Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, who has risen to speak against this amendment, for her courage, and for her reminding all of us of how important this issue is to so many women across this country. I speak today in strong opposition to the DeWine amendment, which once again, attempts to restrict access to safe, legal, affordable reproductive health care services for women. This amendment simply seeks to obstruct a women's right to choose. I know the proponents of this amendment claim they are only prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. The truth is this amendment is about the U.S. Senate determining what health benefits federal employees will receive. Health insurance for federal employees is an earned benefit. It is part of an overall compensation package. It is no different than a salary. Through this amendment, Senator DeWine and his colleagues attempting to give federal taxpayers a say in how federal employees spend their salaries. This is unfair. A federal employee's salary belongs to the federal employee and a federal employee' health benefits belong to the federal employee. Yet, we are here today debating an amendment that is based on the premise that the taxpayer controls federal employee's benefits. Again, health insurance is an earned benefit offered in lieu of income. The value of this benefit is part of the overall compensation for work performed. Why are we attempting to dictate the value or scope of a benefit owned by the federal employee? The answer is because the majority believes it can and therefore that it should. That's unfortunate. I have a solution for federal employees who object to receiving benefits that allow a women the right to a full range of reproductive health care services: refuse to purchase health insurance from a plan that offers these benefits. It's that simple. Since the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is, in part, funded by a premium paid by the employee that employee should have the right to refuse to support activities to which he or she objects. Those employees should simply not select these plans. I think all federal employees should be outraged by this kind of amendment that we are debating. Dedicated, hard working federal employees are basically being asked to limit their constitutional right to choose when they enter federal employment. This amendment treats federal employees like second class citizens and gives them no ability to decide what kind of health insurance is appropriate to meet all of their health care needs, including reproductive health. This amendment is not about the federal funding of abortions. This amendment is an assault on women's health. It is a creative way to deny access to abortion services for federal employees and their families. Federal employees should not be captive to the narrow views of a minority of the public. Allowing federal employees to purchase and receive insurance policies that allow them to have an abortion is not direct federal funding of abortion. It is a round-about way to limit some American's abilities to exercise the rights granted them by the Constitution. I, and the majority of Americans, support that right and the Roe versus Wade decision. This Senate should not undermine the fundamental right of women to decide whether to bear a child. Most of my colleagues know voters would be outraged if they sought to overturn Roe versus Wade. But instead of simply coming forward and admitting they oppose the idea that a woman has a constitutional right to decide what is in her best interest and the best interests of her family, they hide behind arguments about federal funding. Most of my colleagues know that a majority of the population supports the basic of privacy inherent in the Roe versus Wade decision. Abortion, up to viability, is a personal and private matter. Rather than seeking to overturn Roe versus Wade, they have decided to restrict access with a multitude of creative, but similarly offensive, ways. By mandating that insurance companies participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan deny access to abortion services as part of their defined benefit package, the U.S. Senate is attempting to take a private and difficult decision and add to a woman's hardship by turning it also into a financial burden. Many federal employees simply do not have the discretionary income to pay for an abortion. The cost of this procedure can be high. By removing this health care benefit from all federal insurance plans, we have placed a significant financial burden on employees and their families. For federal employees, the protections guaranteed under Roe versus Wade are seriously jeopardized. Financial barriers can be just as effective for many people as simply overturning Roe versus Wade. I hope this amendment is defeated and that we can recognize the valuable contributions of all federal employees by not forcing them to surrender their rights and protections as a condition of being a civil servant. I also hope that we can stop these constant assaults on women's health care and that of their families. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of our time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in 1993, thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd and others, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It was one of the first pieces of legislation that I was intimately involved in passing. During the last six years we've come to realize that it has been a huge success. In fact, as we come to the close of the decade we can honestly say that FMLA has been one of the more useful laws we've passed in the last ten years. Now I want to expand upon that success and allow parents a little bit of time under the current time constraints of FMLA to participate in school activities. The ``Time for Schools Act of 1999'' will allow a parent 24 hours per year to participate in the academic activities of his or her child. This 24 hour period comes from the already available 12 weeks under FMLA. This is something our country needs. Parents overwhelmingly want more time to support their children in school. Businesses thrive when our schools produce well-trained graduates--and parental involvement helps kids succeed. As a parent, I know how difficult and how important it is to participate in the education of children. I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to be involved in the school lives of my children. But many parents don't have the time it takes to do those little things that will assure their child's success in school, because they can't get away from their jobs. By adding academic school activities to one of our most successful laws, we will give parents something they need: time off to become directly involved with their children's learning. These days we have many dual-income families and single parents struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how important it is to be involved in their children's learning. However, the single largest barrier to parental involvement at schools seems to be lack of time. Studies have shown that family involvement is more important to student success than family income or family education levels. In fact, things parents can control, such as limiting excess television watching and providing a variety of reading materials, account for almost all the differences in average student achievement across states. All sectors of our communities want more time for young people. Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack of parental involvement. And, a 1996 post-election poll commissioned by the national PTA found that 86 percent of people favor legislation that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences, or to take other actions to improve learning for their children. A commitment to our children is a commitment to our nation's future. I want to make sure all young people receive the attention they need to succeed. My legislation will allow parents time to: (1) attend a parent/ teacher conference; (2) participate in classroom educational activities; or (3) research new schools. I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in six American employees take time to deal with serious family health problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost implementing--and I see success. People in my state have been able to deal with urgent family needs, without losing their jobs. A 1998 study by the Families and Work Institute found that 84% of employers felt that the benefits of providing family or medical leave offset or outweigh the costs. Taking time out for children not only helps parents and children, but is also beneficial to business. My bill extends the uses of family leave to another urgent need families face--the need to help their children learn. The time is right for the ``Time for Schools Act.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in 1993, thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd and others, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It was one of the first pieces of legislation that I was intimately involved in passing. During the last six years we've come to realize that it has been a huge success. In fact, as we come to the close of the decade we can honestly say that FMLA has been one of the more useful laws we've passed in the last ten years. Now I want to expand upon that success and allow parents a little bit of time under the current time constraints of FMLA to participate in school activities. The ``Time for Schools Act of 1999'' will allow a parent 24 hours per year to participate in the academic activities of his or her child. This 24 hour period comes from the already available 12 weeks under FMLA. This is something our country needs. Parents overwhelmingly want more time to support their children in school. Businesses thrive when our schools produce well-trained graduates--and parental involvement helps kids succeed. As a parent, I know how difficult and how important it is to participate in the education of children. I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to be involved in the school lives of my children. But many parents don't have the time it takes to do those little things that will assure their child's success in school, because they can't get away from their jobs. By adding academic school activities to one of our most successful laws, we will give parents something they need: time off to become directly involved with their children's learning. These days we have many dual-income families and single parents struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how important it is to be involved in their children's learning. However, the single largest barrier to parental involvement at schools seems to be lack of time. Studies have shown that family involvement is more important to student success than family income or family education levels. In fact, things parents can control, such as limiting excess television watching and providing a variety of reading materials, account for almost all the differences in average student achievement across states. All sectors of our communities want more time for young people. Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack of parental involvement. And, a 1996 post-election poll commissioned by the national PTA found that 86 percent of people favor legislation that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences, or to take other actions to improve learning for their children. A commitment to our children is a commitment to our nation's future. I want to make sure all young people receive the attention they need to succeed. My legislation will allow parents time to: (1) attend a parent/ teacher conference; (2) participate in classroom educational activities; or (3) research new schools. I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in six American employees take time to deal with serious family health problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost implementing--and I see success. People in my state have been able to deal with urgent family needs, without losing their jobs. A 1998 study by the Families and Work Institute found that 84% of employers felt that the benefits of providing family or medical leave offset or outweigh the costs. Taking time out for children not only helps parents and children, but is also beneficial to business. My bill extends the uses of family leave to another urgent need families face--the need to help their children learn. The time is right for the ``Time for Schools Act.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Jeffords as he reintroduces the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As before, I speak as a strong supporter of this legislation, because I have always believed that every single American deserves fair treatment under the law no matter his or her gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. As one of only a few women to ever serve in the United States Senate, and the first ever from Washington state, I understand what it means to be part of a group that seeks fairness and equal opportunity. I have never advocated for any special class, just equal treatment and protection under the law. Not long ago, many thought it would be impossible for women to serve in the Senate or an elected office of any kind. It was felt this was not a suitable occupation for a woman and that simply being a woman meant a person was incapable of meeting the demands of the job. These people alleged that women would somehow jeopardize the work done in the U.S. Congress. While these statements may seem impossible to believe today, they do illustrate what many women faced. However, to our country's benefit, these stereotypes were overcome. I am confident that none of my colleagues today would deny the tremendous contributions women have made here, in the House, in state and local government, and at every level of public service. People suffer when stereotypes based on fear or ignorance are used to justify discrimination. I do not believe elected leaders serve our country well if they deny any citizen equal opportunities and equal treatment under the law. A person's success or failure must depend on his or her qualifications, skills, efforts, and even luck. But, no one, I repeat, no one, should be denied opportunities because of race, gender, religion, age or sexual orientation. No one should endure discrimination such as many people have endured in the workplace because of sexual orientation. I am always disappointed to hear about cases of economic discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. It defies logic that in today's society any employer could refuse to hire an individual, deny them equal pay, or professional advancement and subject them to harassment simply because of their sexual orientation. Our country is based on the ideal of allowing equal opportunity and basic civil rights for all Americans, but we have not fully achieved this goal. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will correct that wrong. As we would all agree, discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic origin, or religion is not just unfair, but illegal as well. ENDA would simply add sexual orientation to this list. It is written even more narrowly than current law for other areas of non-discrimination, because it does not allow positive corrective actions such as quotas or other preferential treatment. It simply says that a person cannot be unfairly treated in employment, based on his or her sexuality, whether that person is heterosexual or homosexual. Mr. President, this is a reasonable expectation. In fact, it has become a reality in nine states, including California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, and in many local jurisdictions across the country. Also, many Fortune 500 companies, such as Microsoft and IBM, have adopted their own non- discrimination policies. Companies such as these recognize that it makes good business sense to value each and every one of their employees equally. It is time that our laws reflect these values as well. Not only do these companies and governments support a non- discrimination policy in the workplace, but the public also supports ENDA by a wide margin, according to a bipartisan 1998 poll conducted for the Human Rights Campaign. This poll found that 58 percent of Americans support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This is compelling evidence that Americans are behind ENDA, support expanding these basic civil rights to all, and believe that everyone deserves these rights. They understand that our country will be a better place when discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace is put to an end. Mr. President, this is not about one group's protection at another's expense. This issue is still not about allowing a greater window for litigation, as opponents have previously argued. It is about common sense, common decency and our fundamental values as Americans. In the last Congress, we came within one vote of adopting this important, bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues now to support this measure so that we can continue our proud tradition of protecting basic civil rights and opportunity for all Americans. Let us join together to pass this bill so that our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends and relatives will have protection against unjust discrimination. We have the opportunity to provide them with these basic civil rights now. I hope my colleagues will seize this opportunity to make our country the just, equal, and fair place it should be.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Jeffords as he reintroduces the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As before, I speak as a strong supporter of this legislation, because I have always believed that every single American deserves fair treatment under the law no matter his or her gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. As one of only a few women to ever serve in the United States Senate, and the first ever from Washington state, I understand what it means to be part of a group that seeks fairness and equal opportunity. I have never advocated for any special class, just equal treatment and protection under the law. Not long ago, many thought it would be impossible for women to serve in the Senate or an elected office of any kind. It was felt this was not a suitable occupation for a woman and that simply being a woman meant a person was incapable of meeting the demands of the job. These people alleged that women would somehow jeopardize the work done in the U.S. Congress. While these statements may seem impossible to believe today, they do illustrate what many women faced. However, to our country's benefit, these stereotypes were overcome. I am confident that none of my colleagues today would deny the tremendous contributions women have made here, in the House, in state and local government, and at every level of public service. People suffer when stereotypes based on fear or ignorance are used to justify discrimination. I do not believe elected leaders serve our country well if they deny any citizen equal opportunities and equal treatment under the law. A person's success or failure must depend on his or her qualifications, skills, efforts, and even luck. But, no one, I repeat, no one, should be denied opportunities because of race, gender, religion, age or sexual orientation. No one should endure discrimination such as many people have endured in the workplace because of sexual orientation. I am always disappointed to hear about cases of economic discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. It defies logic that in today's society any employer could refuse to hire an individual, deny them equal pay, or professional advancement and subject them to harassment simply because of their sexual orientation. Our country is based on the ideal of allowing equal opportunity and basic civil rights for all Americans, but we have not fully achieved this goal. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will correct that wrong. As we would all agree, discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic origin, or religion is not just unfair, but illegal as well. ENDA would simply add sexual orientation to this list. It is written even more narrowly than current law for other areas of non-discrimination, because it does not allow positive corrective actions such as quotas or other preferential treatment. It simply says that a person cannot be unfairly treated in employment, based on his or her sexuality, whether that person is heterosexual or homosexual. Mr. President, this is a reasonable expectation. In fact, it has become a reality in nine states, including California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, and in many local jurisdictions across the country. Also, many Fortune 500 companies, such as Microsoft and IBM, have adopted their own non- discrimination policies. Companies such as these recognize that it makes good business sense to value each and every one of their employees equally. It is time that our laws reflect these values as well. Not only do these companies and governments support a non- discrimination policy in the workplace, but the public also supports ENDA by a wide margin, according to a bipartisan 1998 poll conducted for the Human Rights Campaign. This poll found that 58 percent of Americans support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This is compelling evidence that Americans are behind ENDA, support expanding these basic civil rights to all, and believe that everyone deserves these rights. They understand that our country will be a better place when discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace is put to an end. Mr. President, this is not about one group's protection at another's expense. This issue is still not about allowing a greater window for litigation, as opponents have previously argued. It is about common sense, common decency and our fundamental values as Americans. In the last Congress, we came within one vote of adopting this important, bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues now to support this measure so that we can continue our proud tradition of protecting basic civil rights and opportunity for all Americans. Let us join together to pass this bill so that our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends and relatives will have protection against unjust discrimination. We have the opportunity to provide them with these basic civil rights now. I hope my colleagues will seize this opportunity to make our country the just, equal, and fair place it should be.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. It is my understanding that the Democrats now have 15 minutes?

