of justice. as you just stated in your question we believe in an independent department of justice and that's what the president said when he was running and what he is set for the last two years. thank you very much. i will see you guys.

the senate about to gavel back in after going into recess for classified breaking -- briefing on iran with the director of intelligence and deputy secretary of state earlier today senators passed a measure to repeal washington d.c. police reform law by voted 56-43. it now heads to president biden who has plans to veto it. the senate will come to order.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. blumenthal: i believe there's a quorum call. the presiding officer: there is no quorum call. the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that martin gurch and michael harris, fellows in my office be given floor privileges for the remainder of 2023. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i rise today to address the senator from alabama's decision to hold hundreds of nominations -- literally hundreds of nominations that have been submitted to this body. i want to join my colleagues who have taken the shall initiative -- the initiative and stand alongside them and the men and women in uniform who protect our right to speak in these halls every day and our other fundamental liberties every day. we ask our men and women in uniform to do more now than ever

before, particularly as we are engaged in countering vladimir putin's murderous assault in ukraine. i have visited them in germany, where they are training ukrainians, i spoken to them at the border in poland where they are providing essential military weapons to the ukrainians. i have seen them at work all around the globe. even though we are at peace now, it is only because they are a deterrent to enemies around the world. and threats are rapidly evolving and rising, and the united states military is the only force that can stem the tide of autocracy, which is the reason why i am so outraged that the senator from alabama is choosing to cripple our military by

placing on hold a series of critical nominations. earlier this year, secretary austin issued a memo -- a policy memo guaranteeing that servicemembers would have easier access to reproductive health care. they can now take nonchargeable leave and receive per deyes, ma'am -- per deam to receive care do receive every other health care procedure available to dod personnel. secretary's decision rectified a dod policy that marginalized the women who serve in our nation and provide that essential dwa guarantee -- that essential guarantee of peace and freedom. it damaged readiness.

it truly does put people first that we have corrected that egregious error. instead of celebrating that servicemembers have access to health care and policy programs that they consistently sought, senator tuberville called the policy, and i'm quoting, a waste of time and resources. he believes that protecting the well-being and privacy of those who serve, and again i'm using his words, is, quote, immoral and illegal. i disagree. i couldn't disagree more. servicemembers shouldn't have to wonder whert they're going to receive health care. providing access to reproductive care certainly isn't a distraction. it increases readiness an preparedness in the strength of our force. he is doing the very thing -- he

accuses the new policy of doing, which is to damage readiness and jeopardize our nation's security. he is doing it by holding up the president's nominees. let me just talk about those individuals whose nominations he has blocked. rear admiral george wickoff, he is the nominee to be the next commander of the navy's fifth fleet. he is an accomplished aviator, former top gun instructor and has extensive experience in the theater he's been nominated to command. his service is essential to the 15,000 personnel responsible for defending american interests in the persian gulf and arabian

seas. it isn't a luxury or convenience. it's essential that he be there. rear admiral fred cocher, nominated to lead the seventh fleet which is charged with challenging the chinese aggression. nearly 30,000 sailors and marines are with the fleet and constitute a line of defense in the pacific. while iran and china search for every opportunity to threaten peace, senator tuberville's response is to deprive the fifth and seventh fleets of their incoming commanders. he's holding our next military representative to nato, rear admiral shoshan. she is a recipient of the

defense bronze star medal, themg the largest land war in europe since world war ii, the senator from alabama is blocking admiral chatfield's promotion. again, not a luxury, not an inconvenience, it is essential to our national defense. he's blocking major general david hones nomination for the role of deputy commander for the army's future command. that future command position oversees the design of forest capabilities into the future an ensures our soldiers maintain lethal advantages on the battlefield. his hold is preventing the next vice chief and chief of staff from assuming command.

later this year charles brown to become the next chief of staff will be blocked if the senator from alabama does not lift his hold. let us be clear about what is at stake here. blocking these nominations simply because of his putting personal beliefs above national security is a threat to our national defense. he is doing putin and xi's jobs for them. he claims that this action is about the president is trying to legislate from the white house. he claims the department of defense had an abortion policy for decades. respectfully, and i mean very respectfully to a colleague in this body, i would remind him that for decades women in the

military had to hide their abortions from their commanders and that referrals for care operated on a whisper network. if it were up to the senator from alabama, he would override the medical recommendations of military doctors and commanders across the force. i hope that he will stand with the military and their families and forego future action blocking this essential set of nominations. the senator from alabama is entitled to his opinion. the military that he is so keen to stop from advancing its nominees defends the

constitution that gives him that right to his opinions and his right to speak from his heart and his conscience. but families who sacrifice so much already are waiting for this body to act. they're waiting so they can enroll their children into new schools, find new chumps, start new jobs. harming the military and their families serves only the interests of our adversary. i urge my colleague from alabama to lift his hold and let the military continue to defend our freedom from those who seek to destroy it, and in the meantime i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc, calendar numbers 46 through number 52, calendar number 82 through 107,

calendars 110 through 113, calendars number 130 through 139, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i'm here to express my support for senator tuberville who is of course opposing the department of defense's ongoing attempt to use taxpayer funding to fund abortion. 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's not just a policy. it's a policy rooted in law.

under 10u.s.c., section 1093, the pentagon is prohibited from using department of defense funds are facilities to perform abortions. you see because we're divided as a country on issues related to abortion. people have sharply divided views on this. in fact, there's a pretty wide spectrum of views. but one thing that does tend to unite americans overwhelmingly is the idea that regardless of how you file about abortion, you don't -- 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. last time i read the constitution, mr. president, congress makes the laws, not the

department of defense. and when there are laws the department of defense doesn't like, the department of defense isn't free to reimagine the laws as the secretary of defense wish those laws were written. and yet the department of defense' policy memo from just a few months ago does just that. it attempts to sneak around the laws that we've already passed. this policy memo violates at least the spirit, quite arguably the letter of the law. they're trying to get around that, and they've made no secret of that fact. so senator tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy. wee should commend his courage and dedication to upholding the constitution and standing for those who cannot stand for themselves. and so i'd 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's not your job. that's 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's not -- it's not at all fair. it's completely inaccurate. it's utterly untheghterred from what senator tuberville is doing and would he ever said on this. he is not trying to tell women in the military or dependents of military families that they may not have an abortion.

