[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5825-S5835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--Continued

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the course of the last hour or so, I 
have had a number of conversations with the distinguished Republican 
leader and the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee. We have been discussing how we might proceed on the Defense 
authorization bill.
  I know there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who have 
amendments they would like to have considered, and they are certainly 
within their rights to offer these amendments.
  My concern is that if we find ourselves in debates on unrelated 
issues for an extended period of time, there is the real danger that we 
will not finish our work prior to the time we leave next week. I have 
already indicated publicly and privately to anyone who is interested in 
the schedule that we must finish this bill before we leave. That is an 
absolute necessity. So I do not want any Senator to complain about any 
misunderstanding they may have. I want to be as clear and unequivocal 
about that as I can: We will finish this bill before we leave.
  As we have discussed how we might ensure that happens, of course one 
option would be to file cloture. Unfortunately, there are defense-
related amendments that may be relevant and may be related to the 
Defense bill but not technically germane.
  I have consulted with the Republican leader, and we have concluded, 
with the support of the chairman and ranking member--and I thank both 
of them for their willingness to support this effort--we have concluded 
that we will move to table or make a point of order against any 
amendment which is not defense related from here on out in this debate. 
We do it regretfully because we oftentimes are supportive of some of 
these amendments on both sides.
  I know an amendment was going to be offered on marriage tax penalty, 
and I know some of my Republican colleagues and perhaps Democratic 
colleagues would be interested in the amendment. There are amendments 
on this side that I will move to table that I would otherwise support.
  We have come to the conclusion that the only way we can complete our 
work is by taking this action. So I am announcing at this point that 
from here on out, all amendments that are not related to the Defense 
bill are amendments that either Senator Lott or I or our colleagues on 
the Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin and Warner, will move to 
table or will file a point of order against.
  I want to notify all of our Senators that will restrict significantly 
the opportunities they have to offer additional amendments, but we 
intend to follow through, and we hope that sends a clear message. We 
want to complete our work. While we respect Senators' rights to offer 
amendments, we need to get this legislation done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I concur with this agreement, and I will 
support it. The leadership on both sides of the aisle and the managers 
of the legislation on both sides of the aisle will support this effort.
  There is no more important issue for us to deal with right now than 
to pass the Defense authorization legislation that is necessary for our 
military men and women to do their job, including the equipment they 
need, the pay they need, and the quality of life they need, both here 
and when they are abroad. So we need this Defense authorization bill.
  We have already passed the supplemental appropriations to pay for 
some of the costs of the war against terror, particularly with regard 
to our efforts in Afghanistan but other places also. Now this will do 
the Defense authorization for the next fiscal year.
  These bills are never easy. In fact, they are always hard. Year after 
year, though, under the leadership of Senator Warner and now with 
Senator Levin, we have done it. We need to do it again. It should be 
our highest priority.
  I have urged that this legislation be moved at a time when we can get 
it done before the July 4 recess. Senator Daschle has called it up in a 
timely way. Now we see that without this agreement between now and when 
Senator Daschle would probably have to file cloture and then get 
cloture sometime next week, the amendments that would be brought up on 
both sides of the aisle would be, more often than not, nongermane to 
the Defense bill.
  Senator Daschle is right, one of the first ones right out of the box 
I am for. I think we ought to make the cuts in the marriage penalty tax 
permanent, unequivocally. There are young men and women who are married 
or want to get married and want to know what they can count on. We 
ought to do that, and I am looking forward to finding a way to vote on 
that again as I did last year.
  Having said that, it is not germane to this bill. There will be other 
amendments that can be offered on both sides of the aisle that are not 
germane. They may be good and we need to consider them, and maybe we 
can find a way to consider them, but we have important work to do. It 
is not as if this Defense authorization bill does not have more 
amendments that will need to be considered. There are a couple of big 
ones that I know of, maybe more than a couple--I would say more like 
five or six. So we have our work cut out for us to finish this bill on 
its substance, on relevant amendments, in order to finish this work in 
a reasonable time on Thursday and hopefully in such a way that we could 
get an agreement to proceed on the Yucca Mountain issue.
  I know Senator Reid would just as soon I talked all day and not said 
that, but we have work to do and then we have work to do after that.
  I support this effort. I think it is the right thing. I thank Senator 
Warner for going to Senator Levin. They talked about this and then came 
to us and suggested this was the right thing to do, and I certainly 
concur. I commend them for being willing to take that stand.
  By the way, this is good precedent. We might want to consider 
managers doing this on other bills when they are basically attacked by 
nongermane amendments to the underlying bills. If the manager will 
stand up on both sides of the aisle and say we are going to table this 
or we are going to make a point of order because it does not relate to 
this very important issue we are considering, we can move our 
legislation a lot quicker. There are culprits on both sides, and 
sometimes I am one of them, but in this case it is the right thing to 
do and maybe it will set a pattern for us for the rest of the year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not wish to precede my chairman, but 
I want to make sure I say this while both leaders are on the floor. The 
distinguished majority leader talked in terms of relevancy; the 
minority leader spoke in terms of germaneness. My understanding is that 
the standard is relevancy to be decided by the chairman and the ranking 
member in this case, and we will exercise that fairly but very firmly. 
We are committed. When I approached the chairman with this proposition, 
I said I will move to table on our side, he will move to table on his 
side or make points of order, as the case may be.
  The distinguished Republican whip participated in the conversations, 
and I judge that what I am saying is consistent with all who are 
listening at this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Absolutely.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the leadership. This goes back to the days when

[[Page S5826]]

I was privileged to be in the Senate with Senator Stennis, who will 
always be the person who started me on this course of action; that is 
the way he worked. That is the way John Tower, Barry Goldwater, Scoop 
Jackson, and those who preceded us worked when it came to the issues of 
national defense. They managed those bills with great skill, and less 
dependence, of course, on cloture. I hope this will be the direction in 
which we will move.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield for two points?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. I think Senator Daschle was very careful to say this would 
not apply to the Defense authorization relevant amendments. There are 
some that could be offered that they might prefer they not be offered, 
but they would relate to military hospitals, for instance, as opposed 
to germane ones, which would clearly be eliminated by a cloture vote. 
Several of the amendments that have been pending or are being 
considered, or suggested would be offered, clearly were not relevant or 
germane.
  The other thing is, I really was impressed when the Senator referred 
to a fellow Mississippian, John Stennis, whom I had the honor of 
succeeding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank our leaders. It is a very 
difficult and challenging job to be leaders in this instance. They have 
proven so many times over the years and proven it again this afternoon 
the importance of taking a very difficult step, but it is a necessary 
step if we are going to get the bill passed.
  I heard Senator Warner with his commitment, and I join him in making 
that commitment that we will move to table or otherwise make a point of 
order against amendments which are not relevant to this Defense bill. 
It is a better approach than a cloture approach because at least 
relevant amendments which are not technically germane but are relevant 
to defense will be offered and will not be tabled because of any 
agreement between us.
  I also thank our whips. Senator Reid, as always, is right there 
helping to make the wheels move and to grease those wheels, as well as 
Senator Nickles. I thank the two of them, but again thank our two 
leaders for taking this very difficult step and committing to either 
table or make a point of order against amendments which they may very 
strongly support. That will go for Senator Warner and myself. I know of 
a bunch of them already that I very strongly support but because of the 
need to get this bill passed I will be constrained to move to table or 
make a point of order.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments 
and their support for this agreement. The Senator from Virginia made a 
constructive suggestion that the two of them be the determinants of 
relevance, and I think that is a very appropriate way to proceed. We 
will have our managers make that decision, and I will stand behind the 
decision our managers make on these amendments.
  Given that understanding, let me say it is our understanding Senator 
Murray's amendment having to do with military hospitals will be offered 
shortly. I would not expect that the debate on the amendment would be 
completed tonight, but I would expect that the vote would be sometime 
tomorrow morning. I do not want that amendment to be all we do for the 
remainder of the week. So hopefully we can dispose of the amendment 
either tonight or tomorrow. We will consult with her on how much time 
may be required. We have debated this before. We have had votes on this 
on many occasions. So it would be my hope that we would not have to 
debate it at length, but we will return to the floor to make some 
announcement about the remainder of the evening and a vote on the 
Murray amendment either tonight or tomorrow morning.
  Given the fact that it is late in the afternoon, I would not be 
surprised if we would have to wait until tomorrow morning, but there 
may be hope we can complete it within a couple of hours. So we will 
consult with colleagues on both sides of the aisle with regard to the 
Murray amendment.
  Senators may lay their amendments down. We will see if we can get a 
unanimous consent agreement on the Murray amendment. If there is the 
possibility of reaching agreement on time on the amendment, that vote 
will still occur tonight.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3927