Mrs. MURRAY. Then I will proceed.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I hope we can work out an agreement, but I rise today really to express my frustration and outrage with the inability of the Republican leadership to allow a fair and open debate on the real Patients' Bill of Rights. I do not like the idea of tying up must-do appropriations bills to try and force a fair and open debate on access to health care services. However, due to the inability to find a reasonable compromise on the number of amendments, we have been forced to bring this issue to every possible vehicle. I hope we can work out an arrangement with the majority party to do this and to have our opportunity to offer amendments that we think are very important. Sometimes we spend far too much time on issues of little significance to the American people. One of the majority's showcase pieces of legislation in 1999 was to change the name of National Airport to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. We spent more time talking about the name change than we have on debating the Patients' Bill of Rights. When it comes to access to emergency room treatment, or access to experimental lifesaving treatments, we cannot seem to find 3 days for its consideration on the Senate floor. This is the kind of legislation that really does impact American working families. I would argue that it deserves a full and open debate on the Senate floor, allowing us to offer our amendments. The Republican reform legislation reported out of the HELP Committee is not--and let me repeat, is not--a patients' bill of rights. Oddly enough, it excludes most insured Americans and, in many cases, simply reiterates current insurance policy. It does not provide the kinds of protections and guarantees which will ensure that when you need your insurance, it is there for you and your family. Let's face it. Most people do not even think about their health insurance until they become sick. Certainly, insurance companies do not notify them every week or month, when collecting their premiums, that there are many services and benefits they do not have access to. It is amazing how accurate insurance companies can be in collecting premiums, but when it comes time to access benefits, it becomes a huge bureaucracy with little or no accountability. The Republican leadership bill is inadequate in many areas. Let me point out a couple of the major holes that I see in this legislation. During markup of this legislation in the HELP Committee, I offered two important amendments. The first one was a very short and simple amendment to prohibit so-called drive-through mastectomies. My amendment would have prohibited insurance companies from requiring doctors to perform major breast cancer surgery in an outpatient setting and discharging the woman within hours. We saw this happen before when insurance companies decided it was not medically necessary for a woman to stay more than 12 hours in a hospital following the birth of a child. They said there was no need for followup for the newborn infant beyond 12 hours. There was no understanding of the effects of childbirth on a woman and no role for the woman or physician to determine what is medically necessary for both the new mother and the new infant. I offered the drive-through mastectomy prohibition amendment only because an amendment offered earlier in that markup would continue the practice of allowing insurance personnel to determine what was medically necessary--not doctors, not patients, but insurance companies. I offered my amendment to ensure that no insurance company would be allowed to engage in drive-through mastectomies. My amendment did not require a mandatory hospital stay. It did not set the number of days or hours. It simply said that only the doctor and the patient would be able to determine if a hospital stay was medically necessary. The woman who had suffered the shock of the diagnosis of breast cancer, the woman who was told the mastectomy was the only choice, the woman who faced this life-altering surgery, decides, along with her doctor. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side did not feel comfortable giving the decision to the woman and her doctor. They did not like legislating by body part; and neither do I. But I could not sit by and be silent on this issue. Defeating the medically necessary amendment, offered prior to my amendment, forced me to legislate by body part. And I will do it again to ensure that women facing a mastectomy are not sent home prematurely to deal with both the physical and emotional aftershocks. For many years, I have listened to many of my colleagues talk about breast cancer and breast cancer research or breast cancer stamps. When it comes to really helping breast cancer survivors, some of my Republican colleagues voted no. I hope we are able to correct this and give all of my colleagues, not just those on the HELP Committee, the chance to vote yes. The other amendment I offered in committee addressed the issue of emergency room coverage. The Republican legislation falls short of ensuring that when you have a sick child with a very high fever, and you rush them to the emergency room in the middle of the night, the child will receive emergency care as well as poststabilization care. The Republican bill simply adopts a prudent layperson standard on emergency care, not care beyond the emergency. That means that a child with a fever of over 104 degrees may not receive the full scope of care necessary to determine what caused the fever to prevent the escalation of a fever once the child has been stabilized. As many parents know, simply controlling the fever is not enough; you have to control the virus or infection to prevent the fever from escalating again. I tried in committee to address the inequities in the Republican bill regarding emergency room coverage. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated. Let me point out to my colleagues, if they think their language will protect individuals seeking emergency care, they are sadly mistaken. The insurance commissioner's office in my home State of Washington recently initiated a major investigation of insurance companies that had denied ER coverage based on a prudent layperson's standard. The commissioner's office discovered that despite a State regulation requiring a prudent layperson standard, there were numerous examples of individuals being denied appropriate care in the emergency room. In Washington State, a 15-year-old girl with a broken leg was taken by her parents to a hospital emergency room. The claim was denied by the family's insurer, which ruled that the circumstances did not constitute an emergency. A 17-year-old victim of a beating suffered serious head injuries and was taken to an ER. A CAT scan ordered by the ER physician was rejected by the insurer because there was no prior authorization. This 17-year- old child was stabilized, but the physician knew that only through a CAT scan would they know the full extent of the child's injuries. Yet the insurance company denied payment because they had not approved the procedure. They obviously did not think that a CAT scan was part of ER care. These are examples of gross misconduct by insurance companies