S. 1104Senate108th Congress (2003-2005)Introduced

A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for parental involvement in abortions of dependent children of members of the Armed Forces.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

SenateCalendars Latest Action

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 114.

May 23, 2003

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

May 22, 2003

SenateCalendars

Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

May 22, 2003

SenateCalendars

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 114.

May 23, 2003

Floor Debate

10 members

What members said about S. 1104 on the floor

3 Republicans7 Democrats

Sen. John WarnerR-VA · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the distinguished leader and ranking member, my understanding is that amendment requires a further amendment, and then it is in an acceptable form. Am…

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. Perhaps in the course of the debate this morning we can reach that agreement quickly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I first express to colleagues in the Senate our appreciation for their patience. We have achieved remarkable results, in my judgment, under the guidance of the distinguished Democratic whip and the Republican whip on this side, helping the two managers.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Levin and I wish to turn to a package of some 30 agreed-upon amendments. At the conclusion of that, we will entertain a unanimous consent request which should pretty well keep us in motion here.

Amendment No. 804

Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Smith which will authorize land exchange at the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center in Portland, OR.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 707, as Modified

On behalf of Senator Inhofe, I offer an amendment that supports Army research and development funding for human tissue engineering. It has been cleared on both sides.

It is cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 787, As Modified

On behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment to support naval research and development for nonthermal imaging systems. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed.

Amendment No. 788, As Modified

I offer an amendment to make available funds for operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve for information operations for Land Forces Readiness-Information Operations Sustainment. This amendment has been modified to provide offsets.

Mr. President, it is cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 808

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment that adds $2 million for the Army for the procurement of rapid infusion pumps.

The matter has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 743, As Modified

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I offer an amendment which adds $8 million to Marine Corps research and development funds for development of the collaborative information warfare network in the critical infrastructure protection center.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an amendment which would add $2 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for the development and fabrication of composite submarine sail test articles.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment to support Army research and development for portable mobile emergency broadband systems.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment which would add funds for research and development of boron energy cell technology.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cochran and others, I offer an amendment which makes available funds for the Arrow ballistic missile defense system.

Mr. President, likewise, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 811

Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would amend section 2611 of the United States Code title X to allow the Secretary of the Navy to accept guarantees as gifts for the construction of a United States Marine Corps Heritage Center, enabling the center to be completed in time for the 230th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps in November of 2005.

It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period throughout the remainder of the day for those who wish to be added as cosponsors of this amendment to so indicate to the Presiding Officer their desire.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 737

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 812

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an amendment to provide emergency and morale communications programs.

The amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I offer an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that United States air carriers should offer reduced fares and flexible terms of sale to members of the United States Armed Forces. This is a timely message to the airlines of a way in which they can show their support to military members.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Chambliss, I offer an amendment to modify the program element of the Army's short range air defense radar research and development program.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 816

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I offer an amendment to require a Department of Defense study of the adequacy of the beryllium industrial base.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators McCain, Sessions, Lindsey Graham, and Bayh, I offer an amendment which would add reporting requirements to a report on the NATO Prague Capabilities Commitment and the NATO Response Force.

Mr. President, the matter is cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 819

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I offer an amendment which supports the network centric operations at minority colleges and universities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from the State of Virginia, Mr. Allen, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I offer an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate about upgrading the chemical agent sensors at the chemical stockpile disposal sites in the United States.

We have no objection. This has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I offer an amendment which directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the adequacy of the benefits for survivors of military personnel who die on active duty. This amendment, and the study it directs, I am confident, will provide a catalyst for necessary evaluation and change in the manner in which families are compensated after the death of loved ones serving in uniform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I offer an amendment which would authorize a multiyear procurement for the Phalanx Close In Weapon System program, Block 1B, for the Navy.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would provide an equitable offset for any fee charged the Department of Defense by the Department of State for maintenance, upgrade, or construction of United States diplomatic facilities.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 824

There has been a clearance on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 785

(Purpose: To strengthen the authority under section 852 to provide

Federal support for the enhancement of the emergency response

capabilities of state and local governments)

Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed.

Yes.

May I suggest we put in a quorum call.

The Senator from Virginia suggests the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the Murray amendment, No. 691, and there then be 60 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Yes, that is acceptable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the amendments, that only amendments in order are relevant under the original agreement and subject to relevant second-degree amendments.

We have a package of amendments. There are additional amendments, all of which must be in conformity with the unanimous consent, pending relevancy at the desk. All have to be checked through that system. They are: First, Durbin; second, Domenici; third, Landrieu; fourth, Kerry. Further, Senator Grassley has an amendment. All of these have to be passed through the parliamentary unanimous consent.