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am hoping we will have an agreement and 
I will be able to offer my amendment shortly, so we can have a time 
agreement tonight and hopefully move to a vote on this quickly.
  To save time, I will now begin a discussion of the amendment I will 
offer. I hope to shortly send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Boxer.
  Every day since the attacks of September 11, the men and women of our 
Armed Forces have been working overtime--often in hostile, dangerous 
environments--to protect our citizens and to secure the freedoms and 
values that we cherish.
  This Department of Defense authorization bill will ensure they have 
the equipment and resources they need to protect us.
  Surprisingly, as the women of our military fight for our freedoms 
overseas, they are actually denied some of those freedoms during their 
service. Here at home, women have the right to choose. They have 
constitutionally protected access to safe and legal reproductive health 
services. But that is not the case for military women serving overseas.
  So I will this evening offer an amendment to ensure that military 
personnel serving overseas have access to safe and legal abortion 
services. As many of you know, I have offered this amendment for the 
past several years, and I continue to urge my colleagues to support 
these efforts.
  Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their 
country--and female military dependents--are not allowed to exercise 
their legally guaranteed right to choose--simply because they are 
serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as 
free citizens, yet they are denied one of the most basic rights 
afforded all women in this country.
  This amendment does not--and let me stress does not--require any 
direct Federal funding of abortion related services. My amendment would 
require these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in 
a military facility.
  In addition, this amendment does not--and again let me stress does 
not--compel a medical provider to perform abortions. All branches of 
the military allow medical personnel who have moral, religious or 
ethical objections to abortion not to participate. This amendment would 
not change or alter conscience clauses for military medical personnel.
  This is an important women's health amendment.
  Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military 
health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single 
out abortion-related services could jeopardize a women's health.
  Opponents of this amendment will argue that the military does now 
ensure access for women. But under current practices, a woman who 
requires abortion related services can seek the approval of her 
commanding officer for transport back to the United States. Once in the 
United States, she can seek these services at her own expense, but she 
is not afforded medical leave.
  In addition to the serious risk posed by delaying an abortion, this 
policy compromises a woman's privacy rights by forcing her to release 
her medical condition and needs to her superiors. She must seek and 
receive the approval of her commanding officer with no guarantee that 
this information will be kept confidential.
  This policy also forces women to seek abortions outside of the 
military establishment in foreign countries. Many

[[Page S5827]]

women have little or no understanding of the laws or restrictions in 
the host country and may have significant language and cultural 
barriers as well.
  In this country, we take for granted the safety of our health care 
services. When we seek care in a doctor's office or clinic, we assume 
that all safety and health standards are adhered to. Unfortunately, 
this is not the case in many countries.
  From 1995 until 2000, the previous administration and former 
Secretary of Defense Cohen supported this amendment. They argued it was 
an important protection for military personnel and dependents. They did 
not assume there would be any difficulty carrying out this requirement. 
They were confident that the Defense Department would be able to 
determine the cost of these services as well as ensure the availability 
of providers.
  The Department of Defense has been on record in the past in support 
of this amendment by stating that it was unfair for female service 
members serving in overseas location to be denied their constitutional 
right to the full range of reproductive health care. Despite the 
support of the previous administration, opponents still argued that 
allowing privately funded abortions in overseas military facilities was 
somehow beyond the abilities of the Department.
  Opponents have argued that there is no way to determine the costs of 
these services, despite the fact that private hospitals must determine 
per-unit costs of per-procedure costs, every single day. Opponents also 
argued that the military might have to contract for these services and 
assume liability for these contractors. This is no different from what 
the Department does for all military personnel. If a neurosurgeon or 
highly trained specialist is required to meet the needs of our military 
personnel, the Department can and does contract for these services and 
of course insures the quality of these services by assuming the 
liability.
  I remind my colleagues that prior to 1988, the Department of Defense 
did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. 
Clearly, it can be done. I should also point out that it must be done 
today in certain circumstances.
  Under current law, the Department allows for privately funded 
abortions in the case of rape or incest. It also may pay for abortions 
in case of life endangerment.
  For our opponents to argue that the Department cannot handle or does 
not want to be responsible for providing privately funded abortions at 
overseas military facilities, is to argue that the Department cannot 
protect military personnel and dependents who have been raped, who are 
a victim of incest, or whose life is endangered.
  Is this what we are saying to the estimated 100,000 women who live on 
military bases overseas?
  Regardless of one's view on abortion, it is simply wrong to place 
women at risk. Ensuring that women have access to safe, legal, and 
timely abortion related services is an important health guarantee. It 
is not a political statement. It is essential that women have access to 
a full range of reproductive health care services.
  This amendment has been supported by: the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's 
Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Planned 
Parenthood of America, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health 
Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. These 
organizations support this amendment because of its importance to 
women's health care.
  I would also like to read a letter I recently received from retired 
General Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman three-star general. 
Before she retired in June 2000, she was the highest ranking female 
officer of her time. She writes:

       Dear Senators Snowe and Murray: I am writing to express my 
     support of your efforts to amend the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to ensure that 
     servicewomen and military dependents stationed overseas have 
     the ability to obtain abortion services in U.S. military 
     medical facilities using their own, private funds.
       The importance of access to abortions for military women 
     has not been discussed in public media very often, since many 
     of the issues that related to non-military women also are a 
     part of the social and medical environment of military women. 
     However, some distinctions do exist, making it imperative 
     that our soldiers have access to safe, confidential abortion 
     services at U.S. military hospitals overseas. Let me just 
     relate an experience of one of my soldiers about 15 years 
     ago.
       I was a battalion commander of an intelligence battalion in 
     Augsburg, Germany from 1986 until 1988. One day a non 
     commissioned officer (NCO), who was one of the battalion's 
     senior women, came into my office and asked for permission to 
     take a day off later in the week and to have the same day off 
     for a young soldier in the battalion. She said the soldier 
     was pregnant and wanted an abortion--yet had no way to have 
     an abortion at the U.S. Army medical facility in Augsburg. 
     She had gotten information about a German clinic in another 
     city, and they were going there for the procedure. The 
     soldier did not have enough money to return to the USA for 
     the abortion. Further, she did not want to have to tell her 
     predicament to her chain of command in order to get the time 
     and other assistance to go to the States. I told the NCO to 
     go with her and to let me know when they had returned.
       Later the NCO told me that the experience had been both 
     mortifying and painful. . . . no pain killer of any sort was 
     administered for the procedure; the modesty of this soldier 
     and the other women at the clinic had been violated (due to 
     different cultural expectation about nudity); and neither she 
     nor the soldier understood German, and the instructions were 
     given in almost unintelligible English. I believe that they 
     were able to get some follow up care for the soldier at the 
     U.S. Army medical facility. But it was a searing experience 
     for all of us--that in a very vulnerable time, this American 
     who was serving her country overseas could not count on the 
     Army to give her the care she needed.
       During that same time frame, and in the early 1990's when I 
     was a brigade commander of an intelligence brigade in Hawaii, 
     I noticed that there were Army doctors who displayed posters 
     which were extremely disapproving of abortion . . . creating 
     a climate of intimidation for anyone who might want to 
     discuss what is a legal option. Since the doctors are 
     officers and far out-rank enlisted soldiers, and since the 
     soldiers have no way to choose which doctor they see on sick 
     call, it was only with good luck that a young soldier might 
     be seen by someone who would treat her decision with the 
     respect she deserved.
       What makes the situation of a soldier different from that 
     of a civilian woman? She is subject to the orders of the 
     officers appointed over her. Every hour of her day belongs to 
     the U.S. Army, and she must have her seniors' permission to 
     leave her place of duty. She makes very low pay and so relies 
     on the help of friends and family to pay for travel for 
     medical care that is not given by the Army.
       Of all the reasons we lose soldiers we lose soldiers from 
     their place of duty (for training, injuries, temporary duty 
     elsewhere, and other reasons), pregnancy accounts for only 6% 
     of all reasons for soldier absence. Yet, this feature of 
     women (that they sometimes become pregnant) is offer cited as 
     an attribute that makes them less desirable as soldiers. 
     While I believe that the difficult decision to end a 
     pregnancy should be completely individual, the institution 
     cannot have it both ways: to deny women safe and reasonable 
     access to abortion (in a world in which there is no 100% 
     effective birth control), and at the same time to complain 
     that women are pregnant.
       I commend your efforts to remove this irrational and 
     harmful barrier to the health and well-being of our soldiers 
     serving America.

