-9999

Floor Speech

Now, until recently, this was an understood policy. The policy to which my friend and colleague refers is, of course, embodied in a statute. It is not just a policy. It is a policy rooted in law. Under 10 USC, section 1093, the Pentagon is prohibited from using Department of Defense funds or facilities to perform abortions.

You see, because, in a word, divided as a country on issues related to abortion; people have sharply divided views on this. In fact, there is a pretty wide spectrum of views. But one thing that does tend to unite Americans overwhelmingly is the idea that, regardless of how you feel about abortion, you don't want your U.S. taxpayer dollars going to fund abortions. People don't want that. There is overwhelming bipartisan consensus among the American people on that.

Only here in Washington is this regarded as controversial because Americans just consider that common sense--common sense that has been, for decades, codified in Federal law.

The last time I read the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, not the Department of Defense. And when there are laws that the Department of Defense doesn't like, the Department of Defense isn't free to just reimagine the laws as the Secretary of Defense wishes those laws were written.

And yet the Department of Defense's policy memo from just a few months ago does just that. It attempts to sneak around the laws that we have already passed.

This policy memo violates at least the spirit, quite arguably the letter of the law. They are trying to get around that, and they have made no secret of that fact.

So Senator Tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy. We should commend his courage and his dedication to upholding the Constitution and standing for those who cannot stand for themselves.

And so I would say, let this be a message to Secretary Austin. Look, Secretary Austin, if you want to make the laws, run for Congress, run for the House, run for the Senate. But you cannot legislate from the E- Ring of the Pentagon. It is not your job. That is our job, not yours.

Until then, Secretary Austin, stand down--stand down, soldier--and let the lawmakers actually make the laws. But you certainly don't get to rewrite them just because you feel like it.

Now, as to the suggestion made by my friend and colleague moments ago that Senator Tuberville would override the recommendations made by board-certified medical doctors to women as to the best outcome for their health, it is not at all fair. It is incompletely inaccurate. In fact, it is utterly untethered from what Senator Tuberville is doing and what he has ever said on this. On no planet is Senator Tuberville trying to tell women in the military or dependents of military families that they may not have an abortion. All he is standing behind is what Federal law already says, which is that you can't use Federal funds or Federal facilities within the Department of Defense to fund abortions. And that is exactly what is happening here.

Now, as to the specific personnel mentioned just moments ago, when we look at, say, Admiral Chatfield or Admiral Wikoff or General Hodne's or anyone else on the list, if there is any one of those people whose service, whose promotion is so mission critical to American national security, let's bring those forward. There are mechanisms, procedures, in the Senate, after all, that would allow not only each of them but everyone on this list to be confirmed.

Yes, it takes a little bit more time. But what the Department of Defense and those advocating for its position here are doing is coming to us as U.S. Senators and asking us to waive our procedural rights, to waive our procedural objections so that they can have their policy.

Senator Tuberville has raised a legitimate, bona fide opposition to that policy because it is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 10 U.S.C. 1093.

It takes a lot of gumption--that is audacity--for the Department of Defense to ask for our help to facilitate the confirmation of these nominees when they have taken away from us the prerogative that is uniquely ours.

It is no coincidence that the very first clause, in the first section, of the first article of the Constitution says that ``[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

Article 1, section 7 makes even more abundantly clear that we are the sole lawmaking organ of the Federal Government; that in order to pass a Federal law, you have to get the same legislative proposal passed in the House and then in the Senate and then submit it to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.

Secretary Austin has bypassed all of that. He would make himself the legislative and the executive branches at once. It is not his role. It is not his job. And he has the audacity to come here and question our patriotism, question our commitment to American military readiness, simply because we will not expedite his own request to get these people moved through faster.

If he wants to circumvent these processes ordained by the Constitution, Senator Tuberville is in no position where he has to agree to help them expedite it, nor should he.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, here again, the Senate has procedures for dealing with any nomination, including these military promotions. These could be brought up individually; they could be voted on; and those whose promotions have the greatest urgency could be dealt with. We could stay in session until all these are done. Neither Senator Tuberville nor any other Senator, to my knowledge, would interfere with that, nor could we.