I say to my distinguished colleague, there is a Boxer amendment regarding contracting, subject to a relevant second degree.

Mr. President, again I proceed to a unanimous consent request as follows: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the Murray amendment No. 691, and there then be 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote; I ask consent that the following amendments be the only amendments in order and be relevant as under the original agreement and subject to relevant second degrees: A package of amendments that have been cleared and are being cleared by both managers; the Boxer amendment regarding contracting and subject to relevant second degree; Domenici amendment on border security, to be resolved; Kerry, air travel; Landrieu, subject to being relevant; Grassley, ground systems, subject to relevancy.

I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the above amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1104, introduced by Senator Brownback, relating to parental notification, provided that immediately upon the reporting of the bill, the majority leader or his designee be recognized in order to file a cloture motion on the bill. I further ask consent that there then be 60 minutes for debate only, equally divided between Senators Brownback and Murray, and that following that debate time, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the underlying bill, without intervening action or debate; provided further that if cloture is not invoked, the bill be placed on the calendar. If cloture is invoked, I would ask consent that it be in order to file first-degree amendments up to the cloture vote, and second-degree amendments up to 3 hours after the vote.

I thank the distinguished Democratic leader. He has been too modest to say he, together with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky on this side, has been an integral part of enabling this agreement to be formulated.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 691

Sen. Patty MurrayD-WA · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up? Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to add cosponsors as follows: Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg,…

Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up?

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to add cosponsors as follows: Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.

Mr. President, the Senate now has before it a very important amendment. I think all of us know that women have played a critical role in all of our country's recent military actions.

In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in missions throughout the world, women have demonstrated their skill, their sacrifice, and their courage. We can all be very proud of the women who have served in our military. They are our mothers, our daughters, they are our sisters, and they are our neighbors. They put themselves in harm's way to protect our freedom. They live and work in hostile combat zones under very dangerous conditions. They make sacrifices every day to defend our Nation.

But today, military women are forced to sacrifice their own constitutional rights, as they risk their lives to protect our freedom. No woman----

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, no woman should be forced to surrender her constitutional rights when she puts on a military uniform and volunteers to serve our country overseas. But that is exactly what happens today, and it must stop. The women of our military risk their lives to protect our rights, but if they serve abroad they are being denied access to safe, legal, constitutionally protected health care.

Today I am on the floor of the Senate to offer an amendment to ensure that our military women when they serve overseas have access to the same health care as they get here at home. I again thank all my cosponsors, Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.

Before I go into detail, I want to clarify what this is about and what it is not about. There are four very important aspects to understand.

First of all, this amendment does not require any direct Federal funding of abortion-related services. My amendment simply requires these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in a military facility. So no direct Federal funding is involved.

Second, my amendment does not compel a medical provider to perform abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel who have moral or religious or ethical objections to abortion not to participate. So this amendment does not change or alter conscience clauses for military medical personnel.

Third, this will not create any significant burden on the military. It will not hinder the military's ability to carry out its missions or to provide medical services.

Finally, do not believe anyone who tells you that our military, the finest military in the world, is not capable of providing these health services or that our military is unable to determine the cost. The truth is that today the Defense Department allows for privately funded abortions in the case of rape or incest. The ultimate proof that this is something our military can do is that, prior to 1988, the Department of Defense did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.

So, clearly, this can be done. So let's make sure we are all straight on those four points. There is no direct Federal funding. No medical provider would be required to do anything they oppose. No significant burden would be placed on the military. And there is no doubt that our military can do this because it has done it before, prior to 1988, and does it today in cases of rape or incest.

Anyone who comes to the Senate floor and makes any of those claims I have just rebutted is raising red herrings as a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the health of women who serve our country and respect for their rights and freedom.

The current policy on the books today is an insult to women. It is a rejection of their rights and it is a threat to their health. Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their country, and female military dependents, are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right to choose, 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 afforded all women in this country. This is an important women's health amendment.

Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. The current policy does not ensure the access women need for four reasons.

First of all, a woman today must seek the approval of her commanding officer for transport back to the United States. That could be very humiliating and can be a deterrent to a woman to getting the care that she needs. We know, from a GAO report that was issued in May of 2002, that many commanding officers--and I quote:

. . . have not been adequately trained about the importance

of women's basic health care. Department of Defense officials

said that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be

reluctant to allow active duty Members, both men and women,

time away from their duty station to obtain health care

services.

So women have to face the humiliation of asking a superior officer for permission over something that the GAO found many commanders do not understand or appreciate.