  Madam President, I could not have said it better myself. Our female 
military personnel deserve better than what they are getting. As we 
send out troops into the war on terrorism to protect our freedoms, we 
should ensure that female military personnel are not asked to sacrifice 
their rights and protections as well.
  I recognize the urgency in passing the fiscal year 2003 Defense 
authorization bill. It provides important support for our military 
personnel and infrastructure.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for their efforts to move this legislation.
  I stand ready to support whatever measures we need to consider to 
ensure that our military is ready to respond to this new world threat.
  I only ask that female military personnel and their dependents be 
given the support they deserve when serving in overseas military 
locations.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Again, I will offer my amendment as soon as we have a time agreement. 
Hopefully, that can be very soon because I know we want to vote on this 
and move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of Members, what we 
are going to try to do tonight is make sure that everyone who has 
anything to say about this amendment has the opportunity to speak. 
Whether you are for it

[[Page S5828]]

or against it, come over and tell us how you feel. The majority leader 
has indicated we will schedule a vote in the morning. We are trying to 
work that out now with him, but probably around 9:45 in the morning.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 60 
minutes for debate tonight with respect to the Murray amendment No. 
3927, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; 
that no amendment be in order to the amendment, prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendment; that when the Senate resumes consideration 
of the bill on Friday, June 21, following the opening ceremony, the 
time until 9:45 be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; 
that at 9:45 a.m., without further intervening action or debate, the 
Senate vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just 
got a call in of somebody who may want to speak. If we can hold this 
for a minute, I think we can check it out.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we just increase the time to 90 minutes?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I need to check this out, if I can. I will object at 
this point, but I hope we can get it done quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we require an awful lot from our service 
men and women. First of all, we urge them to volunteer to serve in the 
military. Then, we send them all over the world to serve our Nation's 
interests. When we ask them to serve in foreign countries, the least we 
can do is ensure that they receive medical care equal to what they 
would receive in the United States.
  Servicewomen and dependents who are fortunate enough to be stationed 
in the United States and who make the difficult decision to have an 
abortion can, at their own expense, get a legal abortion performed by 
an English speaking doctor in a modern, safe American medical facility.
  Military women stationed overseas do not have the same opportunity. 
They can seek the permission of their commanders to return to the 
United States to obtain an abortion, or they can seek an abortion in 
foreign hospitals by foreign doctors, many of whom don't speak English, 
and who may have different medical standards. These choices are not 
acceptable.
  I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a female officer or 
enlisted person to have to go to her commander and ask for time off to 
travel to the United States to get an abortion. This is a very personal 
and difficult decision even under normal circumstances.
  The alternative of seeking an abortion from a host nation doctor, who 
may or may not be trained to U.S. standards, in a foreign facility, 
where the staff may not even speak English, is an equally unacceptable 
alternative. Our servicewomen deserve better.
  Our laws recognize the right of women to choose. This amendment would 
restore the ability of our female service members stationed overseas to 
exercise their constitutional right to choose safe abortion services at 
no cost to DOD.
  The amendment to be offered does not require the Department of 
Defense to pay for abortions. All expenses would be paid by those who 
seek the abortion. The abortions would be performed by American 
military doctors who volunteer to perform abortions.
  Military women should be able to depend on the military for quality 
health care, no matter where we may ask them to serve their country. 
This amendment gives service women stationed overseas the same range 
and quality of medical care available in the United States. We owe them 
at least that much.
  I hope soon there will be a unanimous consent agreement entered into 
that would allow Senator Murray then to offer her amendment on this 
subject. I hope tomorrow morning we can expect a vote on this amendment 
and that the Senate will adopt the amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I just received a communication from the 
leadership. May I have another 3 or 4 minutes?
  Mr. REID. Of course. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 
a period of 60 minutes for debate with respect to the Murray amendment 
No. 3927; that the debate be completed tonight; that the time be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no amendment be 
in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; 
that on Friday, June 21, when the Senate resumes consideration of the 
bill at 9:30 a.m., the Senate vote, without any intervening action or 
debate in relation to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all Members, the 
chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction of this 
matter have a very important committee meeting at 9 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. We asked them if they would allow us to go forward with the 
vote at 9:45 a.m., and they said they have a very important witness, 
Secretary Wolfowitz. They agreed to that 15 minutes.
  I indicate to the two managers of the bill, we will drag this vote 
out so they can stay at their meeting until 9:45 a.m. or a little 
longer. We are not going to stick to our usual iron-fast rule that the 
votes are completed quickly. This vote might take 30 or 40 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished leader. Yes, 
we are having a very important hearing, but I am certain we could 
determine a point during the course of that hearing and the time 
normally allowed for the vote for us to adjourn for, say, 10 minutes, 
so that all of our members could vote and return to the hearing. I am 
sure the chairman would agree to that.
  Mr. REID. We hope everyone will get here as quickly as possible. That 
being the case and this having been agreed to, there will be no 
rollcall votes tonight. The majority leader asked me to make that 
announcement.
  Mr. WARNER. The time under our control will be controlled by the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. REID. And the time on this side will be controlled by the sponsor 
of the amendment, Senator Murray.


                           Amendment No. 3927

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3927 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and Ms. Snowe, 
proposes an amendment numbered 3927.


[[Page S5829]]


  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To restore a previous policy regarding restrictions on use of 
                   Department of Defense facilities)