What Senator Tuberville refuses to do, with very good reason, is to pretend like nothing has happened; pretend like nothing has changed; to pretend that he didn't have repeated conversations with high-ranking officials within the Department of Defense in recent months expressing his concerns about rumors that this very policy was being considered; to pretend that he didn't tell them then there would be serious consequences if they decided to proceed in violation of 10 U.S.C., section 1093. No, this is not fair to put this on him.

When the Pentagon comes crawling back after they did what they did to him--after they did what they did to the law, to all Americans--that is manifestly unfair. To all of a sudden put it on him to make sure it is his job to make sure that everyone gets confirmed--and, oh, by the way, you also have to help--you are being told--you have to help the Pentagon, even though the Pentagon has just cut you off at the knees.

Look, it is very clear. When the law says you may not use Federal taxpayers for abortions, that is a thing. When you have Department of Defense specific legislation that says you may not use Department of Defense funds, you may not use Department of Defense facilities to perform abortions, that is a thing.

To argue otherwise and to try to point out that this policy memo somehow complies with that is too cute by half.

No. 1, it is still, quite arguably, in violation of the letter of the law. You are still doing this to bring about an abortion. You are using Federal taxpayer dollars from the Department of Defense so that someone has an abortion. You are paying for someone's travel to that State--per diem to that State--3 weeks of paid leave time to that State, and it is specific to abortion. That is what that is.

If, in any other circumstance, someone were asked: Are you using Federal dollars for abortions? The answer would be, unequivocally, ``yes.''

I know those raising these consent requests are trying to get Senator Tuberville to capitulate, trying to get him to reverse course, trying to get him to help the Department of Defense when the Department of Defense hid from him what they were going to do, then undercut Federal law in the process, that is not fair. That is what this is about. That is what you are trying to do.

I am happy to stand with Senator Tuberville in defending his rights.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, to the extent any one of these nominations-- or all of them taken together--to the extent military readiness is invoked, implicated, is threatened, challenged, by all means, let's figure out a workaround. By all means, let's have the Department of Defense realize that as this policy debate happens, it should be the very last entity putting American national security at risk.

So if that is what this is resulting in, then the Department of Defense, with all due respect, needs to stand down on this until such time as this can be debated and discussed.

The fact is that every single year--every single year--the Department of Defense has the luxury that very few other branches have in that we devote an enormous amount of time to debating a policy bill--every year, year after year, going back for the last half century--the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the kind of thing that, if it is going to be addressed, if they want a change of law, then that change of law ought to be pursued on the floor of the Senate.

The National Defense Authorization Act would present an opportunity for the Department of Defense to pursue that change. It can do it that way. It can do it in a stand-alone bill if it wants to. What it may not do is change the law on its own.

So, look, to the extent that this implicates military readiness-- which let's just take those words on their own face--that seems to me that should apply with at least as much force, if not a ``for sure'' to the Department of Defense rather than to Senator Tuberville. It is the Department of Defense that is asking for his help. It is the Department of Defense that is using Federal funds to facilitate the performance of abortions.

If anyone is threatening national security, it is not Senator Tuberville. And if these are threatening America's national security, particularly those you have identified, bring those to the floor. We have procedures to do that. It takes time.

I understand, perhaps, that is not what this Democratic majority of the Senate wants to do. That is the Democratic majority's prerogative. But that being the prerogative, they can't all of a sudden put that on Senator Tuberville.

Finally, as to the suggestion that Senator Tuberville is extorting anyone--extortion, of course, is a crime. That is a really inappropriate reference to use here, but let's go with it for a second for purposes of this discussion. Who is extorting whom? Who is it that receives all this money and then goes about saying: We are going to change the law. Now, it is up to you to help us make sure that every one of these people gets a promotion.

If you are going to use that term, you have to realize it cuts both ways. I don't think it has any place on the floor. But if you are going to use it, it swings both ways. And it may well hit you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. It doesn't have that power. That power is reserved to us--to us exclusively--under article I, section 1 and article I, section 7.

So if Secretary Austin wants to make laws, he should run for the Senate or he can run for the House. But he can't do this from his perch as Secretary of Defense. That doesn't work in our system of government.

