National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have come to the floor for 6 of the past 7 years to offer the Murray-Snowe amendment to lift the restrictions on privately funded abortions for our military women serving overseas. We have offered this amendment virtually every year since 1996 with the hope that one day women in the military would not be required to sacrifice their constitutional right when they serve overseas.

Since 1996, this amendment has twice passed on the Senate floor only to be killed during conference. This amendment has always been relevant and germane, even in postcloture debate. The amendment simply ensures access to safe and legal reproductive health care for our military personnel. Access to safe and legal health care is certainly relevant when discussing the Department of Defense authorization bill.

I find it extremely hard to understand how after these 7 years this topic is suddenly no longer relevant. It does not make sense. I think it is an outrage and an insult to the women who serve in our military. I would never want to have to tell a woman in our Armed Forces who is risking her life to serve our country overseas that her health care is irrelevant in the Senate.

The intent of the Defense authorization bill is to ensure that our military has the resources and support it needs to protect all of us. The health of our female service members is certainly a key ingredient in a successful military. Today, women are serving side by side in combat situations and in hostile war zones. Women are a critical part of our military. They serve in leadership roles, and they provide outstanding service. Their health care is relevant. I don't know how many of my colleagues could come to the floor and argue any differently.

I thank the cosponsors of the amendment, including Senators SNOWE, BOXER, CANTWELL, COLLINS, SCHUMER, JEFFORDS, and CORZINE.

My amendment would eliminate the restrictions on privately funded abortions only. It doesn't change conscience clauses for military personnel. It doesn't require direct funding, and it would not result in a huge new mission for military health care.

Under current restrictions, women who volunteer to serve their country—and female military dependents—are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right 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 accorded all women in this country. Women depend on their base hospital and military care providers to meet all of their health care needs. Singling out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health.

The truth is, women serving overseas have very few options when facing a difficult pregnancy. They can seek care in a host country, but few countries have the standard of health care that we take for granted here at home. These women service members can seek leave—not medical leave—and be transported back to the United States.

These are difficult options which put women's lives in jeopardy. That is why retired GEN Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman three-star general, supported my amendment. She has firsthand knowledge of women who face this difficult experience, and she wrote to me about one of those women. She told me:

[T]hat 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.

The impact of this unconstitutional restriction on women's health is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

[Page S6828]

In the past, some have argued that allowing privately funded abortions in military facilities overseas would be a huge burden that the military couldn't meet.

I wish to point out that the previous administration endorsed my amendment and saw no problems implementing this policy.

I also add that under current law the military is required to provide abortion-related services when a woman's life is in jeopardy in the case of rape or incest. To say that the military cannot provide this service calls into question that ability to meet current law.

In the past, we have had concerns raised about objections from host countries. Abortion is illegal in many countries, as is family planning for unmarried women. In some countries, simply allowing them to drive can violate local customs and laws.

I think the military has a long tradition of respecting the laws and customs of host countries without delegating women to second-class citizenship status or sacrificing our own proud history of equal treatment under law. Current restrictions humiliate servicewomen by forcing them to seek the approval of their commanding officer in order to travel back to the United States for abortion services.

We know from a previous GAO report issued in May of 2002 that many commanding officers "have not been adequately trained about the importance of women's basic health care." Department of Defense officials say that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be reluctant to allow active-duty members, both women and men, time away from their duty stations to obtain health care services.

Many women are forced to seek care off the base or wait until leave can be arranged without approval from a commanding officer.

Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe and adequate care is available.

I have to tell you, I do not see why lifting this offensive and dangerous restriction now—this year—is not relevant to a Department of Defense authorization bill. Isn't it our goal to provide the resources and support for our military personnel?
How can the health and safety of women who serve in the military all of a sudden be called not relevant?

I have been told that if I offer this amendment, the Chair is going to rule it out of in order on the claim it is not relevant, so I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment.

I do not know how we explain to military servicewomen that their health care is not relevant or that supporting their access to safe and legal reproductive health care is somehow now not part of the Defense authorization bill.

This is a sad day for our country when women who are serving their country overseas are told their health care is not relevant by the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am asking the Senator from Washington to yield for a question.

