Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as additional cosponsors Senators Biden, Dodd, Robb, Wellstone, Kennedy, Torricelli, Reed, Lautenberg, Reid, Levin, Akaka, and Bingaman.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska without losing my right to the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his questions, comments, and support. I, too, am surprised our Republican colleagues, who took full credit for this several years ago when we began it, sending out press releases touting it, don't understand this issue is still as powerful. I have talked to many of my colleagues who have gone home to their States and visited classrooms where Federal dollars were used to reduce class size. The accolades received from the kids, the parents, the teachers, the people who work with the kids are tremendous. I offer to my colleagues on the other side, who have consistently voted against this, if Members want to have a good experience, vote for this amendment, go home to a classroom and talk to the kids, the parents, and the teachers who have been directly impacted. You will see some of the good that comes from voting on an amendment such as this. I see the Senator from Minnesota is on the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. First of all, our students, because they won't have the opportunity to be in a small class to which we committed. I know parents today with kids in kindergarten who maybe had an older child in first or second grade, because of reduced class sizes, have called, saying: Please, my second child is on the way. For my first child, it has made such a difference in their life, being in a smaller class size. Make sure my second child coming behind them has the same opportunity. That is what we are talking about today. So kids in these classrooms can read, learn, write, have an adult who has the time to pay attention to them. That is what this amendment guarantees to students in this country. I have taught before. I know what it is to have too many kids in your classroom, especially in today's overcrowded classrooms across this country. Kids come with all kinds of problems that many professionals did not experience when we were in classrooms many years ago. In my classroom, I had an experience sitting with 24 4-year-old kids talking about the ABCs. When I called on one child, he looked directly at me and said: My dad did not come home last night; the police arrested him. I didn't have the time to stop and deal with a child who certainly was in a traumatic situation because I was going to lose the attention and the ability to discipline 23 other kids immediately. With a class size of 15, and a child coming to the classroom with traumatic problems, the teacher will have the time to sit down and deal with that child. I wonder what happened to that 4-year-old. That was several years ago. I wonder what happened to him. If I had the time to deal with him, he would probably be doing better today. We have a responsibility, for so many reasons, to continue this funding. The most important reason is because of the kids.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct. There have been a number of studies that have followed class size reduction--from the Tennessee study in 1985 and 1990; the STAR study in 1996-1997; the SAGE Program that the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned in 1998-1999; the educational testing service study in 1997; New York City school study in April 2000; the Council for Greater City Schools in October of 1990. All of these studies have followed up on what we have been able to do in reducing class size and have shown the same benefits of better student achievement, fewer discipline problems, and better test scores for students as they moved into the upper grades. It is astounding to me that we had a bipartisan agreement 2 years ago to begin to reduce class size and every year, it seems, we have to come back and argue this again, debate it again, move on to a vote, then get to a point in October where we again amend the budget, and finally put it in the budget. It seems to me, and I assume to the Senator from Massachusetts, that we would be smarter to put it in the bill now so school districts that are trying to figure out what we are doing will have the knowledge that this program will continue; that they can begin to hire their teachers, as they do in the months of June and July, and be ready to move on without the question of being left out there.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. There is a role for local school districts. There is a role for States, and there is a role for Federal Government, however small it is, in this country in terms of education. The public has told us overwhelmingly time and time again they want the Federal role to remain. The Federal role, historically, has been to make sure the most needy and disadvantaged students in the country, wherever they are, are not left behind. In the class size amendment, we target the funds directly to those kids because they need it the most and they are helped the most by it. The underlying bill, which I am amending, as the Senator from Massachusetts stated, block grants the money to title VI funds and therefore is block granted to all students, and it is not what the Federal role has been or should continue to be. So the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct that this amendment is important.