       On page 154, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Restriction on Use of 
     Funds.--''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask the Senator from New Jersey how 
much time he wants.
  Mr. CORZINE. Five minutes at the most.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
New Jersey, and then we will go to the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Murray-
Snowe amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  As the Senate considers this authorization bill of great importance 
to our military, one that I support, and I think most Members will, it 
is critical to guarantee U.S. servicewomen and military dependents 
access to safe and comprehensive reproductive health care services.
  Current law prevents women in the military from using their own money 
to access abortion services at overseas Department of Defense 
facilities, except in the cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.
  Frankly, I think it is an outrage that women in the military--who 
make the ultimate commitment to this county--are in turn denied a 
freedom protected by the Constitution and afforded all women in this 
country. It is hard for me to imagine.
  This ban discriminates against women and their families by 
restricting their legally protected right to choose simply because they 
are stationed overseas.
  Surely we do not believe that American citizens who risk their lives 
in service to this country deserve fewer rights than other Americans 
enjoy?
  Because of the ban on access to abortion services at military base 
hospitals, women are forced to choose between often-inadequate local 
health care facilities or sometimes extensive and costly travel. In 
both cases, the current ban has the effect of severely jeopardizing 
women's health.
  Let there be no exaggeration about the scope of the Murray-Snowe 
amendment. This is not about federal funding of abortion. This 
amendment would simply allow women to use their own private funds to do 
what they would have the right to do at home, to access services at 
overseas U.S. military hospitals.
  In addition, it will not force providers, doctors or others, to 
perform abortion services. All three branches of the military already 
have conscience clauses that will remain intact.
  Finally, this amendment respects the laws of host countries.
  I urge my colleagues to support our women in the military by 
supporting this amendment. Surely, women who serve our country have the 
same rights as those who are here at home in private life. I thank 
Senators Murray and Snowe for their leadership on the issue. I think it 
is extremely important that we respect the right of choice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray 
amendment. I think it is regrettable that we would tie up the DOD 
authorization bill with one of the most contentious issues of our day. 
Yet that is what is regrettably taking place in this legislation.
  On February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 was signed into law by then-President Clinton with a 
provision to prevent the Department of Defense medical treatment 
facilities from being used to perform abortions, except where the life 
of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest. This 
provision refers to the Clinton administration policy instituted in 
January 1993 permitting abortions to be performed at military 
facilities. From 1988 to 1993, the performance of abortions was not 
permitted at military hospitals except when the life of the mother was 
in danger. That had been the longstanding policy.
  The Murray amendment, regrettably, which would repeal this culture of 
life provision, attempts to turn taxpayer-funded Department of Defense 
medical treatment facilities into, unfortunately, abortion clinics. 
Fortunately, the Senate has refused to let this issue of abortion 
adversely affect our armed services and rejected this amendment in the 
year 2000 by a vote of 51 to 49. We should reject it again this year. 
It is I think very harmful and wrong that we would hold America's armed 
services hostage to abortion politics using the coercive power of 
government to force American taxpayers--that is who pays for these 
facilities, the American taxpayers--to fund health care facilities 
where abortions are performed. This would be a horrible precedent and 
would put many Americans in a very difficult position.
  Americans are being asked to use their taxpayer dollars to fund 
something that many people find absolutely wrong and completely 
disagree with, and we are asking people to use taxpayer dollars to fund 
the Department of Defense medical facilities to do something with which 
they disagree.
  I realize we are terribly divided as a nation on the issue of 
abortion. That is painfully obvious and has been so for the past 30 
years, but here we step into the issue of taxpayer funding, the use of 
taxpayer-funded facilities for abortions, and that is generally a 
terrain where most of the public has been quite in agreement we should 
not use taxpayer dollars.
  They may say privately you can go ahead with abortion, other people 
say no, you should not do that, but generally when you are saying use 
taxpayer-funded facilities, most people have said we should not go 
there, we should not use taxpayer-funded facilities for something that 
many people in the public believe is terribly wrong. That is why I 
oppose this amendment.
  When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was 
first promulgated, military physicians, as well as many nurses and 
supporting personnel, refused to perform or assist in elective 
abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to 
do these abortions. Indeed, there is a CRS study we have on this topic 
which said that in the 6 years preceding the 1988 ban--I am reading 
directly from this CRS report dated June 5, 2000--military hospitals 
overseas have performed an average of 30 abortions annually. 
Last spring, though, when the military medical officials surveyed 44 
Army, Navy, and Air Force obstetricians and gynecologists stationed in 
Europe, they found that all but one doctor adamantly refused to perform 
the procedure. That one holdout, too, quickly switched positions. No 
military medical personnel willing to perform abortions have stepped 
forward in the sprawling Pacific theater either.

  We can look at that and say there is not access to the service or we 
can say that the military personnel are just very uncomfortable and 
they do not want to do this in the medical facilities that are paid for 
by taxpayer dollars.
  Military facilities around the world operate as outposts of the U.S. 
Government. These are our facilities. They are seen as our facilities. 
They operate in many countries with differing ideas, with differing 
faiths, and with differing views on abortion. They do not want to be, 
as military personnel, having those abortions performed in these 
facilities operated and controlled by the U.S. Government. They do not 
want to perform the abortions themselves either.
  This amendment would allow doctors to use U.S. Government military 
personnel to perform a procedure that many countries and many cultures 
view very negatively and as wrong. I think we should listen to what 
some of our doctors are saying and, in the military, what some of them 
are saying by

[[Page S5830]]

their actions. Therefore, if the Murray amendment were adopted, not 
only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on 
demand, but resources would be used to search for, hire, and transport 
new personnel simply so abortions could be performed, and this is 
abortion on demand.
  I want to make that clear as well because the current law provides 
for the use of these facilities for abortions when the life of the 
mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest. So we are talking 
about the issue of abortion on demand.
  One argument used by supporters of abortions in military hospitals is 
that women in countries where abortion is not permitted will have 
nowhere else to turn to obtain an abortion. However, DOD policy 
requires military doctors to obey the abortion laws of the countries 
where they are providing services, so they still cannot perform 
abortions in those locations if they are in a country that has those 
laws.
  Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and 
nurturing life, dedicated to a culture of life, should not be forced to 
facilitate the taking of innocent human life, the child in a womb, 
abortion on demand, where the life of the mother is not at stake or it 
is not a case of rape or incest. We already provide for that.

  I urge my colleagues to table the Murray amendment and to free 
America's military from abortion politics. American taxpayers should 
not be forced to fund the destruction of innocent life when many are 
deeply affected and believe this is not the sort of thing for which 
their taxpayer dollars should be used. Enough people are disappointed 
on some things we spend taxpayer dollars on without going into such a 
divisive area in our country, using taxpayer-funded facilities to allow 
abortions to take place.
  If passed, this amendment will have a tremendously detrimental impact 
on this DOD authorization bill, probably effectively killing it if this 
amendment is included. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, for the benefit of the DOD authorization bill and the 
benefit of the taxpayers who do not view this as the right way to use 
their facilities, paid for at taxpayer expense, turned over as abortion 
clinics.
  It is a very divisive issue and an issue that is difficult for most 
Members to discuss. It is an issue on which we all have taken a 
position. All positions are clear on this topic. I hope we do not hold 
hostage this very important bill that is needed for this country in the 
time of this war on terrorism. Do not hold it hostage to such a 
difficult, divisive issue.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I see my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, a 
cosponsor of this amendment, who has worked diligently with me. I ask 
how much time she needs.
  Ms. SNOWE. As much time as I may consume.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Maine as much time as she 
may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her 
leadership, once again, on this most important amendment to the 
Department of Defense authorization. I commend her for her commitment 
and perseverance on this issue. Ultimately, we will prevail. I hope 
that will occur on this reauthorization. I am pleased to join my 
colleague in support of this amendment to repeal the ban on abortions 
at overseas military hospitals, an amendment whose time has long since 
come.
  Year after year, time after time, debate after debate, we revisit the 
issue of women's reproductive freedoms by seeking to restrict, limit, 
and eliminate a woman's right to choose. Think of Yogi Berra: I have 
the feeling of deja vu all over again. To that, I add: The more things 
change, the more they stay the same. Here we are debating the issue 
again.
  The most recent changes ought to truly give Members pause; all the 
more impetus to ensure that things don't stay the same. We must 
remember that when we are considering this Defense authorization during 
a time of war, when Americans, both civilian and military are fighting 
terrorism all across the globe, both men and women. In fact, more than 
34,000 women were serving overseas as of April this year. We have 
combined, between women in the service and dependents, more than 
100,000 abroad. We recognize the impact that the failure to repeal this 
ban has on so many of these women.
  Think of the changes that have occurred since 1973 when the Supreme 
Court affirmed for the first time a woman's right to choose. That 
landmark decision was carefully crafted to be both balanced and 
responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in 
reproductive health decisions.
  Importantly, while it has not always been easy, that right stands 
protected today; that is, unless, you happen to be a female member of 
the Armed Forces or a female dependent of a military member stationed 
overseas. How ironic it is that the very people who are fighting to 
preserve our freedoms, those who are on the front lines defending this 
war on terrorism or other parts of the globe, are supporting those who 
are fighting, are currently the least protected in terms of the right 
to make choices about their own personal health and reproductive 
decisions.