he's standing behind what law already says which says you can't use federal funds or facilities within the department of defense to fund abortions and that is exactly what's happening here. now, as to the specific personnel mentioned just moments ago, when we look at, say, admiral chatfield or admiral whitekoff or anyone else on the list, there's any one of those people whose service, whose promotion is to 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 bonified opposition to that policy because it's in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 10 usc-1093. it takes a lot of gumption, that's audacity for the department of defense to ask for our help to facilitate the confirmation of these nominees, what they have taken away from us the prerogative that is uniquely ours. mr. president, it's no coincidence that the very first clawls of the first section of the first article of the constitution says all legislative powers and granted value 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 law making 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 ?a the senate and submitted 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's not his role. it's 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 or -- ordained by the constitution, senator tuberville is in no position where he has to agree to help them expedite it, nor should he. on that basis, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

ms. duckworth: mr. president, i come to the floor to talk about how we are currently failing our most senior military leaders, a failing caused entirely by my colleague the junior senator from alabama. members of are a all-volunteer force answer the call to service by choice. no one is making them serve. they choose to serve. for their sacrifices we owe them many things, fair pay, health care, veterans benefits to make sure they land on their feet after their service is done. we must also make sure they can do the hard, sometimes dangerous work they volunteered for without partisan politics getting in their way. yet my colleague has placed an indefinite hold on the nominations of all general officers preventing a still growing number of our most senior leaders from taking on the challenges of their next positions and leaving critical gaps in our military leadership. my colleague from alabama is harming our military readiness and our servicemembers not out

of concern about the promotion process or to ethical or professional qualifications of any of the nominees. he's doing it to score cheap political points, to fundraise with his base and to try to force a policy that he personally disagrees with to change not by legislating it like the voters of alabama sent him here to do but rather by holding our most senior military leaders hostage. if my colleague had legitimate concerns about the fairness of the promotion process or felt these nominees were not qualified, ethical leaders, this might be a different story. in fact, as my colleague pointed out, i once held some but certainly not all nominations but i only did it for 14 days because i was attempting to stop the administration in the white house at the time from inserting politics into a nonpartisan promotions process. i had legitimate, well founded concerns that an army colonel, a

single colonel's promotion would be withheld from consideration as political retaliation against him. i held the list of promotions for just 14 days until i received assurances that he had received fair consideration just like the rest of his peers and then i released my hold. put it another way. i wanted to make sure that the military promotion process, the one we use to make sure our military is led by the best, most qualified people was not being politicized. my colleague is doing the exact opposite. he's trying to change dod policy not by legislating but by holding up well deserved promotions to the detriment of leaders who have willingly served decades in uniform. all the servicemembers who are supposed to serve under them and our national security because he wants to insert politics into this historically nonpartisan process. if he doesn't like the dod

policy, then he can engage in the ndaa legislative process to change it. it's coming up. you're going to have your chance to do that. the nominations that my colleague is holding represent experienced professionals who if confirmed will tackle some of the biggest challenges that our military faces. in some cases the positions are completely vacant, and that job just isn't being done at all. i will only talk about a few of these nominations today. but the already long list grows each month. in a melt i will ask the senate -- moment i will ask the senate to confirm a lieutenant general and the deputy chief of staff g4 of the united states army. the army chief develops, impments and oversees army strategy, policy, plans, and programming for logistics and sustainment. some of the most challenging, if not the most challenging issues for the army to address.

take it from a broken down old soldier. logistics might not be sexy but without them, the army doesn't run. and the logistics and sustainment needs of tomorrow's fight will be very different from those of the last wars we have fought. we need to be working through these problems now. figuring out new strategies and plans, developing new systems that will serve our soldiers better, that's exactly what the army good 4 does. it's not optional. it's necessary. and we need major general hoya's leadership or it's troops out in front who will suffer. mr. president, i unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of the following nomination, calendar number 48, major general heidi j. hoyle to be lieutenant general, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no

intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and the president -- that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: before the chair entertains that motion, the chair would just like to remind all senators that rule 19 reads as follows -- no senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a senator. senators are reminded to address each other in the third person and through the chair. is there an objection to the request? mr. tuberville: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: reserving the right to object, again for the fourth or fifth time, i am

fighting against taxpayer-funded abortions. funding from taxpayers that was never ever approved by this congress. and, by the way, poll after poll shows that americans agree with exactly what i'm doing. the american people do not support taxpayer-funded abortions, period. democrats have had a few retired secretaries in the last few weeks agree with them. but other retired military leaders and thousands of servicemembers and veterans just happen to agree with me. just like the majority of americans. in fact, earlier today a letter representing more than 3,000 servicemembers and veterans was sent in full support of my hold. those servicemembers and veterans said, quote, this policy is not just illegal, it shamefully politicizes the

military, circumvents the authority of congress, and exceeds the authority of the department of defense. end quote. they sent that letter to leader schumer and leader mcconnell. and i would encourage them to please read it. i also earlier -- also earlier today retired general penned an op-ed condemning the pentagon's policies. they said, quote, the pentagon's new abortion policy has everything to do with activist politics and nothing to do with congress' obligation to raise and maintain armed forces to provide for the common defense, end quote. so i object, and i will continue to object. i will end with more comment from the retired military leader's op-ed. quote, america is a global power with global interests and responsibilities. we can't afford a military

distracted by politics. the quickest way to make this right is for secretary austin to immediately rescind his radical abortion policy, end quote. because of this, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: mr. president, i am disappointed that at senate is not able to confirm major general heidi hoyle today. the work major general hoyle would do, if confirmed, is vital to the success of our army. and now i want to consider another patriot whose promotion is being held by my colleague from alabama. rebecca sanchez, the current commander of the 618th air operation center are the tanker airlift control center at scott air force base in my home state. the center is responsible for operational planning, scheduling and directing assessing a fleet

of about 1,100 aircraft that conduct combat delivery and strategic airlift and air medical operations around the world. general sanchez is leading the operation center as it does some of the most complex, most important, least celebrated work in the air force. and yet her promotion is being held up not because of concerns about the fairness of the process or her own qualifications. no, her promotion has not been granted because one senator would rather use her and other servicemembers like her to try to manipulate the dod into doing what he wants instead of engaging in the legislative process. i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to calendar number 110, 23 nominations.