Frankly, I am surprised, and I think it is a travesty that you are not able to offer your amendment. I do not understand on what legislation this would be relevant if not this legislation. I know you have offered it previously on the Defense authorization. I have voted for it on the Defense authorization on previous occasions. And this seems to me to be the same kind of trap we have discovered now with respect to the amendment dealing with concurrent receipts for retired veterans who also have been disabled who are prevented from collecting both. We are told that is not relevant. My amendment to scrap the 2005 base closing round, we are told that is not relevant.

I wonder if there is any legislation on which these kinds of amendments would be more relevant than the Defense authorization? It is where they should be offered. It is the location of this debate. It is where this debate must be held. Somehow we have gotten into this trap of being told this is not relevant. Clearly, it is relevant.

So can the Senator from Washington tell me, is there another piece of legislation where this would be more appropriately offered? I cannot think of one.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct.

There is no other piece of legislation that is before us where this is relevant. In fact, I have offered this six times on the Department of Defense authorization bill, even postcloture, and it was considered relevant.

I am shocked and amazed that women are being told today they are not relevant. I am furious that women are being told they are not relevant when it comes to the Department of Defense, when it comes to their health care, and when it comes to the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for another question, if you offered this postcloture on previous occasions—it relates to a question that was asked yesterday—has the judgment about what is relevant changed here in this Chamber? The answer to that, in my judgment, is yes. In my judgment, this would have been relevant under almost any other set of circumstances.

But I wonder if the Senator from Washington would agree with me that we should never, ever again—I will never, ever again allow a unanimous consent agreement on the floor of the Senate on an authorization bill of this type to decide that we will restrict ourselves to relevant amendments. If the definition of "relevancy" is reasonable and thoughtful, then that is just fine with me, but in this case it has not been.

It is a travesty of justice that the Senator from Washington is not able to offer her amendment today. The same is true with concurrent receipt, and the same is true with base closings. So I would say there will not be a unanimous consent request that gets consent to say on the next authorization bill we will limit ourselves only to relevant amendments.

It is quite clear now the definition of "relevancy" has changed in a way that disadvantages the Senator from Washington and others who want to offer amendments that are clearly relevant to this bill and have always been relevant to this bill, but now we are discovering, for some reason, it has been ruled nonrelevant. I think that is a travesty.

I say to the Senator from Washington, would the Senator agree that she would want to join those of us who object to these further unanimous consent requests on future bills with respect to relevancy, if this is the way "relevancy," if this is the way "relevant" is going to be defined here in the Senate?

Mrs. MURRAY. I hear the Senator, and I absolutely agree. And I will join with any Senators who object to any bill coming up when the word "relevant" is being used.

I have been in public policy for almost two decades now, and "relevancy" and "germaneness" have meant specific things to all of us, and we have offered relevant amendments, including the amendment I meant to offer tonight, and they have always been relevant. They have been relevant on this bill six times already, even postcloture.

It seems to me now we have a definition for "relevancy" that is above the definition of "germaneness," and that is simply unbelievable to me. I concur with the Senator, the only thing we have left is to not agree to any unanimous consent requests that use the word "relevancy."

But I say to my colleague, it seems to me the word "relevancy" is now putting a lot of people into being irrelevant: veterans, when it comes to concurrent receipt; communities that are trying very hard to keep stable, when it comes to base closures; and now women—we are all irrelevant. I find that extremely upsetting.

Mrs. MURRAY. I find that simply astounding. Department of Defense bills are essentially language that changes for different military programs, all kinds of things in the bills. But certainly the issue of whether or not a woman has a right to have safe and legal health care overseas when she is serving her country has been ruled as germane in the past. It seems obviously pretty out of order and extraordinary that that would be where we are tonight.

Let me just do this, because I think all of us agree this amendment is one that has been considered on the bill before. It does deal with a woman's ability to have safe health care. It is one that has been ruled germane twice in postcloture times. I would just ask unanimous consent that the rule on relevancy at this time be waived so I can offer the amendment tonight, because I think it is important that we allow a procedure that has been done many times before to continue under this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I find that very troubling. I find it troubling the Senate has now decided to change the definition of relevancy we have operated under in the Senate as long as I have been here. It appears very clear to me now that the issue of relevancy is a much higher standard than the issue of germaneness. We have stepped into a realm most of us are going to be very sorry we are in.

I again will say to my colleagues that having objected to waiving this relevancy, having listened to how we have now changed the definition of relevancy, what we are really doing is saying to women in this country they are irrelevant. I find that to be very sad, Mr. President.