an HMO. She was having a good experience in a Medicare HMO, and they dropped Medicare. Out of the blue, she had to go look for another insurance plan and other doctors because they pulled out.

In Michigan, 35,000 seniors have been dropped from these private plans, including, as I said, my own mother. Currently, only four Medicare+Choice plans operate in my State. They are available to only 2 percent of the population of my State, and they are all in the eastern part of the State none in the central part of the State, in Lansing where I live, none in west Michigan, in Grand Rapids, none in upstate Michigan or the Upper Peninsula only in one geographic area.

Given this fact and the fact that Democrats, Republicans, and many other people stood up and said, wait a minute, this is a plan that does not make any sense, after a great deal of discussion the Bush administration did release a new set of principles for adding prescription drugs to Medicare. This time, their plan allows those who remain in traditional Medicare to get only a minimal catastrophic coverage and possibly a discount card.

We understand from analysis it would be an average of a little over $3 that would come off a prescription based on a discount card. However, if the senior citizen wanted real prescription drug help, really wanted to be able to pick between food and their medicine, they would have to, again, abandon traditional Medicare and possibly give up seeing their own doctor in order to go into a private plan.

In all sincerity, I believe this drive to privatize Medicare is simply wrong. Since its inception in 1965, the Medicare system has worked well for seniors. In fact, back then 29 percent of the seniors of our country lived in poverty and now it is 11 percent. I call that a success, although we still need to be worried about the 11 percent.

I agree that Medicare should be updated. I agree it should be modernized to cover prescription drugs and also focus more on prevention. We heard Secretary Thompson who came before the Budget Committee to talk about prevention. I agree with him. We need to change the system to be more focused on prevention. We need to update Medicare to cover prescription drugs. But seniors should not be forced into private sector HMOs or other plans to obtain this kind of coverage.

Mr. Scully was honest about his beliefs. He spoke his mind. He expressed the belief of many that Medicare is dumb and is a disaster. These quotes are similar to those that were spoken by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich when he said he wanted to let Medicare wither on the vine. These comments have been made before. It is very clear to me that Mr. Scully, Mr. Gingrich, and many others want to replace Medicare with a private sector system. I urge my colleagues to stand up against this assault.

I am particularly concerned about what is happening and how it relates to

the tax plans that are in front of us, and what is happening now in the economy. As a member of the Budget Committee, when many of us bring up concerns about falling further into deficit through the tax plans that were passed last year giving tax cuts to the elite, another round that is being proposed this year, and we see that we have 450 economists across the country, including 10 Nobel laureates who say this will not create jobs, it will just add to weakening in the economy and, in fact, be devastating because of the red ink it will create--when we see that, when we ask, how can you possibly support this when the first big round of baby boomers are coming very soon, in the next 6 to 8 years, how do we do both?

How in the world can we afford to place ourselves in such jeopardy, trillions of dollars in debt, the result of a policy that says tax cuts should be given to the elite, while building up national debt. How can we afford that?

I am told by colleagues, you assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as you know it now. I do assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as we know it now. When I look at the numbers, I am deeply concerned. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities released a report recently that basically said if we just took the tax cuts for the elite passed in 2001 and made those permanent and carried that out, it would cost about $10 trillion--if we carried that out the way we usually estimate Social Security and Medicare; over 75 years, $10 trillion in costs for that tax policy.

What is the combined Medicare and Social Security deficit projected during the same time? The $10 trillion that we are putting into place if that passes in the House and the Senate and is signed by the President. We will voluntarily be setting ourselves on a course to $10 trillion in debt right when we know Medicare and Social Security will need $10 trillion.

If you add to that the current debates about adding to that with the new policies that have been proposed, we end up between $12 trillion and $14 trillion in costs exactly at the same time we have a need for $10 trillion in Medicare and Social Security.

This is a conscious choice. For those who vote for the plan proposed by the President, you are putting in place great jeopardy to Social Security and Medicare. It is a conscious choice. I have to assume it comes based on what Mr. Skully was talking about, that people believe Medicare is a dumb system, an unbelievable disaster.