Second, the current policy jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because she must disclose her medical condition to her superiors with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential. That is a very important point. She would have to disclose her medical condition to her superiors in the Air Force or the Army, in the service, with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential.

Third, the woman is not afforded medical leave, so she is further penalized under the current policy.

And fourth, because of these unfair restrictions, many women are forced to seek care off the base, in a foreign country. That country may have different cultural and religious norms and different standards of health care. Many women have little or no understanding of the laws or restrictions in a host country, and there may also be significant language and cultural barriers as well. So let's be honest. Some of the countries our military operates in are not very progressive when it comes to women's issues, and that could threaten our service women.

In addition, these countries may not have adequate safety and medical standards. Here in the United States, we take for granted the safety of our health care service. When we seek care in our doctors' offices or in a clinic, we assume all safety and health standards are adhered to. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many countries.

Under current conditions, we are subjecting women to standards in a foreign country where they may not be safe, where they may not be health standards where we can assure that their basic health care is taken care of.

Finally, because of all these barriers, women may delay getting the care they urgently need. Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe, adequate care is available. Each week that an abortion is delayed there are greater risks to a woman's health.

So the current policy is humiliating. It is a threat to women's privacy. It is punitive. It is a threat to women's safety, and it is a threat to women's health. Those are not the types of burdens we should be putting on women who volunteer to serve our country and defend our freedoms.

The current policy is unfair to women. It denies them their constitutional rights. My amendment before the Senate today will correct that.

This amendment is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is supported by the American Medical Women's Association. It is supported by Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health. And it is supported by the National Partnership for Women and Families.

The Senate agreed to this amendment. The Department of Defense has followed this policy before. And, finally, let me just say, after the inspiring and courageous work our military women have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan, we owe them nothing less than the same rights they are fighting to protect for all of us.

This is a test for every Senator. Every Senator is going to have to answer to the women who serve our country overseas. Will you stand up for the rights of women who, today, are standing up to ensure your freedom? Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That is the choice. Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That is the case.

If you vote against the Murray-Snowe amendment, you are simply telling American servicewomen that when they serve overseas protecting our country and risking their lives that they can't be trusted with the constitutional right to health care that women here at home in the United States have. They deserve more respect than that.

I hope my colleagues will vote for the Murray-Snowe amendment.

I retain the remainder of my time.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator.

How much time remains on our side?

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Sen. Sam BrownbackR-KS · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, I wish to, first, thank the Senator from Washington for bringing up this issue. I think there was a relevancy issue associated with it. There was a big debate about this last night. It…

I then proposed a second-degree amendment that would require parental notification of the type which is involved with 43 of our States. Forty-three States have parental notification--that a minor on a military base, a dependent, could not get an abortion until either parent was notified--just notified, not consent, just notified--within 48 hours before the abortion or that there be a judicial oversight. So that if either parent were not available or accessible, or the child didn't want to notify the parent, they could get the court to rule that the abortion go ahead and the parent not be notified or, if it were a catastrophic situation and the life of the minor was in jeopardy, the doctor could go forward and provide the abortion without a notification period.

That was the second degree that was being proposed. We had a spirited discussion here privately about this.

I thank the managers of the bill. I thank particularly the two whips on either side for pushing this forward to get us to resolve the issue; that what we are going to do today is take up the Murray amendment and take up the parental notification issue at a later date--I hope a week or two after we get back from the break. I think it is an important issue as well.

The parents in 43 States are notified if their minor child is seeking to have an abortion. We would extend this right to parents of military personnel as well. That is what is considered in the second degree.

I appreciate the Senator from Washington working that out with us so we are able to take up both of these difficult issues.

I also thank the Senator from Washington for her passion and caring for women in the armed services. She stands up strongly for women's rights, particularly for women's rights in the military. I appreciate that. I have no qualms about her passion or her heart at all. I recognize and applaud both.

But we have a narrow specific issue here that goes to the very core of what we are about as a society today. It goes to the very core issue of culture of life and culture of death that is being broadly discussed in the culture today. And that is being played out here on the issue of military bases. It goes to the issue of the legal status of the child in utero.

I certainly recognize the passion of the Senator from Washington for women's rights. I applaud that. But there is also another person involved here and there are other issues involved here.

On February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 was signed into law by then-President Clinton with a provision to prevent Department of Defense medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions except for when the life of the mother is in danger or in the case of rape or incest.

That is the current status for the use of military base health facilities to provide for abortion. They can be provided at military bases in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother or military personnel is endangered. This would be obviously women in the military or a female dependent in the military.

This provision--10 United States Code 1093(b)--reversed a Clinton administration policy instituted on January 22, 1996, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities, period.