  That is why I stand to join my colleague, Senator Murray, once again, 
in overturning this ban on privately funded abortion services in 
overseas military hospitals, for military women and dependents based 
overseas, which was reinstated in the fiscal year 1996 authorization 
bill, as we all know. It is a ban without merit or reason that put the 
reproductive health of these women at risk.
  Specifically, as we know, the ban denies the right to choose for 
female military personnel and dependents. It effectively denies those 
women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the armed 
services safe and legal medical care simply because they were assigned 
duty in another country. What kind of reward is that? Why is it that 
Congress would want to punish those women who so bravely serve our 
country overseas by denying them the rights that are guaranteed to all 
Americans under the Constitution?
  Our task in this debate is to make sure that all of America's women, 
including those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and military 
dependents, are guaranteed the fundamental right to choose.
  Let's review the history of this issue. First and foremost, I remind 
my colleagues since 1979 the Federal law has prohibited the use of 
Federal funds to perform abortions at military hospitals. However, from 
1979 to 1988, women could use their own personal funds to pay for the 
medical care they need.
  In 1988, the Reagan administration announced a new policy prohibiting 
the performance of any abortions at military hospitals even if it was 
paid for out of a woman's private funds--a policy which truly defies 
logic.
  In January of 1993, President Clinton lifted the ban by Executive 
order, restoring a woman's right to pay for abortion services with 
private, non-Defense Department funds.
  Then, in 1995, through the very bill we authorize today, the House 
International Security Committee reinstated this ban which was retained 
in the conference. That effort kicked off the debate which we are now 
having today.
  Let me reiterate--and it is a point that needs to be made perfectly 
clear--President Clinton's Executive order did not change existing law 
prohibiting the use of Federal funds for abortion, and it did not 
require medical providers to perform those abortions. In fact, all 
three branches of the military have conscience clauses which permit 
medical personnel with moral, religious, or ethical objections to 
abortion not to participate in the procedure. I believe that is a 
reasonable measure.
  With that chronology fresh in everyone's mind, we should state for 
the record to the opponents of this amendment that the argument that 
changing current law means that military personnel and military 
facilities are charged with performing abortions, and that this, in 
turn, means that American taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize 
abortions, is wholly and fundamentally incorrect. Every hospital that 
performs the surgery, every physician that performs any procedure on

[[Page S5831]]

any patient must determine the cost of that procedure. That includes 
the time, the supplies, the materials, the overhead, the insurance, 
anything that is included in the expense of performing that procedure 
is included in the cost that is paid by private funds. Public funds are 
not used for the performance of abortions in this instance. That is an 
important distinction to reinforce today. I know it is easy to confuse 
the debate, to obfuscate the issues when, in fact, what we are talking 
about is a woman using her own private insurance or money in support of 
that procedure. We are not talking about using Federal funds.
  This amendment we are fighting for is to lift the ban on privately 
funded abortions paid for with a woman's private funds. That is what we 
need to understand today. That is what this issue is all about. A woman 
would have the ability to have access to a constitutional right when it 
comes to her reproductive freedom to use her own funds, her own health 
insurance, for access to this procedure.
  I think when it comes to health care and safety of an American 
soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or their dependents, our armed 
services should have no better friend and ally than the Congress. I 
would argue that is the case in most situations, but obviously there is 
a different standard when it comes to the health of a woman and her 
reproductive decisions.
  Timing is everything because for those women who are in the military 
or were military dependents overseas between 1993 and 1996, they were 
able to have access to abortion services using their own private funds 
at a military hospital.
  If it is true that timing is everything, all those women who served 
overseas since 1996 have lost everything when it comes to making that 
most fundamental, personal, difficult decision. I repeat that--it is a 
very difficult decision. It is a very personal decision. It is a 
decision that should be made between a woman, her doctor, her family. 
It is a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right that should 
extend to women in the military overseas, not just within the 
boundaries of the United States.
  I cannot understand how anyone could rationalize that we could 
somehow discriminate against our women who are serving in the military 
because they happen to be abroad. I think it is regrettable because it 
is shortchanging women in the military and the military depends on 
women serving. We could not have an all-volunteer force without women 
serving in the military.
  I think it is regrettable that somehow we have demeaned women, in 
terms of this very difficult decision that they have to make. There has 
been example upon example given to us, to my colleague Senator Murray, 
about the trying circumstances that this prohibition has placed on 
women who serve in the military abroad. I do not think for one moment 
anybody should minimize or underestimate the emotional, physical 
hardship that this ban has imposed, a ban that prohibits a woman from 
using her own private health insurance, her own private funds to make 
her own constitutional decision when she happens to be in the military 
serving abroad.
  The ban on abortions in military hospitals coerce the women who serve 
our country into making decisions and choices they would not otherwise 
make. As one doctor, a physician from Oregon, recalls his days as a 
Navy doctor stationed in the Philippines, he describes the experiences 
and hardships that result from this policy. Women have to travel long 
distances in order to obtain a legal abortion. Travel arrangements were 
difficult and expensive. In order to take leave, they had to justify 
taking emergency leave to their commanding officer. Imagine that 
circumstance. So that everybody knows.
  Some women, alternatively, have turned to local illegal abortions. In 
other circumstances, their dignity was offended and often their health 
was placed at risk, which was certainly reinforced by the letter that 
was sent to both Senator Murray and me from Lieutenant General Kennedy, 
who is now retired. She was the highest ranking woman in the military. 
She talked about the humiliation and the demeaning circumstances in 
which many women were placed, not to mention putting their health at 
risk.
  I hope we can reconcile the realities of the existing ban by 
overturning this prohibition in law and granting to women in the 
military the same constitutional right that is afforded women who live 
within the boundaries of the United States of America.
  I never thought that women should leave their constitutional rights 
at the proverbial door, but that is what this ban has done. These 
constitutional rights are not territorial. Women who serve their 
country should be afforded the same rights that women here in America 
have.

  I think this ban is not consistent with the principles which our 
Armed Forces are fighting to protect, and which the American people so 
overwhelmingly support. I hope we move forward, and I hope we would 
understand that women in the military and their dependents overseas 
deserve the same rights that women have here in this country. They have 
and should have the protections of the Constitution, no matter where 
they live.
  I hope the Senate will overturn that ban and will support the 
amendment offered by Senator Murray and myself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Maine for her excellent 
statement, and I yield to my colleague from North Carolina such time as 
he should consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Levin and Warner for 
their leadership on this important bill. It is an important bill for 
the country and we need to move forward on it. It is important work 
they have done. I also thank my colleague from Washington, Senator 
Murray, for her leadership on this amendment. Women who serve our 
country in the military should have a right to use their own private 
money to pay for safe, legal medical care that they themselves choose. 
I wish to express my strong support for Senator Murray's amendment. We 
appreciate very much her leadership on this issue.
  I also want to take a minute to talk about the issue of homeland 
security. In the last couple of weeks, everybody in Washington has been 
talking about the administration's plan to reorganize a whole range of 
Government bureaucracies into a new Department of Homeland Security. 
Now Congress is rushing to complete this massive reshuffling in just a 
matter of weeks.
  I do not oppose this reorganization effort. In fact, I think it might 
do some real good in the long run. I applaud the very serious people on 
both sides of the aisle who are trying to make the plan the best it can 
possibly be. But I am troubled that Washington is becoming so caught up 
with reorganization that we are losing sight of our most urgent 
priorities. Everybody is asking who will report to whom? Who will be in 
what building? Who will get the corner office?
  We are beginning to convince ourselves that by reshuffling the 
bureaucracy, we are going to solve the real problem--that Government 
reorganization can win the war on terrorism.

