Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XVI and Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements and dilatory provisions, to offer the following amendments, either as floor amendments, or as motions to recommit with instructions: Vance No. 1210, Lee No. 1121, Cruz No. 1176, Rubio No. 1159, Rubio No. 1237, Hawley No. 1200, Marshall No. 1161, Braun No. 1182, Paul No. 1226, Paul No. 1217. Scott of Florida S. 2721, as amended with a Scott of Florida- Rubio substitute amendment.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XVI and Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements and dilatory provisions, to offer the following amendments, either as floor amendments, or as motions to recommit with instructions: Vance No. 1125, Lee No. 1121, Cruz No. 1158, Rubio No. 1159, Marshall No. 1161, Braun No. 1182, Paul No. 1226, Paul No. 1217.

Mr. LEE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today with great respect, affection, and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Louisiana. I have always appreciated his dedication to the welfare of his constituents and the prudent management of taxpayer dollars. When it comes to the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, as it is known, I must voice some concerns. The NFIP, by its very nature and its current structure and the way it has been operating, remains a perfect example of what can happen when good intentions meet imprudent policy. We find ourselves on the precipice of what is euphemistically called a clean reauthorization. While the term ``clean'' as used here may suggest unerring direction or impurity or transparency, in this context, clean is better understood as ``unchanging'' or even ``unreflective.'' Let's be clear on the facts here. Commerce created the NFIP as a government flood insurance monopoly, one that covers privately owned properties. Yet this government-backed monopoly behemoth sits on more than $26 billion in debt owed to the U.S. Treasury. My friend and colleague referred, a moment ago, to the ability to cover up to $30 billion of potential liabilities. They have $20 billion in debt because of the way the program has been run. There is no subtly as to why this has happened. The NFIP is offering special below-market rates for insurance in regions and for specific properties that are inherently flood-prone. Congress is no stranger to the adage of doing the same thing over and over again and, somehow, nonetheless expecting different results. And yet we find ourselves here, yet again, ready to do battle again. This isn't merely about economics; it is also about evenhanded fairness. The NFIP, as constructed, disproportionately benefits, in many instances, those who least need the assistance. The data speaks clearly to this. Historically--and, certainly, this was the case as of just a few years ago--the median value of an NFIP-insured home has been roughly double that of the average American home. I have introduced several pieces of legislation trying to reform this program. I introduced several bills in the past proposing some fixes, including one that would propose a particularly meaningful simple change, and that is capping the NFIP insurance eligibility at $1 million. This isn't about penalizing success. Rather, it is a recognition that those fortunate enough to afford homes in the million- dollar-plus range are also most likely very able to secure insurance without a public subsidy and without running the NFIP program even further into debt, on top of the $20 billion that they have already racked up. So my objection is not about negating Senator Kennedy's genuine concerns and very legitimate points about our citizens; it is about ensuring that we take steps in the right direction as stewards of taxpayer dollars. With the utmost respect to my friend and colleague, with whom I agree on most things, the NFIP, in its current form, isn't moving us in that direction. It is a broken government subsidy program that has long been in need of some reforms to accompany any reauthorization. When this has come up in the past--each time it comes up as we are approaching another expiration--I have offered up reforms, year after year. And year after year, I have been told: We will get to that. We will get to that. We will add some of those reforms. You are right, we need to reform the program. We will get to that but not yet. It is as if echoing the famous words of St. Augusta who, during his conversion to Christianity, reportedly said: Lord, grant me chastity, but not yet. The time comes when you actually have to do what needs to be done. So I appreciate the opportunity to share those views and remain committed to working alongside my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, to identify and implement solutions that best serve all Americans. There are a number of solutions. I introduced a number of pieces of legislation over the years, one of which I mentioned a moment ago. There are others. If we can adopt one or more of these reforms, we can get this done. What I am not willing to do is agree, yet again, with another hollow promise, yet again, that at some unknown point in the future, we will reform the program, as I think everyone acknowledges needs to be done. On that basis, Madam President, I object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate my friend and colleague's words, and, yes, I want to be very clear--under no circumstance did I suggest that this benefits only wealthy people. Quite to the contrary, my whole point was that we can reform this program so that it doesn't have $20 billion in debt at the same time that it has $30 billion in liabilities. That is not a good way to run this, because, he is right, there are a whole lot of people who are not in the wealthy, million- dollar-plus homeowner category. But for those who are, they should not be in the same position because they are not in the same position. So that is why I would be happy to work with my friend and colleague. We can get this done. This one does not have to be difficult. Sure, it takes a lot of time to put a bill on the floor and subject it to a full process. I am not the only one with concerns about this legislation, but for my own purposes, as far as I am concerned, if we can get agreement on that, I would be happy to let your measure pass if we can incorporate that reform. We can incorporate that reform very easily, do another unanimous consent request, and if no one else objects, I am happy to let that one go with a simple reform. I already have the legislation drafted from previous Congresses. We can get this done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the American people are sharply divided on some issues. One of those issues is abortion. One group of people has a different idea about when human life begins and is worth protecting. It needs to be protected under law. It is difficult to reconcile the views of those who are in sharp contrast with each other given that one group thinks that human life begins earlier--much earlier--than the other group. As difficult as it can be to reconcile those competing viewpoints where Americans are so sharply divided, there is an issue related to abortion on which Americans are overwhelmingly and refreshingly united; that is, because both sides tend to recognize that a number of Americans are uncomfortable with abortion to the extent that we are, Americans overwhelmingly agree, with a vast supermajority being in agreement, that the Federal Government should not use U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions. To that end, Congress has passed laws providing just that. One specific law deals specifically with the U.S. Department of Defense. Codified in 10 U.S.C., section 1093, the statute, which has been on the books for decades, says that you may not use Department of Defense funding or facilities for abortions. Well, late last year, a rumor started circulating to the effect that the U.S. Department of Defense was considering adopting policies that would fund abortion travels, specifically allowing military personnel seeking abortions in a neighboring State or in a different State than where they were living or stationed to receive 3 weeks of paid leave time and compensated travel--air travel or otherwise--lodging accommodations, a per diem, et cetera, specifically to have an abortion. My friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Alabama, Senator Tuberville, was concerned about this. In his sitting on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, which he does, he visited with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and expressed his concerns about this rumored policy. He said: You shouldn't do this. This is inconsistent with the spirit, if not also the letter, of 10 U.S.C., section 1093. If you do this, there will be consequences, including, among other things, that I, Senator Tuberville, will be forced into a position in which I will delay the confirmations of flag officer military promotions. Regrettably, a couple of months later, Secretary Austin, in completely ignoring Federal law, in completely ignoring what Senator Tuberville had told him, proceeded with the policy anyway. By so doing, he made a decision to openly flout Federal law. The sole purpose of this policy is to try to find an all-too-cute, way-too-tricky route around what Federal law requires, flatly inconsistent with the spirit, if not also the letter, of the Federal law. Since then, there has been debate on this on the Senate floor. Words have been exchanged. People have strong views about this approach. But make no mistake, all Senator Tuberville is doing is saying that in the past, I, along with every other Senator, typically moved Heaven and Earth to expedite the confirmation of these military promotions to allow them to occur quickly. Most of them are not controversial. That is the norm, but these things require unanimous consent. And there is something about unanimous consent: It requires, as the name implies, actual unanimity, meaning any one Senator can raise an objection that makes expedited confirmation not possible. This doesn't stop the confirmation; all it does is require additional steps to be taken. It takes more time. Yesterday, we had a statement--a statement that was unfortunate, a statement that brings me to the Senate floor today--a statement made by Secretary Carlos Del Toro, the Secretary of the U.S. Navy. Secretary Del Toro, with whom I have worked on other matters in the past and for whom I have had great respect, made a very unfortunate and inappropriate statement. Here is what he said: I would have never imagined that one of our own senators would actually be aiding and abetting communists and other autocratic regimes around the world. This statement, to be clear, was talking only about Senator Tuberville saying: In light of this policy, which I believe is incompatible with Federal law, I am not going to facilitate the expedited confirmation of the nominees in question. That is all he said. Yet, for that, he was accused by the Secretary of the U.S. Navy of ``aiding and abetting communists and other autocratic regimes around the world.'' This is strange. This is unacceptable. And this body should emphatically, unambiguously reject the ad hominem attack against Senator Tuberville by Secretary Del Toro. Look, I get it. Sometimes passions are inflamed. Sometimes people feel really strongly about things. I hope and expect Secretary Del Toro will see the error of this and retract and apologize for this statement because he has essentially accused a Member of our body, a distinguished friend to the United States, to the people of Alabama, and to me personally, of treason, of directly jeopardizing the security of the United States and putting it at risk by aiding and abetting communist and other autocratic regimes around the world. Personal attacks against Members of Congress or other people based on policy views, policy disagreements--here, procedural, strategic disagreements--certainly violate the high standard of decorum that has long been honored and is typically held and exhibited by the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces. Look, there are important things to consider when you evaluate this policy, this policy designed to flout Federal law. We have three branches of government. One branch, where we work, makes the law. The executive