Medicare and Social Security are great American success stories. We need a short-term plan for jobs, opportunity, and prosperity, and that is what we are proposing. That really creates jobs. We can give tax cuts responsibly for taxpayers and small businesses and help States without jeopardizing Medicare and Social Security.

I am deeply concerned about this and urge colleagues to take another look at what is proposed in the Senate and work together.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of a friend, a mentor, and a personal hero: Martha Wright Griffiths, who dedicated more than 40 years of her life in public service to her State and her Nation.

But her death last month at 91 does not mean the loss of a flame. Rather it is the passing of a torch, for her causes continue.

Isaac Newton was once asked to explain the inspiration behind his many scientific discoveries that advanced our understanding of the world. He said: ``If I have been able to see further, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.''

As I stand here today and speak as a proud member of the United States Senate, I understand Newton's humility. I know I stand on the shoulders of giants who advanced our understanding of what our world can be.

Martha Wright Griffiths--Michigan's first woman Lieutenant Governor-- is one of those giants in the cause of equal rights and social justice in our Nation.

Consider her remarkable career. When Martha was born in 1912, women didn't even have the right to vote, let alone have the chance to serve their country as legislators, judges or elected executive officials.

A generation of women fought to change that and women like Martha stepped up and accepted the new leadership responsibilities that came with their new duties.

Martha's public service career began in 1948 with two terms in the Michigan Legislature. From there she went on to become the first woman judge in Detroit's old criminal court system.

In 1954, she became the second woman elected to the United States House of Representatives from Michigan, and began a distinguished 20- year career as a legislator.

In the House, Martha became an advocate for reviving our cities, increasing aid to education, promoting tax relief for struggling families and making sure that every man, woman and child in America had access to health care.

But Martha was best known for her work in civil rights and the rights of women. She was not only an early and avid supporter of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but she got Congress to approve an amendment she authored to include women in the bill by shaming the men in the House Chambers into voting for it.

``A vote against this amendment today by a man is a vote against his wife or his widow or his daughter or his sister,'' she told them.

In 1970, Martha gathered the 218 signatures needed for a rare discharge petition that forced the Equal Rights Amendment to the floor of the House after it had languished in committee for nearly 50 years.

Martha left the House in 1974, and joined several corporate boards including the former Chrysler Corporation and Consumers Power Company-- companies that had never had women on their boards before.

In 1982, Martha began her final tour of public service when she was sworn in as Michigan's first woman Lieutenant Governor. I had the pleasure of working with her as a member of the Michigan House of Representatives through much of her tenure.

And the day she was sworn in as lieutenant governor, Martha also became the first woman in Michigan's history to serve in all three branches of government.

Giants such as Martha Wright Griffiths moved us closer to realizing our Nation's promise of equal justice and opportunity for each and every citizen.

Her passing reminds us that it is now our turn to square our shoulders and stand tall for the generations of Americans to come.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I begin by saying, as have others, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to advice and consent on a Federal judicial nominee. This is a responsibility I take seriously, as do my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Unlike other nominations that come before the Senate such as ambassadorships or executive nominees, Federal judicial nominations are lifetime appointments. These are not decisions that will affect our courts for 3 years or 4 years but, rather, 30 years or 40 years, making it even more important that the Senate not act as a rubberstamp.

Having said that, to review the record of where we are under this President and his judicial nominations, to date the Senate has confirmed 119 Federal justices and rejected two--not exactly a partisan example of how we are moving forward on judgeships: 119 approved; two rejected. Ironically, one of those already rejected is the person now in front of the Senate again.

As a part of the important responsibility we have, I have examined Justice Owen's record. I am concerned that this is a nominee who has repeatedly disregarded the language of the law and has instead substituted her own political and personal views. This is a nominee who has been criticized by her own Republican colleagues on the bench for being a judicial activist. She is one who has consistently overreached in her decisions to justify her extreme personal positions.

I begin by talking briefly about the Texas Supreme Court. In Texas, Supreme Court judges are elected for 6-year terms. They run as party candidates, as they do in many States, as Republicans or Democrats. This is a conservative court and currently an all-Republican court. This is important because when one reads Texas Supreme Court opinions, Justice Owen is outside of the mainstream even among those of her own party who have been recognized as serving on a conservative court.

In fact, a review of the court's opinions shows that since Justice Owen joined the court in January of 1995 through June of 2002, just prior to her July 2002 judicial committee hearing, she was the second most frequent dissenter among the justices then serving on the court. The content of these dissents also shows that she is often out of touch with the law and significantly more extreme than her Republican colleagues on the court.

For example, in the 12 cases before her involving minors seeking judicial bypass to obtain an abortion under Texas parental notification laws, Owen joined the majority in granting a bypass only once. That was a case which was decided after her nomination to the Fifth Circuit.

In re Jane Doe 1, where a bypass was granted, the Republican majority opinion sharply rebuked Owen and the other dissenter's attempts to substitute their own personal views for the law instead of interpreting the law itself. They stated:

We recognize that judges' personal views may inspire

inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric. Nonetheless, the

issue's highly charged nature does not excuse judges who

impose their own personal convictions into what must be a

strictly legal inquiry.

Those are harsh words.

As judges, we cannot ignore the statute or the record

before us. Whatever our personal feelings may be, we

must respect the rule of law.

How many times have we heard colleagues speak about respecting the rule of law? Here was someone rebuked by her own Republican colleagues for not respecting the rule of law.

In a concurring opinion on the same case, then Justice Alberto Gonzales, the Bush administration's current White House counsel, described the dissenters, including Justice Owen, as attempting to engage in ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' These are the words of the current White House counsel when he was serving with her, that she attempted to engage in ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Those are very powerful words.

This criticism is very serious. It does not come from Senators. It comes from Justice Owen's own Republican colleagues. That is significant.

In another parental notification case, In re Jane Doe 3, the minor testified that her father was an alcoholic who would take out his anger toward his children by beating the mother. Justice Owen once again substituted her own personal views for the law and would have required a higher evidentiary standard for showing the possibility of abuse under the law. Republican Justice Enoch wrote, specifically to rebuke Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters for misconstruing the definition of the sort of abuse that may occur under the bypass law--a Republican colleague on the bench--``Abuse is abuse. It is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second-guessed.''

Justice Owen's judicial activism extends way beyond these cases. Justice Owen has been out of step with Republican justices of the Texas Supreme Court on everything from environmental cases to consumer protection to workplace discrimination cases. In Read v. Scott Fetzer, Kristi Read was raped in her home by a door-to-door salesman hired by the Kirby vacuum distributor. If the distributor had conducted a background check or even checked the salesman's employment references, they would have learned

that women at his previous places of employment had complained about his sexually inappropriate behavior and that he had pled guilty to a charge of sexual indecency with a child and was fired as a result of that incident.

The Republican majority in this case ruled that the victim was entitled to damages from the distributor that hired the salesman. Justice Owen, however, joined a dissenting opinion saying the victim was not entitled to any damages from the distributor, arguing that since the salesman was considered an independent contractor, the distributor had no duty to perform any background checks. This is yet another example where Priscilla Owen is out of step with even her colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court, much less mainstream America.

President Bush has said he wants judges who are not judicial activists and who will interpret the law, not make the law. Justice Owen fails this test by any measure. When one examines Justice Owen's record, her pattern of judicial activism becomes clear.

During her tenure on this conservative Republican court--and I say that only to say that these were Republican colleagues on the court who were making the statements about the inappropriate judicial activism-- Justice Owen has dissented in 66 cases and has been criticized by her colleagues, including White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, on the bench for her judicial overreaching.

This is a nominee who has been divisive not only on the Texas Supreme Court but in the U.S. Senate. I have received over 2,500 letters and e- mails from my constituents in Michigan opposing Priscilla Owen's nomination. I have received letters from over 60 different organizations, including civil rights groups, advocacy groups, women's groups, environmental groups, and other citizens opposing this nomination.

In addition, Justice Owen's nomination was rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and her reconsideration is unprecedented. Never before has a nominee been voted on and rejected by the committee or the Senate and subsequently renominated for the same seat.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to say yes to a balanced Federal judiciary that will interpret and not make the law, and to say no to the Owen nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a bill I am introducing to turn the historic United States Coast Guard Cutter Bramble, into a floating maritime museum in Port Huron, MI, after she is decommissioned later this year.

Once you hear the history of the Bramble, I am sure you will all agree that not only should she be preserved, but the Port Huron Museum of Arts and History will be able to provide the ideal home.

The Bramble has been part of many important missions since it was first launched on October 23, 1943.

But--along with her sister ships, Spar and Storis--the Bramble is best known for being part of the first mission by United States vessels to steam from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean via the Northwest Passage. Upon completing this mission, Bramble and her sister ships went on to become the first to circumnavigate the North American continent--a dream of sailors for more than 400 years.

The Bramble set out on this historic mission from Miami, Florida, on May 24, 1957. Steaming through the Panama Canal to the Pacific Ocean, the Bramble then headed to Seattle.

On July 1, 1957, the Bramble left Seattle and headed toward the Atlantic Ocean via the Bering Straights and the Arctic Ocean. Sixty- four days and 4,500 miles later, the Bramble and her sister ships reached the Atlantic and on December 2, 1957, she tied up again in Miami--completing the first circumnavigation of the North American continent.

For that reason alone, the Bramble would be worth saving as a museum of maritime history.

But over her 60 year history, the Bramble has seized tons of illegal drugs, saved hundreds of lives in search and rescue missions, helped train maritime police in 10 Caribbean nations, maintained buoys and other aids to navigation, performed icebreaking duties in the Great Lakes and been the recipient of numerous awards, service ribbons and commendations.

The Bramble also has a long history with Michigan and Port Huron and that is why I believe my State would make an excellent home once this historic ship is retired.

The Bramble first came to Detroit, MI, in 1962, where she performed search and rescue, icebreaking, law enforcement and navigation missions throughout the Great Lakes.

Since 1975, the Bramble's homeport has been Port Huron. And that is where I think she should stay after she is decommissioned.

The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus--or Always Ready.

For 60 years the Bramble has been there--always ready to serve our country in waters close to home and far away.

And I believe that as a museum of maritime history, she can continue serving us for years to come--still Semper Paratus--still Always Ready.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a bill I am introducing to turn the historic United States Coast Guard Cutter Bramble, into a floating maritime museum in Port Huron, MI, after she is decommissioned later this year.

Once you hear the history of the Bramble, I am sure you will all agree that not only should she be preserved, but the Port Huron Museum of Arts and History will be able to provide the ideal home.

The Bramble has been part of many important missions since it was first launched on October 23, 1943.

But--along with her sister ships, Spar and Storis--the Bramble is best known for being part of the first mission by United States vessels to steam from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean via the Northwest Passage. Upon completing this mission, Bramble and her sister ships went on to become the first to circumnavigate the North American continent--a dream of sailors for more than 400 years.

The Bramble set out on this historic mission from Miami, Florida, on May 24, 1957. Steaming through the Panama Canal to the Pacific Ocean, the Bramble then headed to Seattle.

On July 1, 1957, the Bramble left Seattle and headed toward the Atlantic Ocean via the Bering Straights and the Arctic Ocean. Sixty- four days and 4,500 miles later, the Bramble and her sister ships reached the Atlantic and on December 2, 1957, she tied up again in Miami--completing the first circumnavigation of the North American continent.

For that reason alone, the Bramble would be worth saving as a museum of maritime history.

But over her 60 year history, the Bramble has seized tons of illegal drugs, saved hundreds of lives in search and rescue missions, helped train maritime police in 10 Caribbean nations, maintained buoys and other aids to navigation, performed icebreaking duties in the Great Lakes and been the recipient of numerous awards, service ribbons and commendations.

The Bramble also has a long history with Michigan and Port Huron and that is why I believe my State would make an excellent home once this historic ship is retired.

The Bramble first came to Detroit, MI, in 1962, where she performed search and rescue, icebreaking, law enforcement and navigation missions throughout the Great Lakes.

Since 1975, the Bramble's homeport has been Port Huron. And that is where I think she should stay after she is decommissioned.

The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus--or Always Ready.

For 60 years the Bramble has been there--always ready to serve our country in waters close to home and far away.

And I believe that as a museum of maritime history, she can continue serving us for years to come--still Semper Paratus--still Always Ready.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a wonderful Arbor Day gift that was donated to the U.S. Capitol by the Champion Tree Project and the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. Last Thursday, on April 24, 2003, the U.S. Capitol planted a 6-foot sapling clone of a white ash tree grown by George Washington in the late 1700s. This sapling clone is the first successful recreation of the Champion Tree Project's efforts to spawn exact genetic duplicates of each of Washington's surviving trees at Mount Vernon.

This gift is extremely special to me for two reasons. First, the Champion Tree Project is a Michigan-founded, grassroots organization that was founded by a Michiganian father and son team, David and Jared Milarch. The Milarch family has been the driving force behind this organization, and I commend them for their historic efforts to protect these important trees. In addition to working to protect historically significant trees like those on the Mount Vernon estate, the Champion Tree Project is dedicated to protecting Champion trees, which are the biggest--and often among the oldest--known members of their species in the United States. After cloning, these saplings are planted in protected sites where they can be enjoyed and studied by future generations.

Second, I was at Mount Vernon on August 1, 2001, when the Champion Tree Project collected the budwood and branches from the 13 surviving trees planted under George Washington's direction over 200 years ago. The DNA

that was collected at Mount Vernon over a year and half ago is what was used to create this white ash sapling clone, and I am proud that this sapling has found a wonderful home at the U.S. Capitol today.

Mr. President, I thank the Champion Tree Project and the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association for their historic gift and their ongoing dedication to preserving these trees for future generations.

Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003.

Last month, thousands of Americans participated in a week-long discussion about covering the uninsured. The sheer breadth of the groups that participated in the unprecedented effort demonstrates the urgency of this issue. Labor unions were united with business groups, doctors with nurses, and charity health care providers with for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. They all came together to call on Congress to find a way to provide health coverage for uninsured Americans.

I was glad to see awareness being raised about who the uninsured are and what it means to be without health coverage in America. There is a great misconception that uninsured Americans are largely unemployed or on Welfare. That is simply not the case. More than 80 percent of uninsured Americans are part of working families, and almost half work for small businesses. If we can help small businesses cover their employees, we will have made great progress in covering the uninsured.

The bill I am introducing today is aimed at making coverage more affordable for employees of small businesses through what is called a ``three-share'' program. The three-share model is an innovative community-based idea that has been working across the U.S. from California to Arkansas to North Carolina; and of course in Michigan.

The name three-share stems from the program's payment structure. Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the remaining 40 percent of the cost.

In a three share model, a non-profit or local government entity serves as the manager of the plan. They design a benefit package by negotiating directly with providers or contracting through an insurance company. Then, they recruit small businesses that have not offered insurance coverage to their employees for the past year. The average cost for coverage is about $1,800 per year, much lower than the national average for commercial insurance, which on average costs $3,500 for a single person and $8,500 for a family. Of the $1,800, the employer and employee would each pay approximately $540 and the community would pay about $720.

Different three share plans have received funds for the community portion from various places. In Michigan, most of the money has come from Medicaid funds. A plan in California uses money from the tobacco settlement while a plan in Arkansas raises funds through church events and other community initiatives.

Unfortunately, despite the nuances that distinguish three share plans from one another, they all share a common challenge: they all lack a stable and sustainable funding source for the community share.

If passed, my bill would help alleviate that problem by offering a refundable tax credit to small businesses who participate in three share plans. Businesses would pay their own share plus the community share up front and receive the community share back through a refundable tax credit.

My bill would also encourage the development of more three share plans by providing seed money through the Community Access Program at the Health Resources Services Administration.

This bill would maintain the current employer-based system and leverage every $1 of public money with $2 of private funds. It would not impose any new funding mandates on state or local governments nor would it create new bureaucracy. It is an innovative community-based approach that could work throughout the country if funding is available.

Insuring more working families will also take the pressure off state Medicaid budgets. Adequate care for those presently uninsured will also help slash the billions we wind up spending on uncompensated care.

Finally, I believe providing health care for these families fulfills a moral commitment. No one in America who gets up in the morning and goes to work should go to sleep at night fearful that an illness or injury in the family could wipe out everything they have worked for.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

There being no objeciton, the material was ordered to be printed in

Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003.

Last month, thousands of Americans participated in a week-long discussion about covering the uninsured. The sheer breadth of the groups that participated in the unprecedented effort demonstrates the urgency of this issue. Labor unions were united with business groups, doctors with nurses, and charity health care providers with for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. They all came together to call on Congress to find a way to provide health coverage for uninsured Americans.

I was glad to see awareness being raised about who the uninsured are and what it means to be without health coverage in America. There is a great misconception that uninsured Americans are largely unemployed or on Welfare. That is simply not the case. More than 80 percent of uninsured Americans are part of working families, and almost half work for small businesses. If we can help small businesses cover their employees, we will have made great progress in covering the uninsured.

The bill I am introducing today is aimed at making coverage more affordable for employees of small businesses through what is called a ``three-share'' program. The three-share model is an innovative community-based idea that has been working across the U.S. from California to Arkansas to North Carolina; and of course in Michigan.

The name three-share stems from the program's payment structure. Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the remaining 40 percent of the cost.

In a three share model, a non-profit or local government entity serves as the manager of the plan. They design a benefit package by negotiating directly with providers or contracting through an insurance company. Then, they recruit small businesses that have not offered insurance coverage to their employees for the past year. The average cost for coverage is about $1,800 per year, much lower than the national average for commercial insurance, which on average costs $3,500 for a single person and $8,500 for a family. Of the $1,800, the employer and employee would each pay approximately $540 and the community would pay about $720.

Different three share plans have received funds for the community portion from various places. In Michigan, most of the money has come from Medicaid funds. A plan in California uses money from the tobacco settlement while a plan in Arkansas raises funds through church events and other community initiatives.

Unfortunately, despite the nuances that distinguish three share plans from one another, they all share a common challenge: they all lack a stable and sustainable funding source for the community share.

If passed, my bill would help alleviate that problem by offering a refundable tax credit to small businesses who participate in three share plans. Businesses would pay their own share plus the community share up front and receive the community share back through a refundable tax credit.

My bill would also encourage the development of more three share plans by providing seed money through the Community Access Program at the Health Resources Services Administration.

This bill would maintain the current employer-based system and leverage every $1 of public money with $2 of private funds. It would not impose any new funding mandates on state or local governments nor would it create new bureaucracy. It is an innovative community-based approach that could work throughout the country if funding is available.

Insuring more working families will also take the pressure off state Medicaid budgets. Adequate care for those presently uninsured will also help slash the billions we wind up spending on uncompensated care.

Finally, I believe providing health care for these families fulfills a moral commitment. No one in America who gets up in the morning and goes to work should go to sleep at night fearful that an illness or injury in the family could wipe out everything they have worked for.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

There being no objeciton, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that after Mr. Levin, the senior Senator from Michigan, speaks, the junior Senator from Michigan be recognized.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from Michigan for his comments and rise to support and join him in praising our men and women in uniform who are putting their futures on hold and their lives on the line to defend our Nation and protect and advance freedom around the world.

The military action is going very well. We expect no less from our men and women in uniform; they are highly prepared and trained and dedicated.

Already many of these dedicated men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Across the Nation last week we rejoiced at the dramatic rescue of Army PFC Jessica Lynch.

Sadly, among the bodies found in or near the hospital where Lynch was held was the body of Private Brandon Sloan of Fraser, MI--one of Lynch's comrades in the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that was ambushed by the Iraqis on March 23.

Others from Michigan who have given their lives in Iraq are: Marine MAJ Kevin Nave of White Lake Township, Army SGT Michael Pedersen of Flint, MI, and Army SGT Todd Robbins of Pentwater, MI.

And in the continuing operation in Afghanistan, Michigan mourns the loss of Air Force SrA Jason Plite of Grand Ledge who died in a helicopter accident as he flew on a mission to rescue two injured Afghan children.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of these men and the families of all the other men and women who, as Lincoln said, ``gave the last measure of full devotion'' for their country.

Our troops who wear the uniform of this Nation with such honor deserve to know they are held in honor here at home.

My father was in the Navy during World War II and my husband served in the Air Force during the first Gulf War. Both have told me how important it was for the morale of all those who served to know they had the support of their Nation.

Military officials tell me there are things Americans can do right here at home to let our troops overseas know they are in our thoughts and prayers--things that will make life a little better for people right in our hometowns as well.

I commend, as did Senator Levin, all who are reaching out to support our troops.

Unlike previous conflicts, the Defense Department is asking people not to send care packages or letters not addressed to specific military personnel. Since the anthrax attacks of October 2001, these kinds of mailings just pose too much of a security risk.

However, the military encourages individuals or groups to show their support for the troops abroad by showing support at home for our veterans and the families of current National Guard and Reserve personnel whose loved ones are deployed far away--and then sharing your efforts with our troops in Iraq.

For instance, my home State of Michigan is home to almost 875,000 veterans of conflicts going all the way back to World War I. Volunteers are always needed at veteran's hospitals and veteran's homes.

Volunteers are also needed to help family readiness groups that assist the families of the National Guard and Reserve personnel who have been deployed far from home.

From my home state of Michigan, the men and women of the 127th Air National Guard Wing in Selfridge, the 110th Fighter Wing in Battle Creek and the Combat Readiness Training Center in Alpena have been mobilized and deployed to bases around the world, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South West Asia, and Turkey.

Army National Guard and Reserve units from Owosso, Taylor, Grand Ledge, Grayling, Sault Ste. Marie, Midland, Pontiac, Three Rivers, Augusta, Selfridge, and Ypsilanti have been mobilized and are awaiting their deployment orders.

Many of these men and women leave families and well-paying jobs behind--creating hardships for themselves and their families just so they can serve their Nation.

Family readiness volunteers help families of Guard and Reserve units with everything from arranging for baby sitting and lawn care to staffing phone trees that keep families informed of the most recent developments regarding the deployment of their loved ones.

Once you have volunteered, military officials encourage you to go to a special website called www.operationdearabby.net. There you can post a note to our troops letting them know what you and your neighbors are doing here at home to show your support as they serve abroad.

Military mail officials sort these messages so they can be delivered to soldiers who would be the most interested.

Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks our men and women in uniform have put on an amazing display of bravery and toughness. We have all seen the picture of our troops standing up against not just the enemy-- but pounding sandstorms and blistering heat.

But something about the scene is very familiar--and very American. In fact, it is a scene as old as our Republic itself, as old as the brutal winter at Valley Forge in 1777.

Listen to the words of George Washington when he bid farewell to his troops when the war was finally over.

Against all odds, including that bitter winter and Valley Forge, these soldiers had won their freedom and created a new Nation.

It was almost with a sense of awe that Washington said to them:

The unparalleled perseverance of the Armies of the United

States, through almost every possible suffering and

discouragement, was little short of a standing miracle.

The spirit of that first American army lives on in our men and women in uniform today.

It is still little short of a standing miracle, it still inspires awe, and it commands us to do whatever we can do here at home to show our unwavering support.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague. I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend my colleagues for bringing it forward.

As has been said so many times, we have two front lines in the battle on terrorism. We have come together virtually unanimously in support of our troops in Iraq and for the efforts on other soils away from our country. But here at home we have not done the same. Back in Michigan, I held nine different community meetings around the State, and I heard the same thing from our urban to rural areas: They are working hard, working overtime, but they cannot do it alone.

When our country was attacked, it was not just New York or Washington. They were, in fact, attacking the United States of America. We have an obligation to our hard-working men and women, the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical workers, to make sure we are partnering with them to make sure they have the resources they need.

I have heard so much about the need for communications equipment, bioterrorism training, additional personnel. They are saying to me that it is very frustrating when, on the one hand, we say we are getting them more money, and then we cut the COPS Program or the Fire Grant Program.

The Senator from Louisiana raises an important point about the Specter amendment as to where the dollars come from. I will support the Specter amendment, but we have to make sure these are really new dollars and not just moving from one pot to another pot because the reality is that our first responders cannot do this without our partnership and our support.

This is the time we are bringing forth the resources to fund the war to support our troops abroad. We have troops right here. They are asking us, finally, to support them. We have tried for 18 months to provide the resources, to let them know, and today is the day.

I hope my colleagues will join unanimously to do that.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make Election Day a national holiday.

After the problems of the 2000 elections, a bipartisan Commission headed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford was created to recommend election reforms.

Among the reforms the commission recommended was making Election Day a national holiday.

If you read the report, the advantage of making Election Day a national holiday becomes obvious.

In a survey done by the U.S. Census shortly after the 2000 elections, the number-one reason cited for not voting was because it conflicted with work or classroom schedules. Declaring Election Day a national holiday would make it easier for millions of busy Americans to get to the polls.

But declaring Election Day a national holiday has other advantages as well, according to the Commission's report. More public buildings, especially schools, would be available as polling places. And more and better trained poll workers would be available to staff polling places.

Businesses complain that a new Federal holiday will cost them money. But this problem can be easily solved. Presently we celebrate Veterans Day on Nov. 11. On even numbered years, we could simply celebrate Veterans Day on the second Tuesday after the first Monday of November, which Congress has designated as Election Day for Federal elections.

The Commission's report noted that both Presidents Ford and Carter are veterans themselves and would not recommend any change that would dilute the significance of Veterans Day.

Rather, our two former Presidents found it fitting to hold the ``supreme national exercise of our freedom on the day we honor those who preserved it.''

This idea is also supported by civil rights, labor and other groups trying to increase participation in our electoral process.

I think it is an idea whose time has come.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make Election Day a national holiday.

After the problems of the 2000 elections, a bipartisan Commission headed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford was created to recommend election reforms.

Among the reforms the commission recommended was making Election Day a national holiday.

If you read the report, the advantage of making Election Day a national holiday becomes obvious.

In a survey done by the U.S. Census shortly after the 2000 elections, the number-one reason cited for not voting was because it conflicted with work or classroom schedules. Declaring Election Day a national holiday would make it easier for millions of busy Americans to get to the polls.

But declaring Election Day a national holiday has other advantages as well, according to the Commission's report. More public buildings, especially schools, would be available as polling places. And more and better trained poll workers would be available to staff polling places.

Businesses complain that a new Federal holiday will cost them money. But this problem can be easily solved. Presently we celebrate Veterans Day on Nov. 11. On even numbered years, we could simply celebrate Veterans Day on the second Tuesday after the first Monday of November, which Congress has designated as Election Day for Federal elections.

The Commission's report noted that both Presidents Ford and Carter are veterans themselves and would not recommend any change that would dilute the significance of Veterans Day.

Rather, our two former Presidents found it fitting to hold the ``supreme national exercise of our freedom on the day we honor those who preserved it.''

This idea is also supported by civil rights, labor and other groups trying to increase participation in our electoral process.

I think it is an idea whose time has come.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.