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to argue, again, that no child should have to struggle for a teacher's attention in an overcrowded classroom. Every child deserves a classroom environment where they can learn and grow and get individual attention from a caring, qualified teacher. With the amendment I am offering this afternoon, we have an opportunity, again, to make that happen. I am proud to report that classrooms across America are less crowded this year than they were last year. In fact, this year, 1.7 million children benefited from less crowded classrooms. The reason those students are learning in smaller classes is because this Congress made a commitment to help local school districts hire 100,000 new fully qualified teachers. We are now about one-third of the way towards reaching that goal. By all measures, this has been a very successful program. Given the progress we have made, many parents and teachers would have a hard time believing that this Congress is about to abandon its commitment to reduce class size, but that is exactly what the bill before us would do. It would abandon our commitment to helping school districts reduce classroom overcrowding. This bill would take the promise of smaller classes and yank it away from students and parents and teachers. This underlying bill does not guarantee funding for the Class Size Reduction Program as it is currently written. If it is passed without the amendment I am offering, school districts across the country cannot rely on having the money available to hire new teachers or to pay the salaries of the teachers they have already hired. I have talked to hundreds of local educators, parents, and students. To them, that is unacceptable. That is why I have come to the floor today to offer my amendment that would continue our commitment to reducing class sizes. Under this successful program, we have hired 29,000 new teachers, and we have given 1.7 million students across the country less crowded classrooms. Clearly, we are making progress, but we can't be satisfied with the status quo. We need to bring the benefits of smaller classes to more students. It is clear that smaller classes help students learn the basics with fewer discipline problems. Parents know it. Teachers know it. Students know it. On the chart behind me, I have listed some of the benefits of smaller classes. They include better student achievement, something every Senator has come to the floor to speak for; fewer discipline problems, something about which we hear constantly; more individual attention; better parent-teacher communication; dramatic results for poor and minority students. As a former educator, I can tell the Senate, there is a difference between having 35 kids in your classroom and having 18 kids in your classroom. With 35 kids, you spend most of your time on crowd control. With 18 kids, you spend most of your time teaching. But it is not only my experience. National research proves that smaller class sizes help students learn the basics they need in a disciplined environment. A study that was conducted in Tennessee in 1989, which is known as the STAR study, compared the performance of students in grades K through 3 in small and regular size classes. That study found that students in small classes, those with 13 to 17 students, significantly outperformed other students in math and in reading. The STAR study found that students benefited from smaller classes at all grade levels and across all geographic areas. The study found that students in small classes have better high school graduation rates. These were kids who were in smaller classes in kindergarten through the third grade. They found, as they followed them through later on, they had better high school graduation rates, higher grade point averages, and were more inclined to pursue higher education. Certainly these are goals this Senate should be proud of helping to achieve. According to the research conducted by Princeton University economist, Dr. Alan Kruger, students who attended small classes were more likely to take ACT or SAT college entrance exams. That was particularly true for African Americans students. According to Dr. Kruger: Attendance in small classes appears to have cut the black- white gap in the probability of taking a college-entrance exam by more than half. Three other researchers at two different institutions of higher education found that STAR students who attended small classes in the early K through 3 grades were between 6 and 13 months ahead of their regular class peers in math, reading, and science in each of grades four, six, and eight, as they followed them through. In yet another part of the country, a different class size reduction study reached similar conclusions. The Wisconsin SAGE study, Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, findings from 1996 through 1999 consistently proved that smaller classes result in significantly greater student achievement. Class size reduction programs in the State study resulted in increased attention to individual students. It produced three main benefits: Fewer discipline problems and more instruction; more knowledge of students; and more teacher enthusiasm for teaching. The Wisconsin study also found in smaller classes teachers were able to identify the learning problems of individual students more quickly. As one teacher participant in the State class size reduction study said, ``If a child is having problems, you can see it right away. You can take care of it right then. It works a lot better for children.'' The data is conclusive. Smaller classes help kids learn the basics in a disciplined environment. I am also proud that the class size program is simple and efficient. The school districts simply fill out a one- page form, which happens to be available online. Then the Department of Education sends them money to hire new teachers based on need and enrollment. The teachers have told me they have never seen money move so quickly from Congress to the classroom as under our class size bill. Linda McGeachy in the Vancouver school district in my State commented, ``The language is very clear, applying was very easy, and their funds really work to support classroom teachers.'' The class size program is also flexible. Any school district that has already reduced class sizes in the early grades to 18 or fewer children may use the funds to further reduce class sizes in the