branch, where the Pentagon exists and the White House exists and all the executive branch Agencies exist--they are there to enforce the law. Then you have the judicial branch across the street, headed by the Supreme Court, which interprets the law when people disagree as to the law's meaning. We are the only branch that gets to make the law. The very, very first operative provision, the first clause of the first section of the first article of the Constitution--Article I, Section 1, Clause 1--makes clear that ``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Article I, Section 7 makes clear--even clearer--how this works. You cannot make a Federal law without passing the same legislation through the House and through the Senate--identical language--and then submitting that to the President--presenting it, as we say--for signature, veto, or acquiescence. If you don't follow the formula of Article I, Section 7, you have not made a Federal law. Once a Federal law is made, it cannot be changed or unmade without going through that same process. But here, the Department of Defense seems not to have gotten the memo, and by ``the memo,'' I mean the U.S. Constitution. This oath of office that I have right here, this is an oath of office that is a prerequisite. It is required of all those elected or appointed to civil service or uniform service, that they have to take before assuming their duties in question. Here is what it says: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. That is codified in Federal law, adopted by Congress in 5 U.S.C., section 3331. Look, by swearing to support and uphold the Constitution, as this oath requires, as is required to do under Federal statute, anyone taking this oath understands that our Constitution expressly, explicitly, unambiguously, and exclusively empowers Congress to make the laws. Only Congress has lawmaking power. Only Congress may change the law. Only Congress may repeal the law. The other branches can't do that. Now, the outrage from Secretary Del Toro and, I would add, from some other Pentagon officials, including but not limited to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, sort of has a tendency to make it appear as though they have written a new oath, as it were. So when we look at this, we can imagine perhaps what they might be thinking. Whether they have gone to the trouble of rewriting it in this fashion or not, essentially what they have done is to come up with President Biden's own Pentagon-specific oath of office. It is as though they are saying: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will make all laws that I determine are necessary and proper; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same laws that I have decided to make within the executive branch; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon, which I am about to enter. So help me God. That, of course, is not the real oath. That oath, of course, is an abomination, and it is an affront to this body, to the other Chamber of Congress, and to the Constitution itself. This is an oath that rejects the Constitution. It empowers unelected and unaccountable officials-- officials who have never been elected to make laws--as supreme lawmakers. Secretary Austin and the civilian leadership of the service branches want us to believe that the sky is falling and that the falling sky has been prompted to fall by Senator Tuberville and that Senator Tuberville himself is somehow empowering communist and other autocratic regimes throughout the world, imperiling and endangering the United States. These are not just fighting words; these are words tantamount to an accusation of treason--words that are unfounded; words made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for their truthfulness; words that disregard what is actually happening here. These are not appropriate. These are way over the line. In reality, if this is where truly aiding and abetting communist and other autocratic regimes were concerned, if that is really what we were facing, if that is really where we were and American national security was being imperiled in the manner and to the degree these people have suggested, including and especially Secretary Del Toro, we would be looking at a very different outcome here. If they really believed this--which they do not, and we know they don't believe it because if we were in that situation, there are only one, two, maybe three possible outcomes at that moment: either the Department of Defense would ideally just suspend its attempt to circumvent Federal law and end its abortion travel policy--if they suspended this right now, either indefinitely or until such time as they could change the law to do what they want to do, that is the fastest way to do that. And I have it on good authority that Senator Tuberville would release his hold immediately and that these people could move forward very, very quickly on an expedited basis. If they want these people confirmed, that is all they have to do-- suspend that policy. I am willing to bet--I am not even a betting man, but I would bet here anyway--he would lift it. He would lift it today. Option No. 2, possibility No. 2: Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats--if we really were in that environment where national security were being imperiled and we were strengthening the hands of hostile regimes all over the world because of Senator Tuberville; if that is really where we were just because he was requiring the whole process rather than expedited consideration of these nominees, well, then Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats would take the time to bring these nominees up for a vote on the floor. You see, there are procedures by which we can bring them to the floor even with a hold. A hold is not a death knell. It is not a veto. All it says is ``I am not going to give my consent.'' Every Member of the United States has to consent to expedite consideration. They could still do it, but they are not. So one of those two outcomes or some variation of them--that is what we would be facing. But, instead, what are we looking at? Well, just the day before yesterday, the Senate held its first vote in 40 days, and it appears very, very likely that within just an hour or two, maybe three, the Senate will be recessing for the weekend and not voting again until Monday. So we have the ability to move nominees forward. Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats have the ability to put them on the calendar. It would just take some additional steps. It takes time. But they are not doing it. They are not budging. Why? Because they know their words aren't true. They know their spewing of invective, unfair, defamatory accusations relates to facts that they don't even believe because if they believed them, we would be in a very different procedural posture. Look, whether you agree or not agree with Senator Tuberville's strategic decision here, whether you as a U.S. Senator or as an onlooker would have made the same decision--regardless of how you come down on that, regardless of where you are on the position of abortion or government funding for abortion, Senator Tuberville is well within his rights. These are rights that each individual Senator holds and owns uniquely, personal to them. This is consistent with his assignment on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is doing the job the way he believes he should do his job in a manner consistent with how the voters in the great State of Alabama feel. So we have and we respect these rules, and we have respected them for centuries. Respecting the rules and the institution requires us to respect those with whom we disagree when it comes to procedural decisions like this one. We need to respect them not just in spite of a disagreement but especially in the face of a disagreement if we are going to uphold these rules, which have lasted for centuries and helped propel this body to the status that I hope it can live up to more completely, as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. Yet it is interesting. To show that we really are not in this place where we would be if they took these things seriously, just yesterday, Senator Schumer, the Senate majority leader himself, commented, when asked about or in reference to his own refusal to put the confirmation of C.Q. Brown to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Senate floor for a vote--here is what he said: This is a problem created by Republicans, and it's up to them to solve it. . . . We're not going to shift the burden to Democrats when this is a Republican-caused problem. This is nuts. What he is saying here is that, yeah, in the past, we would have expected to vote on the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In fact, in the 12\1/2\ years I have served in this body, I think we have voted on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff individually and not as part of some massive, en bloc confirmation package. Yet he is not even willing to move the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is not even that long of a process to get this person on the calendar. He is not willing even to do that. Why? Well, he told us why--because he is having too much fun blaming Republicans for it. He holds the tools to get people confirmed. He is not willing to move them. He is not willing to budge an inch. Look, while Americans may disagree on the legality of abortion, and they do, there has long been this overwhelming, bipartisan, supermajority understanding first and foremost among the American people at large--and there has until very lately even been that bipartisan, overwhelming, supermajority consensus among Federal elected lawmakers--that Americans are against tacitly supporting abortion with their taxpayers dollars. The last time I read the Constitution, I noticed that, as I noted earlier, it is Congress that makes the laws, not the Department of Defense. Senator Tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy, and he is well within his rights as a Member of the U.S. Senate to take this position. We should commend his courage and applaud his dedication to upholding his oath of office, his commitment to the Constitution, standing for those who cannot stand, let alone speak, for themselves. Even if you don't agree with Senator Tuberville on abortion or on Federal funding for abortion or on his particular use of this particular procedural remedy, you should at least respect it. If you can't respect him and show respect for his decision, you are showing disrespect for this institution, for its rules, and for our governing documents, including the Constitution, and for the entity, the customs and traditions that have helped preserve our unique form of constitutional representative government in America. Let this message to Secretary Austin and Secretary Del Toro be clear: If you want to make laws, run for Congress. You can't legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon. Until then, stand down and leave the lawmaking to the lawmakers.