  We cannot allow preoccupation with reorganization to distract us from 
the clear and present danger from terrorists who are in our midst as we 
speak. Our most urgent priority is simple: to find the terrorists, 
infiltrate their cells, and stop them, stop them cold. In order to do 
that, I think we need to address three critical questions directly 
related to prosecuting the war on terrorism today.
  No. 1, are we doing enough, everything in our power, to track al-
Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, and every other terrorist organization within 
our own borders? To be more specific, are we doing enough to develop 
and deploy the human intelligence needed to infiltrate these 
organizations?
  No. 2, does the FBI know foreign intelligence information when they 
see it? And do they recognize all the uses of that information? For 
example, if the FBI acquires foreign intelligence information in the 
course of a criminal investigation, do they see the importance of that 
information, not just for their criminal prosecution but also in

[[Page S5832]]

the ongoing effort to disrupt terrorists in their activities?
  No. 3, having recognized the importance of information, is the FBI 
effectively sharing that information, both within the FBI itself and 
with other elements of the intelligence community?
  No. 1, are we getting the information we need about the terrorists in 
this country? No. 2, are we recognizing all the uses of that 
information? No. 3, are we effectively sharing that information among 
those who need to have it in order to react to it?
  I believe the answer to all three of those questions is no. As a 
member of the Intelligence Committee, I believe these issues are 
fundamental to our ability to fight terrorism. They must be fixed now. 
And they do not require reorganization of existing bureaucracy.
  There is no question that we should reorganize the Government to meet 
the challenges of the future. But there is no substitute for the urgent 
steps we must take now, immediately, to meet the dangers of the 
present.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to our colleague 
from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas for leading the opposition to this ill conceived 
amendment. I thank him for his courage and conviction in this area of 
human life. I thank him for yielding time.
  I rise today in very strong opposition to the amendment that is being 
put forward by the Senator from Washington. This amendment would allow 
abortion on demand on military facilities overseas. In fact, it would 
force the American people--including those millions who are strongly 
opposed to abortion and who are pro-life--to help pay for abortions. I 
know the opponents of this amendment argue otherwise. But I think a 
little thought shows the fallacy in that proposition and that, in fact, 
it would force those who have very deep conscientious convictions 
against abortion to help pay for abortion on our military bases.
  Abortion is an issue that continues to divide our Nation. The Defense 
authorization bill should be focused on ensuring that our military has 
all the resources to fight and win our Nation's wars. It is unfortunate 
that this bill has year after year been the vehicle to attempt to 
advance a pro-abortion agenda.
  In 1976, Congress adopted what has come to be known as the Hyde 
amendment. This amendment essentially prohibits the use of Federal 
funds for performing abortions. It has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
Court as constitutional.
  I share the view of millions of Americans that abortion is a 
destruction of human life and that it represents one of the great moral 
outrages of our day and one of the great moral questions of our 
generation.
  The Hyde amendment ensures that the tax dollars of these citizens who 
deeply believe abortion is something that is morally objectionable--it 
ensures that those citizens are not forced to pay for something to 
which they so object. It ensures that their money is not used for what 
they consider to be the murder of the unborn.
  This is the foundation of my objection to the Murray amendment. My 
colleagues claim that no public funds will be used for these overseas 
abortions. However, military facilities overseas were built with 
Federal tax dollars. The medical equipment was paid for by the U.S. 
Government. The military personnel facilities are paid from the Federal 
Treasury.
  Under the Murray amendment, will a portion of the cost of the 
construction of the military facility be charged to the woman seeking 
an abortion or will this funding come from the pockets of the 
taxpayers, millions of whom believe abortion is a reprehensible 
practice?
  It would be impossible--technically impossible--to accurately 
calculate the cost of reimbursing DOD for an abortion. It is not 
feasible with existing information systems and support capabilities to 
collect billing information relevant to a specific encounter within the 
military health care system. Military infrastructure and overhead costs 
cannot be allocated on a case-by-case basis. It is clear that the 
Murray amendment runs counter to both the letter and the spirit of the 
Hyde amendment.
  A military health care professional cannot be forced to perform a 
procedure, such as abortion, that runs against their moral beliefs. 
That is a good thing. But it is a recognition we have had in the U.S. 
military that physicians who have moral convictions against abortion 
can't be forced to do that to which they morally object. In these 
cases, the military will be forced under the Murray amendment to 
contract out to civilian physicians.
  In 1993, President Clinton issued an Executive order allowing 
privately funded abortions at military facilities. That is what we are 
voting on tomorrow morning. Every military medical professional 
stationed in Europe and Asia refused to perform an abortion--every 
single one; all of our military. I think it speaks very highly of them. 
Every one of these military medical professionals in all of the 
continent of Europe and all of the continent of Asia, to a person, 
refused to perform abortions. Think about that.
  Military funding will have to be used to pay a nonmilitary doctor to 
come into a military hospital to perform an abortion. That, I think, is 
objectionable to most Americans, regardless of how you feel about 
abortion. It is unconscionable that this body is considering pushing 
the military into the business of performing abortions.
  We are engaged in a global war unlike any in our Nation's history. 
The Defense authorization bill should be a vehicle to ensure that our 
military has all the resources it requires to protect the American 
people. Unfortunately, in this case it is being used to advance a pro-
abortion agenda.
  This amendment addresses a problem that does not exist. 
Servicemembers can use military air at virtually no cost to travel back 
to the United States for any medical procedure--any medical procedure.
  As the former chair and current ranking member of the Personnel 
Subcommittee, I have spoken with thousands of our military personnel 
all over the world. They have concerns about many things--concerns 
about military pay, about housing, and about vaccines against 
biological weapons--but not once have I heard a complaint about not 
being able to get an abortion on a military base overseas.
  It is the policy of the Department of Defense to follow the laws of 
the nations in which our bases are located. Many nations ban abortion. 
The Murray amendment would subvert the laws of those countries that 
host American military personnel. South Korea bans abortions. Saudi 
Arabia bans abortions. Essentially, the Murray amendment would require 
Department of Defense personnel to perform crimes in the nations that 
are hosting our military.
  This amendment was defeated in the House of Representatives on May 9 
by a vote of 215 to 202. Should this amendment pass the Senate and be 
added to the Senate Defense authorization bill, it will be a heavy 
weight on this bill. The conference committee will be sharply divided 
on this issue, as are the American people. This amendment will become 
the bone of contention in the conference committee, as it has been in 
previous years and as abortion issues have been in previous years. It 
will complicate what many of us already believe and anticipate will be 
a difficult conference. It will complicate this conference on the DOD 
authorization bill at a critical time in our Nation's history, when we 
need to speak with one mind and one voice and when we need to move 
ahead in unity to fight this war on terrorism. To see the DOD 
authorization bill bogged down on an emotional and divisive issue, 
which should not be in this legislation, is a disservice to those men 
and women who are fighting this war on terrorism around the world.
  The Defense authorization bill includes the funding that our military 
desperately needs to fight the war on terrorism. It includes the pay 
raise of our troops. It includes funding for important initiatives 
aimed at improving the quality of life for military families. This bill 
is not the forum for a fight on abortion.
  I regret that the amendment is being offered. It will place the 
Senate and the

[[Page S5833]]

conferees in the position of having to fight this issue out in what 
will undoubtedly be a protracted, prolonged debate in the conference 
committee.
  Our military medical facilities are designed to save lives, not 
destroy them. I ask my colleagues to not turn them into abortion 
clinics. Please do not place this very heavy burden on the men and 
women of our military, especially while they are risking their own 
lives in defense of the American people against international 
terrorism.
  I remind my colleagues, it violates the spirit and the letter of the 
Hyde amendment. No matter how you simplistically present it, you cannot 
allocate all of the various costs involved in this procedure to 
military personnel, to a tax-funded facility with tax-funded personnel, 
and to equipment purchased by the taxpayers. You simply cannot 
determine what that individual would have to pay to privately pay for 
the abortion.

