Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act

Floor Speech

SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT -- (Senate - December 08, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Before the Senator leaves, I wish to put one fine point on something the Senator said in response to the question from the Senator from Pennsylvania about the use of Medicaid funds in the States.

There are a number of States that do provide programs that have abortion funding, but I think there is a very clear distinction that needs to be made in Medicaid funds which are matching funds, and none of those funds can be used to fund abortions. You said that in response to his question, but I think that point needs to be made very clearly because the Senator from Pennsylvania was implying that somehow, since States have created programs to fund abortions and since Medicaid is a Federal and State program, that somehow those two are being mixed, and that this idea that because they are calling for ``segregation,'' that really doesn't exist in the Medicaid Program.

The Medicaid Program--those are matching funds--is a Federal-State program. The Federal dollars that go into the Medicaid Program--the prohibition that exists on Federal funding of abortions applies to Medicaid dollars that go to the States, to the degree that States have adopted programs that fund abortion. Those are State funds and not Medicaid funds, which are matching funds.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. If the Senator will yield----

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. THUNE. That is what Stupak and other Members of the House of Representatives saw; that this created tremendous ambiguity and they sought to tighten it up and reinstate the longstanding policy regarding Federal funds and their use to finance abortions since 1977, the Hyde language. The Stupak amendment to the House bill passed with 240 votes. There was a sizable, decisive majority of Members in the House of Representatives who saw through what the ambiguity was that exists regarding the House bill and now the Senate bill.

This is intentionally ambiguous for the reasons you mentioned. This simply clarifies, once and for all, what has been standard policy at the Federal level going back to 1977. As the Senator stated earlier, I believe it represents the consensus view in America of both Republicans and Democrats who believe this is ground we can all stand on, irrespective of where people come down on this issue; that the idea that somehow Federal taxpayer funds ought to finance abortions is something most Americans disagree with. That is why there has been such broad, bipartisan support for this particular policy, and that is why it should be extended into the future.

As the Senator from Utah said, 61 percent are against funding abortions. But I have seen polls that suggest it is much higher than that. I know it is much higher in my State of South Dakota. I commend the Senator for seeing his way to offer an amendment that clarifies and removes all this ambiguity and what, to me, is clearly an intentional ambiguity regarding this issue and the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source