Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a bill I am introducing to turn the historic United States Coast Guard Cutter Bramble, into a floating maritime museum in Port Huron, MI, after she is decommissioned later this year. Once you hear the history of the Bramble, I am sure you will all agree that not only should she be preserved, but the Port Huron Museum of Arts and History will be able to provide the ideal home. The Bramble has been part of many important missions since it was first launched on October 23, 1943. But--along with her sister ships, Spar and Storis--the Bramble is best known for being part of the first mission by United States vessels to steam from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean via the Northwest Passage. Upon completing this mission, Bramble and her sister ships went on to become the first to circumnavigate the North American continent--a dream of sailors for more than 400 years. The Bramble set out on this historic mission from Miami, Florida, on May 24, 1957. Steaming through the Panama Canal to the Pacific Ocean, the Bramble then headed to Seattle. On July 1, 1957, the Bramble left Seattle and headed toward the Atlantic Ocean via the Bering Straights and the Arctic Ocean. Sixty- four days and 4,500 miles later, the Bramble and her sister ships reached the Atlantic and on December 2, 1957, she tied up again in Miami--completing the first circumnavigation of the North American continent. For that reason alone, the Bramble would be worth saving as a museum of maritime history. But over her 60 year history, the Bramble has seized tons of illegal drugs, saved hundreds of lives in search and rescue missions, helped train maritime police in 10 Caribbean nations, maintained buoys and other aids to navigation, performed icebreaking duties in the Great Lakes and been the recipient of numerous awards, service ribbons and commendations. The Bramble also has a long history with Michigan and Port Huron and that is why I believe my State would make an excellent home once this historic ship is retired. The Bramble first came to Detroit, MI, in 1962, where she performed search and rescue, icebreaking, law enforcement and navigation missions throughout the Great Lakes. Since 1975, the Bramble's homeport has been Port Huron. And that is where I think she should stay after she is decommissioned. The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus--or Always Ready. For 60 years the Bramble has been there--always ready to serve our country in waters close to home and far away. And I believe that as a museum of maritime history, she can continue serving us for years to come--still Semper Paratus--still Always Ready. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a bill I am introducing to turn the historic United States Coast Guard Cutter Bramble, into a floating maritime museum in Port Huron, MI, after she is decommissioned later this year. Once you hear the history of the Bramble, I am sure you will all agree that not only should she be preserved, but the Port Huron Museum of Arts and History will be able to provide the ideal home. The Bramble has been part of many important missions since it was first launched on October 23, 1943. But--along with her sister ships, Spar and Storis--the Bramble is best known for being part of the first mission by United States vessels to steam from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean via the Northwest Passage. Upon completing this mission, Bramble and her sister ships went on to become the first to circumnavigate the North American continent--a dream of sailors for more than 400 years. The Bramble set out on this historic mission from Miami, Florida, on May 24, 1957. Steaming through the Panama Canal to the Pacific Ocean, the Bramble then headed to Seattle. On July 1, 1957, the Bramble left Seattle and headed toward the Atlantic Ocean via the Bering Straights and the Arctic Ocean. Sixty- four days and 4,500 miles later, the Bramble and her sister ships reached the Atlantic and on December 2, 1957, she tied up again in Miami--completing the first circumnavigation of the North American continent. For that reason alone, the Bramble would be worth saving as a museum of maritime history. But over her 60 year history, the Bramble has seized tons of illegal drugs, saved hundreds of lives in search and rescue missions, helped train maritime police in 10 Caribbean nations, maintained buoys and other aids to navigation, performed icebreaking duties in the Great Lakes and been the recipient of numerous awards, service ribbons and commendations. The Bramble also has a long history with Michigan and Port Huron and that is why I believe my State would make an excellent home once this historic ship is retired. The Bramble first came to Detroit, MI, in 1962, where she performed search and rescue, icebreaking, law enforcement and navigation missions throughout the Great Lakes. Since 1975, the Bramble's homeport has been Port Huron. And that is where I think she should stay after she is decommissioned. The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus--or Always Ready. For 60 years the Bramble has been there--always ready to serve our country in waters close to home and far away. And I believe that as a museum of maritime history, she can continue serving us for years to come--still Semper Paratus--still Always Ready. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a wonderful Arbor Day gift that was donated to the U.S. Capitol by the Champion Tree Project and the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. Last Thursday, on April 24, 2003, the U.S. Capitol planted a 6-foot sapling clone of a white ash tree grown by George Washington in the late 1700s. This sapling clone is the first successful recreation of the Champion Tree Project's efforts to spawn exact genetic duplicates of each of Washington's surviving trees at Mount Vernon. This gift is extremely special to me for two reasons. First, the Champion Tree Project is a Michigan-founded, grassroots organization that was founded by a Michiganian father and son team, David and Jared Milarch. The Milarch family has been the driving force behind this organization, and I commend them for their historic efforts to protect these important trees. In addition to working to protect historically significant trees like those on the Mount Vernon estate, the Champion Tree Project is dedicated to protecting Champion trees, which are the biggest--and often among the oldest--known members of their species in the United States. After cloning, these saplings are planted in protected sites where they can be enjoyed and studied by future generations. Second, I was at Mount Vernon on August 1, 2001, when the Champion Tree Project collected the budwood and branches from the 13 surviving trees planted under George Washington's direction over 200 years ago. The DNA that was collected at Mount Vernon over a year and half ago is what was used to create this white ash sapling clone, and I am proud that this sapling has found a wonderful home at the U.S. Capitol today. Mr. President, I thank the Champion Tree Project and the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association for their historic gift and their ongoing dedication to preserving these trees for future generations.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003. Last month, thousands of Americans participated in a week-long discussion about covering the uninsured. The sheer breadth of the groups that participated in the unprecedented effort demonstrates the urgency of this issue. Labor unions were united with business groups, doctors with nurses, and charity health care providers with for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. They all came together to call on Congress to find a way to provide health coverage for uninsured Americans. I was glad to see awareness being raised about who the uninsured are and what it means to be without health coverage in America. There is a great misconception that uninsured Americans are largely unemployed or on Welfare. That is simply not the case. More than 80 percent of uninsured Americans are part of working families, and almost half work for small businesses. If we can help small businesses cover their employees, we will have made great progress in covering the uninsured. The bill I am introducing today is aimed at making coverage more affordable for employees of small businesses through what is called a ``three-share'' program. The three-share model is an innovative community-based idea that has been working across the U.S. from California to Arkansas to North Carolina; and of course in Michigan. The name three-share stems from the program's payment structure. Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the remaining 40 percent of the cost. In a three share model, a non-profit or local government entity serves as the manager of the plan. They design a benefit package by negotiating directly with providers or contracting through an insurance company. Then, they recruit small businesses that have not offered insurance coverage to their employees for the past year. The average cost for coverage is about $1,800 per year, much lower than the national average for commercial insurance, which on average costs $3,500 for a single person and $8,500 for a family. Of the $1,800, the employer and employee would each pay approximately $540 and the community would pay about $720. Different three share plans have received funds for the community portion from various places. In Michigan, most of the money has come from Medicaid funds. A plan in California uses money from the tobacco settlement while a plan in Arkansas raises funds through church events and other community initiatives. Unfortunately, despite the nuances that distinguish three share plans from one another, they all share a common challenge: they all lack a stable and sustainable funding source for the community share. If passed, my bill would help alleviate that problem by offering a refundable tax credit to small businesses who participate in three share plans. Businesses would pay their own share plus the community share up front and receive the community share back through a refundable tax credit. My bill would also encourage the development of more three share plans by providing seed money through the Community Access Program at the Health Resources Services Administration. This bill would maintain the current employer-based system and leverage every $1 of public money with $2 of private funds. It would not impose any new funding mandates on state or local governments nor would it create new bureaucracy. It is an innovative community-based approach that could work throughout the country if funding is available. Insuring more working families will also take the pressure off state Medicaid budgets. Adequate care for those presently uninsured will also help slash the billions we wind up spending on uncompensated care. Finally, I believe providing health care for these families fulfills a moral commitment. No one in America who gets up in the morning and goes to work should go to sleep at night fearful that an illness or injury in the family could wipe out everything they have worked for. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be printed in the Record. There being no objeciton, the material was ordered to be printed in

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003. Last month, thousands of Americans participated in a week-long discussion about covering the uninsured. The sheer breadth of the groups that participated in the unprecedented effort demonstrates the urgency of this issue. Labor unions were united with business groups, doctors with nurses, and charity health care providers with for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. They all came together to call on Congress to find a way to provide health coverage for uninsured Americans. I was glad to see awareness being raised about who the uninsured are and what it means to be without health coverage in America. There is a great misconception that uninsured Americans are largely unemployed or on Welfare. That is simply not the case. More than 80 percent of uninsured Americans are part of working families, and almost half work for small businesses. If we can help small businesses cover their employees, we will have made great progress in covering the uninsured. The bill I am introducing today is aimed at making coverage more affordable for employees of small businesses through what is called a ``three-share'' program. The three-share model is an innovative community-based idea that has been working across the U.S. from California to Arkansas to North Carolina; and of course in Michigan. The name three-share stems from the program's payment structure. Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the remaining 40 percent of the cost. In a three share model, a non-profit or local government entity serves as the manager of the plan. They design a benefit package by negotiating directly with providers or contracting through an insurance company. Then, they recruit small businesses that have not offered insurance coverage to their employees for the past year. The average cost for coverage is about $1,800 per year, much lower than the national average for commercial insurance, which on average costs $3,500 for a single person and $8,500 for a family. Of the $1,800, the employer and employee would each pay approximately $540 and the community would pay about $720. Different three share plans have received funds for the community portion from various places. In Michigan, most of the money has come from Medicaid funds. A plan in California uses money from the tobacco settlement while a plan in Arkansas raises funds through church events and other community initiatives. Unfortunately, despite the nuances that distinguish three share plans from one another, they all share a common challenge: they all lack a stable and sustainable funding source for the community share. If passed, my bill would help alleviate that problem by offering a refundable tax credit to small businesses who participate in three share plans. Businesses would pay their own share plus the community share up front and receive the community share back through a refundable tax credit. My bill would also encourage the development of more three share plans by providing seed money through the Community Access Program at the Health Resources Services Administration. This bill would maintain the current employer-based system and leverage every $1 of public money with $2 of private funds. It would not impose any new funding mandates on state or local governments nor would it create new bureaucracy. It is an innovative community-based approach that could work throughout the country if funding is available. Insuring more working families will also take the pressure off state Medicaid budgets. Adequate care for those presently uninsured will also help slash the billions we wind up spending on uncompensated care. Finally, I believe providing health care for these families fulfills a moral commitment. No one in America who gets up in the morning and goes to work should go to sleep at night fearful that an illness or injury in the family could wipe out everything they have worked for. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be printed in the Record. There being no objeciton, the material was ordered to be printed in

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from Michigan for his comments and rise to support and join him in praising our men and women in uniform who are putting their futures on hold and their lives on the line to defend our Nation and protect and advance freedom around the world. The military action is going very well. We expect no less from our men and women in uniform; they are highly prepared and trained and dedicated. Already many of these dedicated men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice. Across the Nation last week we rejoiced at the dramatic rescue of Army PFC Jessica Lynch. Sadly, among the bodies found in or near the hospital where Lynch was held was the body of Private Brandon Sloan of Fraser, MI--one of Lynch's comrades in the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that was ambushed by the Iraqis on March 23. Others from Michigan who have given their lives in Iraq are: Marine MAJ Kevin Nave of White Lake Township, Army SGT Michael Pedersen of Flint, MI, and Army SGT Todd Robbins of Pentwater, MI. And in the continuing operation in Afghanistan, Michigan mourns the loss of Air Force SrA Jason Plite of Grand Ledge who died in a helicopter accident as he flew on a mission to rescue two injured Afghan children. Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of these men and the families of all the other men and women who, as Lincoln said, ``gave the last measure of full devotion'' for their country. Our troops who wear the uniform of this Nation with such honor deserve to know they are held in honor here at home. My father was in the Navy during World War II and my husband served in the Air Force during the first Gulf War. Both have told me how important it was for the morale of all those who served to know they had the support of their Nation. Military officials tell me there are things Americans can do right here at home to let our troops overseas know they are in our thoughts and prayers--things that will make life a little better for people right in our hometowns as well. I commend, as did Senator Levin, all who are reaching out to support our troops. Unlike previous conflicts, the Defense Department is asking people not to send care packages or letters not addressed to specific military personnel. Since the anthrax attacks of October 2001, these kinds of mailings just pose too much of a security risk. However, the military encourages individuals or groups to show their support for the troops abroad by showing support at home for our veterans and the families of current National Guard and Reserve personnel whose loved ones are deployed far away--and then sharing your efforts with our troops in Iraq. For instance, my home State of Michigan is home to almost 875,000 veterans of conflicts going all the way back to World War I. Volunteers are always needed at veteran's hospitals and veteran's homes. Volunteers are also needed to help family readiness groups that assist the families of the National Guard and Reserve personnel who have been deployed far from home. From my home state of Michigan, the men and women of the 127th Air National Guard Wing in Selfridge, the 110th Fighter Wing in Battle Creek and the Combat Readiness Training Center in Alpena have been mobilized and deployed to bases around the world, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South West Asia, and Turkey. Army National Guard and Reserve units from Owosso, Taylor, Grand Ledge, Grayling, Sault Ste. Marie, Midland, Pontiac, Three Rivers, Augusta, Selfridge, and Ypsilanti have been mobilized and are awaiting their deployment orders. Many of these men and women leave families and well-paying jobs behind--creating hardships for themselves and their families just so they can serve their Nation. Family readiness volunteers help families of Guard and Reserve units with everything from arranging for baby sitting and lawn care to staffing phone trees that keep families informed of the most recent developments regarding the deployment of their loved ones. Once you have volunteered, military officials encourage you to go to a special website called www.operationdearabby.net. There you can post a note to our troops letting them know what you and your neighbors are doing here at home to show your support as they serve abroad. Military mail officials sort these messages so they can be delivered to soldiers who would be the most interested. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks our men and women in uniform have put on an amazing display of bravery and toughness. We have all seen the picture of our troops standing up against not just the enemy-- but pounding sandstorms and blistering heat. But something about the scene is very familiar--and very American. In fact, it is a scene as old as our Republic itself, as old as the brutal winter at Valley Forge in 1777. Listen to the words of George Washington when he bid farewell to his troops when the war was finally over. Against all odds, including that bitter winter and Valley Forge, these soldiers had won their freedom and created a new Nation. It was almost with a sense of awe that Washington said to them: The unparalleled perseverance of the Armies of the United States, through almost every possible suffering and discouragement, was little short of a standing miracle. The spirit of that first American army lives on in our men and women in uniform today. It is still little short of a standing miracle, it still inspires awe, and it commands us to do whatever we can do here at home to show our unwavering support. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague. I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend my colleagues for bringing it forward. As has been said so many times, we have two front lines in the battle on terrorism. We have come together virtually unanimously in support of our troops in Iraq and for the efforts on other soils away from our country. But here at home we have not done the same. Back in Michigan, I held nine different community meetings around the State, and I heard the same thing from our urban to rural areas: They are working hard, working overtime, but they cannot do it alone. When our country was attacked, it was not just New York or Washington. They were, in fact, attacking the United States of America. We have an obligation to our hard-working men and women, the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical workers, to make sure we are partnering with them to make sure they have the resources they need. I have heard so much about the need for communications equipment, bioterrorism training, additional personnel. They are saying to me that it is very frustrating when, on the one hand, we say we are getting them more money, and then we cut the COPS Program or the Fire Grant Program. The Senator from Louisiana raises an important point about the Specter amendment as to where the dollars come from. I will support the Specter amendment, but we have to make sure these are really new dollars and not just moving from one pot to another pot because the reality is that our first responders cannot do this without our partnership and our support. This is the time we are bringing forth the resources to fund the war to support our troops abroad. We have troops right here. They are asking us, finally, to support them. We have tried for 18 months to provide the resources, to let them know, and today is the day. I hope my colleagues will join unanimously to do that.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make Election Day a national holiday. After the problems of the 2000 elections, a bipartisan Commission headed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford was created to recommend election reforms. Among the reforms the commission recommended was making Election Day a national holiday. If you read the report, the advantage of making Election Day a national holiday becomes obvious. In a survey done by the U.S. Census shortly after the 2000 elections, the number-one reason cited for not voting was because it conflicted with work or classroom schedules. Declaring Election Day a national holiday would make it easier for millions of busy Americans to get to the polls. But declaring Election Day a national holiday has other advantages as well, according to the Commission's report. More public buildings, especially schools, would be available as polling places. And more and better trained poll workers would be available to staff polling places. Businesses complain that a new Federal holiday will cost them money. But this problem can be easily solved. Presently we celebrate Veterans Day on Nov. 11. On even numbered years, we could simply celebrate Veterans Day on the second Tuesday after the first Monday of November, which Congress has designated as Election Day for Federal elections. The Commission's report noted that both Presidents Ford and Carter are veterans themselves and would not recommend any change that would dilute the significance of Veterans Day. Rather, our two former Presidents found it fitting to hold the ``supreme national exercise of our freedom on the day we honor those who preserved it.'' This idea is also supported by civil rights, labor and other groups trying to increase participation in our electoral process. I think it is an idea whose time has come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make Election Day a national holiday. After the problems of the 2000 elections, a bipartisan Commission headed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford was created to recommend election reforms. Among the reforms the commission recommended was making Election Day a national holiday. If you read the report, the advantage of making Election Day a national holiday becomes obvious. In a survey done by the U.S. Census shortly after the 2000 elections, the number-one reason cited for not voting was because it conflicted with work or classroom schedules. Declaring Election Day a national holiday would make it easier for millions of busy Americans to get to the polls. But declaring Election Day a national holiday has other advantages as well, according to the Commission's report. More public buildings, especially schools, would be available as polling places. And more and better trained poll workers would be available to staff polling places. Businesses complain that a new Federal holiday will cost them money. But this problem can be easily solved. Presently we celebrate Veterans Day on Nov. 11. On even numbered years, we could simply celebrate Veterans Day on the second Tuesday after the first Monday of November, which Congress has designated as Election Day for Federal elections. The Commission's report noted that both Presidents Ford and Carter are veterans themselves and would not recommend any change that would dilute the significance of Veterans Day. Rather, our two former Presidents found it fitting to hold the ``supreme national exercise of our freedom on the day we honor those who preserved it.'' This idea is also supported by civil rights, labor and other groups trying to increase participation in our electoral process. I think it is an idea whose time has come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 407.