other early grades. They can use it to reduce class sizes in kindergarten or they can carry out activities to improve teacher quality, including professional development. I am sure some Members are going to argue that schools could still hire teachers if they wanted to by using the title VI funding in this underlying bill. Now, that may sound good at first, but it doesn't recognize the reality of how school boards work. The language in the underlying bill won't work. Mr. President, I served on a local school board. Finding the money to hire and train new teachers requires a financial commitment over many years in the face of many competing priorities. That is one of the reasons why school districts have so much trouble reducing class size without our Federal partnership. Last year, we told school districts we would give them the money to hire teachers for 7 years. They heard our commitment and they hired more than 29,000 new teachers. Unfortunately, today, this underlying bill asks school districts to choose whether or not to keep those teachers, without any assurance that the money will still be there in the coming years. I can tell you, if I were still on a school board, I would find it very difficult to keep those teachers, not knowing if I would have the money for them in the future. That is why we need to protect that money and guarantee that it goes to reduce class sizes. Because this bill abandons our commitment as a Federal partner, it leaves school districts with a false choice, and it means our kids are going to lose out. We should keep our commitment to reducing class size. There is another reason why my amendment is so necessary, another critical reason why using the general title VI funding is not an adequate substitute. I have discussed this, as my colleagues know, many times on the floor of the Senate--why programs that are put into block grants with no specific purpose, such as title VI, are much less effective in targeting resources to our neediest students. Under the class size program, money is targeted to those needy students. For example, from the State level, funds are targeted 80 percent based on poverty and 20 percent based on student population. The program is designed to make sure economically disadvantaged students who benefit the most get smaller classes. We know poor and minority students can make dramatic gains in less crowded classrooms. And this amendment targets new teachers directly to those vulnerable students. Without my amendment, however, there is no guarantee those poor students will get the support they need. Let me be clear. A block grant that is not targeted toward a specific educational purpose fails to ensure that our most vulnerable students get the resources they need. We need to pass this amendment so we can guarantee those students can benefit from smaller class sizes. Before I close, I want to make one final point. We are going to continue this program sooner or later. The President has made it clear that he will veto this bill unless it funds the Class Size Reduction Program. His track record on this is pretty clear. He has stood up for the class size program time and again in the past. So the real question is, Are we going to vote to fund the program now, in June, or are we going to wait until the end of the fiscal year, sometime in October, when the clock is running and the congressional majority has to negotiate again with the President? We should do it now. We should pass this amendment now, early in the process, so that school boards across America will have a clear indication that money for their new teachers will be there. In closing, this amendment gives my colleagues the opportunity to support one of the most successful efforts we have ever seen in our schools in years. This amendment gives us a chance to fix the underlying Labor-HHS bill so that our students are not trapped in overcrowded classrooms. Let's invest in the things we know work. Let's support local school districts as they work to hire new teachers, and lets keep our commitment to America's schoolchildren so that they can learn the basics in a disciplined environment. This is an issue we have worked on for some time, and the underlying bill will not keep our commitment to class size that is so important, that so many parents, students and teachers are waiting for us to make. That is why this amendment is so important. I see that my colleague from Massachusetts is here.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I respond to the Senator from Massachusetts by reminding my colleagues that I formerly served on a school board. I can tell you what you do in the months of June and July. You hire teachers and renew contracts. School districts out there that have used the Federal dollars that we have provided them for the last 2 years have hired those teachers and they now have to make a commitment to continue. For example, the Takoma School District in my home State of Washington used the class size dollars to reduce class sizes of 58 first grade classrooms. In that school district, they now have 15 students in those classrooms. It has made a tremendous difference. But they have hired these additional teachers, and they are now looking at the underlying bill that we have which says to them that this is now going to be a block grant with no guarantee that this money will go to the most needy 80 percent of the schools. Under the block grant program, they are going to lose some of the money in their districts for these teachers. They, therefore, right now can't make a commitment to these teachers that they will be able to hire them again in September. This sends a very bad message to local school boards across the country that have hired teachers. And school boards are not going to be able to make the commitment that they need to make. That is why this amendment is so important. It will send a message today--right now, almost at the end of