in the State of Washington that are supposed to meet the same standard that is included in the Republican bill. As the insurance commissioner learned, a prudent layperson standard still allows for a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. I also want to remind many of my colleagues who support doubling research at NIH that we are facing a situation where we have all of this great research we are funding, and yet we allow insurance companies to deny access. Yesterday we heard testimony at the Labor-HHS Subcommittee hearing about juvenile diabetes. It was an inspiring hearing. We had more than 100 children and several celebrities testify. Yet as I sat there listening to the testimony from NIH about the need to increase funding for research and how close we are to finding a cure, I was struck by the fact that the Republican leadership bill would allow the continued practice of denying access to clinical trials, access to new experimental drugs and treatments, access to specialties, and access to specialty care provided at NCI cancer centers. It does little good to increase research or to find a cure for diabetes or Parkinson's disease if very few people in this country can afford the cure or are denied access to that cure. We need to continue our focus on research, but we cannot simply ignore the issue of access. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a real Patients' Bill of Rights that puts the decision of health care back into the hands of the consumer and their physician, that doesn't dismantle managed care but ensures that insurance companies manage care, not profits. I don't want to increase the cost of health care. I simply want to make sure people get what they pay for, that they have the same access to care that we, as Members of the Senate, enjoy as we participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. The President has made sure we have patient protections. Our constituents deserve no less. I thank the Chair. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my frustration and outrage with the inability of the Republican leadership to allow a fair and open debate on a real Patients' Bill of Rights. I do not like the idea of tying up must do appropriations bills to try and force a fair and open debate on access to health care services. However, due to the inability to find a reasonable compromise on the number of amendments, we have been forced to bring this issue to every possible vehicle. There are many things we do here that simply do not have the impact we seem to think they do. We spend more time debating a constitutional amendment to balance the budget instead of simply doing the hard work to balance the budget. We proved that despite weeks of debate all we needed to do was make the tough choices and balance the budget. Yet when it comes to something like access to emergency room treatment or access to experimental life saving treatments, we can't find three days on the Senate floor. This is the kind of legislation that really does impact American working families. I would argue that it deserves a full and open debate on the Senate floor. The pending amendment before us is not, and let me repeat, is not a Patient Bill of Rights. Oddly enough it excludes most insured Americans and in many cases, simply reiterates current insurance policy. It does not provide the kind of protections and guarantees that will ensure that when you need your insurance it is there for you and your families. Let's face it, most people do not even think about their health insurance until they become sick. Certainly insurance companies do not notify them every week or month when collecting their premiums that there are many services and benefits that they do not have access to. It is amazing how accurate insurance companies can be in collecting premiums, but when it comes time to access benefits it becomes a huge bureaucracy with little or no accountability. The Republican leadership bill is inadequate in many areas. Let me point out one major hole in this legislation. During markup of this amendment in the HELP Committee I offered a very short and simple amendment to prohibit so-called ``drive through mastectomies.'' My amendment would have prohibited insurance companies from requiring doctors to perform major breast cancer surgery in an out patient setting and discharging the woman within hours. We saw this happen when insurance companies decided that there was no medical necessity for a woman to stay more than 12 hours in a hospital following the birth of a child. They said there was no need for follow up for the newborn infant beyond 12 hours. There was no understanding of the effects of child birth on a woman and no role for the woman or physician to determine what is medically necessary for both the new mother and new born infant. I offered the drive through mastectomy prohibition amendment only because an amendment offered earlier in the markup would continue the practice of allowing insurance personnel to determine what was medically necessary. Not doctors or patients, but insurance company bean counters. I offered my amendment to ensure that no insurance company would be allowed to engage in drive through mastectomies. My amendment did not require a mandatory hospital stay. It did not set the number of days or hours. It simply said that only the doctor and patient would be able to determine if a hospital stay was medically necessary. The woman who suffered the shock of the diagnosis of breast cancer; the woman who was told a mastectomy was the only choice; the woman who faced this life altering surgery. She decides. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side did not feel comfortable giving the decision to the woman and her doctor. They did not like legislating by body part. Neither do I. But I could not sit by and be silent on this issue. Defeating the medically necessary amendment offered prior to my amendment, forced me to legislate by body part. I would do it again to ensure that women facing a mastectomy are not sent home to deal with the physical and emotional after shocks. For many years I have listened to many of my colleagues talk about breast cancer and breast cancer research or a breast cancer stamp. When it sometimes to really helping breast cancer survivors, some of my Republican colleagues vote ``no.'' I hope we are able to correct this and give all of my colleagues, not just those on the HELP Committee the chance to vote ``yes.'' I also want to remind many of my colleagues who support doubling research at NIH, that we are facing a situation where we have all this great research and yet we allow insurance companies to deny access. Today we heard testimony at the Labor, HHS Subcommittee hearing about juvenile diabetes. It was an inspiring hearing with over 100 children and several celebrities. Yet as I sat there listening to testimony from NIH about the need to increase funding and how close we are to finding a cure, I was struck by the fact that the Republican leadership bill would allow the continued practice of denying access to clinical trials, access to new experimental drugs and treatments, access to specialities and access to speciality care provided at NIH cancer centers. It does little good to increase research or to find a cure for diabetes or Parkinsons disease if very few can afford the cure or are denied access to the cure. We need to continue our focus on research, but cannot simply ignore the issue of access. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting a real Patient's Bill of Rights that puts the decision on health care back into the hands of the consumer and the physician. It does not dismantle managed care. But it ensures that insurance companies managed care, not profits. I do not want to increase the cost of health care costs, I simply want to make sure that people get what they pay for. That they have the same access to cure that we as Members of the Senate enjoy as we participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. The President has made sure that we have patient protections. Our constituents deserve no less.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague, Chairman Burns, in recommending the fiscal year 2000 military construction bill to the Senate for approval. I begin by thanking him and his staff for being so great to work with. He is right, we are old hands but not that old; and it is great to work with him. This bill, which was reported with the unanimous approval of the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, bears little resemblance to the spending structure proposed by the administration last winter. The administration, in what I consider to be a misguided effort to free up more money for defense spending, proposed a buy-now, pay-later military construction bill. The subcommittee carefully analyzed the administration's plan. We had numerous briefings as well as two subcommittee hearings. Our conclusion was that split funding not only would set a dangerous precedent but also would jeopardize the integrity of the entire military construction program. At the recommendation of the Military Construction Subcommittee, the Appropriations Committee wisely rejected the administration's proposal for incremental funding. With the help of our chairman and ranking member, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, we were able to fully fund our Military Construction Program. Moreover, we were able to surmount the woefully inadequate amounts of funding that the administration sought to spread over the full 2-year construction program. In the end, we increased construction funding for active duty components by $278 million over the administration's total request, and for reserve components by nearly $388 million over the request. We achieved these increases by judicious reductions in other accounts, such as the base realignment and closure account, without jeopardizing the pace of ongoing work. Senator Burns and his staff deserve a great deal of credit for the thoughtful and careful approach that they took in the drafting of this bill. As always, they have worked hard to produce a balanced, bipartisan product that takes into account both the concerns of the Senate and the needs of the military. In particular, they have done a superb job of continuing to shine the spotlight on the quality of life projects that are so important to our men and women in uniform, and to their families. At a time when military enlistment and retention are in free fall, and the services cannot hope to match the financial incentives of the private sector, quality of life issues are magnified in importance. They do not diminish the importance of readiness projects, but they are a factor in recruiting and retaining our military personnel. Within the budget constraints that we are all forced to operate this year, this bill attempts to meet the most urgent and most timely of the military construction projects available. All of the major construction projects that we have funded have been authorized. In addition, we have ensured adequate funding for family housing and barracks construction, and we have suggested that the Department of Defense revisit the issue of housing privatization to determine if it is a workable solution to our military housing needs. Even so, this bill is $176 million below the military construction bill enacted last year. This continues the recent, and troubling, downward spiral in military construction investment. During a year in which the Congress has made great strides toward addressing the need to enhance defense readiness and military personnel spending, it is disappointing--and in my opinion, shortsighted--to see defense infrastructure needs struggling to keep pace. This is an extremely important bill for our Nation and our military forces. I again commend Senator Burns and his staff for their excellent work in producing the bill, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, included in the manager's package is an amendment designed to insert the United States Congress into the Bonneville Power Administration's rate setting process. I believe it is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Thus, I do not support it and will work to see it stricken in conference. The BPA next month hopes to initiate the rate case to establish the cost of BPA power and set parameters for funding salmon recovery on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. As currently formulated, the rates established will fund projected fish and wildlife costs through customer rates. The process is working and this amendment could potentially jeopardize it. I, along with other Democratic members of the Northwest delegation, recently sent a letter to Vice President Gore to reiterate our support for the so-called ``fish funding principles'' agreed to by the Administration and BPA. We sent this letter in response to a staff memo initiated by the National Marine FIsheries Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, recommending BPA charge its customers higher rates so it could establish a ``slush fund'' to pay the enormous cost of removing or breeching the four lower Snake River dams. As my colleagues know, there has been no decision that these dams should be removed and therefore there is no need to begin saving for such a controversial plan. Our letter firmly opposed collecting money from ratepayers for costs that may or may not be incurred in the future. Specifically, we opposed ``prepayment of speculative future costs, particularly if those costs are contingent upon congressional action.'' There is no movement afoot by the Administration or BPA to establish such a slush fund. So, there is not a problem to solve regarding slush funds for dam removal. However, we do have a problem to solve: saving our wild salmon. We are committed as a region and as a nation to doing so. These skirmishes over staff memos and rumors simply divide us and divert our attention from the real problems we must solve; the real creative solutions we must fund; the real consensus we must forge. I fear an unintended consequence of this amendment may be to reduce our region's ability to solve this problem on its own. So, Mr. President, this amendment is not helpful. That said, I know I do not have the votes to prevent its inclusion in this bill and thus have worked with Senator Gorton to modify it to make it more acceptable. The amendment now will apply only to this fiscal year, instead of continuing in perpetuity. In addition, the BPA Administration now must set rates with the ``fish funding principles'' agreed to by the Administration and BPA in mind. Let me conclude by reiterating that we have a process working to set rates for BPA customers, which I firmly believe will achieve the vital goal of helping us save fish, and will allow full public and stakeholder involvement. This amendment is unnecessary and diversionary. I look forward to working with Senator Gorton and the Administration to get this language dropped from the bill in conference committee.