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as we wrap up our work in the National Defense Authorization Act, we need to address an issue, an issue that has been the focus of a lot of controversy. It has been the focus of a lot of heated words. Now, I understand heated words happen around here. It occurs; people feel passionate about things. But when heated words become untrue words, defamatory words, fighting words, sometimes the record needs to be corrected. This is one of those times. Moments ago, the President of the United States--who, to put it mildly, has not had a good week--made some comments that I regard as not only insensitive, inflammatory, but also downright misleading and unfair. He has made them about and directed them toward a Member of this body, our friend and colleague, the Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville. These attacks against Senator Tuberville have been relentless. Relentless all because he has chosen to take a stand, a stand against what he properly, legitimately, understandably perceives as a violation of the spirit--if not also the letter--of the law. The law in question is codified in 10 U.S.C. section 1093. And 10 U.S.C. 1093, in a nutshell, says that the U.S. Department of Defense may not spend Department of Defense funds to perform an abortion, and it may not use a Department of Defense property, facility, to perform an abortion. This has been in place for a long time. It has been in place for decades. This, you see, represents something of an island oasis in the debate of abortion, this idea about government funding. It is one of the last bastions of our overwhelming bipartisan agreement when it comes to abortion in America, which is to say, regardless of how people feel about abortion in general--whether they support it, whether they are against it, in what circumstances they might recognize it as something that can appropriately be legal or not--what unites them and unites them overwhelmingly along bipartisan lines is this: That, in part, because of the widespread disagreement among the American people about abortion, Federal funds shouldn't be performing abortions. They shouldn't be used to promote or conduct or perform abortions. It is a very simple matter. This can and does unite Americans across party lines--and overwhelmingly so. And so it was with good reason in another National Defense Authorization Act--we just finished up the National Defense Authorization Act for 2024, at least the initial Senate version of it. But it was in another National Defense Authorization Act a few decades ago that, I understand, 10 U.S.C. 1093 came to be law, because the American people agreed then, as they agree now, that regardless of how people feel about abortion, we ought not to be using Federal funds, particularly in the military but also otherwise, to perform abortions. Well, late last year, the U.S. Department of Defense started considering a measure to get around 10 U.S.C. 1093 for a method that was at once really creative and too cute by half. When I say ``too cute by half'' not as a compliment, I, indeed, mean it as a criticism, because it cleverly attempts to step around the stated purpose, intent, spirit of 10 U.S.C. 1093. And one could not argue that you avoid the technical grip of its talents if you do what the Department of Defense started considering doing last year. They started thinking about saying, OK, well, let's say that we will give 3 weeks of paid leave time and reimburse travel expenses to any military woman who wants to get an abortion and needs to travel interstate to do it. We will pay for their interstate travel, for their lodgings, their meals, and 3 weeks of paid leave. It is understandable why this would cause some consternation, because the only purpose of this could be to flout, to circumvent the stated purpose and effect of 10 U.S.C. section 1093. Technically speaking, one could argue, yeah, this is not performing abortions, so you can get away with it. Sometimes in the military, it is not just about getting away with it; sometimes in the military there ought to be some concern for whether the American people have a voice in this, and the fact that their elected representatives have tried to take things like this off the table, and not let them do that. So Senator Tuberville saw this coming. He also understood--as I think anyone rationally looking at it has the ability to understand--that the distinction between this and providing funding for the performance of an abortion is really difficult to differentiate. If you add up the value, the economic value, of the 3 weeks of paid leave and add to that interstate travel--in many cases, it is going to be interstate air travel--and lodgings, meals, per diem for that period of time, at the end of the day, performance of the abortion is going to be dwarfed by that policy. It is almost the afterthought. It is the least expensive part of all of that. And so, yeah, can you say that you have evaded the letter of the law? Yeah, I think you can make that argument, but it is too cute by half, and they are trying deliberately to flout this law while claiming that they are respecting it. So what did Senator Tuberville do? Well, Senator Tuberville serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And in that capacity, he has oversight authority, oversight responsibilities over the Department of Defense. So he did what he felt was appropriate and what I think was appropriate, and he decided to sit down with the Secretary of Defense and just talk it out with him, rather than relying on the rumor mill to either confirm or dispel what might be happening. He articulated his concerns. He said: Look, if you were to do this, it is just a poke in the eye. You are doing it because you can get away with it for the time being. So don't do it. And if you still do it, there will be consequences. And then he spelled out what those consequences would be. You see, in the Senate, when we confirm people, particularly when we confirm people who are up for consideration for a military promotion, there is a custom and practice that we don't require the full procedures to be followed--the full procedures, which takes some time. And so Senators, typically, agree to expedite that process so that these military promotions can be considered as a group, en bloc, and on a really fast-tracked basis. It is, nonetheless, a senatorial courtesy; it is something that we choose to do. It is our choice, and it is the choice of each Senator individually. Any one Senator can decide for him or herself when, whether, to what extent to allow that person and where to withhold it. And so what Senator Tuberville told Secretary Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, was simple: If you do this, I will not any longer be able to justify giving expedited treatment to military promotions for flag officers--you know, admirals and generals. I won't do that, so don't do it, because you will be flouting the law. You will be flouting the law in a way that may take a significant amount of time, whether through litigation--if it follows that course--or through legislation. Probably be able to run out the clock through the end of this administration. Senator Tuberville felt that would be an unfortunate result and wanted to give Secretary Austin the chance to avoid it. So he said: Don't do it; but if you do do it, it is going to take you a whole lot longer to confirm your admirals and your generals. Well, what happened? A month or two later, lo and behold, the Department of Defense releases that policy: 3 weeks of paid leave and compensated, reimbursed travel expenses, and per diem, for the purpose of getting an abortion. Sure, they try to dress it up in other language. This is about abortion. This is about Dobbs because the administration doesn't like the Dobbs decision. It is mad that the Supreme Court of the United States stood up for the plain text of the Constitution. The plain text of the Constitution does not make abortion itself categorically a Federal issue and certainly doesn't prohibit to the States the authority to protect unborn human life. It doesn't take that away, and because it doesn't take that away, it is not an issue that nine lawyers wearing robes can just decide, just graft it on to the Constitution. So the Dobbs Court reached that conclusion. Whether you agree with the Dobbs Court or not--I do. It was right. But whether you agree with me on that or not, it is the Supreme Court's ruling. This is a temper tantrum. It is a temper tantrum by the Department of Defense and by the Biden administration. They are still mad that they lost the Dobbs ruling. That is what this is. So they proceeded with it, and Coach Tuberville said: I told you what I would do, and I am going to stand up for what I told you I would do. This isn't right. You are encouraging, you are facilitating abortions, and it sends the wrong message altogether. This is not something that we are comfortable with the Department of Defense doing. We made that clear in law decades ago. And you are doing this for the sole purpose of flouting--of circumventing. So don't do it. Now, it is clear as a bell: This doesn't stop anyone from getting confirmed. There is not one person whom we stop from getting confirmed simply because any one Senator decides that he or she isn't going to continue to expedite the process. Every one of these people could be confirmed. Essentially, every one of them could be confirmed in not a whole lot of time. It would be some time-consuming processes they would have to go through, but it is not overwhelming. In the meantime, all this pressure is mounting. The message from the White House and from the Pentagon has been to put the blame entirely at Senator Tuberville's feet and to say that all kinds of horrible things are going to happen--dogs and cats living together in the streets; Book of Revelations stuff, apocalyptic stuff is going to happen--and it is all Senator Tommy Tuberville's fault. This is nonsense. For those who have made that argument within this body, it is uncollegial. For the President of the United States to jump on this bandwagon and do the same thing--the President of the United States, a longtime Member of this body who never served with Senator Tuberville, but if he had, he would have known him and he would have liked him. They would have been friends. Senator Biden, I have no doubt, would have respected as a matter of senatorial courtesy what Senator Tuberville is doing because we respect each other's procedural rights, especially when standing on a sincerely held conviction. But that is not what President Biden is doing. He gave a speech just a little while ago. He begins with the words ``Something dangerous is happening.'' A few sentences later, he says: The Republican Party used to . . . support the military, but today they're undermining the military. The senior senator from Alabama, who claims to support our troops, is now blocking more than 300 military operations with his extreme political agenda. Let's talk for a moment about what is extreme. It is extreme to take U.S. taxpayer dollars and use them to facilitate, promote, and encourage abortion. That is extreme. It is also extreme for this administration to refuse even to consider the possibility that maybe they overstepped. Now, there is dispute among people in the military as to whether or to what extent any delay in the promotion of these members is a matter of national security. I understand there are disagreements on that. There are also no fewer than 5,000 veterans who have signed on to support Senator Tuberville's Pentagon hold--5,000--who say that Senator Tuberville's decision to place these holds is absolutely right and that he is not to blame and that there are no circumstances in which Senator Tuberville should be blamed for any impact on military readiness. Now, let's step back for a minute, and let's just assume. Let's assume for purposes of argument here that we are living in a world in which there are legitimate national security ramifications flowing from the nonconfirmation of any or all of the roughly 300 promotions we are talking about. Let's assume that into existence. If that is the case, to whatever extent that is true, what is true for the goose is also true for the gander. It is not something that you could put solely on Senator Tuberville, especially given the fact that we could promote and confirm the promotions of every single one of these people right now within the next 5 minutes. We could do it if only this administration would stop trying to advance its radical, pro- abortion agenda through every jurisdiction, every Department, every Agency. This is an all-of-government thing. They don't care; they are going to promote abortion in whatever way possible. All they would have to do is say: You know, let's set that aside. In the interest of national security, let's do that. It is not as if members of the military choosing to get an abortion are prohibited from doing so. It is not as though members of the military choosing to seek an abortion are denied leave or denied the ability to do this. So what exactly are we fighting for, and to whatever degree this is impairing and impacting national security, who exactly is doing this? The President of the United States and Secretary Austin both independently have at their disposal the ability to end this now. So a national security threat? Not a national security threat? To the extent it is, it is on you, President Biden, and you certainly can't put this entirely at Senator Tuberville's feet. This is your doing. You have chosen this route. He warned you that Federal law itself cautioned against it, and you did it anyway. It goes on a few sentences later: This