In other words, all abortions on demand could be provided according to the Clinton administration policy that was put into place immediately after President Clinton became President.

Previously--from 1988 to 1993--the performance of an abortion was not permitted at military hospitals except when the life of the mother was endangered.

I think you can start to see the progression here that was taking place.

Under President Reagan, there was a provision that you could provide an abortion on a military base if the life of the mother was in danger. That continued through President Reagan and President Bush 1. Then President Clinton came into office and immediately opened up all military facilities for all abortions and said they could be performed.

In February 1996, that was limited. Abortions could be provided in cases of

rape and incest and when the life of the mother was endangered, but it was an expansion from where it was in the Reagan administration.

That is the law of the land as it is today.

The Murray amendment, which would repeal this pro-life provision, attempts to turn these taxpayer-funded DOD medical treatment facilities into facilities that provide abortion on demand for military personnel and their dependents. The Senate should reject this amendment. This is what the issue is about.

When a similar amendment passed last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that the President's senior advisers would recommend the President veto the Defense authorization bill on this issue. So you are talking about an abortion issue of providing abortions in medical military facilities, a narrow, overall issue bringing down the entire Defense authorization bill--on this issue where abortions are provided for rape, incest, life of the mothers, but not on demand for all abortions. That could bring down the whole bill.

Using the coercive power of Government to force American taxpayers to fund health care facilities where abortions are performed would be a terrible precedent that would put many Americans in a difficult position of saying: They are using my taxpayer money to fund something that I don't agree with--abortion on demand. Yes, I can understand it in cases of life of the mother, certainly, and of rape and incest, but not on demand.

When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, military physicians, as well as many nurses and supporting personnel, refused--refused--to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. That should tell us something about what is taking place here. The military personnel themselves--the physicians-- do not want to do these elective abortions.

Therefore, if the Murray amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources would be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that the abortions could be performed outside of this narrow scope of rape, incest, life of the mother that would be on all other abortions.

In fact, according to CRS, a 1994 memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs--this would be under the Clinton administration--``direct[ed] the Military Health Services System to provide other means of access if providing pre-paid abortion services at a facility was not feasible''--how outside individuals performed abortions on military bases.

One argument used by supporters of abortions in military hospitals is that women in countries where abortion is not permitted will have nowhere else to turn to obtain an abortion. However, DOD policy requires military doctors to obey the abortion laws of the countries where they are providing services, so they still could not perform abortions at those locations.

Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life: the child in utero--and this as an elective, on demand, not in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, which are currently provided under the law concerning the Department of Defense.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this Murray amendment and free America's military and the Department of Defense authorization bill from abortion politics. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund facilities that destroy innocent human life. I urge my colleagues to reject that amendment.

I would also urge my colleagues, when we bring up the parental notification bill, that they would support such a provision. The parental notification bill would--and that is one parent, not both--one parent is simply notified 48 hours in advance of an abortion being provided to their minor child if that is going to take place on a military base. And if either parent cannot be reached, or if the child believes this would endanger, somehow, him or herself, there is a judicial override or the doctor could go ahead and even perform and note in the record as to why, for health reasons, he did not notify. This isn't consent, it is notifying the parent.

It is not the issue up, but thanks to the Senator from Washington, to help get this agreed to, to work this out, we will be considering that parental notification provision.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

We do have other speakers to present. If it would be appropriate for the Senator from Washington, we could bounce back and forth. I do have a speaker who is here.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side on the amendment?

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my colleague from Alabama.

On your time, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Sen. Carl LevinD-MI · May 22, 2003

If I could ask the Senator to yield, it is my understanding that the amendment has been agreed to but the paperwork has not yet been completed to accomplish the agreement. Mr. President, we have no…

If I could ask the Senator to yield, it is my understanding that the amendment has been agreed to but the paperwork has not yet been completed to accomplish the agreement.

Mr. President, we have no objection to this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 805

I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Sarbanes that would provide for the conveyance of 33 acres of land in Fort Ritchie,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside for all the amendments which Senator Warner and I will now be offering.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

There is no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 791, As Modified

Mr. President, I offer a modified amendment on behalf of Senator Daschle that would add an additional $20.3 million for B-1B bomber modifications. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.

I am not sure I can hear the Chair.

We do.

It has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 806

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden, I send an amendment to the desk which would increase by 30 the personnel end strength of the Air National Guard.

No objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 807

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an amendment which authorizes $2.1 million to conduct research and development activity for the Holloman Air Force Base high-speed test track.

I believe it has been cleared.

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

There is no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 723, As Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 809

Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 810

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 760

Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 790, As Modified

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an amendment that would add a reporting requirement to section 3131.

Mr. President, we support the Warner amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I offer an amendment that would authorize travel and transportation allowances for dependents of service members who have committed dependent abuse against a spouse or dependent child.

We have no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Th motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 813

Mr. President, we support the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 814

Mr. President, we have no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 815

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, I offer an amendment that would authorize the Department of Defense and the VA jointly to conduct a program to develop and evaluate integrated healing care practices for members of the Armed Forces and veterans.

We have no objection to the amendment on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 817

We have no objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 818

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I offer an amendment that requires the Comptroller General to submit a report regarding the adequacy of special pays and allowances for service members who experience frequent deployments away from their permanent duty stations for periods less than 30 days.

Mr. President, we support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 789, As Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 820

We have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 821

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I offer an amendment that would increase the maximum Federal contribution to the National Guard Challenge Program in States from the current 60 percent to 65 percent for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 727

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 822

There is no objection to the amendment on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 823

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Landrieu, which would provide for a feasibility study of the conveyance of the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant at Doyline, LA.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, and Senator Boxer, I offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a 2001 survey on potential perchlorate contamination at Department of Defense sites prepared by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I offer an amendment to establish a grant program to support increasing the number of firefighters to address emergencies and terrorist threats.

I apologize.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. And I ask if we can leave the roll open for cosponsors until 6 o'clock tonight--until we go out--for additional people to be added as cosponsors.

Sen. Jeff SessionsR-AL · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment. We worked hard on this bill. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are still in a state of conflict in Iraq. We have hostilities and…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show 5 more

Sen. Thomas A. DaschleD-SD · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, the Senate will soon adopt a new national Defense authorization bill. I commend Senators Warner and Levin, the distinguished managers of this bill, for their excellent work. They have…

This crucial legislation, the fiscal year 2004 National Defense authorization bill, provides funds for our troops, their training, and their equipment.

Coming as it does on the heels of the end of the fighting in Iraq, it also provides the Senate with its first opportunity to act on some of the lessons we have learned in that conflict.

Although the hostilities ended a short time ago and much more needs to be done in Iraq, I do not believe it is premature to begin drawing some conclusions about which forces and equipment performed well. Based on the Pentagon's assessments as well as media reports, it appears the B-1B aircraft and their crews performed magnificently.

Just as in Afghanistan, we had few air bases in adjacent countries. Fortunately the B-1's long operating range overcame that problem. Just as in Afghanistan, our air tankers were straining to keep up the demand for midair refueling--but B-1s were part of the solution, with their ability to cover long distances and strike 24 targets on a single mission. Just as in Afghanistan, we needed the ability to carry out strikes around the clock, on a moment's notice, regardless of weather conditions and B-1s did the job, day after day, until the Iraqi military was routed and its leadership was no more.

All of this served to reinforce what many have believed to be true for quite some time now; namely, that the Pentagon acted too hastily a few years ago when it decided to retire one-third of our B-1B bomber fleet.

The plan to retire one-third of the B-1 fleet was developed before the September 11th attacks, before the war on terrorism, before the fighting in Afghanistan, and before Iraq. Given the proven record of performance of the B-1, the age of our current heavy bomber fleet, the lack of a next-generation bomber, and the fact that it took 20 years before our Nation's last bomber-development program could field planes--it seems incredible that we are consigning 23 of our most capable aircraft, a plane referred to by those who know it best as the ``backbone of the bomber fleet,'' to the Arizona desert.

My amendment would begin the process of rolling back the decision to retire those 23 planes. It would rebuild our bomber fleet toward the level recommended in our last comprehensive review of bomber needs, the U.S. Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers. That report determined that 93 B-1s were needed to protect U.S. national security interests until a replacement capability is available. My amendment would put us on the path to 83 B-1s--the most we can muster, given decommissioning work that is already well underway on some aircraft.

Senator Johnson and I have consulted with the Air Force about the timing and funding requirements to regenerate 23 planes and have determined that an appropriate first-year effort would be $20.3 million. This is also the level of effort being recommended by the House Armed Service Committee in the bill being taken up this morning on the House floor. This fiscal year 2004 funding would launch a multiyear program to provide these 23 planes the same capabilities as the rest of the B-1 fleet.

To begin with, these planes would require the Block E upgrade to B-1 offensive systems that almost all of our B-1 fleet has already received. Additional assorted upgrades will also be required, and my amendment would begin that work--configuration to accommodate towed decoys, installation of new datalink capabilities, and modifications to improve the dependability and capability of the plane's electronic countermeasure system and its central integrated test system.

Finally, my amendment would require the Air Force to report back to congressional defense committees on additional funding requirements needed in the Future Years Defense Plan, (FYDP) to fully restore these aircraft to operational levels.