June--that they can make a commitment to those teachers. Being a teacher right now is extremely difficult, as the Senator from Massachusetts well knows. Most teachers aren't paid well. They have trouble staying in schools because of the many challenges that are there already with this kind of uncertainty: Well, we might be able to hire you. You have to wait and see what Congress does in a couple of months because they haven't given us a commitment. We are not sure you are going to be able to go back. If I were a teacher in those circumstances, I would be out finding another job immediately. These teachers have to put food on the table, pay their rent, and they have all the expenses the rest of us have. They can't live in an uncertain job market such as this. We have a responsibility to tell them the truth and to tell them what we are doing. By passing the underlying amendment today, we will send a message to those school boards that they can give a commitment to those teachers, and those teachers will know where they will be in September. Without passage of this amendment, I guarantee you that we are going to be in a budget debate in October where we are going to be having the President say he will veto the budget without this. And we will be making a decision in October that we could very easily and simply make today. That is why this amendment is so important.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. We should be reducing the hazards that America's workers face--not putting roadblocks in the way of increased worker safety. Ergonomic injuries are the single-largest occupational health crisis faced by men and women in our work force today. We should let OSHA--the Occupational Safety and Health Administration--issue an ergonomics standard. Ergonomic injuries hurt America's workers and America's productivity. Each year, more than 600,000 private sector workers in America are forced to miss time from work because of painful musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These injuries also hurt America's companies because these disorders can cause workers to miss three full weeks of work or more. Employers pay more than $20 billion annually in workers' compensation benefits due to MSDs and up to $60 billion in lost productivity, disability benefits and other associated costs. The impact of MSDs on women workers is especially serious. While women make up 46% of the total workforce and only make up 33% of total injured workers, they receive 63% of all lost work time from ergonomic injuries and 69% of lost work time because of carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition, women in the health care, retail and textile industries are particularly hard hit by MSDs and carpal tunnel syndrome. Women suffer more than 90% of the MSDs among nurses, nurse aides, health care aides and sewing machine operators. Women also account for 91% of the carpal tunnel cases that occur among cashiers. Despite the overwhelming financial and physical impact of MSDs and the disproportionate impact they have on our nation's women, there have been several efforts over the years to prevent OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard. This amendment is intended to stop OSHA from implementing its ergonomic standard, which is scheduled to take place by the end of this year. We have examined the merits of this rule over and over again. Contrary to what those on the other side of this issue say, the science and data support the need for an ergonomics standard. We shouldn't be placing roadblocks in the way of its implementation. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studied ergonomics and concluded that there is ``clear and compelling evidence'' that MSDs are caused by work and can be reduced and prevented through workplace interventions. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the world's largest occupational medical society, agreed with NIOSH and saw no reason to delay implementation. The studies and science are conclusive. Mr. President, the states are getting this right. My state--the state of Washington--just one month ago became the second state along with California to adopt an ergonomics rule. The rule will help employers in my state reduce workplace hazards that cripple and injure more than 50,000 Washington workers a year at a cost of more than $411 million a year. The estimated benefits to employers from reducing these hazards are $340 million per year, with the estimated costs of compliance of only $80.4 million per year. Now Washington and California both have ergonomic standards. North Carolina proposed an ergonomics standard and I understand that other states are also looking into the possibility of developing their own standards to benefit their workers. We should take the cue from my state and others who have seen the wisdom of issuing ergonomics standards. We cannot afford to delay an important standard which will greatly improve workplace safety. Outside of ergonomics, I want to make one general statement about another provision of the underlying bill. The Senate bill underfunds the Dislocated Worker programs by some $181 million dollars, and it underfunds vital re-employment services by $25 million. This will mean that 100,000 dislocated workers will be denied training, job search and re-employment services. In addition, the cuts in re-employment services would effectively deny 111,000 people seeking unemployment insurance from getting other vital re-employment services. Last year these programs were very helpful to workers in my state who were laid off through no cause of their own. For example, the Boeing company, the largest employer in my state, has been especially hard-hit by the trade consequences of overseas competition from Airbus. Thousands of workers have been laid off in the past few years. Those workers who were laid off have been receiving benefits from these programs, and I think it's irresponsible to abandon these workers who were laid off through no fault of their own. We owe it to the workers of America to fully-fund those programs that benefit them and their families. I urge my colleagues to correct this funding problem so these workers aren't left behind. In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We should allow OSHA to issue an ergonomics standard. It will be an important step forward in protecting our nation's workers from crippling injuries.