the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection to the request? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. 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 of these are done. and neither senator tuberville nor any other senator, to my knowledge, would interfere with that a 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 policy was being considered, to pretend that he didn't tell them then, there will be serious consequences if they decided to proceed in violation of 10 usc section 1093. now, no, no, this is not fair to put this on him. when the pentagon comes crawling back, after they did what they did to him, to the law, to all americans, that is manifestly unfair. to put it all on him to say it is his job to make sure everyone gets confirmed. and, by the way, you also have to help, you're 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's 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's a thing. so to argue otherwise and to try to point out that this policy memo somehow complies with that is too cute by half. number one, it's still quite arguably in violation of the letter of the law. you're still doing this to bring about an abortion. you're using federal taxpayer dollars from the department of defense so that someone has an abortion. you're paying for someone's travel to that state, per diem to that state, three weeks of paid leave time to that statement and it's specific to abortion. so 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. so i know, those raising these

consent requests, 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 and then undercut federal law in the process, that is not fair. that's what this is about. that's what you're trying to do. and i'm happy to stand with senator tuberville in defend respecting his rights. on that basis, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. duckworth: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: mr. president, by refusing to confirm nominations to positions of vital importance within the dod, the junior senator from alabama and some of his colleagues continue to risk our military readiness and our national security. and they continue to deny patriots who voluntarily have served our country for decades the promotions that they have earned as a means of trying to influence policy through extortion instead of through legislation or oversight. i call on autumn my colleagues to join me in opposing of the

actions of the senator from alabama for for the sake of our veterans. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: to the extent that military readiness is invoked is complicated, is threatened, is challenged, then by all means let's figure out a work-around. 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. if that's what this is resulting in, the department of defense, with all due respect, needs to stand down this until such time oas this can be debated and discussed. 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 thank if it's going to be -- thing that if it's going to be addressed, if they want a change of law, then that change of law ought to be pursued on the the floor of the senate and the national defense authorization act would present an opportunity for the department of defense to pursue that change. it can do it that way. you 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 imprecates military ready -- implicates military readiness, let's just take those words on their own face, that seems to me that that should apply with at least as much force, if not a for sure, to the department of defense rather than 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 abortion oz. so if anyone is threatening national security, it is not the

senator. and if this is threatening national security, bring those actions to the floor. we have procedures. it takes time. i understand that that's not what the democratic majority in the senate wants to do. that's the democratic majority's prerogative. but that being the prerogative, they can't all of a sudden put that on senator tuberville u finally, as to the suggestion that senator tubber bill was extorting anyone, extortion is a crime. that's a really inappropriate reference to use her. 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're going to change the law. now it's up to you to help us make sure that every one of these people gets a promotion. if you're going to use that term, you got to realize that it cuts both ways. i don't think it has any place on the floor. but if you're going to use it, it swings both ways and it may

well hit you. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i'm going to yield to my colleague from hawaii in just one moment, but i would like to clarify because i know -- i am a member of the armed services committee, as senator tuberville is. we work together on a lot of issues. i will support his right as part of the ndaa process to raise this issue as an amendment to the national defense authorization act. as my colleague from illinois has rightly suggested, and i think we can all agree, that is a clear forum to raise any

issue. we disagree, deeply disagree, on this one. and there are many votes on the ndaa through the markup session that we will conduct over not just several hours but several days, and every year we report out from the armed services committee in the 12 years that i have been on it consistently a bipartisan measure. there may be a couple of no votes, but it is deeply bipartisan. we can work together on our national defense. blocking these nominations is contrary to that spirit, in my view, because it basically prevents us from moving forward with vital leadership in the united states military that there is bipartisan support to advance.

so i'm hoping that, again, my colleague from alabama, whom we work with on many issues, will simply take that forum as a way to move forward. i yield to the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, earlier today every member of this body received a briefing on the ongoing threat iran presents to our nationality national security and allies around the world. it was a stark reminder of the serious challenges and threats the united states and our allies face around the world. it also underscored the importance of ensuring our military is ready and able to respond to any threats that may arise. right now, mr. president, one senator is willfully undermining our readiness. i happen to chair the readiness

subcommittee on the armed services committee. our servicemembers can only do their jobs if they are in place to do so, and right now the senator from alabama's hold on 196 general and flag officer promotions preventing these brave men and women from entering new roles in which they are urgently needed. since march, the senator from alabama has refused to allow movement on any of these promotions, depriving our military of critical leaders, a key post around the globe. mock the nearly -- among the nearly 200 promotions currently on hold is the next commander of navy sea systems command, who is responsible for overseeing the shipyard infrastructure optimization program, a critical infrastructure investment in our public shipyards, in hawaii and

across the country. the blanket hold also includes the director of defense logistics agency, or dla. dla oversees the defense supply chain for all services and will be essential to the safe defueling and closure of the red hill bulk actual storage facility on oahu, a leak from which impacted over 90,000 people living on oahu. the senator from alabama is also holding nominees to command fifth and seventh fleets, which are responsible for deterring threats from iran and china, respectively. for any member of this body to willfully degrade the readiness of these units is, in my view, unthinkably irresponsible. to be clear, these are not

controversial nominees. these are deck nateed -- decorated, patriotic men and women who have devoted their adult lives to serving our nation and who wish only to continue doing so. my colleague from alabama is placing a blanket hold on close to 200 promotions in the dod because he disagrees with dod's commonsense, humane policy to allow travel for servicemembers seeking reproductive services. thousands are posted in states that do not allow them to receive reproductive services, necessitating this travel. this is a policy my colleague objects to, resulting in his hold on these promotions. the travel policy does not include paying for abortion. how many times must this point