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate declaring that there will be no cuts to important domestic nutrition programs in this year's budget. I am very pleased to have letters of support from the American School Food Services Association and a number of other nutrition organizations. This is a bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Harkin, Leahy, Johnson, Murray, Dayton, Kohl, Corzine, Jack Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, and Wyden. Our concern is that the House budget resolution will cut child nutrition funding by an estimated $5.9 billion. These cuts would have a devastating impact on important child nutrition programs such as the School Lunch Program, breakfast programs, child and adult care feeding programs, and WIC. We, in the Senate, have a long tradition of working together in a bipartisan way on nutrition programs. I hope we can adopt this sense of the Senate and, once more, show that we are very supportive that reauthorization of child nutrition programs is one of the Agriculture Committee's top priorities this year. Frankly, Mr. President, we need more funding for child nutrition, not less. I ask for the Senate's support.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague and leader, Senator Carl Levin. With the first shots fired last night, I rise today to talk about the need to support our troops now fighting in the gulf, as well as those on duty around the world. From that freezing winter in Valley Forge to the baking heat and swirling dust storms of the gulf today, our men and women in uniform have shown over and over the hardships they are ready to endure in service to their country. They are all in our thoughts and prayers. And we pray this ends quickly and with little loss of life. I have met with many of these men and women and their commanders and have been impressed with their professionalism, training, and sense of duty and sacrifice. From my home State of Michigan, the men and women of the 127th Air National Guard Wing in Selfridge, the 110th Fighter Wing in Battle Creek and the Combat Readiness Training Center in Alpena have been mobilized and deployed to bases around the world, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South West Asia, and Turkey. Army National Guard and Reserve unites from Owosso, Taylor, Grand Ledge, Grayling, Sault Ste. Marie, Midland, Pontiac, Three Rivers, Augusta, Selfridge, and Ypsilanti have all been mobilized and are awaiting their deployment orders. Many of these men and women leave families and well-paying jobs behind, creating hardships for themselves and their family just so they can serve their Nation. As the sole remaining superpower, we are asking a tremendous amount of our Armed Forces today. When we look around the globe, the numbers are staggering. Right now about 225,000 troops are deployed in the Mideast--with more on the way. But, again, as the sole remaining superpower we still have responsibilities around the globe. We still have 38,000 Active Duty troops in Korea, nearly 40,000 in Japan, more than 100,00 permanently stationed in Europe, and about 50,000 sailors and soldiers afloat on ships in foreign waters. In fact, according to the Department of Defense, the U.S. military is operating in more places around the globe than at any time in its history, including World War II, with a military presence in about 140 nations. These men and women in uniform need to know their Nation will do everything in its power to give them the support they need to do their jobs--and also that gratitude for their sacrifice they will have our support when they come home as well. General George C. Marshall, who oversaw the movement of forces in Europe and the Pacific in World War II, knew that the morale of the troops is crucial if the Armed Forces are to be effective. He once said: It is not enough to fight. It is the spirit which we bring to the fight that decides the issue. It is morale that wins victories. I agree. And I believe one of the things we must do in this Congress to ensure high morale among our 2.3 million men and women in uniform, including Active, Reserve and Guard units, is to show them we are treating the 25 million veterans who came before them, including about 875,000 from Michigan, with the respect a grateful nation owes them. One thing I would like to see is a change of policy so that our 600,000 disabled men and women who wore their country's uniform could collect both full pensions and disability benefits. I also want to make sure our veterans have access to the best possible health care by fully funding the Veterans Affairs health care system. If you cared enough to wear the uniform, you should be guaranteed high-quality, uniform care. We also need to eliminate bottlenecks at the Veterans Administration for veterans who need prescription drugs. Finally, we need to pass legislation creating tax fairness for military personnel. We need to send to the President S. 351 that would address long- overdue tax reforms for National Guard and Reserve personnel. We also need to remember that in the world after 9-11, our first responders are now also a crucial part of our national security, and they need our full support as well. They were then, and remain now, on the front lines of hometown defense in this new war against terrorism. For the past several months I have been traveling throughout Michigan meeting with the public safety officials who have been given the mission of trying to prevent an attack--or be first on the scene to save lives if one occurs. In nine meetings from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Detroit, I heard the same message over and over: Help us get the training, personnel and equipment we need to protect the people we need to protect, and help us meet our obligations in the face of these new threats to our communities. Mr. President, I hope we will do just that as soon as possible. This Sunday I will participate in a special ceremony that puts this all in perspective for me. This Sunday I meet with an American hero of World War II to present him a long overdue and richly deserved Bronze Star. His name is Sergeant Herbert Munford and his story is inspiring. Sergeant Munford had already earned a Silver Star at the Battle of the Bulge. Of the 385 men in his company when the battle began, only 18 were standing at the end--the rest killed, captured, or wounded. Months later, SGT Munford's platoon was scouting along the Rhine, looking for a place to cross in advance of General George S. Patton's 3rd Army. A German machine gun nest opened up on the platoon. SGT Munford made a run for some tall grass, hoping to hide himself while he circled around behind the machine gun. He was shot in the hip as he was making his run out in the open. But he still managed to make it into the tall grass, circle behind the machine gun nest and take it out. And what does SGT Munford say today about his heroic act. Well, he jokes about it. He called being shot in the hip his ``million dollar wound.'' Why? Well, in his own words SGT Munford says: I can't swim. I didn't know how I was going to get across the Rhine in the first place. I was sent back to be treated for my wound and when I got back about two days later, Patton had taken the Rhine and built a bridge so I could just walk across. What modesty! And keep in mind, that German bullet is still lodged in his hip today. And his story doesn't end there. SGT Munford went on to win an Oak Leaf Cluster for his Bronze Star for bravery under fire in Korea. I tell this story, because I think SGT Munford's story, like the stories of so many of our veterans, shows the great patriotic tradition of our Nation--a tradition that is on display today in the gulf and around the world. And when I meet with SGT Munford on Sunday--and he's standing there with his family and fellow veterans--I want to be able to look each and every one of them in the eye and tell them in this time of conflict this Nation is doing all it can to support our present military personnel serving in the gulf and other duty stations around the globe. And that we stand behind our veterans of past wars as well. I want them to know that we are committed to the proposition that those who answered the call to duty will never need to call out for help due to indifference. I want them to know that those who sacrifice for their country will return to a country ready to sacrifice for them as well. And I want them to know that those who wear the uniform of this Nation with honor, will themselves be honored long after that uniform has been put away and the guns gone silent.