So here again, we are being asked to consider national security implications of these advancements and of any delay that might be caused as a result of the Department's unwise decision to try to remake abortion law, to try to rewrite laws restricting the use of Federal funds in facilities within the Department of Defense for abortions.

I have another idea. I have an idea about how we might resolve this. I can't speak for Senator Tuberville, but I can speak for what I could advocate for Senator Tuberville. I can speak for what I suspect Senator Tuberville would seriously consider.

We can deal with all this right now. We could probably get all of these folks confirmed tonight if they will just do one thing. This would be a nice compromise position. I suspect he would withdraw his objections and we could get everybody confirmed if the Department of Defense were to suspend this policy. Suspend it and say: Do you know what? You are right. We should have addressed this legislatively. We will bring it up in connection with the Defense Authorization Act.

You know, they may well be able to get the votes in the Senate to do that. I am not here to prejudge that position, but that would be the appropriate way of doing it. And that, by the way, would allow my friends on the other side of the aisle to accomplish what they want, and really to accomplish what Senator Tuberville wants, which is to get these folks confirmed.

But what he is not willing to do is ignore the fact that they are rewriting the law to their own image, to their own liking, to their own political preferences. That is not something they can do, and that is certainly not something they can ask us to play a part in doing.

Senator Tuberville is standing on principle. He is standing for the law. He is standing for the principle that we understand. The American people, while sharply divided on many issues related to abortion, are united--overwhelmingly united--on the fact that we do not use taxpayer funding for abortions. That is what they are doing here.

So you want to get these folks confirmed? We can get them confirmed tonight, but the Department of Defense needs to suspend this until such time as it can get the law changed through Congress.

If that is on the table, I would love to discuss it. I would love to advocate to Senator Tuberville on behalf of that, if you are willing to consider it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful insight provided by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado. In particular, I appreciate his acknowledgment that issues related to abortion really involve deep and profound areas of fundamental disagreement among and between Americans.

I also appreciate his acknowledgment that this really is about Dobbs; it really is about abortion. This didn't arise in a vacuum.

I also appreciate his reference to federalism. He knows me well, and he knows that I am a fan of federalism, this concept that there are 50 States that have united for common purposes related to our national defense; weights and measures; trademarks, copyrights, and patents; regulating trade or commerce between the States and with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes; and a handful of other purposes, but then we leave the rest of the governing to the States.

We come together in the same manner articulated by the Iroquois Indian Chief Canassatego from the Onondaga Tribe, who at a conference in Albany explained to early Americans the secret to the Iroquois Confederacy's longevity, to its peace, to its security. The Tribes came together. When they were united, they couldn't be broken, but each one maintained its independence.

A quiver of arrows bound together is almost impossible to break. One arrow by itself can be broken easily. It is that same vision--largely unheard of in the rest of the world--that helped create a uniquely American experiment in self-government. This has been the recipe to our success, to our longevity as a constitutional Republic, to our ability to exist as now 50 separate States with different opinions.

There are great consequences to moments when we take debatable matters--matters of profound and fundamental disagreement, as described by my colleague--and we place them beyond debate. This is precisely what happened some 50 years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States arrogated to itself at once the power of lawmaker and the power of constitutional draftsman. You see, what they did was they took away the power from the 50 respective States to decide these issues of profound and fundamental disagreement regarding the sanctity of life: when it begins, when unborn human life deserves protection of the law and when it does not.

Oh, yes, last year, the Supreme Court of the United States finally undid that usurpation of constitutional authority. They were acting as lawmakers. It was not their role. They were taking something Federal, relegated to the States. It wasn't theirs. Even if it were a Federal issue, it wouldn't be theirs to make law in this area because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States that makes abortion something to be decided at the Federal level by nine lawyers wearing robes, sitting at the Supreme Court of the United States. Not one jot, not one tittle, not one syllable pertains to that. So the Supreme Court of the United States was right in making that decision.

I understand that my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Colorado, disagrees with me on that front, as is his right. Importantly, however, this debate is not about that. This debate doesn't even deal with abortion. It doesn't deal with abortion directly. It doesn't deal with whether or under what circumstances the law should allow a woman to pursue an abortion. I have strong feelings about that that differ sharply from those of my friend and colleague from Colorado, but that is not what we are talking about here.