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, just three weeks ago I joined with 12 of my Democratic colleagues to urge the leadership in both parties of the Senate to take up Y2K reform legislation as soon as possible. We got what we wanted and just completed debate. Many amendments were offered but several that would have improved the bill were defeated. Certainly the bill we passed today is much better than the proposal that passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee months ago. Despite some reservations I voted for this bill, because potential problems associated with Y2K failures and subsequent litigation could be very harmful. Widespread litigation could harm businesses and hurt consumers through increased costs in the essential products and services we use in our information technology dependant lives. Moving the process forward is necessary if we are to adequately protect consumers and the businesses who have done all they can to ensure their products work at the turn of the century. It is important we have mechanisms that will allow for quick remediation of Y2K problems, will encourage companies to correct their mistakes, and will fairly adjudicate cases when mediation fails. We all recognize that computer problems associated with the new millennium could be large. These problems need to be addressed. Washington is one of the most high-tech-dependant States in the Nation. Technology companies make up the most energetic and fastest growing segment of the Washington State economy. Information technology has also become a major factor in the economic engine of the Nation. Many employees and consumers in my State depend on these companies' success. The people I represent could be negatively impacted if we fail to take action on this issue. What we passed today could do much to encourage remediation of the problems we face in addressing the Y2K problem. The bill protects businesses that have acted responsibly and allows for consumers and businesses to punish those who have acted in bad faith. The bill is also limited in scope and time with a sunset date just three years after enactment, which focuses this bill on the unique, one time event which we are seeking to address. What we have done today is an important step toward protecting consumers and businesses from Y2K problems. That said, I have some concerns about the bill. Individual consumers were not as well protected as they should have been. While we've been able to retain for small businesses as large as 50 employees the ability to get a broad array of damages, we were unable to get a complete exception for consumers. Individuals have less bargaining power and generally don't possess the expertise or money required to protect themselves as well as businesses. Therefore, I am hopeful in conference we will get measures that exempt consumers from certain sections of the bill and allow them greater access and bargaining power when Y2K failures harm them. I also have concerns about the bill's preemption of State contract and tort law. The class action provisions of this bill would allow for either party to remove an action from a State proceeding to Federal court at virtually any time. This impedes State's rights and could harm individual plaintiffs by forcing them to incur more litigation costs by having to start anew in federal court. Unlike large companies, individuals often have difficulty traveling to new venues and paying additional attorney's fees. The court system should encourage individuals who are harmed to seek redress, not discourage them as this bill does. I also hope we can work on this in conference. It is important to note that the version that passed the House of Representatives is an even worse bill for consumers. It does not seek the balance between plaintiffs and defendants, but resembles the pro- defendant bill that originally passed from the Senate Commerce Committee. The House bill is a step backward from what was achieved in the Senate. If we move at all toward the House bill in conference, I would hope and I'm confident that many of my colleagues will join me in opposing the conference report. Overall, passing this bill helps get the process going. It certainly is not perfect and I am hopeful the problems I have outlined can be dealt with in conference. It is also my desire to see the administration get involved in the negotiations at conference. My constituents, high-tech companies, and consumers deserve a bill that is fair and just, allows for remediation before filing suit, and protects people and companies who have acted in good faith.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania. I retain the last minute for myself.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me conclude by letting my colleagues know that under current law today, a woman who volunteers to serve all of us, to protect all of us and our rights, when she goes overseas to serve us and finds herself in a situation where she requires an abortion, which is a legal procedure guaranteed by the Constitution in this country, has to go to her commanding officer and request permission to come home to the United States, flying home on a C-17, or a helicopter when one is available, to have a procedure that women here in this country who have not volunteered to serve overseas have at their disposal. We are asking a lot of these young women. We should at least provide them the opportunity, as we do under my amendment, to pay for that procedure in a military hospital, where it will be safe, at their own expense. That is the least we should be offering them. In a few moments we will be voting on this amendment. My colleague from New Hampshire has said the vote is close. Every vote will count. There is no doubt about it. So when you cast your vote today, ask yourself if women who serve us overseas to defend our rights should be asked to give up their rights when they get on that plane and they are sent overseas. This is an issue which sends a message to all young people today that when they serve us in the military to protect our rights, we are going to be here to defend their rights as well. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to table. How much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his generosity. I truly appreciate it. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 30 additional seconds to the Senator from California.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues, what this amendment does is simply allow a woman who is serving in the military overseas to use her own money to have an abortion performed in a military hospital at her expense. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California.