partisan freeze is already harming military readiness, security and leadership, and troop morale. He goes on: Freezing pay, freezing people in place. Military families who have already sacrificed so much unsure of where or when they change stations, unable to get housing or start their kids in the new school [because they are not there yet]. Here again, I get it. It would be great to get those people confirmed. It really would. I would like to see them confirmed. So even though this wasn't my decision--I wasn't in his shoes. I wasn't the one who chose this particular option. But he is my friend, he is my colleague, and he is a U.S. Senator who holds an election certificate just like the rest of us and just like President Biden did for the many decades he served in this body. He has every right to decide when and when not to extend the courtesy of expediting these confirmations. He went about it in a gentlemanly, courteous way, giving advance notice. He rested his theory on a law that has been in place for decades that is being flouted. The President of the United States has the audacity to lay at his feet any suffering, any misfortune, any unhappiness among these families, any military readiness that may flow from it, when he himself knows darn well that in order to score cheap political points with the abortion lobby, he is willing to bring these things on. And then he has the audacity to blame this on one Senator from Alabama. Shame on you, President Biden. Shame on you. He goes on: Military spouses are forced to take critical career decisions, not knowing where or if they can apply for a new job. . . . a growing cascade of damage and disruption all because one senator from Alabama and 48 Republicans refused to stand up to him to lift the blockade over a Pentagon policy offering servicemen and women and their families access to reproductive health care rights they deserve if they're stationed in states that deny it. He can dress that up all he wants. It is still on him. He can call this healthcare all he wants, but he is talking about a procedure that has one purpose, and that is to culminate in the cessation of unborn human life. I find that difficult to take--difficult to take especially in the face of 10 U.S.C. 1093, which on its face makes clear that the American people don't want and have outlawed the use of military funds and facilities to perform abortions. Why should we be willing to tolerate something that indirectly, in a way that is way too cute by at least half, openly flouts the intended purpose and spirit of that law? He continues: I think it's outrageous. But don't just take it from me. Hundreds of military spouses petitioned to end the extreme blockade. One spouse, referring to the Senator from Alabama, said: This isn't a football game. This nonsense must stop right now. Enough. You know, the military spouse quoted is right. This isn't a football game. It is much more serious than that--in fact, far more serious. This is about the law. This is about maintaining military readiness. This is about making sure that our laws aren't openly flouted by those charged with managing and directing the affairs of what is our largest Department and one of the central, key parts of the Federal Government, one of its main reasons for existing. It is not a football game, and this business of openly flouting the law and the business of law in which we work is also not a game. You see, the fact is, Secretary Austin made a grave miscalculation when he decided he was going to make policy and make policy utterly at odds with the policy embodied in enacted law. You see, you can't legislate from the E-ring of the Pentagon. It can't be done. My copy of the Constitution, the very first operative provision of that document, article I, section 1, says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Article I, section 7, puts additional meat on the bones and makes abundantly clear what is teed up in article I, section 1, clause 1. It says that in order to make a law within the Federal Government, it has to be through Congress. In order to make a law, you have to pass it through the House and pass it through the Senate. Once you pass the same text through both Houses of Congress, it has to be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence. Maybe he didn't get the memo on article I. Maybe he needs to be reminded of the fact that he doesn't get to make law. It is not within his prerogative. He openly, brazenly and I believe very, very deliberately sought to undermine the stated purpose, intent, effect, and spirit of 10 U.S.C. 1093. He chose to do that. What is sad in this day and age, when the government is as big as ours, a government that unwisely gives as much deference as it does to the executive branch--not just to the President himself but those who serve him in various capacities in executive branch Agencies and Departments. In this day and age, it is almost analogous to the expression that ``possession is nine-tenths of the law.'' As long as he remains in charge of the Department of Defense, he can say up is down and is surrounded by people who literally salute him every day and people who follow those orders. Unless or until Congress does something about it, he may get away with openly flouting the law. (Ms. Cantwell assumed the Chair.) That doesn't mean that nobody in the Senate can have anything to say about it, and it certainly does not entitle the Secretary of Defense or the President of the United States to have every Member of the U.S. Senate agree to continue to reward them with continued deference and a grant of expedited consideration of all military promotions, whether flag officers or otherwise. This is not something they are entitled to. It is something that Senators freely choose to give or to withhold. Here, he has chosen to withhold it. The beginning of the end of his speech says: I urge Senate Republicans to do what they know is right. On that point, I agree, and we will.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 376 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE. My amendment, Lee No. 376, is a measure that drives accountability and fairness in supporting Ukraine. My amendment creatively incentivizes our NATO allied nations to shoulder their fair share of the security burden in securing Europe. This isn't about withholding funds from Ukraine; it is about encouraging allies to meet their 2 percent of GDP spending thresholds with regard to their national security. Within Congress, we respond to the call of duty by urging NATO allies to step up and to meet their obligations--obligations that they have made and obligations that, when they go unmet, result in the United States of America shouldering a disproportionate, unfair share of the burden. We have been doing this for years, just as we have provided and held a disproportionate share of the burden specifically with regard to Ukraine. Let me be very clear. My amendment ensures that funds for Ukraine remain untouched while allies contribute their fair share. Europe's security is indeed a collective endeavor, and Lee No. 376 motivates our allies to meet or exceed the 2 percent pledge. But for it to be a collective endeavor, they have to pay their way. They haven't been. This would incentivize them to do so. I urge its passage.

Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is an obsession on the left with abortion. It is becoming all-encompassing, infecting conversations that we have in the Senate on everything from the military to the Department of Veterans Affairs to phantom State laws that don't even exist. Judges have to bow their policy objectives if they want to be appointed in this administration. Or those who are already on the bench, if they don't bow their policy objectives, if they don't bow to the abortion-centric, abortion-obsessed culture on the left, then all of a sudden, they are going to face these baseless attacks to their credibility and even threats of violence. This bill, properly understood, really should be called the ``Freedom to Traffic Act.'' You see, to my knowledge, no State--not a single State--has enacted a law restricting an adult's right to travel across State lines for purposes of an abortion or otherwise. I am not even aware of a single State considering such a thing. And if a State were to even consider it, they wouldn't do it. And if they did do it, social law would undoubtedly be struck down as unconstitutional on one of at least several grounds, including the fact that the commerce clause, article I, section 8, clause 3 of Constitution has interpreted by the Supreme Court--among other things-- to prohibit any State from treating an article of commerce--including a good, a person, a thing--in interstate commerce differently based on its origin or designation, out of State or outside the United States. States can't cabin their own residents or anyone inside their own State boundaries. That is well-understood. So they don't have that authority. But more importantly, we are dealing with a phantom problem, a phantom law that does not exist. There is not a single State law out there that restricts an adult's right to travel out of State for an abortion or otherwise. What some States do have, and perhaps that is what is causing the confusion here, are some laws to stop the trafficking of children across State lines to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents. This is well-established. We have laws on the books prohibiting the trafficking of minors across State lines with good reason. This is very different than what was implied as a reason why we need to pass this bill here today. It just isn't true. Those laws don't exist. They are not on the books. They are not even being considered to be placed on the books. These laws are aimed to stop the sexual abuse of children by prohibiting their adult abusers and those in the abortion industry to help facilitate that abuse by transporting them across State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion and thus hiding the fact that they got an abortion from their parents. There are good reasons for these laws. In 2004, for example, the 14- year-old daughter of Marcia Carroll was taken by her boyfriend's family from their home in Pennsylvania, where they lived, to New Jersey--New Jersey, where parental consent for an abortion was not required at the time. There, once in New Jersey, they threatened to leave her in New Jersey unless she got an abortion, which she did, under duress, under coercion, afraid. The grief and devastation crushed this 14-year-old girl and her family, who had agreed to keep the baby. This so-called Freedom to Traffic Act would hamper the ability of States to punish such criminal and cowardly actions. I don't think there is anyone here who can defend that--trafficking a child across State lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident--far from it. We know from undercover videos, testimony from other courageous victims and reports from former employees that Planned Parenthood actively works to hide these child sexual abuse instances--covering up for adult abusers by providing their child victims with abortions and failing to report abuse. This, again, is another thing that happens. Not only do we distort the facts, not only do we distort the status quo of the law in this country, but we also distort key facts when people become obsessed with abortion, and they see abortion as if it were, somehow, an unmitigated good. This bill was just barely introduced in the Senate--I believe as recently as yesterday. This bill has not been through any committee. It has not been marked up in the committee of jurisdiction--the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. But Democrats think we should just pass it anyway. I guess maybe they are channeling the now infamous words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' This isn't how we legislate, and we certainly shouldn't be legislating when we haven't reviewed the bill, it hasn't been through committee, we don't know what it says, and the bill's proponents are badly mischaracterizing what it does and why we need it. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is important to point out that this legislation makes no distinction between those covered by it, whether they are children or adults, and that is my whole point, is that one of the problems with this is that it would block the effectiveness of State statutes that are there to protect children against interstate trafficking for the purpose of getting them abortions in another State without the knowledge or consent of their parents. That is an issue. Yes--and I do maintain--I am not aware of a single State law that prohibits a woman from traveling out of State, an adult woman from traveling out of State. If such a law exists, I am not aware of it, and if it exists despite my nonawareness of it, it is unenforceable. It would be deemed invalid instantaneously. You can't do that. But what this would do, since it makes no distinction between children and adults, is it would halt the operation of these States' State laws designed to protect children from interstate trafficking for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, which is very often necessary in order to conceal child sex perpetrators and child traffickers and what they are doing. Now, my colleague and friend from Nevada, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, referred to this--kept characterizing the ``far right.'' Now, to my knowledge, nearly every Republican in this Chamber is pro- life. There are a few variations along the way, but nearly all of us are pro-life. To call all of us far right is excessive, and it is unfair. It is unfair especially because there is a mischaracterization also of why we believe what we believe. At least I can tell you what I believe about this. She refers to States' rights. I never call it that. Why? Well, because States don't have rights; States have authority. Authority is sort of the inverse polar opposite of a right. A right is something that you have that protects you from actions by the State, by the government, protects you from the authority of the collective, coercive force that is government. So they aren't States' rights; this is State authority. And that is really how we arrived here. That is really where we have been for the last half-century. While people are, on the left, bemoaning the depravation of a right, I challenge each of them to tell me where in the Constitution it talks about abortion. Of course, the word ``abortion'' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but what part of the Constitution actually confers that right? That is the problem we are getting at here, and that is what I would like to address here for a moment. You see, because in Washington, it sometimes starts to feel like we are up against an immovable object and where progress is measured in inches and then victories are sparse and hard-fought, and occasionally the tides turn and something significant happens and there is a seismic shift. One year ago, we experienced such a seismic shift when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. But to fully appreciate the significance of that historic moment and that decision, we must first understand the journey that got us to this point in the first place. So let's rewind the clock 50 years, all the way back to 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that--to say that it legalized abortion doesn't really capture the image. It centralized power in Washington, DC, over abortion policy decisions, and then it kept that power not in the legislative branch of the Federal Government based in Washington, DC, but across the street at the Supreme Court in nine lawyers wearing black robes who have been sworn in as Justices, by removing the American people's ability to make decisions through their duly-elected lawmakers regarding abortion. It was a moment that completely reshaped the American people's ability to impact abortion policy. So for nearly five decades after that decision, this power to determine abortion policy rested ultimately with the Supreme Court. Sure, the Supreme Court would leave enough wiggle room to leave the impression that lawmakers--primarily at the State level, of course-- could make law, but the Supreme Court was constantly inventing and reinventing what the standard was, what was and what was not a permissible restriction on abortion. You see, this is what happens when you make up a nonexistent constitutional right, when you just decide that something is really important, that you feel so strongly about it that it must be in there, that it has to be in the Constitution because it is so important. When you take away the constitutional text from the words of the document, all of a sudden, you are left in this sort of no-man's land where you have to make things up as you go along. The result was chaos--49\1/2\ years of chaotic manipulation at will of the law. A State would do one thing; the Supreme Court would strike it down. Another State would do something slightly different; the Supreme Court would uphold it, sometimes changing the standards along the way. But in Dobbs, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional importance of keeping the power with the people, affirming that they have a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of the unborn and that they possess the authority to enact laws that reflect their values. You see, remember a moment ago when we talked about the difference between authority and rights. They are the opposite of each other. Rights protect you from authority. So when the Supreme Court decided as a matter of policy that it was so passionate about abortion in 1973 that it had to be in the Constitution, they effectively wrote it into the Constitution even though it is not there. They made it utterly impossible for people's elected representatives--either in their State legislative bodies, entities of local government, or, where appropriate, in Congress--to make most of the laws, and ultimately those were all subject to the will and the whim and the caprice of the Supreme Court. They did that because they deemed it part of the Constitution. But when you just deem something a part of the Constitution, that doesn't make it a part of the Constitution. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once asked rhetorically the question: If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does the dog have? He asked the question. Someone answered: Five. He said: No. Wrong. It is still four. Just because you call the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The dog still has four legs. This is still the Constitution. There still is nothing in here that says, by the way, that people can't make laws to protect the lives of the unborn unless the Supreme Court decides that they are permissible based on its own meandering standards ultimately untethered from the text of the Constitution or from 400 years of Anglo-American legal and jurisprudential tradition. So in Dobbs, they restored this power back to the people. In Dobbs, it reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life is sacred, and every human life is deserving of protection. In Dobbs, the Court recognized the decisions of deeply personal and morally significant matters should be made closest to the people they affect. Unfortunately, in the wake of Roe, we have witnessed a really dark chapter in our Nation's history. This decision wrongly declared that abortion was a right, despite no mention of it anywhere in the Constitution. A decision ushered in a new era, one that forced us to tolerate some of the most barbaric of practices: late-term abortions, gruesome procedures that practically no American supports became a stain on our society. Even as those cases were litigated, the gruesome procedures were described, some of the most hardened lawyers could barely tolerate mentioning or even listening to the words describing the procedures.

Mr. LEE. Sure. I anticipate I will be finished within 5 minutes.

Mr. LEE. We refuse to accept this as the new status quo. We knew something had gone terribly, terribly wrong. The Dobbs decision brought us a glimmer of hope. It reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life really is sacred and is deserving of protection and is capable of being protected within our constitutional system. Finally, we are empowered to exercise our constitutional prerogative and resume our efforts to protect the lives of the unborn and end these unspeakable horrors. And so this issue of States' rights--again, these are not States' rights. That is oxymoronic. And we call it federalism, State authority. So this victory of Dobbs, it is not just a victory for States' sovereign authority; it is also a victory for humanity because when we are told by the judicial branch of government, contrary to fact that the Constitution tells us that we cannot, may not, must not protect unborn human life, that really does grave damage to humanity. The victory in Dobbs is a reminder that we can't afford to turn a blind eye to the moral and ethical implications of our laws. We must proceed in a way that protects the innocent and defend against the atrocities allowed under this lofty-sounding but ultimately barbaric platitude of choice. Even with this victory, we still have a long way to go. Contrary to the assertions of many on the Democratic side of the aisle, the Dobbs decision did not make abortion illegal. It did nothing of the sort. While many States have passed laws that protect preborn children--and I applaud them for doing so--others have expanded their abortion laws. Late-term and partial-birth abortions are still a reality in many States. This isn't something that I celebrate. I disagree with those laws. But I don't live in those States. And the important thing is that the people in those States are making those laws. And most of the time, it is in the States, and not here in Congress, where things not rendered Federal by the Constitution should be decided. As we approach the 1-year anniversary of Dobbs, I believe we are dutybound to remember the millions upon millions of innocent lives lost, the pain and suffering endured, and the resilience of the men and women who fought for those who could not fight for themselves, who have no voice and therefore had to have others speak on their behalf. We should be inspired to build a society where every life is cherished, where compassion triumphs over convenience and cowardice, and where the horrors of abortion become a distant memory, especially the horrors of abortion forced upon us by a judicial oligarchy utterly untethered from the text of the Constitution. The Dobbs decision represented a turning point the moment when we said: Enough is enough. Now we are positioned to acknowledge that every life, from conception to natural birth, deserves our protection and our compassion and our care. And, yes, in some States they are going to do that differently than in others, but the fact that they are going to do it differently in one State or another doesn't mean that they don't deserve protection. So as we celebrate this milestone, I hope we can remain committed to this cause. Let us never forget the horrors hoisted upon us by Roe and the significance of the Dobbs decision in restoring sanity and compassion to the laws that guide our Nation. Together we can forge our future, where the rights of the unborn are safeguarded, where the dignity of every human being is cherished, and where the dark days of the past remain only as reminders of our resolve to create a better world. In the face of adversity, remember that change is possible. Remember that we possess the ability to achieve great things. Our Nation's health and strength lie in the people's hands, and together we can shape a future where every life is valued.