  It is really not a problem. It is not something we hear a hue and cry 
about from men and women in the military. And it violates, in many 
cases, the host country's laws and will put our own military in a 
position of violating the current Department of Defense policy, and a 
right policy, that we should recognize and respect the laws of the 
countries in which we are being hosted.
  Frankly, and finally, it creates a great practical problem in 
bringing this legislation to finality and getting it to the President's 
desk and moving on at a critical time, as our Nation continues to fight 
this war on terrorism.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of 
the abortion issue to think long and hard about the wisdom of attaching 
this amendment to the DOD authorization bill.
  I thank the Chair. And I thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes 20 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will be brief and allow the Senator 
from Washington to speak.
  Some comments have been made. I certainly appreciate the excellent 
comments my colleague from Arkansas made. I think he very succinctly 
put forward that this is not a major problem. It could create problems 
in host countries.
  We do not need to turn our military facilities into abortion clinics 
and use Federal funds to pay for something a lot of taxpayers believe 
is deeply wrong, the killing of life.
  There is one argument that has been raised that I want to address 
directly, and that is that we are denying women their constitutional 
right if they can't use a military facility to have abortion on demand.
  Remember, currently, women are allowed to have an abortion in cases 
involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest. That is allowed at 
military facilities today. So we are strictly talking about the 
category of abortion on demand at military facilities.
  It has been raised that we are denying women a constitutional right. 
That is not the case. What we are talking about here is the use of 
taxpayer-funded military facilities. If that is denying women their 
constitutional right to an abortion, I would presume you would have to 
say we are denying that here because we do not provide abortions in 
federally funded facilities in the United States. We do not do that. 
That would be contrary to the Hyde amendment.
  This is not denying women a constitutional right. They can have an 
abortion in other places. The Senator from Arkansas was commenting 
about how that could occur. This is strictly about the use of 
Government-paid facilities which we do not allow anywhere else in the 
world because of the Hyde amendment.
  The Hyde amendment says you cannot use federally funded facilities, 
Federal dollars to pay for abortions. It is well-established U.S. law, 
a well-established U.S. position. We would now cut an exception to that 
if we allowed abortions in military facilities. The Clinton 
administration had done that for a period of time, but that has not 
been the law in this country for some period, since 1996.
  So we are not denying women a constitutional right. This is about the 
use of federally funded facilities, which we do not allow anywhere, for 
the conducting of an abortion. I think that is a point we should make 
very clear in this debate.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have 
cosponsored this amendment with me--Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski, 
and Senator Boxer--and remind my colleagues that what we are simply 
asking for is that the women who serve us in military uniforms overseas 
have access to safe, legal, reproductive health care systems.
  This system today does not let them have that. They are serving in 
the Philippines or Germany or wherever we have asked them to go, and 
they want access to affordable health care.
  I would remind my colleagues that it is not just the women who are in 
the services; it is the dependents of these who are in the services, as 
well, who are being denied. They have to go to their superior officer 
to ask permission--usually an older person, usually a man--for leave to 
come back to the United States.
  They have to wait for transport on a C-17 or other military 
equipment, which could take time, putting their health in jeopardy. 
They have to be subjected to giving up their privacy rights because, 
most likely, they will have to tell their officer why they want to come 
back to the United States. So they are putting their life and their 
health and their health care at risk. And these are women who are 
serving us overseas.
  All we are asking with this amendment is that they have the ability 
to go to a military hospital--where we have health care equipment, 
where we have safe equipment, where we have good doctors--to pay for 
their own health care for which they are asking.
  I have heard over and over again that these are taxpayer expenses. 
The women will pay for the services. We are not asking for them to have 
taxpayer support.
  Mr. President, this makes complete sense. It is common sense. We 
should treat our military women who are serving us as equal citizens to 
the women who live in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment tomorrow morning.
  I am more than willing to yield back my time. I see our whip is on 
the floor. And I see Senator Brownback is in the Chamber. I am willing 
to yield back our time if he is ready to end this debate as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments 
of the Senator from Washington when she talks about the demeaning 
situation that women in our military have to go through and 
operationally discuss what her amendment would do.
  She is saying they have to go to a superior officer, frequently a 
male, to ask for permission. If the Murray amendment were to pass, we 
currently do not have any military doctors--according to the last 
survey we received from CRS--who are willing to conduct abortions. This 
was the CRS statement I cited and the Senator from Arkansas cited.
  The Senator from Washington is saying, OK, we are going to use U.S. 
military bases as an abortion clinic. The abortion is going to be 
performed there. Somebody is going to have to recruit a medical doctor 
who is not on the military base because you cannot force the military 
doctors to perform the abortion. Somebody is going to have to get the 
approval for that to take place. Somebody is going to have to secure 
the medical facility there at the military base for use in performing 
the abortion.
  The notion that women have given up all their rights to privacy or 
their dependents have given up all their rights to privacy without 
having the Murray amendment--I would say that it is exactly the 
opposite, that it is more likely if they do have the Murray amendment. 
They are going to have to get the military facility, recruit a 
physician in that host country for them to then conduct the abortion 
there on the base. Do you think there will not be

[[Page S5834]]

significant military personnel who will know all this is taking place, 
that there will not be more people who will know this is taking place 
rather than under the current situation?
  Again, this is strictly the issue of abortion on demand. It is not 
about the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
  So I would submit that the argument that a woman has given up her 
right to privacy by virtue of not having the Murray amendment and the 
use of a military facility--it is the exact opposite. If we go this 
way, there are going to be a lot more people who will be knowledgeable 
that a woman associated with the military is having an abortion. So 
this is not a legitimate argument on the use of a military facility.
  Mr. President, I hope we do not tie the Department of Defense 
authorization bill up with abortion politics by inserting this 
language. I think if we do, it is going to ensure that there is going 
to be protracted negotiations with the House, which disagrees adamantly 
with this language. And it would ensure protracted discussions with the 
President, the administration, which adamantly disagrees with the 
providing of abortions on military bases. And it would really, I think, 
upset a number of people in the military who do not agree with 
abortion. They are there to protect and to honor life, not to take it.
  To add this language is the wrong way for us to go, the wrong way for 
us to direct our military personnel to proceed. And it is going to 
protract the negotiations, if not even kill the overall Department of 
Defense authorization bill.
  So I urge my colleagues, wherever they are on the issue of abortion, 
to simply look at the issue of providing for the common defense at a 
time we need to be united in that, and to not insert something like 
this that is so divisive in this country.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Murray, I yield back her time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved a Committee 
amendment that authorizes military retirees to concurrently receive 
both military retired pay and veterans disability compensation. I am 
glad it did so. This is a matter of fundamental fairness.
  This is an important issue for veterans. About 530,000 military 
retirees either are or could eventually be impacted by this issue.
  Current law requires that military retired pay be reduced dollar-for-
dollar by the amount of any VA disability compensation received.
  There is no reasonable excuse for this offset. By faithfully 
fulfilling their required length of service, veterans earned their 
retired pay. That retired pay is for service performed in the past. It 
should not be reduced because a veteran is awarded disability 
compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs because he or she 
was wounded on active duty or otherwise lost earning capacity due to 
service-connected disabilities.
  It is absurd that today, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, military 
personnel risk losing their retirement pay if they are wounded or 
seriously injured. A military career is filled with hardships, family 
separations, personal sacrifices, and all too often being placed in 
harm's way. Denying a military retiree an earned benefit, his or her 
military retirement pay, is unconscionable.
  Last year, the Senate approved legislation authorizing concurrent 
receipt. However, the final version of the Fiscal Year 2002 National 
Defense Authorization Act that came out of conference authorized 
concurrent receipt only if the President proposed legislation that 
would provide offsetting budgetary cuts. Unfortunately, the 
Administration opposes concurrent receipt, so this essentially doomed 
concurrent receipt in 2002.
  This year, the Committee bill for fiscal year 2003 that we are 
considering phases in concurrent receipt over five years for retirees 
with disabilities rated at 60 percent or more. The Committee amendment 
that we passed extends that benefit to all disabled veterans.
  The Administration has issued a statement threatening a presidential 
veto of the Defense Authorization Bill if it authorizes concurrent 
receipt of both retired pay and disability compensation. The Senate 
should not be swayed by that threat.
  Taking care of our veterans should be considered a part of our 
national security. That is why I am concerned that, while the President 
has proposed increasing military spending in fiscal year 2003 by about 
$48 billion, his budget increases spending on veterans health care by 
less than $2 billion, which is far less than needed.
  This country made a promise to the men and women who risked their 
lives in defense of this nation. They were promised that their needs 
would be met by a grateful nation. Authorizing concurrent receipt will 
be a big step toward fulfilling that promise.
  More than 200 hundred years ago, George Washington warned that ``The 
willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, 
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they 
perceive veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by our 
nation.'' He could not have been more right. That is why we need to 
make sure that the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Act 
authorizes current receipt.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, In 1959, the City of Mesa, AZ wrote the Navy 
asking for an aircraft to display at one of its parks. In 1965, the 
aircraft, a Navy Panther, was donated for static display to Mesa Parks 
and Recreation from the Naval Air Station at Litchfield Park. The 
aircraft was used as a centerpiece for a children's playground.
  In 1994, the City of Mesa auctioned off the relic as surplus 
equipment to Richard Oldham for $100. The City of Mesa sold the 
aircraft to Mr. Oldham in an open bidding process, and he has 
temporarily lodged it at the USS Hornet Museum in California. He 
intends for it to be transferred to the Women's Airforce Service 
Pilots, (W.A.S.P.), Museum in Quartzite, AZ.
  According to the Naval Historical Center, it is a common for the Navy 
to conditionally donate aircraft, in what amounts to a long-term loan, 
to municipalities and museums. Donation of aircraft to city parks is 
conditional upon Congressional termination of title. Absent evidence of 
the U.S. Government's intent to make the donation unconditional, (a 
permanent transfer), the Navy would still hold title to the aircraft. 
Under section 3, article 4 of the United States Constitution, only 
Congress can make laws pertaining to the disposal of Federal property. 
Since there is no evidence in the Navy's or the City of Mesa's files 
that the Navy intended to give away the aircraft permanently, the 
aircraft still legally belongs to the Navy, and it would appear that 
Mesa did not have the right to sell the aircraft to Mr. Oldham.
  I understand the Navy is willing to enter into a long-term loan 
agreement with the USS Hornet Museum and with the W.A.S.P. Museum; 
however, it would still be in the possession of the government.
  Congress has in the past approved legislation to permanently transfer 
ownership of Federal property. One recent example is in the FY98 
National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1023 transferred two 
obsolete Army tugboats to the Brownsville Navigation District, 
Brownsville, TX. Section 1025 of the same act transferred naval vessels 
to the governments of Brazil, Chile, Egypt, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, 
and Thailand. Congress does not transfer property to individuals, but 
to organizations, muncipalities, and countries. The W.A.S.P. Museum is 
a non-profit museum and is eligible to receive such a relic aircraft. 
Aircraft 125316 will find an appropriate and welcome home in the 
W.A.S.P. museum where it may continue to serve the nation as an 
important piece of our nation's military history.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to address two amendments I will 
soon offer to S. 2514, the Defense authorization bill. The first 
amendment is critical to the training and future deployments of the 
Interim Brigade Combat Teams, and is, therefore, vital to both 
Louisiana and our national security. This amendment designates 
Louisiana Highway 28 between Alexandria, LA, and Leesville, LA, a road 
providing access to the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, 
as a Defense Access Road.

[[Page S5835]]

  Fort Polk has been designated as a home for one of the new, 
transformational Interim Brigade Combat Teams IBCTs. Furthermore, I am 
proud to say that Fort Polk will serve as the training site for all 
IBCTs.
  Louisiana Highway 28 is one of the primary access roads into and out 
of Fort Polk. Highway 28 is the direct route from Fort Polk to the 
former England Air Force Base in Alexandria, Louisiana. I mention this 
because any military equipment designated for Fort Polk that is 
transported via C-130 must be trucked to Fort Polk if it is non-wheeled 
or non-tracked from the former England AFB. If military vehicles are 
tracked or wheeled, they then trek the forty miles from England to Fort 
Polk along Hwy. 28. No matter how the equipment arrives at Fort Polk, 
the heavy trucks and military vehicles cause tremendous wear and tear 
to Highway 28.
  With the coming of the IBCTs to Fort Polk, the stresses on Hwy. 28 
will only be exacerbated. Louisiana Highway 28 is a two lane highway 
that currently operates over capacity, as it already has a traffic 
volume of 2,000 cars per day. When you add 2,000 cars a day and 10 
training rotations a year to a two-lane highway, the deterioration of 
the road surface and the congestion of the roadway will lead to 
numerous accidents, and possibly fatalities.
  The commanding general of Fort Polk, Brigadier General Jason Kamiya, 
and the people of Louisiana want to see Hwy. 28 expanded to four lanes. 
A four lane highway will improve the safety conditions on the roadway, 
and four lanes will allow for faster deployment of units stationed and 
training at Fort Polk. During times of war, like we find ourselves in 
now, it is critical that units can deploy to the battlefield as quickly 
as possible. But, it is also important that our military achieve quick 
deployments in training because our service men and women will fight 
only well as they train.
  The designation of Highway 28 as a Defense Access Road will allow the 
Department of Defense to work with the State of Louisiana to pool funds 
to make necessary repairs to the highway and increase the road surface 
to four lanes to best accommodate the IBCTs. DOD will only be required 
to participate in funding to the degree to which usage of the highway 
is out of the ordinary due to the military installation or military 
activity. It only makes sense that the Federal Government would aid 
State Governments to make repairs caused by federal usage or 
alterations to the highway requested by the Federal government. 
Finally, there is no cost associated with the authorization.
  The second amendment pertains to the most crucial problem facing our 
United States Navy, both today and in future generations, the dwindling 
size of the Navy fleet. The 2001 Quadrennial Review stated that the 
Navy must maintain a fleet size of least 310 ships to achieve its 
mission. This amendment makes it the policy of the United States for 
the budget of the United States for fiscal years after FY 2003, and for 
the future-years defense plan, to include sufficient funding for the 
Navy to maintain a fleet of at least 310 ships. Additionally, the 
President must certify within the budget of the United States that 
sufficient funding has been allocated to maintain a fleet of 310 ships. 
If such a certification is not made, the President must explain within 
the budget of the United States why the certification cannot be made. 
Today, Navy ships sail globally to ensure a world-wide American 
presence and to immediately respond to threats against America's 
national security. This amendment will make certain that the President 
funds a fleet at least capable of meeting the Navy's current mission 
objectives or explains why the Navy will fall shy of a 310 ship fleet.
  Without the Navy, the United States could not have prosecuted the war 
in Afghanistan as successfully as we have. On numerous occasions 
throughout the war, our armed forces have been denied access to land 
bases in foreign countries from which our forces could operate. 
Nevertheless, when our armed forces cannot forward deploy because there 
are no willing host countries, the U.S. Navy provides our military with 
acres of floating sovereign territory from which the U.S. military can 
deploy. Without the firepower, logistics, and transport capabilities of 
the Navy, our ability to retaliate to the terrorist actions of 
September 11th would have been compromised.
  However, if Congress and the President do not allocate critical 
resources to shipbuilding, the Navy will soon fall well below the 
minimum level of ships required for the Navy to properly provide for 
America's defense, a job the Navy has performed so admirably. Today, 
the Navy has approximately 315 ships in its fleet, a number which 
cannot dwindle or the Navy's operations will be gravely challenged. 
This year, the President's budget funded only 5 ships. The Senate has 
taken needed action to provide an additional $690 million in advance 
procurement funding for 2 surface ships and a submarine. If current 
shipbuilding rates are sustained, the Navy will only have a fleet of 
238 ships within 35 years. That is simply unacceptable. 310 ships is 
the lowest allowable floor, but Congress and the President should 
strive to maintain a Navy of at least 350 ships to guaranty America's 
sovereign needs on the high seas.
  Accordingly, this amendment makes it the national defense policy of 
the United States to uphold a Navy of at least 310 ships, as spelled 
out in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001. Moreover, shipbuilding 
must be a priority of the President, and the President must certify in 
future budgets and in future year defense plans, beginning with FY 
2004, that sufficient funds have been made available to sustain a fleet 
of at least 310 ships or explain why such funds have not been made 
available. I hope the Senate will support this amendment to provide for 
our Navy which has provided for the American people since the 
Revolutionary War.

                          ____________________