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first commend my friend and colleague from Florida for his ongoing leadership on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage. I am very hopeful we will be able to put into place the bill he has described so eloquently that would greatly benefit all older Americans and the disabled. It is my pleasure to join with him and with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, as well, who has also been an outspoken leader both on Medicare prescription drugs and also on issues relating to containing costs, opening the borders to Canada, and other issues that would lower prices. It is my pleasure to join with both of them in what I believe to be one of the most important, if not the most important, amendment we will be addressing to the budget resolution. As my colleagues have said, the budget resolution is about American priorities and values. We lay out for the year and then project for 10 years what our most important priorities are, just as a family does in their own budget. We on this side of the aisle have argued that, of course, safety and security is critical. Education and the opportunity for young people and adults to have skills and be able to be successful in our society is critically important. Also, health care, the ability to have health care for your family, and the ability for every senior and every disabled person to know that, in fact, Medicare will be strong and will be there for them when they retire when they are eligible, and that it will reflect the way health care is provided today is also important. We all know today prescription drug coverage is the primary way to provide health care, both for prevention, to be able to stop disease, and be able to monitor and keep us from having to have an operation or be in the hospital. Outpatient prescription drugs are a critical part of the way health care is provided today. Medicare, which is a great American success story, simply needs to be updated in order to cover prescription drugs. That is what this amendment does. It says that as a value for our families and a priority for Americans, we choose to set aside dollars for a comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit for all seniors. We want to do that through Medicare, through strengthening, protecting, and preserving Medicare. It also says when we have to make choices, if we have to choose--as we always have to do in our own budget, in the Federal budget--between another tax cut for those earning millions of dollars a year, or putting dollars in the pockets of our seniors to help pay for their prescription drugs, their medicine, we choose prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We also choose paying down the debt to protect Social Security and Medicare for the future. This amendment does two very important things: It guarantees that we will have enough resources to do a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. It also says the debt that is being accumulated by this country is absolutely unacceptable, and we need to be putting money aside to pay down that debt in order to make sure we can keep interest rates low to spur the economy so our families can buy homes and cars and send their children to college and not experience double-digit interest rates. We need to keep that debt down. That also allows us to protect Social Security and Medicare funds for the future for the trust funds. That priority, and a prescription drug coverage priority, is absolutely essential. We also say something else that is very important. We need to make sure that traditional Medicare that has been there is there regardless of where you live. My great State is a huge State geographically, 9 million people plus. We need to make sure the seniors in Detroit or Marquette or Ironwood or Three Rivers or Benton Harbor or my home in Lansing all have the same ability and the same dependability in terms of Medicare prescription drugs. They will know the premiums are the same, their cost, their ability to choose their own doctor, their ability to choose their own medicines, to go to their own local pharmacy--that should be available regardless of where you live. One of my great concerns is we have seen, unfortunately, more and more talk about reforming Medicare, which I believe is a code word for privatizing Medicare. All we are seeing leads us to believe that the administration wants to privatize Medicare and require seniors, if they are going to get real health care coverage that includes prescription drugs, to go into private insurance systems; to go into an HMO or another kind of system. The administration has indicated, if they stay in traditional Medicare where the overwhelming majority of seniors are, they are willing to offer a discount card that the GAO tells us would be about $3.31 savings on a prescription. That is not very much if you are someone who is paying $100 or $150 or $200 for a simple 30-day prescription. Then they have said: If you accumulate thousands of dollars--we don't know exactly what the number would be, but have catastrophic needs--you would be able to get some kind of help. We don't know at what point they would designate that, but if you want to get real help with prescription drugs, if you want to be covered for prescription drugs, then you would have to go to the private sector to be covered. That is absolutely unacceptable. Seniors of this country have already chosen between Medicare and going into the private sector. We have that now. We have traditional Medicare and we have something called Medicare+Choice that is a private sector HMO approach. It is your choice as a senior. In fact, my mother chose to go into an HMO herself in Michigan, and had a good experience, but the Medicare beneficiaries were dropped from that HMO because they decided not to cover them anymore. And that has happened to over 41,000 people just in Michigan. What we have seen is that when seniors are being given a choice between traditional Medicare and the HMO system, they have already chosen: They have chosen Medicare, traditional Medicare. But for the small percent who chose to go into the private sector, they found it was not dependable. For my own mother, who chose to do that, she found she could not count on it. It was not ultimately available to her. And now, in Michigan, only 2 percent of people who are on Medicare can even qualify, can even find a private insurer that will cover them, and they all are in the eastern part of our State. So if you live in Lansing or Flint or Saginaw or Grand Rapids or on up in Traverse City or on up in the upper peninsula, you don't even have that choice because there is nothing available. So what we have said in this amendment is that seniors need to know the prescription drug benefit that everybody is talking about should not just be available if you choose a private insurance policy, private insurance model through Medicare; you should have the right to have a choice of traditional Medicare and have the very same prescription drug coverage. That is what this amendment says. If we want to offer seniors choice, then we need to make sure we offer them a real choice: the choice of Medicare as they know it, Medicare as they have been able to depend upon, as well as the other private sector models that have been proposed by the President and our colleagues. This amendment, I believe, is exactly what the seniors of America are asking us to do: simply update Medicare, strengthen the system they count on, and make sure they have affordable prescription drug coverage. I strongly support this amendment. I am proud to be cosponsoring this amendment with my colleagues. The dual goal of having Medicare prescription drug coverage and a major payment on the debt is very important. When we look at who the beneficiaries of Medicare are--our seniors-- the majority of them are women. So I speak as one of the women of the Senate to say that the women of this country are counting on Medicare as well as Social Security. This is very real for the older women of our country. They are counting on us to fulfill the real promise of Medicare. Mr. President, our seniors, as well as everyone who is involved with prescription drugs, are counting on us to do one other thing. I wish to speak to that for a moment. It relates to another amendment I will be offering later on in this debate that needs to be coupled with this amendment, and that is the question of lowering the price of prescription drugs. We need to update Medicare to cover prescriptions. But at the same time, we need to lower the price through more competition, so that we can afford that coverage and be able to make it available to as many people as possible. Along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Schumer, I am going to be offering an amendment the purpose of which is to reduce prescription drug prices for everyone, with the passage of legislation similar to S. 812, which passed overwhelmingly by the Senate last summer, a bill that contained provisions relating to generic drug reform, reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada--in other words, opening the border to Canada for our citizens--and State authority with respect to Medicaid drug rebate agreements. What that means is supporting our States that are being creative in finding ways to use their authority to lower the prices of prescription drugs for their citizens. This amendment would take the approximately $7.4 billion minimal of savings through the generic drug reform we passed last summer coupled with any savings--and as yet they have not been able to calculate the savings--that we know would be there from opening the border to Canada, and dropping prices in half. But we would take those dollars and put it into a fund that is already in the budget resolution--a $50 billion fund for the uninsured--and we would add those budget savings to that fund for programs that help individuals and small businesses obtain health insurance. We know the majority of those without insurance--in fact, we are told that 75 percent of the people who do not have health insurance are working, and they are working for small businesses. So this issue of lowering prices is very important for all businesses, but I would say particularly small businesses, that have seen their premiums--at least in Michigan, we know, according to Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield, that premiums for small businesses have doubled, at least, in the last 5 years. And we know, when we look behind those prices, as well as the prices for the Big Three automakers, and for other major employers, that the major reason the price of health care is going up is because of the explosion in the price of prescription drugs. The average retail prescription drug increase for brand names is three times the rate of inflation--three times the rate of inflation. So we have seen an explosion. By the way, this relates back to Medicare coverage because a majority of those who are uninsured who are paying those prices are our senior citizens. In fact, the people who pay the highest prices in the world today are Americans, predominantly our seniors, who do not have insurance and walk into the local pharmacy and need to buy their medicine. So there is an important partnership here of both Medicare prescription drug coverage and lowering prices for everyone. Last year, on a bipartisan vote, I was very proud of this body, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who joined together to, first of all, tighten up the rules and eliminate loopholes in relation to unadvertised brands, what we call generic drugs, that are supposed to be available when a patent runs out on a brand name. The formulas are supposed to be available so they can be manufactured at a much cheaper price, oftentimes 50 percent, sometimes as much as 70 percent less. We know by having more use of unadvertised brands, and they being more available on the market, we can drop insurance rates, we can drop prescription drug prices for our seniors and for everyone. We also know if we simply open the border to Canada--I find this whole issue so amazing because we trade with Canada on everything except prescription drugs. In fact, in my great State of Michigan, right now we are seeing truckloads of trash coming in from Canada that we are told we cannot stop from going into Michigan landfills because we have open trade laws. So we can't stop the trash, but we can't bring in prescription drugs that would help our seniors and help our families be able to lower their costs, by bringing in American-made, American- subsidized prescriptions, that are sold in Canada at reduced prices. That was the second part of what we did last summer, to pass a bill that opened the border. And we know that by doing that, licensed pharmacists could develop business relationships. Whether it is a pharmacist at the hospital, a pharmacist at the local pharmacy, a pharmacist working with health clinics or at a university, they could bring these back and make prescription drugs available. We ought to be doing that. It is very perplexing and frustrating that that is not happening. In fact, to add insult to injury, the FDA has just informed us in the last week based on pressure from the pharmaceutical industry that not only are they not going to open the border, but they are going to begin enforcing the law against those who help our seniors. Whether it is an insurance company paying for reimbursement, whether it is others helping our seniors to go across the border to get their prescriptions at a lower price, working through a Canadian doctor and pharmacy, the FDA now says they will clamp down on that rather than working with us to open the borders in a safe way. This is the second part of how we lower prices. The third way we lower prices is by supporting States that have been working to use their group purchasing power to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies that do business with them on Medicaid, to negotiate with them to provide rebates and discounts for the uninsured in their State. A number of States have done that, and they have all been challenged, unfortunately, by the pharmaceutical industry. We want to make it clear that States have the ability on behalf of their citizens to advocate and to negotiate lower prices. That is the second amendment we will be offering. Again, we will be offering an amendment that says we will reduce prescription drug prices. We will save dollars for the Federal Government, and then those dollars will be redirected into a fund and put aside to support small businesses to provide health care coverage for their employees. The budget resolution is about priorities. We all know that. It is about values. It is about who we are as Americans. When I talk with people in Michigan, there is not a higher priority now than health care: Families struggling with the cost of medicine; seniors not having access to prescription drug coverage; businesses trying to figure out how to pay the bill; employees being told their pay will be frozen so their employer can pay the health care costs; those who are losing their jobs finding themselves in a situation where they are losing their health care. We even know that our reservists and members of the National Guard currently serving us in the gulf may find themselves not having health insurance for themselves and their families. This is an issue that touches each and every one of us. Every year we talk about it. Every session we talk about it. It is complicated. It involves setting priorities on funding. Too much of the time, we set it aside to go on to something else. I hope we will not do that this time, that we will make it clear, through this budget, that Medicare prescription drug coverage, that health care for small businesses and their employees, that lowering the prices of prescription drugs will be a top American priority. We can say, we will wait until next year, we will wait until the next budget resolution, but we can't say, we will wait until next year to get sick, to get cancer, or that a family will wait until next year until grandma or grandpa need a nursing home or their children get sick. Health care for American families is an urgent matter. It is an urgent matter for everyone. It needs to be an urgent matter for all of us here in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment on Medicare prescription drug coverage, and I urge my colleagues as well to join with us in the amendment to reduce the price of prescription drugs and support our small businesses that are struggling to provide health care for their employees. I yield back.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, as I begin, I know I share the feelings of all my colleagues, as we are debating this budget resolution and this important amendment, that our thoughts and prayers go to the men and women who are overseas, our troops who are being placed in harm's way. Regardless of our feelings about the policies that have brought us to this point, we all stand united in supporting our troops. It makes these kinds of debates even more important. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend the Senator from California for her steadfast leadership on this issue, along with a number of colleagues of mine who have consistently stood firm about protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation to stop drilling since first coming to the House in 1997. I also am proud to be the author of the ban that we placed on drilling in the Great Lakes, another national treasure. I view this area in Alaska as much of an irreplaceable and fragile natural and national treasure as the Great Lakes. I am very hopeful that today we will, one more time, stop this particular drilling policy from moving forward. I would like to, once again, speak about some of the same points my colleagues have spoken of because I believe we have to keep repeating them to make it clear what the facts are. First of all, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is, in fact, one of the wildest and most pristine places in the United States. We have an obligation to protect this area for the future, for those who are counting on us to be able to look beyond the immediate time period and look to the future for our country and for our children. I believe we also have an obligation to stop back-door approaches to this issue. We are seeing, one more time, the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge being placed in a bill where it should not be. This is a budget bill. We are focusing on the budget priorities for the next year. Frankly, we should be debating how much the war is going to cost, and making sure our folks on the front line, and our first responders at home, police and firefighters and emergency workers, have what they need as we enter this very