have to be made? why do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to read into the policy that which is not there? nowhere does the policy allow the dod to pay for abortion. there's no language in this policy that talks about facilitating the provision of abortion. show me this language. you can't, because it's not there. this is a travel policy for reproductive services. so my colleague from alabama is more concerned with pushing his ideological agenda than with the realities our troops face, even if that means depriving servicemembers of critical health care. in addition to undermining our national security, in reckless hold is creating chaos for these servicemembers, many of whom will have to relocate their

families and put their children in new schools. these promotions are carefully timed to ensure critical position ps don't go unfilled -- positions don't go unfilled. also that the servicemembers and their families can transition into new homes and schools, with as little disruption as possible. beyond being reckless and fundamentally ill-informed, the senator from alabama's -- i consider it a stunt, is a slap in the face of our servicemembers. they should be able to do their jobs without political interference. without someone putting their ideological agenda ahead of the need for us to make these decisions. for the sake of our servicemembers and our country, we need to end this dangerous block blockade. that's why in a moment i'll be

asking the senate to confirm calendar number 85. if cismed, this -- cismed, if nominee -- if confirmed, this nominee will command the navy's seventh fleet which has almost 75 ships and submarines and over 27,000 sailors and marines operating in contact with both the chinese and russian navies. encompassing many allies, partners, and competitors, the pacific and its four deployed fleet -- it's forward deployed fleet should not be left without its appropriate commander. mr. president, i ask consent, unanimous consent, that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 85, that the senate vote on the nomination, without intervening action or don't, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. tuberville: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: reserving the right to object. i continue to keep hearing about this word readiness from my colleagues. you know, we've had a law in place for nearly 40 years. the law provides for taxpayer-funded abortion in case of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother. nobody in 40 years, nobody on either side of the aisle has complained about this. this was a bipartisan consensus 40 years ago. the law was not affected by the

dobbs decision. dobbs decision did not apply to federal military installations. on july 8, 2022, two weeks after the supreme court ruling, the biden administration said they needed to expand abortion to counteract the dobbs decision. by memo they said the v.a. would pay for abortion travel and time off. by memo, they said hhs would pay for late-term abortions. by memo, they covered all federal workers, and they acted to expand abortion at the pentagon. the pentagon is now giving servicemembers and their dependents reimbursements for travel and additional paid time off for elective abortions. we're not talking about cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother, despite what some of my colleagues have said. we are talking about elective abortions. despite what some of my colleagues have said, that is what this is all about.

ordinary servicemembers get 30 days off a year. 30 days off. under this policy, servicemembers who get abortions would get 30 days off plus additional three weeks. servicemembers who get abortions get paid more time off than servicemembers who do not get abortions. pentagon is spending money without the consent of congress. this money was never authorized. it was never appropriated. nobody voted for this. even my friend from connecticut didn't vote for this policy. the democrats' strongest abortion supporters never voted for this. nobody voted for this. and now senators are down here defending this. they're outsourcing the work of the united states senate. follow the law or change the law in this building. that's the reason i object. the presiding officer: the

objection is heard. the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc, calendar numbers 46 through 52, number 82 through number 107, number 110 through number 113, number 133 through number 139, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president,

reserving the right to object. here again, we're faced with a problem -- the department of defense has decided to anoint itself a lawmaker. even though it's not in charge of making laws, it doesn't have that power, that power is reserved to us, to us exclusively, under article 1, section 1, and article 1, section 7. 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're 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 and facilities

within the department of defense for abortions. i've got another idea. i've got 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 could deal with all of this right now. we could probably get all these folks confirmed tonight if they'll just do one thing. this will be a nice compromise position. i suspect he would withdraw his objections, we could get everybody confirmed if the department of defense were to suspend this policy, suspend it and say, you know what? you're right. we should have addressed this legislatively. we'll bring it up in connection with the national defense authorization act. they may be able to get the votes in the senate to that. i'm not here to prejudge that position. that would be the appropriate way.

that would allow my friends on the other side of the aisle to accomplish what they want, and really to accomplish what senator tuberville wants, withcy to get these folks confirmed. but what he's not willing to do is ignore the fact that they're rewriting the law in their own image, to their own liking and political preferences. that's not something they can do or ask us to play a part in doing. senator tuberville is standing on principle. he's standing for the law. he's standing for the principle that we understand, the american people while sharply divided on many issues related to abortion are united, overwhelmly, on the fact that we -- overwhelmingly that we do not use taxpayer funding for apportions -- abortions. that's what they're doing. if 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 they can get the law changed through congress. if that's on the table, i'd love to discuss it. i'd love to advocate to senator

tuberville on behalf of that, if you're willing to consider it. but that's not on the table at the moment, and on that basis, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i think this is now the fifth time i've been out here with the senator from alabama. we started this off some time ago, and we obviously have a pro found and fundamental disagreement here. you know, i'm deeply worried about this, because i don't think this is actually about the senators that are here. it's about people serving in our armed forces, it's about people living in the united states of america, and about some really fundamental things that have changed in the united states. the senators on the other side of the aisle tonight have been talking about a 40-year consensus about the funding of abortions by the federal government, which is not actually even that issue in this

discussion because that's not part of the rules that's been changed. i think even the senator from utah's language here suggests that he knows that about the rules that have been proposed by the department of defense. but the reason we're on this floor again is that the senator from alabama has said he'll never comoims -- compromise, there is nothing that can convince him to change his mind. let's ask the question what is he defending? what is he defending? his position is that we shouldn't pay a travel allowance for members of the armed services who are going from a state that's been -- banned abortion to a state where they can have reproductive health care. he's against that, and so he's holding up every single flag officer in the united states of america as a result of that, a

tactic that has never been used in the history of the united states senate, in 230 years or more than that. that's what he's using because he's so offended that people can have their travel covered for this procedure. he's never come here to object to the fact that people can get their travel covered for all kinds of medical procedures, even though none of those procedures are written into the underlying statute by the united states congress, because that's not our job. we delegate that to the department of defense. so he's going to be out here and he's going to fight this until there is no travel allowance for people that need to travel. they have to cover it on their own dime, just like they have to cover that reproductive surgery or abortion on their own dime, despite what the senator

from alabama said. he's going to be out here until it all freezes over, until he ensures that -- you just heard him say it -- that anybody who leaves has to take paid leave. and let's be precise about it, women who leave to travel to another state where an abortion is legal, under his scenario, will have to pay for that travel themselves even though we pay for that travel for all kinds of other things. he will be out here fighting this making sure that not a single flag officer can ever be promoted in the department of defense, no matter who it is, no matter how important it is, until he is assured that women

in the defense department are stripped of the ability to have a little bit extra time to talk to their commanding officer when they're confronting one of the most difficult decisions anybody can make. those are the three rules that are at issue here. travel that's paid for, a little bit extra time, and some paid leave. now why are we having this debate? we're having this debate because for the first time in the history of the united states since reconstruction, we have lost a fundamental freedom. we've lost a fundamental right, and that is the result of the dobbs decision. people come out here and they're talking about 40-year consensus on this or that. we had a 50-year scun --

consensus in this country about a woman's right to abortion. we had a 50-year consensus among the courts and among the american people about what a woman's right to choose looked like. and we had a 40-year campaign, year after year after year, to create a united states supreme court, a majority of whom subscribe to, in my opinion, the mythological legal doctrine of originalism to strip the american people of that right, to strip the american people of that freedom. because if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today. and that has dramatically upset the expectations of the american people, including those who

serve in uniform. and tragically, in my opinion, and this is the one of those things where people can have fundamental moral disagreements and fundamental religious disagreements and fundamental positions that are totally different from one another, which i completely respect, i resolve those in my own mind with the idea that this is a decision that a woman should be left to make with her doctor. that's what i believe. but in the wake of this decision that was fought for for so long by so many politicians in america, 50 years or more than 50 years, we've now lost that fundamental freedom. we've now lost that fundamental right. it's no longer a choice between a woman and her doctor.

and in the wake of the dobbs decision, there are 18 states that have now banned abortion. 18 states. there are nine states -- i just got a thumbs up on the other side from the staff. there are nine states that have banned abortion without any exception for rape or incest. the senator from alabama's state is a state that's banned abortion. it's a state where there is no exception for rape or incest. it's a state where if you are a doctor and you have performed an abortion, you could go to jail for 99 years. my state is totally different from that. my state is the first state in america that, i think, that codified a woman's right to choose before roe was even decided in our state. and we're the first state in the

aftermath of the dobbs decision, we're the first state to say that we believe this should be a choice between a woman and her doctor. and we are going to fight that out in the country. a majority of people support the position that colorado have taken. 55% of people in alabama support the ability of women to be able to make this choice under some circumstances, and yet the senator from alabama has decided that his remedy to enforce his view of morality and of principle, his perspective is that he's going to do something that no senator has done for 230 years, which is to hold up

every flag officer's promotion for the department of defense. last week seven former secretaries of the defense, republicans and democrats, said this block is harming, quote, harming military readiness and risks damaging u.s. national security. i'm not saying that. i'm not saying that. seven former secretaries of defense have said that. mr. president, i'd ask the letter be included in the record so everybody can see that it's both republicans and democrats who are saying that about the hold put on, the unprecedented hold being put here by the senator from alabama. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: so i also want to say finally, and i'll stop,

that the rules that the department of defense have had to put in place in the wake of the dobbs decision, stripping women of this fundamental freedom, stripping women of this fundamental right, that these rules don't do what the, what my colleagues are saying they're going to do. once again it's a travel allowance. it says you can take paid leave. it says you can have a little bit more time to notify your commanding officer. that's all it's saying. and my colleague from alabama has unleashed the equivalent of this procedural nuclear weapon, because that offends his principle. that offends his sense of what's right.

and i'm not here to debate with him his sense of what's right, but i do believe that it's right that people that are serving in the armed forces of the united states of america, people who have enlisted to defend this country, who do not have the right to pick and choose which state they're going to be in and serve in, whether -- of all people in this country, of all people in this country, i've heard people say, i've heard people say -- in fact, i've even heard the senator from utah say this. i've read him say this, that one of the great things about living in america is you can move from state to state, and that's one of the great things of our federalist system, because you can take advantage of the laws that are consistent with your values and get away from the ones that are not. that's not true for our men and women in the military.

this is one of the practical consequences that the dobbs majority never grappled with because they applied their view of originalism to the fundamental, to the issues that we're facing today as a country. the very first call i got after that decision was made -- almost the first call, almost the first call, was from a woman who had served as an officer in the air force, who told me a personal story that she had been through. and she said to me, michael, they have no idea what the effect of readiness is going to be on our armed forces. they have no idea. and i don't think they would have ever believed that it would have been members of the united states senate who would have affected the readiness in the wake of dobbs the way that it's being done tonight. so i would ask respectfully for

the senator from alabama to withdraw his hold, to allow the senate to move forward as it has done for the last 230 years to approve these candidates that have themselves signed up to serve and themselves done the work to get promoteed, and let's have the argument that we need to have as a nation, that we need to have as a nation about this fundamental freedom and about this fundamental right without holding our department of defense hostage. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i appreciate the thoughtful insights 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 that he knows that i'm a fan of federalism. it's a concept that, we're 50 states that have united for common purposes related to our national defense, weights and measures, trademarks and pat tense, regulating trade between the states and indian tribes and then we leave the rest of the governing to the states. we come together in the same manner articulated by the iroquois indian chief from the onendoinga tribe who complained

to americans the secret to the iroquois' confederacy longevity, peace and 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's 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 straight states with different opinions. there are great consequences to moments when we take debatable matters, matters of profound and fundamental disagreement 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

stateser gate -- states arrogatet to it's the power of lawmaker and draftsman. you see what they did is 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 the protection of the law and when it does not. 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 relative to the states. it wasn't there. even if it was 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 sillible -- syllable per trains to that. i understand my friend disagrees with me on that front, as is his right. importantly, however, mr. president, 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 my friend and colleague from colorado. but that is not what we're talking about here. what we're talking about here is the american people recognizing that this is an issue that sharply divides americans, an issue my colleague describes as profound and fundamental agreement. what does unite them is that

federal taxpayer dollars shall not be used for abortions. this is codified elsewhere in the hyde amendment, mexico city policy. it's codified in matters particular to the department of defense in 10u.s.c. section 1093. that is what we're dealing with here. so we can't make the mistake of accusing senator tuberville trying to impose his conception of what situation a woman ought to be able to obtain an abortion. i believe senator tuberville's views are the same as mine, but that's not at issue, the issue is whether or not taxpayer dollars by taxpayers ought to be spent in this area. now, my colleague also suggested that this is somehow not different from what we do in other areas, that there are all kinds of medical procedures by

which members of the military can travel from one state to another in order to obtain those procedures. understood. those aren't the procedures at issue here. those are issues specific to abortion. they're specifically creating measures for abortion, not for append sight is, not -- append sighties, it's for abortion, and what you're doing here is we will pay your travel and give you a per diem and give you leave and you don't have to use your accumulated leaf leave. that -- accumulated leave. that means they are paying for abortion. i will not -- 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

of it and arguably the letter. when there's a federal law that says you may not use this for abortion. if you use it for things entirely around abortion, we will pay for your travel out of state to the get an abortion, we will give you additional leave time with an attached value for it, we will give you per diem for you to seek abortion, that is abortion. imagine a young college student who has something that every college student probably wish -- wishes they had, a rich uncle. imagine there's a college student, we'll call him bill. bill's got a rich uncle. we'll call him thursdayton howell -- thurston howell, iii, he has more money than he knows what to do with, and he says to your nephew bill, bill, i don't have any kids, you're the only

who will carry on the family name, and i want you to live in style and enjoy life. i'm going to pay for your tuition and room and board and i will buy you a house located close to the campus where you can live in style. i'll get you a car, pay your health care expenses and everything. i'm going to do all this for the rest of the time you're in college. bill is about to wrap his his first semester, so he is excited about what is he -- he is about to gain. but there is one restriction on those funds. he said i know you pledged with and now a member of the sigma beta fraternity and they are known for one thing, they're infamous, everyone knows they throw 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're going to do what you're going to do, that's your decision, i'm not going to tell you you can't drink, but i will tell you this, you may not use my money for your drunken frat parties and i want quarterly repeats. the first quarter of the next semester goes by and thurston howell is reviewing bills and repeats, and he's aware huge keg parties have been thrown, and he's heard the latest of them happen to be carried out at the house that he bought for his son bill, that there was a lot of alcohol served there, just as there is with every sigma beta party. and then he sees in the repeat, repeat after -- receipt, receipt

after receipt, one for streamers and various forms of video entertainment, 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 says, what are you doing, i told you i won't pay for your alcohol-fueled ragers. bill says back to him, no, every other member of the fraternity paid for the alcohol, i just paid for the invitation and the streamers and the red cups and the ping pong balls and the video entertainment system, and the d.j. i don't think thurston howell would be all that convinced that bill hadn't violated the terms of the support agreement. sure, bill could argue with him all along. he could say, no, you're wrong, uncle thurston, it doesn't make

uncle thurston anymore inclined to go out of his way to continue to provide that funding. if anything, what we're dealing with here is far clearer than the restriction placed on bill in my hypothetical. congress has said unequivocally, we're not going to use department of defense funds, we're not going to use department of defense facilities for abortions, that's what the department of defense has done. it's a policy change and a policy change that my friend from colorado has acknowledged is a policy change. he believes it's justified somehow by the supreme court's decision in dobbs. he's welcomed to that opinion, but it's not accurate. nothing -- there's no clause in there that says there's an exception if the supreme court changes its jurisprudence with regard to -- roe v. wade

roe v. wade or casey, not a drop supports that. so now unhappy that some of these nominees aren't moving, secretary austin sends his friends in the senate to go and attack senator tuberville. why? well, because senator tuberville is standing up for what the law says. he's not trying to impose his morality on women in the military. far from it. he's trying to impose the law and make sure the law is followed and when the law is not followed, he's not going to help the department of defense move things any faster. that's well within his right to do and i applaud him for it. we need more of that very kind of courage in the united states senate. as the supreme court has learned, as we all learned from that experience, we don't end

these profound and fundamental disagreements by taking debatable matters beyond debate, that's what the supreme court tried with roe v. wade and it failed and it was fundamentally at odds with it. this effort to rewrite the law from the e-ring of the pentagon will fair no better. mr. bennet: mr. president. i'm hours late and i'm aware we need to get off the floor and i know staff needs to go home. i will not belabor this. i'll put to one side, i'm sure my colleague, my friend from utah would agree that we're not talking here about a drunken frat party and, you know, the fortunes or misfortunes of an ungrateful student and their rich uncle. we're talking about people that

in real life are having to make decisions that are the most fundamental decisions that any individual can make. and they have had 50 years worth of expectations about what those decisions are going to look like and those expectations have been completely upset by the supreme court first when this originalist majority ruled that if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today. something that when i was in law school i would never have imagined that i would have ever read from a supreme court decision, certainly not something of this magnitude. but then in the wake of it, 18 states ban abortion. in the wake of it, nine states ban abortion without exceptions for rape or incest. in the wake of it, in alabama they're saying that if doctors

use chemicals for abortion, that they can be prosecuted with a statute that was written for to attack fentanyl or methamphetamines. and in the wake of it, members of the united states senate come to the floor and use a procedure that has never been used before in the history of america to hold up every single flag promotion just to make sure they make it harder for somebody who's facing the most difficult decision that they can ever make, make it harder for them to decide when they're going to talk to a -- their superior officer, to make it harder for them to travel somewhere where, yeah, they have to pay for it, that abortion out of their

pocket. to ensure that you have to use paid leave to do it. that that's such an injustice that we're going to come out here and hold up every flag officer's promotion. some people after this ruling, i never heard the senator from utah say this and i'm not ascribing this to him, there were people who said after this ruling, don't worry about this. you don't have to worry about this. this is just states' rights, it's going back to the states. and 18 states have banned abortion, and many of those states are states where people in the armed services serve. they have no choice over where they serve. and i'm not the originalist on this floor tonight.