This is our last chance to halt the retirement of B-1s, since many are scheduled to be sent to Arizona by the end of this fiscal year. In light of what we know now about the hasty manner in which the B-1 retirement decision was made, the B-1's proven combat effectiveness, and our Nation's anticipated security requirements, it is time to begin bringing back these 23 planes.

Sen. Tim JohnsonD-SD · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, I support the Daschle-Johnson amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will provide the funding necessary to maintain a strong and reliable B-1…

Mr. President, I support the Daschle-Johnson amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will provide the funding necessary to maintain a strong and reliable B-1 bomber fleet.

Over the past week, the B-1 bombers, crews, and support staff of the 28th Bomb Wing have begun to return to Ellsworth Air Force Base from their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As they did in Kosovo and Afghanistan, the B-1 bombers performed superbly in the war in Iraq. They have once again demonstrated that they are the backbone of America's bomber fleet. The B-1's unique ability to linger over the battlefield and provide responsive firepower at the time and place required by military commanders was an integral part of our victory in Iraq.

Although B-1s flew fewer than 2 percent of the combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom, they dropped more than half the satellite guided Air Force Joint Direct Attack Munitions, (JDAMs). The B-1s were tasked against the full spectrum of potential targets in Iraq, including command and control facilities, bunkers, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and surface-to-air missile sites. They also provided close air support for U.S. forces engaged in the field. The bombers and crews accomplished all of this while maintaining over an 80 percent mission capable rate. This record of success proves B-1 is a vital, versatile, and potent component of our military force structure.

The Daschle-Johnson amendment would provide the funding needed to start regenerating, modernizing, and returning 23 B-1s to our bomber fleet. The Department of Defense is in the process of implementing its plan to retire all but 60 B-1s, this is despite a U.S. Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers that determined it was in our national security interests to maintain the full B-1 fleet. Furthermore, since the Pentagon announced its decision to consolidate the fleet, the B-1s have been instrumental in the military success of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Given the demonstration of its unique capabilities in both these campaigns, it makes little sense to continue forward with the retirement of one-third of the B-1 fleet. With the funding provided in the Daschle-Johnson amendment, and planned increases in the Air Force's budget in future years, additional modernized B-1s could enter service in fiscal year 2005. The B-1's ability to carry a large payload of satellite guided weapons and to strike from long distances will make it an important part of our Nation's defense for many years.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the long-term viability of the B-1 fleet by voting in favor of the Daschle-Johnson amendment.

Sen. Harry ReidD-NV · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, I call up amendment number 791. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. If the Chair would allow me, Senator Daschle agreed to the…

Mr. President, I call up amendment number 791.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

If the Chair would allow me, Senator Daschle agreed to the modification of the amendment. That could be handled either later today or in the managers' package.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, without losing his right to the floor.

Tremendous progress has been made in the last few hours, as we have seen by these amendments. We are very close to being able to issue a consent we hope will be agreed upon to finalize the bill, but we need just a minute to do that. There is a call in the cloakroom we have to resolve before we do that.

Would the Senator from Virginia do that, please.

Mr. President, if I may interrupt, I failed to mention this to my friend a second ago. Our leader has asked that the vote occur at 2:15, rather than an hour from the time it begins. We would still only have an hour of debate. There are other things we can do during that period of time. So I ask for that modification.

These are subject to relevant second-degree amendments.

We just got a call from Senator Byrd. We are going to have to wait.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Domenici, Kerry, Landrieu, Grassley also have the same language, that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. We have stated that twice. I want to make sure that is clear.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this took just a few minutes to read. It took hours to accomplish.

We are now going to a situation where Senator Murray and Senator Brownback will debate for 1 hour. Following that, there will be a vote on or in relation to the Murray amendment. Following that, we will work our way through these other amendments that have been declared to be in order on this bill. Some of them, I hope, will be resolved.

I personally extend my appreciation to the two managers of this bill for their patience, their understanding, and also Senator Murray and Senator Brownback. The issue about which we are going to debate for an hour is very sensitive to everyone, those two Senators especially. They have also been courteous to each of us and each other. I think this is a fair way to proceed.