challenging time. Those are the kinds of things we should be debating, not seeing a back-door approach to drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Most importantly, we know that drilling in the wildlife refuge will not result in energy independence. This is talked about all of the time, but it needs to be repeated, that only 2 percent--if we were to drill, we are talking about 2 percent of America's oil demand every year; and it would take at least 10 years to begin to see this brought on to the market. We are talking about 2 percent rather than focusing on other areas of energy policy that will net alternatives in terms of conservation: alternative vehicles, alternative fuels, all of those kinds of things we know will allow us to become energy independent sooner and more effectively for the long run. It is impossible for the United States to drill its way to energy security and independence. What we need to have is a debate about the energy policy of the country and how we are going to move forward. And that needs to be done in the energy bill, not in the middle of the budget resolution. I am concerned when I hear this particular debate tied to Iraq, the serious debate about war and the oil in Iraq. It is important to say that gas prices are determined by global supply and demand factors, as we all know, not by opening one area to drilling. In addition, Iraq supplies a very small percentage of our U.S. energy needs. According to the EIA, only 1.5 percent of the Nation's energy supply comes from Iraq. Imports from Iraq were banned in 1990 in the wake of the Persian Gulf war, and we obtained no oil from 1991 to 1995--all with no impact on the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history. The fact is, Canada and Mexico together supply more oil to the U.S. than the entire Persian Gulf. So I encourage my colleagues to join with us in support of this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts in congratulating our leader on the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, for his ongoing leadership and the priorities he set forth. They are so important. He made them so clear on behalf of the American people. I cannot think of a more important amendment than the amendment of Senator Conrad at this time and on this day. I hope we will unanimously support this amendment. I hope we would not have to have a vote, that we could do this by voice vote today. This amendment says exactly what we ought to be doing at this moment in time in our history. The amendment says, other than funding defense and homeland security and stimulating jobs and the economy, we are going to stop; we are going to wait on the rest of the budget; we are going to wait on additional spending. Certainly there are critical areas we care about. We are going to wait on any kind of a tax cut until we can pay for this war, until we know what the bill is. We know, if we do not do that, exactly how we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it by continuing to go into massive debt, depleting the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. That is how we are going to pay for it if we do not agree to this amendment. This is absolutely critical. I think certainly the people in Michigan look at us in wonderment that we would be bringing up the budget resolution for the coming year, in which are the values and priorities of the American people, and we would not have any money set aside for a war in which we are about to engage. How would an American family do that? If you were putting together your budget and you had a huge expense coming up in a couple of days, you wouldn't just ignore it. You wouldn't ignore it unless you just planned on putting it on a credit card, maybe. That is essentially what we are doing, is paying for the war through a taxpayers' credit card. That is not good enough and it is also not necessary. It is not necessary to do this outside the budget. This should be brought forward. We should at least put aside a reserve fund. We know at this point we cannot say exactly what it will cost. We certainly do not know what the reconstruction will cost. We do not know how long after the war we will be involved with Iraq, rebuilding Iraq. But we do know it is more than zero. We know that. We know it is more than zero. We have a pretty good idea you could start somewhere in the $80 billion to $100 billion range and not be too high. So this says: Let's wait on other things. Let's wait and let's make sure we are covering the costs of a war that our President last night indicated most likely we are about to begin. We also believe part of that is making sure we have dollars for those who are fighting on the front lines here at home. We all care deeply and stand united supporting our troops overseas. We know in this resolution we clearly indicate defense should be our top priority at this time, to make sure both our reservists and National Guard and their families are receiving what they need in terms of health care, and certainly recognizing their sacrifice, leaving their fulltime jobs and going to serve all of us at this time of conflict. We have another group and that is the group that is serving us on the front lines at home. That is the group that answers the 9-1-1 call, the emergency medical personnel, the sheriff, the fire department. These are the people who have to respond. We, in fact, know the likelihood. Certainly there is increased risk right now they will have to respond. So part of what we are saying is defense abroad but also defense in our hometowns needs to be the top priority. We need to pay for that, too. We are not yet doing that. We are seeing promises to other countries for their help in this effort, yet no willingness to provide assistance for those who are helping us on the front lines in our own hometowns. Again, it just doesn't make any common sense. What we are saying through this amendment is we need to stop until we make it clear what the costs are for the war. We will focus on defense, homeland defense, and making sure we are stimulating jobs in the economy so in fact we are having a strong economy for our families and those fighting for us who will be coming home, so they will have that strong economy and jobs. But it is not the priority now to say that, among all the things we could be doing, we are going to give another round of tax cuts to those who make millions of dollars a year. We look at shared sacrifice and we are being told we all have to sacrifice. I read an article not long ago about our Senate Republican leader going in front of a group of veterans. But while he certainly indicated supporting the veterans, he said: Veterans are going to have to sacrifice. I would suggest veterans have already sacrificed and, in fact, we are creating war veterans whom we will be asking to sacrifice. But where is the sacrifice? Where is the sacrifice for those here at home who make millions of dollars a year, who already have one home, two homes, three homes, several cars, and are doing well? We welcome that. We would like that for every American. We certainly want an economy where every American can work hard and do well and move up the income scale. But what happens when we say to people, those making $13,000 a year, serving us in the Army versus somebody at home whose life is not on the line or someone who is not a police officer or a firefighter or EMT worker, what do we say when we are saying we cannot fund homeland security, we cannot make sure you have health care that you need to protect your families if you are in the National Guard or Reserves? We are not going to budget for this war, but we are going to say that if you are blessed and doing well and are at the very top of the income earnings of America, earning millions of dollars a year, then we are going to put you ahead of everybody else; and we are going to say that you ought to be able to get a tax cut, even though it means we cannot pay for the war, that we have to go back into debt, even though it means we have massive debt that is eventually going to raise interest rates and make it harder for people to buy houses and cars and send their kids to college; even though it puts us in a situation where we cannot provide prescription drug help for our seniors, we cannot fully pay our share of the public school bill through the Leave No Child Behind; even though we have to leave veterans standing in line for months to see a doctor at the VA; even though there are all kinds of other issues where we are saying to people that you have to sacrifice right now. Children have to sacrifice, seniors have to sacrifice, veterans have to sacrifice, our families and small businesses that are not getting help with their health care bills have to sacrifice; but a few folks at the top do not. And they are not asking for that, either. When I talk to folks who are doing very well at home, they say, we can wait. It is alright. We are not asking for this. We want to make sure our kids are safe at home, that hometown security is taken care of, the school systems are strong, and our troops have what they need overseas. They want to make sure that, in fact, those things are in place, which relate to our safety and security, and the economy, and the other issues that are very important for Americans, very important to keep us strong. This amendment is incredibly important. It basically says stop. Our President says in less than 48 hours we are going to be at war, assuming Saddam Hussein does not leave the country. We believe we have an obligation and a responsibility to pay for that war, to make sure our troops have what they need, to make sure people on the front lines in our communities at home have what they need so we are safe first. We need to do that first. Then we can talk about tax cuts and how to structure it so the majority of Americans benefit. We can talk about the important issues of health care and education and the environment and other critical needs in the country; but we need to stop now and focus first on the safety and security issues of our country and making sure our economy is strong with a stimulus so there are jobs. We need to start there, as any other family when you have to set priorities. Let's start with the bottom line priorities, given where we are now. Let's make sure we can pay for it, not be adding to the debt, and then we can debate other important issues that we all care about. Again, I commend Senator Conrad for his leadership and for this very important amendment. I hope all of us can come together and show unity on this floor and send a message across the country that at this time we are going to put our safety and security first, and we are going to make sure we are not putting it on a credit card--we are paying for it--and that we are going to make sure our troops and front line people at home have what they need before other decisions are made about this budget. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment, and on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. She said: With the support of our families and our priest, Andrew and I made the decision to end the pregnancy. I was scheduled for a routine induction abortion in which medications are used to induce labor. My doctors anticipated that it would be a standard delivery and that because Dahlia had no brain, she would die as soon as the umbilical cord was cut. Madam President, again, can you imagine writing this letter and the pain of this woman and her family? After 13 long hours of labor, I started to deliver Dahlia. Unexpectedly complications arose and Dahlia lodged in my birth canal. The placenta would not drop. Our doctors had to cut the umbilical cord to complete the delivery, and avoid serious health consequences for me. Dahlia died while still in my birth canal--the same description used in the so-called ``partial-birth abortion.'' My husband and I still mourn the loss of Dahlia. However, because of the excellent medical care I received, I was able to become pregnant again and in June 1995, we welcomed Nathaniel into our family. Now I'm sharing my story not only as a mother who would be banned from having an abortion, but as a military wife. I find the timing of this bill highly offensive, as we military families are just days away from sending our loved ones into armed combat. I resent the administration using families like mine as a cloak in their effort to ban reproductive healthcare in this country. In a perfect world, I would never have to write you this letter. Every pregnancy would be wanted, healthy and happy-- and no loved ones would be going off to war. Until that time, however, there will be families like mine. And until that time, abortion must be kept safe, legal and accessible. Madam President, we have thousands of women who have shared similar stories. We have thousands who are asking for us to say no to this extreme legislation, to support the Feinstein amendment, and to join with us--all of us--in efforts to come forward to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I was so disappointed that Senator Murray's amendment did not pass--a positive effort to focus on prevention, on coming together to focus on stopping the unwanted pregnancies on the front end. I was very disturbed to see even a more restrictive effort to show how extreme this effort is--even Senator Durbin's amendment did not pass this body. This is an extreme measure, which will take away the ability for women to respond when their life or their health is in jeopardy as a result of a pregnancy. This is not what we should be doing in the Senate. I urge my colleagues, reaffirm the vote on the Harkin amendment to support Roe v. Wade by supporting the language in the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate the deeply held views on all sides of this issue. But first I will indicate there is not a more fundamental issue for the women of this country that relates to our privacy, respect for our own decisionmaking, as well as our own religious beliefs, than this fundamental issue we are debating. I also remind my colleagues that the term partial-birth abortion, there is not a procedure called that, but the late-term abortion procedure is in fact one-tenth of 1 percent of all of those procedures, all abortions that are done every year. We are talking about a very small group of procedures done when there are real tragedies. These are wanted pregnancies, women who have been excited about having babies and find out very late in the term of the pregnancy that there is a serious or fatal problem. And their families grieve. They grieve over the decisions they have to make about how to proceed, given the information. I believe we need, as a governmental body under the Constitution, to respect their privacy, their religious freedom, for them to be able to struggle with their own decisionmaking, their family's and their faith, to be able to do what is best to protect their own life and their own health. I rise to support the Feinstein amendment strongly and would be surprised, given the vote on the Harkin amendment, if this amendment did not pass. We just had a vote where 52 Members of this great body voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, voted to uphold the constitutionality, the decision made by the Supreme Court in that case. The Feinstein amendment does nothing more than repeat the language as it relates to the life and health of the mother. It repeats what is current law in terms of Roe v. Wade. So those who support Roe v. Wade, who supported the Harkin amendment, should be supporting this amendment as well. I would like to share a couple of letters that talk about what we are really doing. This is a statement by Maureen Britell, given on March 10 of this year. She writes: In February of 1994, my family was happily awaiting the birth of Dahlia, our second daughter. My pregnancy was progressing smoothly and we were getting more excited as the days and the weeks passed. At the time, my husband, Andrew, was on active duty in the Air Force and had been unable to come to any of my routine prenatal checkups. He wanted to share in the excitement, so when I was 5 months pregnant, we scheduled an additional ultrasound. When we went in for our appointment, that joy dissipated. The technician was unable to locate my daughter's brain. After my doctor came in, he informed us that Dahlia had a fatal anomaly . . . where the brain stem develops, but not the brain. Madam President, can you imagine how that couple must have felt at that moment? As a mother of two children, I certainly can. She goes on to say: I went to the New England Medical Center for a high-level sonogram, which confirmed what my doctor had told me. The medical experts [there] . . . reviewed our options with Andrew and me, but they all recommended the same thing: to protect my health, we should induce labor. I am a Catholic and the idea of ending my pregnancy was beyond my imagination. I turned to my parish priest for guidance. He counseled me for a long time and, in the end, he agreed that there was nothing more that I could do to help my daughter. Madam President, I ask the Senator for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. I wanted to clarify that, in fact, given the situation, they were performing an abortion to do that. That was the intent of the procedure. It was an abortion. Additionally, I say the mother's life was not in jeopardy, but her health and future fertility were in question. There were a number of issues relating to her health as well. I just indicate, with all due respect, I think the issue here, when we are debating medical procedures on the floor, really gets to the point about whether or not we in the Senate should be debating medical procedures. Earlier, there was a debate about whether a child which was born with a brain outside of its head was in fact to be categorized as a disabled child. All of these issues we are debating here as non- medical personnel, we don't know the facts or what happened in any individual case. So that would be my concern.