but i can read the plain language of those regulations and i can see from that plain language that there's nothing in there that pays for abortion. in was no objection out here on this floor when we -- when -- when somebody at the defense department put in procedures, as the senator from utah says for bunions or whatever's on his list, there was no objection, there was nobody coming here to the floor indigently saying that their rights as a senator had been somehow stripped from as a

result of that rulemaking, far from it, because people recognize that in order for the department of defense to function, just like any other administrative agency, they have to be able to make decisions based on delegated powers from the united states congress. in the face of what has happened with the dobbs decision, the defense department is trying to get to a place where there's a reasonable outcome for people that have to make this decision. i think, mr. president, there is a lot of benefit to federalism. but one of those benefits ought

to be that if you're serving in the department of defense, and the department of defense assigns you as is the department of defense's right, without your permission or without your say so or without your okay, that it's reasonable for the department of defense to notice when you're living in a state that's banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. it's reasonable for the doad to notice -- for the department of defense to notice you're living in a state where, if you are a doctor and perform an abortion, you can go to jail for 99 years. or if you're living in the republic of texas, where they've actually put a bounty of $10,000 or $20,000, so if a neighbor or

friend turns you in for pursuing reproductive health care, an abortion, you can get that money, because you let somebody know that you've done that. i mean, i admit this is all changed because of dobbs, and now we're trying to grapple with that. we're all trying to grapple with that, and we all have differences of opinion about that. but i think what we're saying is don't make a difficult situation even harder for the people that are -- who have signed up, volunteered to be in the department of defense. don't create more uncertainty at the department of defense by holding up these flag promotions

just to get your point of view. just to be able to make sure it's harder, not easier, for people to access reproductive health care. and i think that's why, when the senator from alabama says that nothing's going to convince him, that he's going to be doing this as long as it takes, i'm really worried that that's going to take forever, because the majority certainly of the american people are not going to agree that we should make it harder for people that are in this position. by the way, just on the other point about what the federal law actually says here, we voted, i think the other day, on it, if i'm not wrong on a cra or

whatever those administrative the senator from alabama was angry that the v.a. had changed the exceptions for providing abortion from just the life of the mother to situations where there's rape or incest. he was so angry at that, he came out here to address that. so don't think this isn't about that subject, that this isn't about a woman's right to choose. that's exactly what -- that's why these guys are out here. i'm not saying the senator from utah. that's why this objection has been made. so i think the american people need to understand, i hope they understand, who is standing up here on this floor tonight for a woman's right to choose, for that fundamental, constitutional and human right, and who's

opposing it. and i know that there are significant disagreements, as i said earlier, in our country about those two issues. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: 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, 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 i'm aware of, give military personnel some say in where they live. if there's some state that for some reason or another, 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'm aware, give them some say in it, give them the ability to say i don't want to serve there, i'd 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 usc 1093 and pretend nothing has changed, and pretend nothing has changed relative to its relationship to congress. now, as to senator tuberville,

let's remember, went to the department of defense, if i'm not mistaken to the secretary of defense, outlined his concerns, because there had been rumors about this policy for months. senator tuberville is a member of the armed services committee, the senate armed stress committee has an over-- armed services committee has an oversight role over the department of defense. it is his right and duty to know what's going on in the department of defense. he inquired again and again. they wouldn't tell him. he doesn't an audience with the department of defense who informed him there would be dire circumstances if he chose to proceed. the secretary of defense considered that risk, and he undertook it nonetheless. he stood aforth the law and wishes of a u.s. senator and 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 that, but it was in fact his choice. it was in fact his decision.

so, as to the suggestion that there are other procedures for which people can travel interstate and we haven't raised objections with regard to those, those aren't coveredpy this policy -- 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 three 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 get an abortion. that's not there for anything else. not 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, shistacymiasis. i don't know what that is, but i heard the term on "mash" once. maybe you're in one state where they can't treat that because of

its quirky laws. 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 perhaps more than any other, and with good reason. they're telling these military women, we are so supportive of this particular thing that we're going to pay for your travel, we're going to reimburse everything, we're going to give you a per diem and give you three 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 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's willing to pay out a lot of money to do that? in any event, mr. president, this is not something that one can easily reconcile with the policy embodied in 10 usc section 109 . section 109 -- section 1093. congress could change it. but to do that, you'd have to have the votes, to have the votes you have to have some legislative effort to do that. there hasn't been one here. why? well, because it's a lot easier to just decree it, just pen a memo and issue the memo, saying we're going to make it so. we're 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's much more serious than that. the american people don't feel so passionately about a drunken frat party that they've 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. i understand not everybody approaches unborn human life and its sanctity and degree to which it should be protected under law the same way, but that's why this policy exists and why the policy is embodied in a federal statute. to stand squarely in the face of that, and it disregards that. senator tuberville has every right and every reason to stand up to this. thank you, mr. president. ms. baldwin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado -- mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i hope we bring this to a close. first, stating the obvious, neither the senator from utah nor i are a woman, and i'm not going to suggest that i know how people in the military necessarily are going to feel, who are women, this.

i suspect far less often than the person that the senator from utah is concerned about, which is somebody who feels like they're somehow discriminated against because they're going to carry a child to term, versus somebody who is going to face this really hard, hard, hard choice, that a much more likely feeling and sense of harm will be the complete loss of any sense of privacy that they are going to have as a result of dobbs, and the effect of dobbs, and the effect of what these people are arguing tonight on the floor of the senate about making it harder to travel, about saying no, you can't have more time to talk to your commanding officer about a decision that you have to make, no, the entire unit is going to

know what you have to confront, because unlike every other medical procedure that we're dealing with, when it's abortion then everybody's going to know. and your right to privacy has been eviscerated. i guarantee you, for every single person who feels the way the senator from utah suggests, that some people that are -- they feel like somehow they're being discriminated against because they're not in the position to have to deal with the most difficult decision anybody could make, that the

number of people who are concerned about what this has done to the right to privacy, not just in the department of defense but in our country, is far greater, is far greater. and you know, i would argue just say that if states' rights were such a paramount -- of such paramount importance, that there wouldn't be people in this country right now trying to make it illegal for states to allow people to use chemicals to perform abortions. even though that's how a majority of abortions in this country are performed. and i don't agree with the senator from utah that we should have a military where i can just