Sen. Mary L. LandrieuD-LA · May 22, 2003

Mr. President, I can think of few better uses of Federal dollars than the benefits derived from our commitment to the National Guard's Youth Challenge Program. Every year, over 500,000 boys and girls…

Sen. Thomas R. CarperD-DE · May 22, 2003

Will the Senator yield? I just want 1 minute, if I could. Mr. President, on the issue the Senator raises in relation to the bankruptcy legislation, I make a point of clarification. This is an issue I…

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF

Placed on Calendar SenateIssued May 23, 2003

        [Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1104 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

Calendar No. 114
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1104

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for parental
involvement in abortions of dependent children of members of the Armed
Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 22, 2003

Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read the first
time

May 23, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for parental
involvement in abortions of dependent children of members of the Armed
Forces.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ABORTIONS FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN OF
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsections:
``(c) Parental Notice.--(1) A physician may not use facilities of
the Department of Defense to perform an abortion on a pregnant
unemancipated minor who is a child of a member of the armed forces
unless--
``(A) the physician gives at least 48 hours actual notice,
in person or by telephone, of the physician's intent to perform
the abortion to--
``(i) the member of the armed forces, or another
parent of the minor, if the minor has no managing
conservator or guardian; or
``(ii) a court-appointed managing conservator or
guardian;
``(B) the judge of an appropriate district court of the
United States issues an order authorizing the minor to consent
to the abortion as provided by subsection (d) or (e);
``(C) the appropriate district court of the United States
by its inaction constructively authorizes the minor to consent
to the abortion as provided by subsection (d) or (e); or
``(D) the physician performing the abortion--
``(i) concludes that on the basis of the
physician's good faith clinical judgment, a condition
exists that complicates the medical condition of the
minor and necessitates the immediate abortion of her
pregnancy to avert her death or to avoid a serious risk
of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major
bodily function; and
``(ii) certifies in writing to the appropriate
medical official of the Department of Defense, and in
the patient's medical record, the medical indications
supporting the physician's judgment that the
circumstances described by clause (i) exist.
``(2) If a person to whom notice may be given under paragraph
(1)(A) cannot be notified after a reasonable effort, a physician may
perform an abortion if the physician gives 48 hours constructive
notice, by certified mail, restricted delivery, sent to the last known
address, to the person to whom notice may be given under that
paragraph. The period under this paragraph begins when the notice is
mailed. If the person required to be notified is not notified within
the 48-hour period, the abortion may proceed even if the notice by mail
is not received.
``(3) The requirement that 48 hours actual notice be provided under
this subsection may be waived by an affidavit of--
``(A) the member of the armed forces concerned, or another
parent of the minor, if the minor has no managing conservator
or guardian; or
``(B) a court-appointed managing conservator or guardian.
``(4) A physician may execute for inclusion in the minor's medical
record an affidavit stating that, according to the best information and
belief of the physician, notice or constructive notice has been
provided as required by this subsection. Execution of an affidavit
under this paragraph creates a presumption that the requirements of
this subsection have been satisfied.
``(5) A certification required by paragraph (1)(D) is confidential
and privileged and is not subject to disclosure, discovery, subpoena,
or other legal process. Personal or identifying information about the
minor, including her name, address, or social security number, may not
be included in a certification under paragraph (1)(D). The physician
must keep the medical records on the minor in compliance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
``(6) A physician who intentionally performs an abortion on a
pregnant unemancipated minor in violation of this subsection commits an
offense punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
``(7) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection that the
minor falsely represented her age or identity to the physician to be at
least 18 years of age by displaying an apparently valid governmental
record of identification such that a reasonable person under similar
circumstances would have relied on the representation. The defense does
not apply if the physician is shown to have had independent knowledge
of the minor's actual age or identity or failed to use due diligence in
determining the minor's age or identity.
``(d) Judicial Approval.--(1) A pregnant unemancipated minor who is
a child of a member of the armed forces and who wishes to have an
abortion using facilities of the Department of Defense without
notification to the member of the armed forces, another parent, her
managing conservator, or her guardian may file an application for a
court order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of an
abortion without notification to either of her parents or a managing
conservator or guardian.
``(2) Any application under this subsection may be filed in any
appropriate district court of the United States. In the case of a minor
who elects not to travel to the United States in pursuit of an order
authorizing the abortion, the court may conduct the proceedings in the
case of such application by telephone.
``(3) An application under this subsection shall be made under oath
and include--
``(A) a statement that the minor is pregnant;
``(B) a statement that the minor is unmarried, is under 18
years of age, and has not had her disabilities removed;
``(C) a statement that the minor wishes to have an abortion
without the notification of either of her parents or a managing
conservator or guardian; and
``(D) a statement as to whether the minor has retained an
attorney and, if she has retained an attorney, the name,
address, and telephone number of her attorney.
``(4) The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor. If