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

Mr. MURRAY

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is the Murray-Snowe amendment that concerns our brave young women who serve in the military and their right to pay for their own safe, reproductive health care services. I am here today, again joined by Senator Snowe and many others, to offer our amendment to protect military personnel and their dependents' access to safe, affordable, and legal reproductive health care services. That is exactly what this amendment is all about--access to safe, affordable, and legal reproductive health care services. That is why the Department of Defense supports this amendment, as does the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Department of Defense recognizes that it has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all of its troops, including our women. Many of you may wonder why Senator Snowe and I continue to offer this amendment year after year. Why don't we just give up? Let me tell my colleagues, the reason I come to the floor every year during the Department of Defense authorization bill is to continue to educate in the hope that a majority of you will finally stand up for all military personnel. As I have in the past, I come here today to urge my colleagues to guarantee to all military personnel and their dependents the same rights and guarantees that are enjoyed by all American citizens. These rights should not stop at our border. We should not ask military service women to surrender their rights to safe, affordable, legal reproductive health care services because they have made a commitment to serve our country. Many of our military personnel serve in hostile areas in countries that do not provide safe and legal abortion services. Military personnel and their families should not be forced to seek back-alley abortions, or abortions in facilities that do not meet the same standards that we expect and demand in this country. In many countries, women who seek abortions do so at great risk of harm. It is a terrifying process. I heard from a service woman in Japan who was forced to go off base to seek a legal abortion. Unfortunately, there was no guarantee of the quality of care, and the language barrier placed her at great risk. She had no way of understanding questions that were asked of her, and she had no way of communicating her questions or concerns during the procedure. Is that the kind of care that we want our service personnel to receive? Don't they deserve better? I am convinced that they do. This amendment is not--let me repeat is not--about Federal funding of abortions. The woman herself would be responsible for the cost of her care, not the taxpayer. This amendment simply allows women who are in our services to use existing military facilities that exist already to provide health care to active-duty personnel and their families. These clinics and hospitals are already functioning. There would be no added burden. I also want to point out that this amendment would not change the current conscience clause for medical personnel. Health care professionals who object to providing safe and legal health care services to women could still refuse to perform them. Nobody in the military would be forced to perform any procedure he or she objects to as a matter of conscience. For those of you who are concerned about Federal funding, I argue that current practice and policy results in more direct expenditures of Federal funds than simply allowing a woman herself to pay for the cost of this service at the closest medical military facility. Today, when a woman in the military needs an abortion or wants an abortion, she first has to approach her duty officer to request from him or her medical leave. Then she has to ask for transport to a U.S. base with access to legal abortion-related services. Her duty officer has to grant the request, remove her from active duty, and transport her to the United States. This is an expensive, taxpayer-funded, and inefficient system. Not only is there cost of transportation, but there is cost to military readiness when active personnel is removed for an extended period of time. As we all know, women are no longer simply support staff in the military. Women command troops and are in key military readiness positions. Their contributions are beyond dispute. While women serve side by side with their male counterparts, they are subjected to archaic and mean-spirited health care restrictions. Women in the military deserve our respect and they deserve better treatment. In addition to the cost and the loss of personnel, we have to ask: What is the impact on the woman's health? A woman who is stationed overseas can be forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until she can get her travel to the United States where she can get safe, adequate, legal health care. For many women, every week an abortion is delayed is a risk to her health. Why should a woman who is serving our country in the military be placed at a greater risk than a woman who is not serving in the military? In talking about this amendment, I am often struck by how little some of my colleagues know about restrictions on reproductive health care services in many other countries. Many of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that in some countries abortions are illegal, and punishment is swift and brutal--not just against the provider but against the woman as well. In these cases, a back-alley abortion can be deadly. Not only are they risking their own health, but they are also risking their own safety and well-being. We are talking about women who are serving us overseas in the military. Why should we put our military personnel in this kind of danger? We are fortunate in this country, because abortion is an extremely safe procedure when it is performed by trained medical professionals. However, in the hands of untrained medical professionals in unsterilized facilities abortion can be dangerous and risky to a woman's health. The care that we expect--actually the care that we demand--is simply not universal. Regardless of what some of my colleagues may think about the constitutional ruling that guarantees a woman a right to a safe abortion without unnecessary burdens and obstacles, it is the law of our land. Roe v. Wade provides women in this country with a certain right and a guarantee. While some may oppose this right to choose, the Supreme Court and a majority of Americans support this right. However, active-duty servicewomen who are stationed overseas today surrender that right when they make the decision to volunteer and to defend all of us. It is sadly ironic that we send them overseas to protect our rights, yet in the process we take their rights away from them. I urge my colleagues to simply give women in the military the same protection whether they serve in the United States or overseas. Please allow women the right to make choices without being forced to violate their privacy, and, worse, jeopardize their health. This is and must be a personal decision. Women should not be subjected to the approval or disapproval of their coworkers or their superiors. This decision should be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor. The amendment that is before us simply upholds the Supreme Court decision. It is not about Federal funding. It is not about forcing those who constitutionally object to providing these services. It is simply about the degree that we recognize the role of women in the military and whether we give them the respect that I argue they deserve. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, what time she would like to use.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to table and to stand with the women and men who serve us overseas. I thank the Chair.