decide, as an individual, that i'm not going to serve in a state because the laws of that state are ones that i don't agree to, or i don't subscribe to, or i morally disagree with. that's not how the military is supposed to work. i would argue that's a lot more important than what the constitution has to say about weights and i suspect there's also a reason why no senator in the history of america, on any issue of profound importance as this

issue is, has held hostage every single flag officer promotion of the department of defense. i suspect there's a reason why that's never happened before, because we know the damage that this is doing. and we know sometimes once you put yourself into a cul-de-sac, it is really, really hard to get out of it, especially when the majority of the american people don't agree with you on the substance and don't agree with your tactic. but that's where we are tonight. i yield the floor, mr. president. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. 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, quote, unlike every other medical procedure, close quote. i couldn't agree more. all senator tuberville is suggesting, it shouldn't be treated any differently than the others. other medical procedures, you don't get three weeks of paid leave, you don't get per diem, you don't get your air fare and whatever else paid for. just treat it the same way. it's not just that it's a good idea, it's not just that it's fair. it's that it's also consistent with federal law, which says we don't use federal funds for abortions. we just don't do that. here, not only are we doing the opposite of what he sate he wanted, which is to treat, not have abortion treated unlike every other medical procedure, but we're 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, we're speaking of federalism. i don't speak of this ever as states' rights. states don't have rights. they have power. they have authority. rights are the opposite of power and authority. rights are things that you invoke against authority. there's a carve-out to that authority. so with regard to federalism, there's 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. it would be an entirely permissible way, as far as i'm 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.

it is not senator tuberville who brought us here. senator tuberville didn't bring us to this moment. this is a conscience -- conscious, deliberate choice made by the department of defense. i'm proud to stand behind them in that. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, i'd wrap just by saying that i think the choice that's been made is a practical choice that's been made in the wake of a fundamental freedom and fundamental right being stripped from the american people. and we're not going to solve that disagreement by, tonight. but tonight there are going to be a whole bunch of people. i'd like to submit the list again for the record of the names of people and their positions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: these ranking officers who are not going to be promoted all around the world as

a result of what the senator from alabama has done, and that is why we're here tonight. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: we could confirm every one of those folks right now. do it right now. the department of defense wants to take this off the table, say they will suspend it until such time the senate can debate it and discuss it and bring about the necessary change to federal law, i will agree to that right now. we'll get them confirmed tonight. bern --. mr. bennet: mr. president, addressing the senator from utah through the chair, where in these rules there is language that says that the department of defense will pay for an abortion where is it? it's not in the, it's not in

the plain text. and that's the basis for this objection. that's the basis for the moral objection, if there is one, and that's the basis for the offense that the senators have taken from the idea that the department of defense would steal from the senate the ability to make these judgments on their own. i can't find anything in the plain text that says it. we checked. my office has checked again, as we have every night that i've been out here, and are assured that if a servicemember goes to another state to seek abortion services, that that abortion is not paid for by the department

of defense or by the federal government. i would ask again, the senator from utah, to show us -- and we can do it off the floor -- where the language is that's in these rules that suggest, that explicitly says that. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: a statute that 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 three weeks of compensated leave, you give them per diem. most of the costs associated with that abortion has then been paid by the federal government. thank you, mr. president. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado.

mr. bennet: i would say that i appreciate the gloss that the senator from utah has put on the plain language of this statute which clearly does not allow -- if it did, he would have shown us that language. i wish that justice alito and the other members of the supreme court who applied the originalist view that determined that because it doesn't say a woman's right to choose in the constitution, that there must not be such a fundamental right. i wish that they had used the sort of statutory interpretation that my colleague from utah has chosen this evening. but similarly, with the approach to federalism, you know, it all depends on what the underlying issue happens to be. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. and i'll read some other stuff.

the presiding officer: the senator for colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 60, s. 267. i'm sorry, s. 467. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 60, s. 467, a bill to modify the age requirement for the student initiative payment program of the state maritime academies. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the

measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 214 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 214 to authorize testimony and representation in united states v. neely. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, may 17, that

following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the daniel nomination. further, the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 11 thoovment -- 11:30 a.m. and if cloture is invoked on the daniel nomination all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m. if further is invoked on the papillion nomination the time be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the republican leader. that following the cloture vote on the papillion nomination notwithstanding rule 22 the senate resume legislative session to consider s.j. res. 17 and at 5:00 p.m. the joint

resolution be considered a third time and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolution. further that upon disposition of the joint resolution, the senate resume executive session and that if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. finally that there be two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bennet: for the information of the senate, there will be one vote at 11:30 a.m., two votes at 2:15 p.m. and two votes at 5:00 p.m. and if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. >> by a vote of 56-43, the senate today approved a house-passed resolution to

repeal a washington, d.c. police reform law that banned chokeholds and required additional procedures for later this week lawmakerses will continue work on judicial nominations. when the senate returns, watch live coverage here on c-span2, online at c-span.org and at our free video app, c-span now. >> watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.org and try our points of interest feature, a timeline tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to the newsworthy and interesting highlights of our key coverage. use points of interest anytime online at c-span.org. >> tonight. the on u.s.-china relations and national security from defense

secretary lloyd austin, secretary of state antony blinken and commerce if secretary gina rah mondeaux, watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2, on our free mobile video app c-span now, and online at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," every day we're taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day, and we'll discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, new york republican congressman michael lawler, a member of financial services committee, talks about the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling and republican prioritys. hen we'll continue the discussion about the deadlock and the progressive of agenda with wisconsin democratic congressman mark bow camp, and cybersecurity and emerging threats policy director brandon pugh on the senate judiciary subcommittee hearing on oversight of artificial intelligence. watch "washington journal" live

at seven eastern wednesday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and betweens. and tweets. ♪ finish. ♪ ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including charter communiqueses. communication cans. >> charter is proud on the recognized as one of the best internet providers, and we're just getting started building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ ..