[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)] [Senate] [Pages S1323-S1331] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-25
Chamber: SENATE
Mr. LEE: in reserving the right to object, first of all, my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, a moment ago, referred to the Pentagon's policy as a bill. Perhaps this was a Freudian slip, but one way or another, it was an acknowledgment of the fact that it is a change in policy--a change in policy that is in conflict with the spirit if not also with the letter of Federal law. So, as a bill--and I think it is fair to characterize it as such--it ought to have to be passed through Congress. Now, my friend from the State of Massachusetts has used the language of the text of statute 10 U.S.C., section 1039 in much the same way, I would imagine, that Secretary Austin and his advisers parsed it and cribbed it and manipulated it in their development of this policy. But let's remember the reason I say that it violates the spirit if not also the letter of it. It is that there is an argument to be made here that it is. Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to support abortions. How is this money being used? Well, with the extra leave time that you wouldn't get in the absence of this and with the travel to another State, it is for the purpose of an abortion. It is conditioned on your getting an abortion. My friend and colleague from Massachusetts points out that it is also there with respect to fertility treatments--IVF or otherwise. Well, all that may be the case, and I have a couple of responses to that.  No. 1, I do not and would never object to that if that is what this were. In fact, I would relinquish my objections altogether if this policy were about helping military women gain access to fertility treatments. There is no provision in Federal law--not in title 10 and not anywhere else that I am aware of--that prohibits the Secretary of Defense from doing that. That would, moreover, not amount to a major departure from established policy. So, if that is really what is on the table here, I wouldn't object to that at all. But it is the part about abortion. The Senator is conditioning the use of these funds--the receipt of additional leave time, the receipt of an expense account, and 3 weeks off--to go have an abortion. That is using Federal funds to get an abortion, to fund an abortion, because that is part of that. Moreover, the suggestion that this applies evenhandedly, equally-- that it was equally intended to promote access by military women to fertility treatments--is at odds with and belied by the fact that the President, ever since the Dobbs opinion was released at the end of the last term of the Supreme Court, has been calling this an all-of- government cause--an all-of-government cause--to make sure that they can get around Dobbs in any way that they possibly can. This is, was, always has been, and always will be about abortion. Like I say, the rest of it would be unobjectionable. I wouldn't raise any objection to it. I can't imagine my friend and colleague from Alabama would anyway. So that is a bit of a red herring, and it is a bit of a smokescreen to say that this is about fertility treatment. It is not about that. With respect to the readiness component of it, look, I get it. As for the hard-working men and women of the military, for whom I have deep respect, in having gained promotions, we want to be able to promote them and approve their promotions. Yes, that needs to happen. And to the extent that any one of those people really needs to be processed and approved very quickly, there are ways to do that. We could tick these off one after the other. Senator Tuberville mentioned that we took care of one just in the last week or so on the floor. We could be doing that right now. If you want to see where the Senate's legislative priorities are, they are not with this. They are with other things. If this really were a priority, we would, through the leadership of the Democratic majority leader, be in a position to do that. He has chosen different priorities and not this one.  Look, at the end of the day, this thing--you could dress it up any way you want, but this is a major change in policy that is utterly at odds with the spirit if not also the letter of Federal law. As such, changing it should require a change in statute. If he wants to push for that, he is free to do so. If it doesn't pass, then he is stuck with that. If he is not content with being able to advocate for it from the outside, he should run for the House, or he should run for the Senate. He must not be allowed to legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon. Mr. President, I object.