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it has been a long time coming, but it is with enormous pride that I stand to celebrate the passage of the REINS Act in the House of Representatives today. This landmark legislation represents a significant step forward toward reining in the ever-expanding Federal Government. I am immensely grateful to House Republicans, to the House Freedom Caucus, and to Representative Kat Cammack, for their unwavering persistence in championing this desperately needed reform legislation. The journey of the REINS Act began years ago with profound recognition that something was fundamentally wrong with our Federal regulatory system. We realized the power wielded by these faceless Agencies was unfolding unchecked, eroding the very foundations of our Republic, rendering it unaccountable. The notion that a small group of unelected individuals could impose far-reaching regulations that affected every aspect of our lives was itself an affront to the principles upon which this great Nation was built--certainly, contrary to the rules established and embodied in the Constitution, which govern the way our government operates. Year after year, the proponents of regulatory reform within the Federal system have fought against the odds, facing resistance from those who have defended the status quo. We knew that the American people deserved better, that their voices should be heard, and that their elected representatives should have the final say. Throughout its evolution, the REINS Act has undergone refinements, fine-tuning its provisions to maintain the cutting edge, while ensuring democratic accountability. It is about reining in unchecked power, bringing spending under the watchful eye of our elected representatives, and restoring the principles of transparency and accountability. The tenets of the REINS Act are rooted in common sense in a way that every American can grasp. If you understand the concept of no taxation without representation, then it should be easy to understand the REINS Act. But what exactly does the REINS Act mean for hard-working families? Well, the entrepreneurial spirit runs deep within our country--the entire country--and certainly within my home State of Utah, driving economic growth and fostering innovation across various industries. From tech startups to local artisans, Utahns have a strong inclination to pursue their passions, start their own businesses, and create opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities. However, this entrepreneurial spirit often faces significant hurdles, sometimes insurmountable hurdles, due to overregulation by this or that Federal Agency. It is like the feeling you get when you try to assemble a new piece of furniture from a certain Swedish retail store, and you are not quite sure if you have purchased the kejserlig or the plogfara. Yet you are bombarded with a thousand-page jargon-filled instruction manual. Federal regulations often feel like those convoluted instruction manuals, but with much higher stakes, though the titles are a little easier to pronounce. The REINS Act seeks to change that. The term ``REINS'' is an acronym that stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, and its purpose is simple: to ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose major regulations on us without the consent of our elected representatives. It is about putting power back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, where it rightfully belongs. You see, this isn't just a good idea. It is a good idea that has been embedded within the Constitution. The very first operative provision of that document-- article I, section 1, clause 1--makes this clear: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The meaning of that is clear and simple: to make law, you have to go through the Congress. There is no other way to make law. Legislative powers are powers to make law, and all legislative powers granted in the Constitution are Federal laws. Therefore, to make a Federal law, you have to follow the formula prescribed in article I, section 1. Article I, section 7 explains exactly how that has to happen. You have the same legislative proposal that has to pass the House and the Senate, in identical text, before it can then be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence. The point of this is simple: The power to make law is inherently dangerous and volatile. It can harm people, just as it can protect others. For that reason, it is not to be entrusted to any branch of government other than the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. You see, regulatory reform is more than just some esoteric concept that exists solely within Capitol Hill or in Washington, DC. Its impact reverberates across our daily lives, affecting everything from the cost of goods and services to the livelihoods of hard-working individuals and families. That is why it is about a whole lot more than just what the Constitution says and what it should be interpreted and understood to mean. It is about how this affects individuals and families. By requiring congressional approval for major regulations, for enactment of a new major rule or regulation, as if it were a legislative proposal, rather than just allowing executive branch Agencies to make new laws themselves, the REINS Act brings accountability and transparency to the rulemaking process, injecting a much needed and constitutionally prescribed dose of common sense into our bureaucratic system. The REINS Act articulates and imagines a world where small businesses are free from the weight of onerous regulations, detached from any common sense, where parents can provide for their children without being bogged down by unnecessary redtape, and where innovation and entrepreneurship thrive without the suffocating grip of excessive government control. That is the world we strive to create with the passage of the REINS Act. Now, to be clear, even with the REINS Act, from time to time some Federal regulations would end up being approved and enacted in the law by Congress. Congress, after all, can and does make mistakes, but there is a big difference when Congress makes that mistake. Members of Congress who vote for that mistake can be held accountable. Currently, they cannot. In fact, by design, they are insulated from the process, left only in a position where the best they can do is write a harshly worded letter, beating their chest, and calling the people who wrote this or that regulation at this or that Federal Agency barbarians. But, after all, our job is not about writing letters. It is about making law. Insofar as we have got other entities that are not us, run by people who are not elected by voters in our State or in any State, that is a problem, and it is a problem that we have to fix. Today, we celebrate this victory--this victory for freedom, for common sense, and for the hard-working families who deserve a government that serves, not stifles them. We owe an immense debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives and, in particular, to the House Republicans who voted for this, specifically, most notably, the Members of the House Freedom Caucus for their tireless efforts in pushing this legislation forward, reminding us all that persistence and unwavering dedication can yield remarkable results. I stand before you humbled and honored to witness this historic moment. Together, we can continue to fight for this needed reform, not just as an abstract concept, not just as something that the Constitution already requires, but also as a tangible path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all Americans. All Americans benefit from this, but it is especially those Americans who struggle who will benefit the most from this. You have to remember that these regulations, when they are put in place, come at a cost. They are not free. It has been a few years since anyone has undertaken a comprehensive effort to estimate the total cost of complying with Federal regulations. But according to one study that I saw--it has been several years ago now since this study was produced--they estimated that the cost, while impossible to calculate in its entirety, was at least $2 trillion. When adding a whole lot of Federal regulations, including some very costly Federal regulations since that study was done, one can surmise from that that the cost is now somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. This is an enormous sum of money. Now, let's not deceive ourselves. Let's not minimize this by assuming that those costs are borne simply by wealthy Americans, by big blue- chip corporations, by someone whom we can imagine in our mind's eye as a Monopoly game piece wearing a monocle, dressed up like Mr. Peanut. No, that is not who pays for this. Who pays for this are hard-working Americans, disproportionately America's poor and middle class, who pay dearly for this. That 2 or 3 trillion-dollar figure is supported by you and me and, disproportionately, by those who are near the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Those people who are working hard, living paycheck to paycheck, find that, as a result of these regulations, everything they buy--from cornflakes to cars, from groceries to gasoline, and everything in between--becomes more expensive. They also pay for it through diminished wages and unemployment. Those are real people who are being harmed by these things. The least we can do is, before subjecting them to even more regulations that are going to cost America's poor and middle class even more money, we owe it to them to have the decency to at least vote on these regulations before they have to comply, before they have to pay through the nose, yet again, for more and more products. Inflation has many causes, but one of the significant ones is excessive Federal regulation. Those regulations won't go away with the REINS Act, but when the REINS Act becomes law, we will at least be doing the American people the basic courtesy of voting on regulations before they have to comply. It is not too much to ask. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the attraction now known as Bryce Canyon National Park. This occasion allows us to reflect on the importance of Bryce Canyon and pay tribute to the pioneers who have helped make it such a great place and have shaped its history over the years and those pioneers who are still shaping its contribution to the world today. Bryce Canyon holds a special place in the hearts of Utahans and of visitors from across the United States and really throughout the world. Its towering rock formations, which are known as hoodoos, are a testament to the unparalleled beauty found in nature. The vibrant colors that paint the canyon's walls at sunrise and sunset create a truly mesmerizing spectacle. And if you haven't been there, you need to visit Bryce Canyon. In 1874, Scottish immigrant Ebenezer Bryce settled with his wife Mary on the land just below these stunning reddish-hued cliffs. The settlers in the area began calling it Bryce's Canyon after Ebenezer Bryce, who humorously remarked that it was ``a helluva place to lose a cow.'' The charm and allure of the canyon were evident even in those early days, long before millions of visitors from around the world had come to see it. Fast-forward to 1915, when J.W. Humphrey, a U.S. Forest Service supervisor, first set foot on the rim above the location we refer to today as the Bryce amphitheater. Overwhelmed by the indescribable beauty, Mr. Humphrey shared his enchantment with the world, sending photographs and films to newspapers, magazines, and TV stations far and wide. He built roads, constructed trails, and established a campground, charging campers a $1 fee. And this fee had a guarantee attached to it. He made the $1 fee fully refundable if any visitor didn't find the view completely worth it. Well, Mr. Humphrey proudly boasted that he never once had to return a single dollar, not from a single visitor who received that guarantee. Year after year, the allure of Bryce Canyon has continued to grow. In fact, it has grown exponentially. What started with around 20,000 annual visits in its early years had escalated to over 500,000 by 1975, over 1 million by 2002, and over 2 million in 2016. Last year alone, the park welcomed an astonishing 2.4 million visitors. What is it then about Bryce Canyon that draws people in like this? I think it is the ``Bryce moment,'' that magical instant when the park's magnificent panorama suddenly comes into focus. It is especially magical if you see it either at sunrise or sunset. Either way, you are going to be amazed by what you see. It is that breathtaking experience that is sort of akin to looking up at the Empire State Building or at the Taj Mahal, where you can't quite believe what you are seeing. A few years ago, I was thinking about my many visits to Bryce Canyon over the years, and I have visited Bryce Canyon as a child and as an adult. I visited Bryce Canyon first with family members, and I have also visited with friends, with work colleagues, and in all kinds of different situations. I still remember the first time I brought my three children to Bryce Canyon, when they were young, and how proud I was to show them this beautiful feature within our State, and how much I enjoyed it. I remember another time, when I was right out of law school, clerking for a Federal district judge, the honorable Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. We had been working hard, and one day Judge Benson decided he was going to schedule a brief weekend visit for us, just voluntarily, just for fun, to go down and visit Bryce Canyon. The law clerks and the other court personnel who worked in his chambers went down and visited Bryce Canyon. It was so much fun. During one of my more recent visits to Bryce Canyon, a few years ago--not my last one but one of the more recent visits--I went down there and met with one of our county associations of governments, where State, local, and Federal elected officials came together to talk about lands issues. And I happened to have brought my daughter Eliza with me on that trip. It had been a few years since I had brought Eliza to Bryce Canyon, but we got there. We looked over the hoodoos and looked through those canyons right at sunset. It was yet another magical moment. So these things become a tradition and certainly become a tradition with me and my family and my friends. It is a cherished tradition that brings people together. In rural communities and in this particular rural community, it brings tourist visitors to an otherwise sparsely visited region of our State, and it exemplifies the spirit of adventure and of camaraderie. On that particular trip, when I brought my daughter Eliza to meet with these State, local, and Federal Government officials, we went on an ATV ride around some of the areas surrounding the park, and it took us just outside of the park to the north. The night before, we had had the opportunity to meet with these incredible individuals who call the region home, and at Ruby's Inn, we had gotten together for dinner and shared stories and laughter at the deep appreciation for this unique landscape and for the people who lived there. The sense of community and shared experiences was palpable. We ventured into Bryce Canyon National Park for an evening hike, and, as the sun began to set, casting a warm glow upon those structures known as hoodoos, we were enveloped in a world of natural wonder. The majesty of Bryce Canyon revealed itself in all its glory. It was a transformative experience, just one of many that reminded me yet again of the enduring power of nature to uplift and to inspire. So, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Bryce Canyon, let us honor the pioneers who recognized the unique beauty of the land and its potential to inspire and to attract people from all across the United States and throughout the world. Let us embrace the spirit of adventure and exploration that defines Bryce Canyon and all of our national parks, but especially that one. And may we continue to cherish the memories and experiences these natural wonders provide, ensuring that future generations can forge connections with the breathtaking landscapes of Bryce Canyon. Thank you, Mr. President, and may Bryce Canyon forever hold a special place in our hearts. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 98 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, this amendment is simple. It strikes section 265 of this bill. Section 263 creates a regulatory pay-go measure, but section 265 nullifies that by giving outright, complete discretion to the Director of OMB--who, by the way, just announced the day before yesterday from the White House that she would use this effectively to nullify the regulatory pay-as-you-go measure. Please support my amendment. I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Nancy Abudu to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Abudu may well be the most radical judicial nominee nominated to date by President Biden. I have had concerns with Ms. Abudu's radical views and her apparent lack of respect for the rules of the court ever since her nomination. During her confirmation hearing, I asked her about allegations of potential judge shopping raised by Judge Burke of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in a series of cases brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of troubling attorney conduct. In this series of cases, the three Federal district courts in Alabama took the extraordinary and joint measure of convening to hear concerns raised by Judge Burke that Ms. Abudu's litigation team and their cocouncil brazenly abused the judicial process. Ms. Abudu is, to be clear, the Director of Strategic Litigation for the Southern Poverty Law Center. And strategic litigation is what they do. That is what they are about. She is the director of this division. When I asked her about her strategic litigation decisions in this series of cases, she stated: As Director of Strategic Litigation, my responsibility is to oversee and provide general management for our cases, but it is the subject matter experts in the litigation team that handle the day-to-day, including the filing of complaints, the briefing, and any oral arguments. In response to my questioning, she refused to be forthright. She didn't deny her oversight of these cases. She simply refused to admit that she was responsible for the strategic decisions the three Alabama Federal district courts found so troubling. Her lack of candor and her apparent disregard for the protections built into our legal system disqualify her for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As I asked her about these--about these cases--pointing out only that the day-to-day litigation management was handled by other attorneys-- which was obvious--she was openly, directly avoiding a direct line of inquiry, a line of inquiry that was very relevant to her nomination, to her confirmation process. But, unfortunately, my concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination do not end--and they didn't begin--with this troubling series of cases that I just described. You see, the attorneys general in every single State of the Eleventh Circuit--who are joined, by the way, by the attorneys general in a number of other States--but every single attorney general serving within the Eleventh Circuit is part of this letter articulating concerns and confirming that there are grave dangers in confirming Ms. Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit. These attorneys general, along with attorneys general from 15 additional States, including my home State of Utah, recently sent a letter to the leadership of this body expressing their numerous concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination. The attorneys general of the people who would be subject to coming before Ms. Abudu in Federal cases are justifiably worried about her potential confirmation today. These are people who really need to be able to have the confidence that when appearing before Judge Abudu, she will not only respect the law, but that she will handle their cases without any preconceived biases--biases that could lead her off course as she administers justice in her courtroom. If anyone has preconceived notions, biases regarding how justice ought to be administered such that litigants could come to the conclusion that they won't get a fair shake in front of that judge--not to mention the preconceived prejudices against the good people living in the Eleventh Circuit--Ms. Abudu has certainly demonstrated that she does. Ms. Abudu is a longtime and current member and past leader of an entity called the National Lawyers Guild. This group identifies itself as consisting of a radical movement of legal activists--their words, not mine. After violent protests against Atlanta police officers, the National Lawyers Guild declared that ``policing is the true threat to our collective safety.'' Imagine that. It is not crime, it is not other problems that police deal with; it is the police themselves policing--the act of policing. They didn't say specific police officers who may, unlike most officers, not be doing their jobs right. They said policing--policing itself--is the true threat to our collective safety. Imagine that. I agree with these attorneys general that Ms. Abudu's longstanding and ongoing association with this radical anti-police group is, alone, grounds for refusing, rejecting her nomination. I find it very troubling indeed that those who would be subject to having to come before Ms. Abudu find her track record dishonest and divisive. Let me quote from the letter outlining their concerns: We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and her willingness to demonize those with whom she disagrees, and we know well the importance of the seat on the Eleventh Circuit that she would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself unfit for that role. She has compared her fellow Americans to Jim-Crow-era racists. She has aligned herself with self-proclaimed ``radical movement legal activists'' who view ``policing'' as ``the true threat to our collective safety.'' And the quote continues: And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity required of a Federal judge. Now, to be clear, Ms. Abudu chose to associate herself with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is itself well known for leveling unfounded charges of ``hate'' against any person or any group with which that organization happens to disagree. She became a leader in that organization and fully embraced its deplorable tactics, which are not intended to foster debate and understanding but rather to silence opposition. They are well known for publishing things. Their hate list has brought about hate. It led to a shooting in Washington, DC, of an entity here. Someone got shot after believing that the Southern Poverty Law Center had indicated that that was the appropriate action. She has made offensive and baseless assertions against the people in the Eleventh Circuit. Now I want to quote some more from the Attorneys General letter: Since becoming a leader [of the Southern Poverty Law Center], Ms. Abudu has engaged in [the] deplorable tactics [beloved by that organization] by disparaging those in her way, including each of the three States within the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many misrepresentations. The quote continues: Each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of Ms. Abudu's report--that any disagreement over policy is proof that her political opponents are evil. Indeed, according to Ms. Abudu, things in Alabama are the same or worse today than they were in 1965. As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is to-- Now, these are her words-- ``establish white supremacy in this State.'' The letter continues: While some might see room for good faith debate, for example, about the merits of Alabama's voter identification law, (which was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit)-- The Court on which she has been nominated to serve-- Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless commitment to finding new ways to keep . . . Alabamians from making their voices heard,'' all . . . part of a desperate attempt ``to perpetuate majority white control.'' Her words, not mine. The letter concludes: These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and they are disqualifying for an aspiring Federal judge. To quote one more time from the letter, another part of the letter says: Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of [the] facts, she prefers to use her powerful position at [the Southern Poverty Law Center] to sow division and erode trust among Americans-- declaring that ``Jim Crow is still alive and well [in the South].'' But as the Supreme Court has recognized (and as any fair-minded person knows): ``Things have changed in the South.'' Ms. Abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simple professional disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable bias. It more likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows unfitness for judicial office. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from these Attorneys General be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEE. She has shown marked hostility toward Alabamians, Floridians, and Georgians. She has accused them of suppressing minorities and poor people from voting. She has accused their police officers of targeting minorities, and all throughout her accusations is the threat of racism. It animates her every action, her every assault, her every view. She accuses Georgia of being ``committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary.'' As the Attorneys General appropriately ask, ``How could Ms. Abudu impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh Circuit cases involving Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, and especially its law enforcement officers, when she already believes the State is a `bad actor' with a `culture of law enforcement' that `targets Black and Brown people'?'' There again, they are quoting her words. Ms. Abudu's record of hostility toward the people and the laws of the Eleventh Circuit is nothing short of alarming. When you combine that hostility with her lack of respect for the judicial system and her ongoing commitment to a group of self-described ``radical movement legal activists,'' I simply don't know how any Member of this body can still believe she will serve the people of the Eleventh Circuit or, even less, our judicial system well. But the only way one can justify voting for this nominee is if one agrees with her hostile views and is comfortable with her activist approach. I am not, and I oppose her nomination in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am 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 is not just a policy. It is a policy rooted in law. Under 10 USC, section 1093, the Pentagon is prohibited from using Department of Defense funds or facilities to perform abortions. You see, because, in a word, divided as a country on issues related to abortion; people have sharply divided views on this. In fact, there is a pretty wide spectrum of views. But one thing that does tend to unite Americans overwhelmingly is the idea that, regardless of how you 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. The last time I read the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, not the Department of Defense. And when there are laws that the Department of Defense doesn't like, the Department of Defense isn't free to just reimagine the laws as the Secretary of Defense wishes those laws were written. And yet the Department of Defense's policy memo from just a few months ago does just that. It attempts to sneak around the laws that we have already passed. This policy memo violates at least the spirit, quite arguably the letter of the law. They are trying to get around that, and they have made no secret of that fact. So Senator Tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy. We should commend his courage and his dedication to upholding the Constitution and standing for those who cannot stand for themselves. And so I would 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 is not your job. That is 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 is not at all fair. It is incompletely inaccurate. In fact, it is utterly untethered from what Senator Tuberville is doing and what he has ever said on this. On no planet is Senator Tuberville trying to tell women in the military or dependents of military families that they may not have an abortion. All he is standing behind is what Federal law already says, which is that you can't use Federal funds or Federal facilities within the Department of Defense to fund abortions. And that is exactly what is happening here. Now, as to the specific personnel mentioned just moments ago, when we look at, say, Admiral Chatfield or Admiral Wikoff or General Hodne's or anyone else on the list, if there is any one of those people whose service, whose promotion is so 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, bona fide opposition to that policy because it is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 10 U.S.C. 1093. It takes a lot of gumption--that is audacity--for the Department of Defense to ask for our help to facilitate the confirmation of these nominees when they have taken away from us the prerogative that is uniquely ours. It is no coincidence that the very first clause, in the first section, of the first article of the Constitution says that ``[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall 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 lawmaking 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 then in the Senate and then submit it 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 is not his role. It is 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 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, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, 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, if not--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 that I am aware of, give military personnel some say in where they live. If there is some State that, for one reason or another, whether 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 am aware, give them some say in it, give them the ability to say ``I don't want to serve there; I would 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 U.S.C. 1093 and pretend that nothing has changed and pretend that nothing has changed relative to its relationship to Congress. Now, as to Senator Tuberville, let's remember, he went to the Department of Defense. If I am not mistaken, he went to the Secretary of Defense himself. He outlined his concerns because there have been rumors circulating about this policy for months. Senator Tuberville, remember, is a member of the Armed Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has an oversight role-- an important one--over the Department of Defense. It was his right, it was his duty to know what was going on in the Department of Defense. He inquired again and again and again, and they wouldn't tell him. Finally, he got an audience with the Secretary of Defense and informed him, as I understand the conversation, of the fact that there would be dire consequences, including this one, if he chose to proceed. The Secretary of Defense considered that risk, and he undertook it nonetheless. He stood before the law and the wishes of a U.S. Senator and the 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 to do that, but it was, in fact, his choice; it was, in fact, his decision. So, now, as to the suggestion that there are other procedures for which people can travel interstate and that we haven't raised objections with regard to those, those aren't 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 3 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 are getting an abortion. That is not there for anything else. It is not there 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--schistosomiasis. I don't know what that is, but I heard the term on ``M.A.S.H.'' once. It is a real dire medical condition. Maybe you are serving in one State, and they can't treat that in one State because of that State's quirky laws. This policy doesn't offer any relief on that, no. 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 more than perhaps any other, and with a lot of good reason. They are telling these military women: We are so supportive of this particular thing that we are going to pay for your travel; we are going to reimburse everything; we are going to give you a per diem and give you 3 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 are a woman who 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 is willing to pay out a lot of money to do that? In any event, this is not something that one can easily reconcile with the policy embodied in 10 U.S.C. section 1093. That can be changed. There is nothing etched into the Constitution about that. Congress could change it. But to do that, you would have to have the votes. To have the votes, you would have to have some sort of legislative effort to do that. There hasn't been one here. Why? Well, because it is a lot easier to just decree it, just pen a memo and issue the memo, saying: We are going to make it so. We are 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 is much more serious than that. The American people don't feel so passionately about a drunken frat party that they have 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. Now, I understand that not everybody approaches unborn human life and its sanctity and the degree to which it should be protected under law the same way, but that is exactly why this policy exists, and that is exactly why the policy is embodied in a Federal statute. This stands squarely in the face of that, and it disregards it. Senator Tuberville has every right and every reason to stand up for this.

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 these are done. Neither Senator Tuberville nor any other Senator, to my knowledge, would interfere with that, 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 very policy was being considered; to pretend that he didn't tell them then there would be serious consequences if they decided to proceed in violation of 10 U.S.C., section 1093. No, this is not fair to put this on him. When the Pentagon comes crawling back after they did what they did to him--after they did what they did to the law, to all Americans--that is manifestly unfair. To all of a sudden put it on him to make sure it is his job to make sure that everyone gets confirmed--and, oh, by the way, you also have to help--you are 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 is 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 is a thing. To argue otherwise and to try to point out that this policy memo somehow complies with that is too cute by half. No. 1, it is still, quite arguably, in violation of the letter of the law. You are still doing this to bring about an abortion. You are using Federal taxpayer dollars from the Department of Defense so that someone has an abortion. You are paying for someone's travel to that State--per diem to that State--3 weeks of paid leave time to that State, and it is specific to abortion. 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.'' I know those raising these consent requests are 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, then undercut Federal law in the process, that is not fair. That is what this is about. That is what you are trying to do. I am happy to stand with Senator Tuberville in defending his rights. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, to the extent any one of these nominations-- or all of them taken together--to the extent military readiness is invoked, implicated, is threatened, challenged, by all means, let's figure out a workaround. 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. So if that is what this is resulting in, then the Department of Defense, with all due respect, needs to stand down on this until such time as this can be debated and discussed. The fact is that every single year--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 thing that, if it is going to be addressed, if they want a change of law, then that change of law ought to be pursued on the floor of the Senate. The National Defense Authorization Act would present an opportunity for the Department of Defense to pursue that change. It can do it that way. It 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 implicates military readiness-- which let's just take those words on their own face--that seems to me that should apply with at least as much force, if not a ``for sure'' to the Department of Defense rather than to 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 the performance of abortions. If anyone is threatening national security, it is not Senator Tuberville. And if these are threatening America's national security, particularly those you have identified, bring those to the floor. We have procedures to do that. It takes time. I understand, perhaps, that is not what this Democratic majority of the Senate wants to do. That is the Democratic majority's prerogative. But that being the prerogative, they can't all of a sudden put that on Senator Tuberville. Finally, as to the suggestion that Senator Tuberville is extorting anyone--extortion, of course, is a crime. That is a really inappropriate reference to use here, 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 are going to change the law. Now, it is up to you to help us make sure that every one of these people gets a promotion. If you are going to use that term, you have to realize it cuts both ways. I don't think it has any place on the floor. But if you are going to use it, it swings both ways. And it may well hit you.