Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to follow on my distinguished colleague's remarks regarding the situation in Iraq. I had the opportunity to visit there a week ago today. I went to Iraq because I wanted to see for myself, on the ground, the conditions there in advance of General Petraeus's and Ambassador Crocker's report. I am happy to report I believe what I saw was significant military progress. My first stop on the visit was in Tikrit. I got a full briefing there of the conditions in this area, which was Saddam Hussein's birthplace, a place that was well known as a place of a lot of al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent activity. This area was under control. This area was moving in the right direction. Significant progress has been made in pacifying and bringing Tikrit to a better situation. I had a very interesting visit then to Patrol Base Murray. Patrol Base Murray is about 12 to 14 kilometers south of Baghdad by the Tigris River. It is an area that was totally controlled by al-Qaida a few weeks ago. Our brave men and women in uniform moved in as the last brigade of the surge. See, the surge began in the middle of February, I guess, but it did not conclude until the last brigade reported for duty, and that was in early June, late May. This brigade, the Stryker force, moved into this area under very difficult circumstances, and they have had a battle on their hands. But their commanders reported to us that under the most difficult of circumstances, they have made incredible progress, and that area is beginning to turn and turn dramatically. They are working with the locals. I spoke with an Iraqi gentleman who is cooperating and working with our forces there in trying to bring a normalcy of life to people who live in this part of Iraq and is making progress. It is working not without some losses, not without the grief of losing one of our valued soldiers and many casualties, but at the same time progress has been made. Under the most difficult of circumstances and intense heat, their morale is incredibly high. The fact is that by all measures, this is a successful outcome to this particular aspect of our surge. The surge is doing precisely what it was intended to do, to clear and sustain and work with the locals as partners. All of those things seem to be working as intended, as General Petraeus laid out. I had the opportunity to spend some time with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to hear their assessment of the situation and hear some indication of what their report might yield. While we certainly need to allow them to speak for themselves when they come, I did get the definitive impression that the metric they utilized to sense and see whether, in fact, progress is being made, all seem to be moving in the right direction--not evenly, not without setbacks, but certainly significant progress is being made. The strategy has shifted dramatically. It so happened that as we were shifting our strategy, al-Qaida and their excesses had been more than the local Iraqi communities could stand, and so we have had a confluence of interests, as many Iraqi leaders and tribal leaders and provincial leaders have turned against al-Qaida, understanding the way of al-Qaida is not the way that would be best for the Iraqi people. So this is a good confluence. This confluence has brought about the kind of incredible results the Senator from Missouri was speaking of in Al Anbar Province. So I believe a political reconciliation is ultimately the only way in which this will be a successful outcome. But the conditions on the ground are beginning to be such so as to allow the kind of a peaceful country to then begin the difficult process of political reconciliation. There is no question that the Maliki Government has not delivered as hoped, but at the same time, some hopeful signs are beginning to emerge. There is no question the political progress lags behind the military progress. But I would expect it always would be so. The reason the military surge went ahead is so there could be the conditions for political progress. Over the last several weeks, there have been meetings that have resulted in the beginnings of what I believe to be the political accommodations that need to take place. I think particularly important are the debaathification law and also the law that would allow for local and provincial elections. These will go a long way toward setting the stage for the kind of political reconciliation that ultimately will make Iraq a peaceful country. I wish to touch a moment on the report by General Jones on the conditions of the Iraqi military. I got a very positive assessment from General Petraeus. Their casualty rate is 3 to 1 to ours. They are taking the fight to the enemy, and they apparently are conducting themselves in stellar fashion. However, they do need our help and will continue to need our help. I think it is important we note, as General Jones reports, that while he sees progress by the Iraqi military, surely they are going to be needing our help in logistics and air cover and things such as that for some time to come. There is a big difference between them taking the brunt of the fight, which I think they are poised to do in the months to come, and still continuing to need the kind of backup and support that undoubtedly will take longer for them to build. It is a big difference for our military to be assisting in logistics than it is to be at the front of the battlefield. I think the Iraqis might be in a position to do so. I do not think there is any question that our goal is a successful Iraq, an Iraq that will not be a safe haven for al-Qaida, nor will it give Iran the kind of political control over this country that would be cataclysmic to the security and stability of the region. That is our goal. As a result of that goal being achieved, then we will be able to withdraw our troops. But the goal ought to not be troop withdrawal at all costs. That would be a mistake for our country. It would be a mistake for the region. I believe that while progress is difficult and the sacrifices are great, that enough progress is being made for us to understand the way forward is a way of continuing involvement there until such time as Iraq has reached the point of stability that they can govern themselves and also provide for their own security. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Are we not in a posture where amendments would be appropriate?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this amendment again deals with the budding hopes of democracy in Cuba and it deals with Radio and TV Marti. Radio and TV Marti for years has been the source of information and the source of hope, much like Radio Free Europe was for the enslaved people of Europe. The people of Cuba today have no opportunity for anything close to a free press. All they get handed daily are the diatribes of the Communist regime as they control every source of media available to the Cuban people. This amendment would restore funding to Radio and TV Marti by increasing the funding by $5 million to allow the continuation of this very important tool of democracy, which is information to the Cuban people. Again, I would point out this is a critical time in the history of this country. We are only 90 miles from the shores of Cuba. What happens in Cuba is important to the United States. It is important to our national security. At a time when we fear the potential for mass migration, at a time when we see the opportunity perhaps for political change, this would be the wrong time to cut back and to diminish our commitment to the voice of democracy, the voice of freedom, and, frankly, simply to the voice of unfettered information. If there was a condition in Cuba that created unrest or a governmental change, our defense forces, the Department of Homeland Security is greatly concerned that there would be a mass migration. It has happened in the past. Radio and TV Marti would be the tools that people such as myself, speaking in Spanish to the Cuban people, could use to urge them not to go to the high seas, not to seek to migrate but simply remain calm in Cuba. That is why TV and Radio Marti, at this critical juncture, ought not to be cut in funding. The amendment doesn't restore it to current funding; it increases it by $5 million, which I think would be a great step in the right direction. I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is correct. And the Senator is correct that there were going to be two amendments--it is actually four, dealing with two subjects, two in Cuba and two in Colombia. They are the same fundamental issues and they are offset within the State Department budget. Amendment No. 2696

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I call up the next amendment.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this amendment deals with the situation in Colombia. This was a congressional effort started in the Clinton administration, which has been a dramatic help--and it has been continued by the Bush administration--to the people of Colombia as they fight the narcotraffickers who essentially took over that country for more than a decade. The number of deaths and the destruction due to the drug trafficking out of Colombia that has occurred on our streets and in our neighborhoods and schools has been known for decades now. Under the presidency of President Uribe, whom the Colombian people elected in an unprecedented fashion a year ago, the Colombian Government, in partnership with us in Plan Colombia, has made a turnaround in that country relating to drug interdiction and eradication, and in the fight against these narcoterrorists who have threatened life in Colombia as we know it. Today, life there is returning to normal. Business and trade are increasing dramatically. They are becoming the kind of neighbor we want and need. There is no closer ally in Latin America than Colombia today. Their successes have been undeniable. My amendment seeks to change language in the current Foreign Relations appropriations bill that would dictate that air eradication not take place. We seek to restore language that would allow for air eradication of drugs to take place when it is reasonable to do so, and when to do otherwise would endanger the Colombian security forces. Rather than hamstring and tie down the Colombian forces and eliminate eradication, we are changing the language to permit it where necessary, when to do otherwise would endanger the life of Colombians. Drug eradication is vitally important. To allow the current language in the bill would diminish these important efforts so that we can eradicate drugs in the Colombian fields and not have to deal with them in our neighborhoods. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I call up amendment No. 2697.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator for his kind comments and for allowing me to move forward with these amendments. I appreciate his sentiment about the Colombian situation. There is no question that they are an ally and friend. One of the things I think is often not talked about, but is very important, is what President Uribe has done. He has had an amnesty program where people would lay down their arms and simply have to atone for what they have done; they may get a jail sentence, but they can then reincorporate themselves into that society. They would have a job training program, have a way of getting out of the armed forces, which they did legally or illegally, including the paramilitary, or whatever. So if the rebel groups that supported the FARC lay down their arms and come back into society, that helps heal that country and bring it together. We have a great opportunity here to see Plan Columbia in its next phase not only continue with eradication and interdiction and fighting the guerrillas, but also with the reestablishment of economic opportunities, so we can also try to improve the lives of the Colombian people. On the Cuban amendments, I also appreciate his support very much. It means a great deal to me personally. I assure you that, at a moment when we are at the cusp of a democracy there, this is precisely the time in which to encourage the forces of change, forces of democracy, and provide them with the meager tools they need to communicate with each other. I think the fruits from that can be manifold. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ. At this time, I would simply speak on behalf of this amendment, which is to provide $45,700,000 to the democracy movement and to assist the pro-democracy movement in Cuba and to promote democracy in Cuba. It is an essential part, as the Senator from New Jersey very eloquently discussed, of support for the dissident movement so they can have the resources necessary for them to carry out their work, so we can create a civil society in Cuba. So that, at this very critical juncture in history--a very critical moment in history--the forces of democracy, the forces of freedom, the forces of a new way for Cuba could be heard and have the resources necessary to carry their message to others within the Cuban population. Senator Menendez and I both listened as we discussed with these people their needs and their wants. They are not asking for things other than that which makes their work possible: The ability to have a cell phone so they can communicate with one another; pencils, paper, ballpoint pens, things as simple as that--computers, of course; printers, of course. All these things are the tools of democracy that, as we saw in Eastern Europe bring about the fruits of democracy, we can also see that these seeds of democracy planted in Cuba, that these funds can also bear the same kind of fruit at this very critical moment of transition, we hope, in the Cuban situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, there are three amendments I wish to withdraw at this time. They are amendments Nos. 2695, 2696, and 2697.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I congratulate Mr. Alex Soto as he nears the end of his term as the 102nd president of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. Mr. Soto was elected to the IIABA's executive committee in 2001 and was installed as the association's president last September. Founded in 1896, IIABA, or the Big ``I'' as it is better known, is the Nation's oldest and largest association of independent insurance agents and brokers, representing a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers, and their employees. During his term as president of the Big ``I,'' Alex Soto has been a leader on a number of issues for the association including natural disaster insurance, regulatory reform, and producer compensation. He is a national leader on enhancement and enforcement of building codes, which is an important issue in our home State of Florida. Notably, as chairman of the National Branding Committee and president of the IIABA, Alex devoted significant time and energy to the development and promotion of the ``Trusted Choice'' brand for independent agents. Thanks to his leadership, the Trusted Choice initiative has successfully created a distinctive mark that conveys the virtues of the independent agent insurance delivery system. Alex Soto is also a great American success story. He came to the United States as a political refugee after fleeing communist Cuba in 1960 at the age of 11. When he arrived in this country, he did not speak any English and had to completely start over, learning the language, customs, and assimilating. Alex has gone on to achieve numerous accomplishments and is now the president of InSource, Inc., a successful and growing independent agency in Miami. He holds a degree in international affairs from Florida State University, the Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter, CPCU, designation, and the Associate in Risk Management, ARM, designation. Alex has served as the chairman of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents, FAIA, and before that, as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Dade County. He was vice chairman of the Florida Property Casualty Joint Underwriting Association, FPCJUA, in 1995-1996, as well as a member of the Governor's Commission on the Florida Insurance Crisis in 1993, and the Insurance Fraud Task Force in 1997. In addition, Alex is active in his community. He has taught numerous insurance courses with the FAIA and at the University of Miami. He also serves as a trustee of the Archdiocese of Miami Trust. He was a member of St. Hugh Catholic Church Parish Council and a member of the Grove Outreach Center. I sincerely thank Alex Soto for his work with the IIABA over the years and for his commitment to his profession, his community, and our State of Florida. His efforts are greatly appreciated. I am proud to count Alex as both a constituent and a friend. I wish him, his wife Patt, and their family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I applaud the signing of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 by President Bush. After more than a year and a half of work, this critical piece of legislation was finally signed into law on July 26, 2007. I would also like to commend Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby, my colleagues on the Banking Committee for their leadership in forging bipartisan legislation that will further protect critical U.S. assets and infrastructure from predatory foreign control. This much needed legislation updates, reforms, and provides transparency to the review process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. This Act will ensure national security while promoting foreign investment and the creation and maintenance of U.S. jobs. As we have seen over the last couple of years with the Dubai Ports and China National Offshore Oil Corporation, CNOOC, issues, greater oversight and transparency is needed for foreign investment in the United States. This legislation also clarifies and expands the term ``national security'' to include those issues related to ``homeland security,'' including its application to critical infrastructure. The ct also lays out additional factors to be considered during the CFIUS review process as they relate to our ``national security.'' I would like to address two of these factors today as they relate to a real threat in our hemisphere and to the United States. The act requires that CFIUS review any transaction related to major U.S. energy assets as part of our critical infrastructure and any covered transaction that would result in the control of any critical U.S. infrastructure by a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government. I raise these issues because I am particularly concerned by the recent, and ongoing, actions of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez against U.S. oil companies in Venezuela. While Venezuela has undertaken many actions to the detriment of U.S. companies, President Chavez and Petroleos de Venezuela have been courting government-controlled Russian and Iranian oil interests to take their place. It is no secret that Hugo Chavez is an enemy of the United States, the liberty and freedom we stand for, and the open and honest commerce that is the life-blood of our economy. It is also no secret that President Chavez will use whatever assets are at his disposal to harm our country. The lone tool in his kit is Venezuela's oil and gas wealth. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. already has a footprint in America through the ownership of CITGO Petroleum Corporation. While the CITGO gas stations you see on the roadsides and corners of American streets are franchised and owned largely by American small business men and women, these gas stations rely upon Petroleos de Venezuela and Hugo Chavez for their gas supply. Because the revenue it generates supports the Venezuelan economy, we might think it is a far-fetched idea that Hugo Chavez and Petroleos de Venezuela would cut off oil and gas supplies to the United States, or other Nations. Yet one only has to look at the actions of the Russian Government to see how energy supplies can be used as an economic and political weapon against other nations. The Russian strategy of using the power of energy assets as an economic tool began in 2003 when the Russian Government expropriated the assets of Yukos Oil, at that time, Russia's largest privately owned energy company. The Russian Government took Yukos assets without compensation to Yukos owners or investors and these assets also included $6 billion of U.S. investors' money. In the winter of 2006, the Russian Government cut off natural gas exports to the Ukraine in an attempt to pressure the Ukrainian Government to slow its democratic reforms and move toward the West. Later in 2006, Russia also cut off crude shipments to Lithuania in an attempt to stop the sale of a refinery to a Polish competitor. And earlier this year, the Russian Government cut off shipments to Belarus to force that country to accept higher prices and turn its pipeline system over to Russian Government-controlled companies. The Russian Government continues using heavyhanded tactics to move Western companies out of Russia so it can regain control of oil and gas reserves previously sold to these companies for development. The comparisons of President Chavez's actions to renationalize Venezuela's oil and gas industry are eerily similar to those taken by the Russian Government. As Hugo Chavez increases his government's stranglehold on Venezuela's oil and gas supply, will he cut off supply to the United States, or other nations, in an attempt to influence economic and political events? Will he cut off supply to CITGO stations in the United States? Reforms to the CFIUS process identifying energy infrastructure and energy security as national security interests, and the inclusion of these as factors to review when foreign-owned companies especially state-controlled companies with histories of using energy assets as political and economic tools will prevent Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Government from controlling additional energy assets here in the United States. I applaud President Bush for signing this important measure and encourage the CFIUS panel to perform stringent reviews of any potential sale of critical U.S. energy infrastructure to a foreign-government controlled company and deny any sale to entities controlled by tyrants like Hugo Chavez who have a history of expropriating U.S. assets and who, no doubt, would be willing to use the control of these assets to threaten U.S. national security and our economic well-being.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to commend the service and acts of South Florida's Roxcy O'Neal Bolton. She has made many contributions to women and society both locally and nationally. While she was born in Mississippi in 1926, Roxcy Bolton has made her mark in Florida over many long decades as a leading supporter of women's rights. Mrs. Bolton has been the founder of many Florida organizations which have helped women. While a strong advocate of increasing opportunities for women in society, she still proudly embraced marriage and family life. Married to a U.S. Navy commander named David Bolton--now deceased-- they had three children together. In her life she has been an active wife, mother, and homemaker--all while supporting rights for women in Florida and beyond. Her good acts are well known. A leading defender of, and advocate for, women who have been abused or suffered through domestic violence, Mrs. Bolton founded a nonprofit agency that provides rescue service, assistance to women in personal crisis, and emergency housing. This agency started after she personally took in four children and several women who were in situations of personal distress. I believe that is the definition of service--but it is just one example of Mrs. Bolton's kindness and vision. At Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, she worked to establish one of the country's first rape treatment centers. Providing services and support over the decades to children, adolescents, and adult victims of sexual assault, the Roxcy Bolton Rape Treatment Center has helped more than 42,000 people and their families; and importantly, these services are provided at no cost to the victim. Today, Roxcy Bolton is still caring for the women of Florida and remains dedicated to the rights of women everywhere. Through her dedicated work, she has lived a life of purpose. I am glad that we can call her one of Florida's own.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a talented and courageous young American named Anthony Burruto. A rising seventh-grade student at Southwest Middle School in Orlando and a pitcher and first baseman for a Dr. Phillips Little League baseball team known as the Yankees, Anthony lives a fairly ordinary life; it is just that he is a rather extraordinary young man. Born without a fibula in his right leg or a shinbone in his left, he had his lower legs amputated as a baby. At the time, Anthony and his family were informed that surgery might one day make it possible for him to walk. Anthony, now 12, decided that walking would not be enough for him. He started playing baseball nearly 5 years ago; hitting his first home run last November, he just recently finished the spring season with five--two of them Grand Slams. Amongst the league leaders in home runs for the spring season, Anthony has been an inspiration to everyone--his teammates, his opponents, the coaches, parents, and fans alike. Using two titanium and carbon-fiber prostheses, Anthony moves around well; be it on the baseball diamond or while playing baritone with his school's band, he embraces with confidence all of his opportunities. In an Orlando Sentinel story written about Anthony, published earlier this year, one of his teammates was quoted as saying, ``He's always the one who gets everybody up in the dugout . . . He always sticks up for everybody when they have a problem.'' For a child who was born 2 months premature and weighed just a little more than 3 pounds, the aforementioned says much about his character and personality. While Anthony and his parents Vinny and Diane long lived in New York, they have now been living in Orlando for the past 2 years. I am certainly proud to call them Floridians. The Burrutos have been very supportive of their only child; their love and devotion have certainly helped this talented young man to shine even more brightly. The Orlando community has also given great support to Anthony. As an Orlando resident, I have yet another reason to be thankful that my family and I call Orlando home. There are now other people who have been picking up on the rising star that is Anthony Burruto. For instance, earlier this season when Major League Baseball's Tampa Bay Devil Rays hosted a three-game ``home stand'' at Disney's Wide World of Sports Complex in Orlando--the first regular season major league games ever played in the Orlando area-- Anthony was asked to throw out the first pitch of the first game. On this momentous occasion, Anthony threw a strike. Additionally, the Devil Rays won. The accolades continue to come. Right before the official start of summer, Anthony learned that he had made the Dr. Phillips Little League All-Star team--yet another incredible accomplishment for an impressive young man. His mother reports that he and his team did really well. And as further proof of Anthony's inspiring story, there was even a film crew from This Week in Baseball following him during part of his All- Star run. Though given all of this praise, Anthony might respond much as he did in that Sentinel article. Commenting on ``able-bodied adults who say he's remarkable or inspirational,'' Anthony's response was, ``You just see things differently. To me, it's normal.'' This can-do attitude has brought Anthony many admirers at an early age--and I have every reason to believe that this young man will continue to inspire and succeed in ever bigger ways. I commend Anthony for his hard work, attitude, and approach to living. I encourage Anthony to keep swinging for the fences--he has already proven that he can knock the ball out of the park. On and off the diamond, we all know that Anthony Burruto is an All-Star.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to rise also to speak on this issue. It is very important that we talk about children's health care, as we have been doing over the last several days, but it is equally important that we talk about all Americans. In the State of Florida, 17 percent to 20 percent of the people are uninsured on any given day. That is unacceptable. We as a country have to deal with this issue. I want to deal with it in a way that allows for there to be tax equity, for one thing, for those who purchase health insurance through their employer and have tax equity for those who choose to buy a single individual policy of their own. We need to find a way through the tax credit program we have introduced with this bill so that we then make it possible for people to buy health insurance. So the goal is not to create a single-payer system, to create a government-run system--which we know is not ideal and which we know has not been the way to provide the greatest and best care--but to provide a way for people to become insured and for those who cannot afford it to have an opportunity through the Tax Code to get the help they need so they can purchase it. I believe there are a lot of good ideas we need to discuss, a lot of debate that needs to take place. At the end of the day, I don't think we should fear a discussion, and we should not fear the possibility that we all are coming to a consensus on the idea that all Americans have to have a place where they can go for their health care. A lot of health care dollars can be saved if people have that kind of maintenance and care all along so that they are not only going to a health care facility in a crisis, in a medical crisis. We would save a lot of dollars in the end, and the quality of life of the American people would increase as well. I thank the ranking member for his courtesy and yield the remainder of my time to him.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the current health care discussion on the floor and take a few minutes to address this very important issue. SCHIP is a great program that is called Kid Care in the State of Florida, where it has very successfully, over the past many months, been a good program in reducing the amount of children without health insurance. I support its reauthorization as proposed in the McConnell-Lott amendment. I support a straight reauthorization because the alternative, the Democratic bill before us, greatly steers the program away from the original intent. The intent of this program is to provide health care for low-income children. Instead, the underlying bill redefines SCHIP. It redefines the program to make SCHIP cover more adults and people well outside poverty. This bill will make families make a choice. A family of four making $82,000 a year could remain on private insurance, paid out of pocket, or they could take public-funded insurance. That kind of choice will cost Americans about $37 billion a year by the year 2012. This kind of expansion of Government-controlled health care is counter to any effort to reform our health care system. The question comes: Why are we considering this expansion? Why take the focus away from the children SCHIP was intended to serve? SCHIP has successfully achieved what it set out to do and has significantly reduced the number of uninsured children. Last year, 6.6 million children received health insurance through SCHIP. Rather than change the purpose of the program, as Democrats have proposed, we should refocus SCHIP on finding and covering the low- income children who are eligible for the program but are not yet enrolled. The McConnell-Lott bill turns the focus to the original purpose, helping ensure children from low-income families have health insurance. Instead of an expansion toward Government-run health care, the Republican alternative authorizes the program to keep the focus on children and invests an additional $14 billion into the program. Additionally, the Republican alternative provides important practical and easily implemented reforms to make health insurance more affordable for the uninsured. Part of the problem with SCHIP right now is we can't find all the kids who need it. The Republican alternative commits $400 million over the next 5 years for improved outreach programs. This money targets enrolling low-income children. These funds target the low-income children SCHIP was meant to help. We have a problem when we have children who have no health insurance but yet we have not reached out and touched them. This new reauthorization will put the funds behind going out and doing the outreach necessary to ensure that all children who are uninsured who could be covered under this program are reached. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Baucus plan will cover 600,000 new uninsured individuals at higher income levels, but then the plan would also cause 600,000 privately insured individuals at these income levels to drop their private coverage. Ironically, the Baucus bill drives people out of private insurance and into Government- sponsored health care. Under the Baucus plan dependency on government health care will increase significantly. In total, CBO says that 2.1 million individuals will move from private coverage to Government dependency if the Baucus plan is implemented. This isn't the health care reform Americans want. This isn't in the best interest of our country. Before we take this step of moving people on to Government plans, let's have a broader debate. Let's think about the ramifications and the opportunities. We can do better by providing Americans with more individual freedom and more choice while increasing health care coverage and security. We can help more Americans to own their own health care, take it with them from job to job, and partner with States to make that policy more affordable. That is why some of my colleagues and I have introduced the Every American Insured Health Act. The principles for health care reforms our bill addresses include tax equity. It is indefensible that Americans who buy insurance on their own are treated differently than those who buy insurance through their employer. Our bill amends the Tax Code to treat all Americans equally when it comes to the purchase of health insurance. The effect will be that health care will be accessible and affordable whether an employer offers coverage. As the name implies, the Every American Act provides everyone in America, regardless of income or employer, refundable flat tax credits--$2,160 per individual or $5,400 per family. The Wall Street Journal wrote in a recent editorial that restoring the tax parity of health in dollars would go a long way to improving the system and increasing access and affordability for everyone, including the 16 percent or so who today find themselves uninsured. It would also allow individuals to buy policies themselves rather than rely on their employers and take those policies with them wherever they work. The flexibility the bill we propose is founded on the belief that Government's role should be to organize the health care marketplace and then let consumers make choices. We provide the opportunity for every individual family to choose the health care policy that best meets their needs. When you have a competitive marketplace, you get more choices, better care, and lower prices. To get that market, our bill improves health insurance affordability in State marketplaces. It gives incentives, not mandates, for State insurance marketplace reform to create more options and more competition. The bill provides States the incentive to make health insurance more affordable and accessible by establishing a process to assist States in ensuring competitiveness. States will be given a menu of choices such as the incentive to establish a statewide insurance pool or establish high-risk mechanisms such as high-risk pools or reinsurance and improve their markets to enable insurance plans to offer at least one affordable policy valued at 6 percent of median income. This approach achieves the goals of universal coverage in a way that is truly American, by decreasing the number of uninsured Americans, thereby lowering health care costs for all Americans. This provides every American the right to choose their own health insurance plan. Finally, our approach authorizes incentives for States to reform their health insurance markets to ensure the availability of affordable, high quality health insurance for individuals and for families. For too long Congress has skirted the real issue that affects Americans and their health insurance. It is time to start finding solutions to the problems instead of putting Band-Aids on programs and systems that are truly failing all Americans. I ask my colleagues to reject the Baucus amendment, reject efforts to redefine and socialize our health care system. I ask my colleagues to support the McConnell-Lott amendment because it helps ensure that children in SCHIP continue to be served by the system and the program that was intended to serve them, broadening those who today could benefit from the program but are not there utilizing the opportunity before them because we have not reached out to them, and then also, as we do this, let's broaden the debate over fixing our entire health care system. It is a debate that is long overdue. It is a debate America yearns for. I look forward to engaging in that debate, how we continue to provide America the best and most sophisticated health care in the world but to make sure that every American participates in the opportunity to receive that best of health care we have to offer anywhere in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside and I be permitted to speak on two amendments that I will call up, intend to speak on, and then ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I call up amendment 2503 and ask that Senators Kyl and Graham be added as cosponsors.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl and Graham be added as cosponsors.

Mr. MARTINEZ. In the course of the immigration debate, it became clear that one of the issues about interior enforcement that was so difficult for us to get our arms around was the issue of identifying who was here. It was the issue of duplicative Social Security numbers and cards and the ease with which those intent upon breaking the law could fraudulently create a Social Security card. It seems to me the time has come for us to consider a biometric Social Security card. It would be a Social Security card that would fix this problem for interior enforcement and one that would be a foundational step toward having the kind of serious interior enforcement the American people want. One of the things we heard over and over is, why don't we enforce the current law. The reason we cannot enforce current law is because there isn't a national way in which we can identify who is here legally and who is not when they apply for a job. It isn't fair to put employers in a position of employing someone about whom they may wonder whether they are here legally but that they wouldn't know because there is no verifiable way of finding out. They also would have no way of knowing whether in fact the card they were being presented was a real one or a fraud. It would make substantial steps in securing and improving the employee verification system. This amendment would allow employers and employees alike to be sure their employment was lawful. It would provide a card with a photograph of every lawful guest worker, permanent resident or citizen that matches up with a photograph on file with the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security. It would also allow for phasing in this new card over a period of 10 years, upon which only biometric Social Security cards or a U.S. passport or green card would be valid for employment authorization purposes. It does not affect the use of driver's licenses for establishing identity. It does not become a national ID card. Rather, this amendment only addresses the use of the Social Security card which we already use and sets standards to protect against the use of fake Social Security cards. No lawful American or foreign visitor should have any legitimate concern. A new biometric card will go a long way toward ensuring that documents used for employment authorization are secure and fraud resistant. This card would help weed out fraudulent documents currently in circulation supporting illegal employment in our country. Amendment No. 2503 Withdrawn My understanding is this amendment, if offered today, would be subject to a rule XVI. It does in fact attempt to legislate and attempts to correct a serious problem we face in the country today. At this time I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.