the minor has not retained an attorney, the court shall appoint an
attorney to represent the minor. If the guardian ad litem is an
attorney, the court may appoint the guardian ad litem to serve as the
minor's attorney.
``(5) The court may appoint to serve as guardian ad litem for a
minor--
``(A) a psychiatrist or an individual licensed or certified
as a psychologist;
``(B) a member of the clergy;
``(C) a grandparent or an adult brother, sister, aunt, or
uncle of the minor; or
``(D) another appropriate person selected by the court.
``(6) The court shall determine within 48 hours after the
application is filed whether the minor is mature and sufficiently well-
informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without
notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or
guardian, whether notification would not be in the best interest of the
minor, or whether notification may lead to physical, sexual, or
emotional abuse of the minor. If the court finds that the minor is
mature and sufficiently well informed, that notification would not be
in the minor's best interest, or that notification may lead to
physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor, the court shall
enter an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of
the abortion without notification to either of her parents or a
managing conservator or guardian and shall execute the required forms.
``(7) If the court fails to rule on the application within the
period specified in paragraph (6), the application shall be deemed to
be granted and the physician may perform the abortion as if the court
had issued an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance
of the abortion without notification under subsection (c).
``(8) If the court finds that the minor does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (6), the court may not authorize the minor to
consent to an abortion without the notification authorized under
subsection (c)(1).
``(9) The court may not notify a parent, managing conservator, or
guardian that the minor is pregnant or that the minor wants to have an
abortion. The court proceedings shall be conducted in a manner that
protects the anonymity of the minor. The application and all other
court documents pertaining to the proceedings are confidential and
privileged and are not subject to disclosure, discovery, subpoena, or
other legal process. The minor may file the application using a
pseudonym or using only her initials.
``(10) An order of the court issued under this subsection is
confidential and privileged and is not subject to disclosure,
discovery, subpoena, or other legal process. The order may not be
released to any person but the pregnant minor, the pregnant minor's
guardian ad litem, the pregnant minor's attorney, another person
designated to receive the order by the minor, or a governmental agency
or attorney in a criminal or administrative action seeking to assert or
protect the interest of the minor.
``(11) A filing fee is not required of and court costs may not be
assessed against a minor filing an application under this subsection.
``(e) Appeal.--(1) A minor whose application under subsection (d)
is denied may appeal to the court of appeals of the United States
having jurisdiction of the district court of the United States that
denied the application. If the court of appeals fails to rule on the
appeal within 48 hours after the appeal is filed, the appeal shall be
deemed to be granted and the physician may perform the abortion using
facilities of the Department of Defense as if the court had issued an
order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of the
abortion using facilities of the Department of Defense without
notification under subsection (c). Proceedings under this subsection
shall be given precedence over other pending matters to the extent
necessary to assure that the court reaches a decision promptly.
``(2) A ruling of the court of appeals under this subsection is
confidential and privileged and is not subject to disclosure,
discovery, subpoena, or other legal process. The ruling may not be
released to any person but the pregnant minor, the pregnant minor's
guardian ad litem, the pregnant minor's attorney, another person
designated to receive the ruling by the minor, or a governmental agency
or attorney in a criminal or administrative action seeking to assert or
protect the interest of the minor.
``(3) A filing fee is not required of and court costs may not be
assessed against a minor filing an appeal under this subsection.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `abortion' means the use of any means at a
medical facility of the Department of Defense to terminate the
pregnancy of a female known by an attending physician to be
pregnant, with the intention that the termination of the
pregnancy by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause
the death of the fetus. The term applies only to an
unemancipated minor known by an attending physician to be
pregnant and may not be construed to limit a minor's access to
contraceptives.
``(2) The term `appropriate district court of the United
States' means--
``(A) with respect to a proposed abortion at a
particular Department of Defense medical facility in
the United States or its territories, the district
court of the United States having proper venue in
relation to that facility; or
``(B) if the minor is seeking an abortion at a
particular Department of Defense facility outside the
United States or its territories--
``(i) if the minor elects to travel to the
United States in pursuit of an order
authorizing the abortion, the district court of
the United States having proper venue in the
district in which the minor first arrives from
outside the United States; or
``(ii) if the minor elects not to travel to
the United States in pursuit of an order
authorizing the abortion, the district court of
the United States for the district in which the
minor last resided.
``(3) The term `fetus' means an individual human organism
from fertilization until birth.
``(4) The term `guardian' means a court-appointed guardian
of the person of the minor.
``(5) The term `physician' means an individual licensed to
practice medicine.
``(6) The term `unemancipated minor' includes a minor who
is not a member of the armed forces and who--
``(A) is unmarried; and
``(B) has not had any disabilities of minority
removed.''.

Calendar No. 114

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1104

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for parental
involvement in abortions of dependent children of members of the Armed
Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

May 23, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar