Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, absolutely.

Mrs. MURRAY. It ensures that we fully fund No Child Left Behind for fiscal year 2004 and the programs within the No Child Left Behind.

Mrs. MURRAY. You are talking about the overall education funding. I am talking about the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. I want to clarify that the vote that will occur at 5 o'clock will be on the amendment that I have offered; is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. No amendments will be in order prior to the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts and then 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Reed of Rhode Island as a cosponsor, and I yield him 2 minutes of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a very important amendment. Not very long ago, the Members of this body voted to pass a bill called No Child Left Behind. The budget that is put forward to us today will leave thousands of children behind if we do not fulfill the commitment we have made. I have listened to the arguments on the other side. I have seen the charts and graphs. If there is one thing I have learned here in the Senate, it is that you can have a chart or graph to show whatever you want it to show. But what I do know is Senator Kennedy showed on the chart behind us, 3 million more children in this country, 3 million more children need more funding if they want to meet the obligations of No Child Left Behind; 50,000 fully qualified teachers need to be hired; we need to provide training for 200,000 teachers. The numbers are really clear. If you look at the Republican budget itself, their document shows 46 programs that have been eliminated in their budget: Adult education, community technology, dropout prevention, elementary and secondary school counseling, foreign language, physical education, rural education, vocational education. These are programs listed in their budget that they cut. We can put up charts and graphs, but I can tell you one thing: The children in our schools, the parents who take their children there, the teachers who teach there, the community members who work in our schools all know when we pass a bill and say we are going to test our kids at the Federal level and we do not provide the resources to make sure those children can learn, we pass on an unfunded mandate that is irresponsible to our States that are struggling today. The amendment we are about to vote on fully funds title I. It continues the effort to hire 100,000 qualified teachers. It helps to put high-quality teachers in the classrooms and continues to make sure we fulfill our obligations. Tougher accountability without adequate reform is not reform, it is politics. We know our children need books, they need teachers, they need the programs, and they need the Federal Government to live up to its responsibility. That is what this amendment does.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I do. I would like 15 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama and my colleague from North Dakota. I also thank the Senator from North Dakota for his tremendous work on this budget. Mr. President, I can really think of only one word to describe the budget now before the Senate. In the middle of a war on terrorism--and on the eve of a war in Iraq--this budget offers a huge tax cut to the few, projects massive deficits for decades, and ignores the cost of war in Iraq. There is only one word for that approach: reckless. Lacking in caution--reckless. Deliberately courting danger--reckless again. It is time for a reality check. Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers are poised on the knife's edge, ready to perform their duty at any moment. On this critical day, we hope and pray for their safety, security, and speedy return. There is no doubt that Congress will provide for our soldiers, both on and off the field of battle. We know it will cost a lot of money. We know the money is well spent in keeping our Nation's best and brightest as secure and safe as possible. But the cost of winning this war and winning the peace afterward is not reflected anywhere in this budget. That is irresponsible. That is burying our heads in the sand as the danger approaches. I cannot imagine any American family going out and running up their credit cards when they know they are going to have a major expense in the next months. Ignoring the financial costs of war will not make those costs go away. Driving our country further into debt will certainly make it harder for us to pay those bills when they come due. Mr. President, the only word for that approach is ``reckless.'' This budget would pile on record deficits, give a tax cut to the few, and ignore the costs of war and peace. But even worse, this budget doesn't even adequately fund the basics, such as homeland security, education, and transportation. A budget is a statement of priorities. In an environment where we cannot fund everything, we have to make choices based on our values. I think we have to get our priorities straight. Today, we are fighting a war on terrorism, we are on the brink of a war in the Middle East, and we have many other international challenges, including North Korea and Iran. Historically, when our Nation is facing war and so many challenges, we sacrifice, we make every dollar count, but not in this budget. I cannot recall another time in our history when we have faced so many challenges, yet have been so reckless with our budget. This budget would provide a massive giveaway to the few, while our sons and daughters fight a war overseas. That is not sacrifice, that is not responsible and I think it is wrong. The President's budget, with its freewheeling tax cuts and lack of sacrifice in the face of war, is more appropriate for the roaring twenties than for the challenges we face today, in 2003. I am very skeptical of a budget that says we can have it all, even as we stare down massive financial commitment for years in places such as Iraq. Ignoring the cost of war and its aftermath is reckless. Running up huge deficits to fund a misguided tax plan is reckless. Failing our needs at home, such as homeland security, border security, education, and transportation, is reckless. Just look at homeland security, which will become, by the way, even more important if our country is at war. September 11 showed us, in a most horrific way, that we are vulnerable at home. Our intelligence officials have told us that another attack at home is not a question of ``if'' but ``when.'' We know our first responders--our firefighters, EMTs, and police will be on the front lines if, Heaven forbid, there is another attack. I recently got a letter from Kelly Fox, president of the Washington State Council of Firefighters. They represent 6,500 firefighters in my State. These are the people who are in the trenches of the homeland security front. They told me they don't have the training, the equipment, or staffing to respond to various attacks. I want to share with my colleagues a letter that Kelly Fox, president of the Washington State Council of Firefighters, wrote to me: Let me assure you, we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect the citizens of this State--even if it means putting ourselves in harm's way. Although the job we need to perform in this war on terrorism is familiar, the magnitude of the challenges before us is unprecedented--as the enemy now comes to our cities and towns. He goes on to write: Last August, Congress (led by a Democratic majority in the Senate) provided President Bush $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funding, for him to release to local police and fire departments if he thought it was needed. Regrettably, he rejected that funding and vowed, ``we'll spend none of it.'' President Bush held back hundreds of millions of dollars for equipment, training, and other needs for our first responders. Fifteen months ago, we were told that $3.5 billion was being earmarked for first responders in the Bush administration's fiscal year 2003 budget. But to date that money is nowhere to be found. Firefighters in Washington and across our Nation have received plenty of praise and accolades since 9/11. We have been invited to many photo ops. But our cities and towns, our counties, our fire districts, and their fire departments are still waiting for that funding. In fact, our State has yet to see a dime of money that was promised by the Bush administration to help our firefighters and paramedics. Kelly Fox speaks for 6,500 firefighters in my State. We need to heed his call. Last year, Congress passed funding for homeland security. The President rejected it. The President then actually blamed Congress for not funding homeland security. The bottom line is we must fund the security needs in our communities--from our fire departments and police departments to State public health labs. With States facing budget deficits, first responders need our help to protect our citizens. We can do better than this budget. I will support an amendment to adequately fund homeland security, and I will likely even offer my own amendment. I am also concerned that this budget does not provide enough funding for education. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we passed it based on two commitments. First, we would hold schools accountable for their progress. And second, we would provide schools with the resources to meet those new requirements. Those two always went together--otherwise schools cannot make real progress. But now it seems that Congress and the President have forgotten about the funding part. We still have an obligation to fund the new requirements that Congress imposed on local schools. We cannot leave local schools holding the bag, so I intend to offer an amendment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. I also think this budget falls short in supporting our transportation infrastructure. We know that transportation problems plague our biggest cities and isolate our rural communities. In my home State of Washington, our inadequate transportation network is hindering our economy, our productivity and our quality of life. When we make sound investments in our transportation infrastructure, we create good jobs today, and we build the foundation for our future economic growth. When we make our transportation systems more efficient, more productive, and safer, that will pay real dividends for our economy and our communities. Throughout this process, I am going to support efforts to adequately fund our transportation infrastructure. Another area where this budget is severely flawed is in its treatment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique national treasure. It is the only conservation system in North America that protects a complete spectrum of arctic ecosystems. It is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge. And it is a critical calving ground for a large herd of caribou, which are vital to many Native Americans in the Arctic. Energy exploration in ANWR would have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem. The proponents of this measure argue that over the years, energy exploration has become more ``environmentally friendly.'' While that may be true, there are still significant environmental impacts for this sensitive region. Exploration means a footprint for drilling, permanent roads, gravel pits, water wells, and airstrips. The oil reserves in ANWR--in fact, the oil reserves in the entire United States--are not enough to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There are four ways to really reduce our need for foreign oil. First, we can increase the fuel economy of our automobiles and light trucks. That will reduce air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, save consumers significant fuel costs, and reduce our national trade deficit. A second way to reduce our need for foreign oil is to expand the use of domestically produced renewable and alternative fuels. That will reduce emissions of toxic pollutants, create jobs in the United States, and reduce our trade deficit. Third, we can invest in emerging technologies like fuel cells and solar electric cars. Fourth, we can increase the energy efficiency of our office buildings and homes. These four strategies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect one of our Nation's most precious treasures. Let us all remember that the amount of oil in ANWR is too small to significantly improve our current energy problems. The oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many as 10 years. Exploring and drilling for oil and gas at ANWR is not forward thinking. It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. Mr. President, these are just some of the flaws that make this budget reckless. As I close, let me put this into context because I have served on the Budget Committee since 1993. During that time, I have seen our country's economy turn around twice now. In 1993, we started with huge budget deficits. On the Budget Committee, we made tough decisions, and throughout America families worked hard and got our economy moving again. Employment rose; the stock market soared; and Americans benefited from low interest rates and declining poverty. But today it seems as if we are back where we started: the surplus is gone; we are facing looming deficits; Americans are out of work, and they need help. If the President and the majority in this Congress have their way, their plan will grow our Nation's debt from $5 trillion to over $12 trillion as their plan reaches full maturity--$12 trillion. And for what? So millionaires can get an average tax break of $90,000, according to the Tax Policy Center, and the rest of us get a $12 trillion debt. That debt and our annual deficits will make it harder for us to fund urgent national priorities. It will hit every American when they buy a house or finance a car. I hope we can find a way to produce a bipartisan budget that addresses these issues for the benefit of the American people. Doing anything less would be reckless. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I state for all of our colleagues that we are going to vote in a few minutes on a very important amendment. We have heard a lot of rhetoric in the last few days saying that people care about women, care about women's health, care about the health of a child. I think what we all can agree on is that if we can help prevent unintended pregnancies and ensure access to health care coverage for low-income women, we have taken a major step forward in this country. The Murray-Reid amendment we are going to vote on in a few minutes does several really important things. Today, in this country, in too many States, women do not have access to contraceptives simply because they are discriminated against by their insurance company. What this amendment merely says is that it would prohibit those insurance plans from discriminating against contraception, so that women would not be denied the ability to make their own choices for their own family in their own homes with contraception that they can afford. I think this is something many Members agree on, many Members have supported, and it is a step in the right direction in this country for women's health. Secondly, it provides emergency contraceptive education. It simply authorizes a $10 million education program to help people know and get information to women and health care providers on the availability and effectiveness of emergency contraceptives--again, preventing unintended pregnancies. It provides emergency contraceptives in the emergency room. Senator Reid spoke very eloquently this morning about a young woman who was raped, who had no knowledge of what she could do to make sure she would not have an unintended pregnancy as a result of the rape. This simply makes sure that emergency contraceptives are available in our emergency rooms so that victims of sexual assault can get the care they need and be taken care of without having to have an unintended pregnancy that would be devastating. This is something of which everyone in this Chamber can be supportive. Finally, it expands the SCHIP and Medicaid Program to include low- income pregnant women. As we all know, the administration moved to make the fetus eligible under SCHIP but left out the woman. I find that reprehensible. I do not know how a woman's health can be separated from her fetus and one can say this procedure and this medical condition only applies to the fetus. For all of us who have been pregnant, we know that oftentimes when you are not feeling well, you are not sure why you are not feeling well. You cannot separate a woman from her womb when she is pregnant, and you cannot make that kind of coverage just for the fetus. You have to make sure the woman is healthy. That is what this amendment will do. I think it is something all of us can support. What we have found this evening is that our colleagues on the other side, who have not spoken against this amendment because they do not want to speak against it, are hiding behind a budget waiver. To me, that is a technicality to hide behind. How can they go home and tell women that they are for women's health; that they are for making sure women have the opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancies so that we do not have these difficult choices on the floor of the Senate, and hide behind a budget waiver? I tell all of my colleagues, a vote to waive the Budget Act is a vote to help prevent unintended pregnancies. It is a vote for women's health, a vote to make sure that women have access and the ability to make these choices for themselves. I hope all of my colleagues will vote to waive the Budget Act so that we can put in place a bill that will allow women to make good choices for themselves that will allow them to be healthy and for their children to be healthy. Certainly, that is something on which we can all agree. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senate is about to vote on the Murray-Reid amendment. This is a prevention amendment. It is an amendment that supports women's health. If our colleagues choose to hide behind the technicality, that is their choice, but the American people want us to stand behind women's health. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to waive.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is remaining on both sides?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this would be an easier debate if we were speaking to an issue that only dealt with healthy mothers and healthy fetuses. The fact is, we are not. The Senator from California outlined a number of very difficult, troubling cases of women who have had to make very difficult choices that no one on this floor can comprehend without having gone through. If we can reduce unintended pregnancies we can go a long way to reducing abortions in this country and not have these kinds of debates in the Senate. That is precisely what the current pending amendment is about that we are discussing at this time. It is an amendment that provides contraceptive equity for women. It provides emergency contraception education. It provides emergency contraceptives in the emergency room and it expands SCHIP and Medicaid to include low-income pregnant women so the mother and the fetus are both covered--unlike the current administrative rule. My colleagues on the other side have offered a point of order against this amendment. I say to them, no one can hide behind a point of order. If we truly believe we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, if we reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and allow help for women, as this amendment will do, we will all have made a step in the right direction. I will have more to say but my colleague from Illinois is here. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I think this discussion shows exactly why this Senate should agree on the women's health amendment that is now before this body and that we will vote on in a few minutes. Senator Reid and I have said that the goal of all of us should be to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies so that this issue that is being debated does not have to be debated on the floor of the Senate; that this issue should be decided between a women and her doctor, her family and her faith. I commend Senator Reid for working with me on this very important amendment, and I yield 8 minutes of my remaining time to Senator Reid.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Off of your time, I would be happy.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time do we have remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, here we are, once again debating this issue. Since we began debating how to criminalize women's health choices yesterday, the Dow Jones has dropped 170 points; we are 1 day closer to a war in Iraq; we have done nothing to stimulate the economy or create any new jobs or provide any more health coverage. But here we are, debating abortion in a time of national crisis. Since we are debating S. 3, I want to expose this proposal for what it is. It is deceptive, it is extreme, and it is unconstitutional. First of all, it is deceptive. The other side wants you to think that this just affects one procedure performed in the third trimester, but that is not true. We need to remember what Roe v. Wade clearly spells out. Up to viability, a woman and her doctor make the choice. However, any late-term abortion can only be performed to save the life or health of the woman. But the language in S. 3 is broad. It is so broad as to apply to many procedures, and it would impact women in the second trimester. That is exactly why the Supreme Court struck down a similar State law in Nebraska. It is deceptive because it would not just be limited to what the other side implies it does. Partial-birth is a political term. It is not a medical term. Despite all of the hot rhetoric we hear, this bill is neither designed nor written to ban only one procedure. It would also apply well before viability and could ban possibly more than one procedure. Second, this bill is extreme. It is just the first in a long march to dismantling a constitutionally protected freedom. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the President of the United States who declared in 1994: I will do everything in my power to restrict abortion. On the issue of women's reproductive freedom, the President has kept his word. He and his staff have worked tirelessly to turn back the clock on women's health choices. In only 2 years, the President has issued a rash of executive actions that could severely restrict stem cell research, thus threatening lifesaving medical advances; reimposed the global gag rule on international family planning programs; made a fetus eligible for health insurance but not the pregnant woman who is carrying the fetus; packed the Federal courts with anti-choice judges; and appointed stanch opponents of reproductive choice throughout all levels of the executive branch. We will hear the Republicans use the most graphic and disturbing descriptions they can find to try to sour the public on something that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court years ago. And it still opens the door to future politicians banning additional safe and legal procedures. Third, this ban is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that this very type of restriction violates the Constitution. Last year, in the case of Stenberg vs. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a similar law at the State level unconstitutional for two reasons. First, the language is so broad that it bans other constitutionally protected procedures. The Supreme Court's rulings state: Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X, its language makes clear it also covers a much broader category of procedures. The bill before us is similarly unconstitutional because it covers too many constitutionally protected procedures. Second, the Supreme Court found the State law unconstitutional because it did not contain an exception to protect the woman's health. Let me read that part of the ruling. The governing standard requires an exception where it is necessary and appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of regulating the method of abortion impose significant health risks. Guess what. The Republican bill before us fails the same constitutional test. It is too broad, and it does not contain an exception to protect the health of the mother. And the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional. We have Republicans offering today a clearly unconstitutional bill on at least two counts. Proponents of the ban will argue that they have addressed the concerns addressed by the Supreme Court. However, a statement of congressional findings is not binding on the Court. The other side is using misleading and deceptive arguments to ram through an extreme and unconstitutional measure. If the goal of the Republican Senate, the Republican House, and the Republican White House is to have fewer abortions in this country, then let us have an honest attempt to accomplish that goal. To show a real commitment to reducing abortion, my colleagues should support the amendment I will offer. It will help prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions in the first place. The Murray-Reid amendment which we intend to offer would do three things: It would reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, and improve the health of low-income women. I will offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Reid and myself. Senator Reid has been a long-time champion of women's health issues, and especially for access to family planning. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership on the amendment I will offer. The Murray-Reid amendment would raise awareness about emergency contraceptives and ensure that insurance companies treat contraceptives fairly and ensure that low-income women have access to health care before, during, and after pregnancy. First of all, the Murray-Reid amendment would reduce the number of abortions in America. I think that is something we can all agree on, and it is something we all would support. By educating women about the availability of emergency contraception, an emergency contraceptive known as an EC could help prevent a pregnancy when taken within 72 hours. It is sometimes called the morning-after pill. An EC does not induce an abortion. An EC is not RU- 486. It is simply a high dose of conventional birth control taken soon after contraceptive failure, unprotected sex, or rape. ECs are safe and they are legal. They reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies. In fact, a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that emergency contraception prevented 51,000 abortions in 2000. Unfortunately, too few women know that they are available. It has been reported that 50 percent of all pregnancies in our country are unintentional. The best way to ensure a healthy child and reduce the infant mortality rate or birth defects is to ensure that the woman is healthy prior to pregnancy. Public awareness campaigns targeting women and health care procedures will help remove many of the barriers to emergency contraception and will help bring this important means of preventing unintentional pregnancies to American women. My amendment simply improves the awareness about emergency contraceptives. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only one-third of women of reproductive age know about emergency contraception. Mr. President, again I will be offering my amendment shortly. One of the provisions will be to improve awareness about emergency contraceptives. As I said, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only a third of women of reproductive age know about emergency contraception, and only one in five physicians regularly discuss it with their patients. What the Murray-Reid amendment does is improve awareness about emergency contraceptives by providing $10 million in each of the next 5 years to establish a public education program. It will educate women and medical professionals across the country about the use of emergency contraceptives. It will allow the Department of Health and Human Services to provide grants to groups of providers working on this education campaign. Not long ago I visited an organization in my State that provides bilingual pamphlets to clinics and providers in eastern Washington on the availability of ECs and how the drug combinations work to prevent pregnancy. I also know that Planned Parenthood of Washington is working to provide education on ECs as part of their overall family planning counseling. State public health agencies could also apply for a funding grant to further their efforts to educate women on this safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy. My amendment also makes emergency contraceptives available to victims of rape in the emergency room. When a woman has been raped and is brought to the emergency room, she may not even be aware that there is a safe and legal way to prevent her from becoming pregnant. We know that counseling in many emergency rooms on the availability of safe and effective contraceptives is simply being ignored. Providing emergency contraceptives or even information about them is still, amazingly, not standard protocol for treating a rape victim. Educating women will ensure that women are more aware. The unfortunate truth is that rape victims are not getting the care they need. Our amendment would allow doctors in the emergency room to just simply tell a rape victim about this safe and legal alternative to abortion. Let me turn to the second part of my amendment, which requires insurance companies to treat contraceptives fairly. Today, amazingly, many insurance companies will cover drugs such as Viagra, but they will not cover contraceptives. We should eliminate this discrimination in insurance and improve women's health. Today, 20 States, including Washington State, do have some form of contraceptive equity requirement. Recently, a court decision in my home State of Washington affirmed access to contraceptives as a civil rights protection. Most Americans would agree that when you talk about preventing unintentional pregnancies and protecting women's health, you must have contraceptive equity. The average annual cost of oral contraceptives can range from $400 to $700 a year. Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more than men on out-of-pocket health care services. While there are several factors that cause this disparity, the lack of contraceptive equity plays a very big role. A recent survey of health plans showed that 49 percent of large group plans do not routinely cover a contraceptive method. Many States, including my own State of Washington, have taken steps to correct this obvious inequity. But without Federal legislation, the change will be slow, and it will lack a comprehensive commitment to protecting women's health. This debate is not about costly new mandates or even about moral judgments; rather, it is about eliminating economic discrimination and protecting women's health. Under my amendment, if health insurance plans offer prescription drugs, they would have to cover contraceptives and treat them equally. If we are going to jeopardize women's health by banning certain safe and legal procedures, then we must ensure access to contraceptives and effective family planning services. Finally, my amendment would increase health coverage for low-income women through all stages of pregnancy. Not long ago, the administration said States should use SCHIP dollars for the care of the unborn fetus, but it did not extend that to the pregnant woman. That is ridiculous. The clinical guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics both indicate that the woman and the fetus should be treated together. It just makes sense. So my amendment would ensure States can provide medical coverage for pregnant women from the SCHIP fund. That will help reduce infant mortality and ensure that both the woman and the child get the medical care they need. This part of my amendment comes from a bipartisan bill, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act, that was introduced by Senators Bingaman, Lincoln, and Corzine, who have been huge champions of this issue. Before I end this morning, I just want to share a story with my colleagues of a 34-year-old woman named Audrey Eisen. She and her husband Tom desperately wanted to have children. After trying for 2 years, they became pregnant. And after experiencing the sadness of a miscarriage in July of last year, Audrey and Tom were elated to learn they were pregnant. The checkups during the first few months indicated that the embryo was developing normally. At 13 weeks, they planned to have a special ultrasound. Unfortunately, they discovered the fetus was developing an abnormal number of fingers and toes and that the condition could indicate a much more serious complication, trysomy 13. Trysomy 13 is a chromosomal condition in which there are three, rather than two, of the 13th chromosome. This syndrome is characterized by multiple abnormalities, many of which are not compatible with life beyond a couple of months. Most fetuses with trysomy 13 die in utero. Of those who make it to birth, almost half do not survive past the first month, and roughly three-quarters die within 6 months, and long- term survival is 1 year. Unfortunately, neither life nor death comes easily for these children. It is a painful existence, marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures. When Audrey returned for another ultrasound to get a better image of the fetal brain, her worst fears were confirmed. Here is what Audrey wrote: The first thing my OB examined during the ultrasound was the fetal brain. He did not say anything. I could tell he was holding something back and asked that he tell me what he saw. He said: ``It is not normal.'' The rest of the scan was a blur as tears ran down my cheeks and those of my mother and husband who had accompanied me. Following the scan, the doctor left us alone to compose ourselves, after which we met with the genetic counselor. I cried with my whole body from the depths of my soul. Audrey underwent additional testing in which she found that their fetus had a complete duplication of the 13th chromosome. It also exhibited a failure of the forebrain to properly develop and separate from the rest of the brain, a ventricular septal defect in the heart and a herniation of a portion of the abdominal organs into the umbilical cord. Audrey's letter continues: At this point we discussed our options with the genetic counselor. My husband and I both felt strongly that it was in both the child's and our best interest to terminate as quickly as possible. The genetic counselor told us that we could either have a D&E or be induced. My doctor prescribed both procedures and we decided that a D&E was clearly best for me. The procedure was performed four days later on the first day of my 16th week of pregnancy. I don't think that I really understood this issue emotionally or intellectually until I was in the position of having to terminate my much desired pregnancy. Along with my sadness came a realization that if such legislation passed, the right to safe second trimester termination of pregnancies might not remain available to those women who come after me. In this event, I don't know how these women will endure. I don't know how I could have endured. Audrey Eisen had to make a terrible decision that no mother ever wants to make. But this Senate wants to inject itself between Audrey Eisen and her doctor. As I mentioned at the start of my remarks, I find it outrageous that as our Nation stands on the brink of war and our citizens struggle with a stagnant economy, the Republican Senate can find no more important topic to debate than criminalizing women's health decisions. When a woman is lying in pain in the operating room and doctors are telling her that her dream of a healthy baby has been replaced by a nightmare of medical complications and that under these harrowing circumstances she must immediately make a life altering decision that could determine whether she lives or dies or whether she can have children ever again, that woman should be able to make that decision with her family, her doctor, and her faith. The Senate should not make that decision for her. This bill is an unconstitutional, extreme measure being sold through misleading arguments. If the proponents truly are interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the number of abortions, they should support the Murray-Reid amendment which would also improve health care for low-income women. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill. The Senate should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a woman in one of the most intensely personal decisions she is ever likely to make. But if the Senate is going to ram through this unconstitutional, extreme measure, the least we can do is temper it with safe, responsible access to emergency contraceptives, fair treatment of contraceptives by insurers, and health care for low-income pregnant women. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his comments and his timely reminders, and I appreciate his comments at this time.