National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Amendment 691)

Date: May 22, 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Defense Abortion

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 691

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment.

We worked hard on this bill. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are still in a state of conflict in Iraq. We have hostilities and dangers around the world. We made a commitment, as a Senate, to move forward, to move this Defense bill early this year, not wait until the last minute, to do our work properly.

This bill is endangered now by a highly controversial amendment, which I oppose, and which I think a majority in this body will oppose. It could affect adversely our ability to conduct a harmonious conference with the House of Representatives. It could even result in a veto by the President of the United States.

I know there is a strong abortion agenda still out here, even though the polling numbers continue to show erosion for that position.

This side of the aisle—Senator Brownback and others who care about the issue—has not injected abortion into the Defense debate, but it has been raised by the pro-abortion agenda groups. I think that is not healthy. I wish it had not happened. I know there has been a debate over whether or not it is even relevant, but the Parliamentarian had ruled that it is, so we will have this vote today.

I will just note, as an example of the reality of the problem, we had a bankruptcy bill that I worked on in the Judiciary Committee—and others did—for several years. We voted on it on the floor of this body and got 87 votes for it. Yet it died in committee because a pro-abortion amendment had been placed on it. The conference committee could not break the deal, and eventually the entire bill failed.

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. On your time, Mr. President.

Mr. CARPER. I just want 1 minute, if I could.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama controls the time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield for 1 minute, if he would use Senator Murray's time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, on the issue the Senator raises in relation to the bankruptcy legislation, I make a point of
clarification. This is an issue I care about as much as the Senator from Alabama. The language that died, after having been reported out to the conference committee, was language that said when a person commits a violent act for which they are convicted and fined, they cannot discharge that fine in a court of bankruptcy.

It does not say anything about abortion. It does not say anything about abortion clinics. It says if you have been convicted of a violent act, you cannot go to a court of bankruptcy and discharge that claim for which you have been convicted and fined. That is what it said.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator yield?

Mr. CARPER. I just wanted to make that clear.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do not think the Senator, who is a great colleague, would dispute the fact that language resulted in the
failure of that bill.

People care about this issue. It is a big deal to people. It is a personal and emotional issue that I don't think needs to be pressed at this point.

Our military physicians and nurses are not happy with it. It would require us to utilize military hospitals as facilities to carry out abortions. It would make our hospitals a part of the abortion process. It would utilize Federal property and resources to that degree. It covers not just foreign hospitals but every hospital in America.

Yes, it is legal—clearly legal—that a woman can have an abortion and can use her own money to that effect, but we have sort of reached an understanding and compromise in the Congress that it is legal but because of respect for people with differing views, we just will not use taxpayers' money to fund it. There is just sort of a truce, in a way, that has been reached. I think it is probably something we just have to live with at the present time.

I don't see any need to pressure or embarrass doctors and nurses who do not feel comfortable doing this. We know this. There was a survey done of the Army, Navy, and Air Force obstetricians; 44 of them were surveyed. All but one said they adamantly opposed doing abortions. One later said that physician was opposed to abortions. Some of these were women physicians. Nurses are not comfortable with it. I don't believe we ought to be requiring military hospitals to go out and hire other physicians to come in on Government taxpayer funded property to conduct these procedures. It is just not necessary.

President Bush has made clear he opposes using taxpayers' money to fund abortions. Passage of this amendment would threaten that.

I believe women are playing an increasingly valuable role in our military. I spent over 10 years as a reservist and served with many fine women officers. The unit I was a part of in Mobile, AL, is now in Kuwait commanded by a woman officer.
I can't tell you how proud I am of them. I am not hearing from the women I know in the military that this is something they are demanding, frankly. I don't think the American people are.

I will just point out some numbers that deal with this subject. If anybody cares, a January 2003 poll of ABC News/Washington Post—not conservative groups—showed that only 23 percent were for abortion to be legal in all cases.
That is less than a fourth. The same poll found, when asked this question, should we make abortion harder to get, 42 percent said yes; easier to get an abortion, 15 percent said yes. So 42 percent thought it ought to be harder to get an abortion and 15 percent thought it should be easier.

In January of 2003, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked this question: should abortion be generally available, 39 percent; stricter limits, 38 percent; not permitted, 22 percent. Sixty percent favored either stricter limits or not permitted. A CNN Gallup poll in 2003 asked, should parental consent be required for an abortion? Yes, 73 percent.

Regardless of how we personally feel about this issue, it ought not to be on this bill. It is not what we need to be debating now. We need to be focused on our men and women in harm's way, providing them with the necessary funding and resources and equipment needed to do their job. We don't need to jeopardize this bill in conference or subject it to a possible Presidential veto as a result of this amendment.

I thank Senator Brownback for his leadership and yield back such time as I may have.

arrow_upward