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my colleague and cosponsor, Senator Snowe, is present in the Chamber. I will yield her time in just a moment. I point out a woman's health care decision to have or not have an abortion should be with herself, her family, her doctor, and her religion. That is not the case in the military today. When a woman has to go to her commanding officer and request permission to fly home on a military transport, she no longer has the ability to make that decision on her own. It becomes a very public decision. This amendment simply gives back her privacy and allows her to pay for at her own expense a health care procedure in a military hospital where she is safe and taken care of. I am delighted my cosponsor, Senator Snowe, is here, and I yield her as much time as she needs.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Schumer, Jeffords and Durbin.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk, No. 3252, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on an amendment that will simply allow a woman who serves us overseas in the military to go to a military facility, if she so chooses, to have an abortion that is safe and legal. Current law requires that a woman who serves us overseas go to her commanding officer and ask for permission to fly home on a military transport, at taxpayer expense--as I say, at taxpayer expense--to fly home on a military jet to have access to what is legally given to every woman in this country today. I heard our opponents say that this is an issue of taxpayer-funded abortions. I disagree. The amendment disagrees. This will say that women will pay for their own abortions in the military facilities. We ask women to serve us, to fight for our rights, to go overseas in conditions that are often intolerable, to fight for this country. In return, we tell them that a decision that should be theirs, and their families, along with their physician and their own religion, is no longer a private issue for them. From women who serve us, we take away a right that has been established in this country for many years, and we tell them, if you serve in the military, that right is taken away from you. We are asking them to fight for our rights, but we are essentially taking away their rights. This restores that right to women who serve us overseas, to have an abortion, if they so choose. This applies to military families--to wives and daughters, as well. I ask my colleagues to simply say to the women who serve us overseas that we support you as much as we ask you to support us.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues of the issue we will be debating for the next 90 minutes. Basically, today a woman who serves in the military overseas at a facility, if she so desires to have an abortion--and it is her choice; it is her personal choice between herself and her family and her doctor and her religion--has to go to her commanding officer to ask for permission to come home to the United States to have a safe and legal abortion. Then she has to wait for military transport. She has to pay $10, as the opponents told us this morning, for food on that military transport, and come home in order to have a safe and legal abortion. The pending amendment simply allows women who serve in our military overseas today to pay for their own medical choice decisions in a military hospital where it is safe and is a place where they can be assured they will be taken care of, as we should expect we would take care of all people who serve us in the military. I have heard our opponents speak this morning on this amendment and say it is unnecessary. I have a letter from a woman who served in our military services. I would like to share it with my colleagues who think it is unnecessary: Dear Senator: My name is Jessica, and I am a college student in Arizona. I am writing you regarding an experience I had as a member of the Air Force while stationed in Yokota Air Base, Japan. Two years ago, as a young single woman, I found out I was pregnant. I knew I couldn't talk to my immediate supervisor because he was a Catholic priest. You see, my job in the armed services was ``Chaplain's Assistant.'' So instead, I went to the next level in my chain of command. In return for requesting time off, I was verbally reprimanded and told that I had sinned in the eyes of God and was going to hell if I didn't repent immediately. The next day, I made an appointment with a doctor on base and told him I was pregnant and wanted an abortion. The doctor whispered that I was to walk very quietly to the front desk where the information would be waiting for me. The information was scribbled on a single sheet of paper with hand-drawn maps on it to three hospitals that would perform abortions. When I arrived at the hospital, I was sent into a cubicle. None of the nurses spoke English, so I had no way of giving them my medical history. I had no Japanese friends to translate, and the Air Force would not provide any assistance. My first doctor did not speak English either, so I had no idea what the doctor did, or what medication he gave me. I was completely alone. I will never forget the humiliation I felt. I couldn't speak the language, I was turned away by my American doctors on base whose hands were tied. The doctors on base weren't even allowed to give me information regarding this medical procedure. Although I served in the military, I was given no translators, no explanations, no transportation, and no help for a legal medical procedure. I have never heard of any male soldiers being treated like this. In fact, I don't know of any medical treatments that male soldiers are denied. Perhaps the military recruiters should warn females before they enlist that the United States will discriminate against them due to their gender. This letter is compelling. It says that a woman who is serving her country overseas, who is fighting for our rights, is basically denied health care services of her choice that she would be given in this country if she opted not to serve in the military. I appeal to my colleagues to please make sure that the women who serve us overseas are given the same rights as the women who live in this country. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Just as we do with any other requirement in the military.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would assume so. But, again, I would like to point out that we will bill the woman for the costs, whether it is contracted or not. She will be liable to pay.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have the ability within our military hospitals right now to contract procurements of what our military personnel need. It would frighten me a great deal as a woman serving in the military if none of our military hospitals overseas knew how to perform an abortion in an emergency in case a woman's life is at risk, which we now need to know is available. If we are saying there are no doctors available anywhere in the entire world where we have service people available to perform that service, I would be frightened as a woman in the military service today if my life was at stake and there would not be a doctor available to help me.

Mrs. MURRAY. Our military hospitals overseas are on military facilities and go by American law. They would be performed in those facilities overseas on our property.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, that question goes directly to what the military is able to do, which is to themselves figure out what the cost is and bill it. It is an easy thing to do. They have done it before. It is not up to me to calculate the cost. Our military officials who run our hospitals are highly qualified individuals who have the ability to figure out what their costs are.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I simply need to respond. The Murray- Snowe amendment is not asking for a fringe benefit. Let me make it very clear to everyone who is listening, what this amendment does is simply allow a woman who serves in the military overseas to pay for her own abortion services in a military hospital where it is safe and it is legal. It is not a fringe benefit. Health care choices for women who serve us overseas are not fringe benefits. They simply are the same right that is afforded to every woman who lives in this country. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I only have 33 seconds. I find it incredible that the argument has been made that if we allow women to pay for their own abortions in military facilities overseas, it will undermine our relationships with our host countries. We have sovereign law that covers our military facilities. If we were to flip that argument, we could simply say that in a country that provides abortions, if we don't provide them in our hospitals, it may also seriously undermine our credibility. This amendment is about allowing the women overseas who serve our country and fight for us every day the same rights as the women in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to send a message to the women who serve us overseas that we, too, will fight for their rights.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, any hospital today has to calculate costs. Certainly I give a lot of credence to our military hospitals and to the military officials who run them to be able to do the same thing just as they have done prior to the time when women could have access to these abortions.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will address a few of the issues that have been raised. First, the Department of Defense stand on this: We have it confirmed that Secretary Cohen, the Secretary of Defense, does support this amendment. Several people have questioned Dr. Sue Bailey, who is Assistant Secretary of Defense, and wrote a very eloquent letter in support of this position. She did recently leave the Department. However, the Department's policy still is intact. Despite her being gone, the Department policy remains strongly the same. Second, I keep hearing the question of taxpayer funds. Let me lay this out for everyone one more time. Current policy requires a woman who serves in the military overseas to go to her commanding officer and request permission for leave of absence. She cannot get free transport without giving them a reason why. She has to go to her commanding officer, most likely a male, explain to him that she needs abortion services, and then we provide her transportation back to the United States. Her transportation is usually on a C-17 or a military transport jet that I assume costs a lot more than an abortion procedure would in a military hospital. What we are saying with this amendment is not to use taxpayer dollars, despite what the opponents keep asserting. We are simply asking that a woman who serves in the military overseas be allowed to pay for her own health care services in a military hospital so she can have access to a safe and legal abortion, just as women in this country do every day. This is an issue of fairness. We are asking the women who serve in our military be allowed the services that every woman has a right to in this country. They are overseas fighting to protect our rights. Certainly, the least we can do is provide them rights as well. I yield what time he needs to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.