What we are talking about here is that the American people recognize that this is an issue that sharply divides Americans--an issue that my colleague describes as a matter of profound and fundamental disagreement. What does unite them is the idea that Federal taxpayer dollars shall not be used for abortions.

This is codified elsewhere, in the Hyde amendment, in the Mexico City policy. It is codified in matters particular to the Department of Defense in 10 U.S.C., section 1093. That is what we are dealing with here.

We can't make the mistake of accusing Senator Tuberville of trying to impose his morality or his conception of under what circumstances a woman ought to be able to obtain an abortion. I believe Senator Tuberville's views on that are similar to mine, but those are not at issue here. What is at issue here is whether taxpayer dollars from U.S. taxpayers ought to be spent in this area.

My colleague also suggested that this is somehow not different from what we do in other areas. There are all kinds of medical procedures for which members of the military can travel from one State to another in order to obtain those procedures. Understood. But those aren't the procedures at issue here.

This is specific to abortion. We are specifically creating measures for abortion--not for appendicitis, not to have bunions removed, not for other procedures. It is for abortion.

What you are doing here is to say we will pay your travel. We will give you a per diem. We will give you 3 weeks of paid leave time. You don't have to use your accumulated leave time in order to do that.

That is unique to abortion. That means they are paying for abortion.

So, no, I am not willing to concede, and I have not conceded, that the law has no application here. I believe it violates the spirit--if not also the letter--of the law. It certainly violates the spirit but, inarguably, the letter.

When there is a Federal law that says you may not use this for abortion, if you use it for things that are entirely around abortion-- we will pay for your travel out of State to get the abortion; we will give you additional leave time with an attached value to it; we will give you per diem while you seek that abortion--that is about abortion.

Imagine a young college student--a young college student who has something that every college student probably wishes they had, a rich uncle. Imagine there is a college student. We will call him Bill. Bill has got a rich uncle. We will call him Thurston--Thurston Howell III. Thurston Howell III has got an enormous amount of money--more money than he knows what to do with. He is what you might call a gazillionaire. He says to his nephew Bill: Bill, I don't have any kids. You are the only one who is going to be able to carry on the family name. You are attending my alma mater, and I want you to live in style. I want you to enjoy life. I am going to pay for your tuition. I am going to pay for your room and board. In fact, not just your housing, I am going to buy you a house located close to the campus where you can live in style. I will get you a car, pay your healthcare expenses, and everything. I am going to do all of this for the rest of the time you are in college.

Bill, you see, is in his first semester, about to wrap up the first semester. So he is excited about all he is about to gain.

But his uncle, Thurston Howell III, imposes one restriction on those funds. He says: Now, I know that you have pledged with and are now a member of the Sigma Beta Fraternity. And the Sigma Betas at this university are known for one thing. They are infamous. Everybody knows they throw really big, exciting keg parties, drunken frat parties. They love those things.

So Mr. Howell says to his nephew, Bill: Look, as a Sigma Beta, you are going to do what you are going to do. That is your decision. I am not going to tell you that you can't drink while receiving money. But I am going to say this: You may not use my money for your drunken frat parties. And, by the way, I want you to submit quarterly receipts to me so I can review what you are doing.

Well, the first quarter of the next semester goes by, and Thurston Howell III is reviewing Bill's receipts. He is aware that some huge keg parties have been thrown. He has heard that the latest of them happened to be carried out in the house that he bought for his nephew Bill and that there was a lot of alcohol served there, just as there is at every Sigma Beta party. Then he sees in the receipts-- receipt after receipt--one for invitations, one for streamers, one for various forms of video entertainment that they had set up there, a big expense for a lot of red cups, and even an expense line for ping-pong balls, you know, for beer pong.

He goes to Bill, and he says: What have you done? I have asked you not to use this for your drunken frat parties. I don't want to be paying for your alcohol-filled ragers.

Bill says back to him: Well, no, every other member of the fraternity paid for the alcohol. I just paid for the invitations and the streamers and the red cups and the ping-pong balls and the video entertainment system and the DJ.

I don't think Thurston Howell III would be all that convinced that Bill hadn't violated the terms of the support agreement.

Now, sure, Bill could argue with him all along. He could say: No, you are wrong, Uncle Thurston.

It doesn't make Uncle Thurston any more inclined to go out of his way to continue to provide that funding. If anything, what we are dealing with here is far clearer than the restriction placed on Bill in my hypothetical.

Congress has said unequivocally: We are not going to use Department of Defense funds, we are not going to use Department of Defense facilities for abortions.

That is what the Department of Defense has done. It is a policy change, and a policy change that my friend from Colorado has acknowledged is a policy change. He believes it is justified somehow by the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. He is welcome to that opinion, but it is not accurate.

There is no clause in there that says that there is an exception if the Supreme Court changes its jurisprudence with regard to Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and their progeny. Not a jot, not a tittle, not a scintilla supports that.

So, now, unhappy that some of these nominees aren't moving, Secretary Austin sends his emissaries, sends his friends in the Senate to go and attack Senator Tuberville. Why? Because Senator Tuberville is standing up for what the law says.

He is not trying to impose his morality on women in the military--far from it. He is just trying to impose the law, to make sure the law is followed, and that when the law is not followed, he is not going to help the Department of Defense move things any faster. That is well within his right to do, and I applaud him for it. We need more of that very kind of courage in the U.S. Senate.

As the Supreme Court has learned--as we have all learned from that experience--we don't end these profound and fundamental disagreements by taking debatable matters beyond debate. That is what the Supreme Court tried in Roe v. Wade, and it failed, especially because it was untethered from the Constitution and fundamentally at odds with it.

This effort here to rewrite the law from the E-Ring of the Pentagon will fare no better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there are myriad ways in which concerns of those serving in the military, concerns of dependents of those serving in the military, could be accommodated in a way that doesn't violate the letter, if not--or at least the spirit of the law. Among other things, the military, if it wanted to, could, without offending this provision of law or any provision of law that I am aware of, give military personnel some say in where they live.

If there is some State that, for one reason or another, whether related to this issue or another, is offensive to them; if it would, in their judgment, impair their health or otherwise be objectionable to them--perhaps just be objectionable to them on this basis--the military could, without implicating this or any other statute of which I am aware, give them some say in it, give them the ability to say ``I don't want to serve there; I would like to be transferred somewhere else.'' That wouldn't involve Federal funds funding or at least facilitating abortion.

So the fact that we have different States with different laws and the fact that those laws may impact people differently depending on where they happen to be living, where they happen to be serving at the time, doesn't mean that the only answer is for the Department of Defense to ignore 10 U.S.C. 1093 and pretend that nothing has changed and pretend that nothing has changed relative to its relationship to Congress.

Now, as to Senator Tuberville, let's remember, he went to the Department of Defense. If I am not mistaken, he went to the Secretary of Defense himself. He outlined his concerns because there have been rumors circulating about this policy for months.

Senator Tuberville, remember, is a member of the Armed Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has an oversight role-- an important one--over the Department of Defense. It was his right, it was his duty to know what was going on in the Department of Defense. He inquired again and again and again, and they wouldn't tell him.

Finally, he got an audience with the Secretary of Defense and informed him, as I understand the conversation, of the fact that there would be dire consequences, including this one, if he chose to proceed. The Secretary of Defense considered that risk, and he undertook it nonetheless. He stood before the law and the wishes of a U.S. Senator and the promise of a U.S. Senator that this would be the consequence, and he did it anyway.

I can't speak to why he chose to do that, but it was, in fact, his choice; it was, in fact, his decision.

So, now, as to the suggestion that there are other procedures for which people can travel interstate and that we haven't raised objections with regard to those, those aren't covered by this policy. This one is about abortion. This one is there to say: If you want to get an abortion, then you get the 3 weeks of extra leave, paid leave; then you get the per diem; then you get the reimbursed travel. You get all of that if you are getting an abortion.

That is not there for anything else. It is not there for the treatment of other medical conditions that are common--strep throat treatment that happens to be unavailable in one area or another or--I don't know--schistosomiasis. I don't know what that is, but I heard the term on ``M.A.S.H.'' once. It is a real dire medical condition. Maybe you are serving in one State, and they can't treat that in one State because of that State's quirky laws. This policy doesn't offer any relief on that, no.

This applies specifically to abortion, implicating the concerns of the American people--legitimate concerns, I would add--over the use of Federal funds for that purpose. That unites Americans more than perhaps any other, and with a lot of good reason.

They are telling these military women: We are so supportive of this particular thing that we are going to pay for your travel; we are going to reimburse everything; we are going to give you a per diem and give you 3 weeks of paid leave.

I do wonder sometimes how one would feel, as a woman serving in the military, being told that. What if you are a woman who may become pregnant who wants to become pregnant? Does this create the kind of hostile environment in which a woman wanting to serve in the military and wanting to have children feels that the Department of Defense is so, so resistant to childbearing among its female servicemembers that it is willing to pay out a lot of money to do that?

In any event, this is not something that one can easily reconcile with the policy embodied in 10 U.S.C. section 1093. That can be changed. There is nothing etched into the Constitution about that. Congress could change it. But to do that, you would have to have the votes. To have the votes, you would have to have some sort of legislative effort to do that. There hasn't been one here.

Why? Well, because it is a lot easier to just decree it, just pen a memo and issue the memo, saying: We are going to make it so. We are going to ignore it.

As to the suggestion that this is not something that can be compared to a drunken frat party, well, fair point; it cannot. No, it is much more serious than that. The American people don't feel so passionately about a drunken frat party that they have put in place a Federal law saying that the Department of Defense may never use funds to hold certain kinds of parties, including those involving alcohol.

This involves unborn human life. Now, I understand that not everybody approaches unborn human life and its sanctity and the degree to which it should be protected under law the same way, but that is exactly why this policy exists, and that is exactly why the policy is embodied in a Federal statute. This stands squarely in the face of that, and it disregards it.

Senator Tuberville has every right and every reason to stand up for this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the argument made by my friend and my distinguished colleague from Colorado resonates with me. He doesn't want this to be treated ``unlike every other medical procedure.'' I couldn't agree more. That is all Senator Tuberville is suggesting. It shouldn't be treated any differently than the others, because other medical procedures--you don't get 3 weeks of paid leave; you don't get per diem; you don't get your airfare and whatever else paid for. Just treat it the same way. It is not just that it is a good idea; it is not just that it is fair; it is that it is also consistent with Federal law, which says we don't use Federal funds for abortions. We just don't do that.

So here, not only are we doing the opposite of what he said he wanted, which is to not have abortions treated unlike every other medical procedure, but we are using Federal funds to do it. I find that difficult to reconcile with the law and with the policy embodied in that law.

As to the suggestion of States' rights, I want to be very clear here. Speaking of federalism--I don't speak of this ever as States' rights. States don't have rights. States have power. They have authority. Rights are the opposite of power and authority. Rights are things that you invoke against authority, as a carve-out to that authority.

So with regard to federalism, there is no reason why someone serving in the military couldn't be given some sort of preference not to serve in a particular State, whether because of a moral objection to a State's policy or a practical medical objection. That would be an entirely permissible way, as far as I am concerned, for the Department of Defense to deal with the issue raised by the Senator from Colorado. But what they can't do is find a way sneakily to use Federal funds-- Department of Defense funds--in order to bring about these abortions.

Look, it is not Senator Tuberville who brought us here. Senator Tuberville didn't bring us to this moment. This was a conscious, deliberate choice made by the Department of Defense, made by the Secretary of Defense, and it was an unwise one, and I am proud to stand behind him in that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. We can confirm every one of those folks tonight, right now.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Do it right now. If the Department of Defense takes it off the table and says they will suspend it until such time as the Senate can debate, discuss it, and bring about the necessary change to Federal law, I will agree to that right now, and we will get them confirmed tonight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the statute prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay for an abortion--can't possibly be interpreted as having nothing to say about paying most of the cost associated with an abortion. By the time you pay someone to travel, by the time you pay someone to travel interstate, you give them 3 weeks of compensated leave, you give them per diem, most of the cost associated with that abortion has then been paid by the Federal Government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source