Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is a great honor for me to offer this amendment. I hope very much that Members on both sides will support it. The amendment is very simple. It strikes the reconciliation instructions given to the Energy Committee that will lead to oil drilling in a pristine place in America, a God-given gift, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We are striking, in essence, the instructions, and that will in essence say, no, we will not have drilling in this pristine area. There are so many Members on both sides of the aisle that want to speak on this tonight, I will give a little instruction as to the beauty of the refuge, and then I will yield to my colleagues as they come over, and get back to the stream of my four-part argument. In light of the world situation, we need to see something beautiful. This is something quite beautiful. I will show some beautiful photographs from the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This is Wild Sweet Pea and Marsh Creek in the coastal plain. It speaks volumes to what God has given us. This picture on the plain shows the caribou and beautiful mountains with the water in front. The last time we debated this issue, I showed this photograph and one of my colleagues from Alaska said this is not where it is going to happen. We quickly called to Alaska and had their wildlife people confirm that is a fact. Let me show more of the wildlife. This is a magnificent bird, the chart bird. This unbelievable photograph shows a polar bear reflected in the water. Cast your eyes on this. This is pretty extraordinary. One cannot paint anything quite as magnificent as what God has created. The musk oxen is seen running through this area. The next photograph shows the porcupine caribou swimming. These are pretty extraordinary photographs. This gives Members an idea of what we are trying to save and why we ask colleagues from both sides of the aisle to please support us in striking this instruction from the budget. I first make an argument about process. After I do that, I am going to yield to my colleague from Connecticut for up to 10 minutes. This debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though it is coming in the evening at 6 p.m., is a very important debate. It is a very important environmental issue. If you look at some of the polling data from every one of our States, people believe very strongly that this place should be preserved, as it was when it was given to us. The fact we are discussing it as an amendment to the budget bill is, it seems to me, inappropriate. It deserves to have much more debate. It deserves to have much more consideration. It deserves to have much more public input. It deserves to have much more time. But this is the hand we are dealt. We are dealt a hand where, without even mentioning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge except in one line, it really is kind of snuck into this budget resolution. But be that as it may, the result is the same. We then move forward under reconciliation and we could not stop it except if we were able to get the majority vote. We could not really filibuster it. I want to have printed in the Record a letter on this point from Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, and there are four others on this. I will read their names: Susan Collins, John McCain, Mike DeWine, Peter Fitzgerald. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be re-introducing today a bill that will take an important first step in restoring the San Gabriel River, which runs through Los Angeles, CA. During the 107th Congress, this bill received unanimous support from the House of Representatives and from the Senate as part of an omnibus California Parks bill. However, due to a technical error, unrelated to this legislation, the bill was never sent to the President. I am hopeful that this legislation will quickly receive the consideration it deserves so it can be enacted into law. The San Gabriel River has suffered from years of abuse and neglect and needs our help. For far too long, we have channeled, redirected, constricted, polluted, and simply ignored it. The result is that substantial portions of the river look nothing like its natural form. Instead of soft bottoms covered with aquatic grasses, stream banks lined with trees and bushes, and waters teaming with fish, these rivers have cement bottoms, cement banks, and little remaining wildlife. Today, we begin what will be a long, slow process in turning the tide for this urban watershed. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel River watershed to consider various mechanisms for providing federal protection and assistance to this river and its watershed. It is particularly important to restore the San Gabriel River so it can serve as a source of outdoor recreation for one of our Nation's most congested urban areas. Most communities in Los Angeles are desperate for open space. They seek outdoor areas where children can play, adults can meet, and people of all ages can find respite from the daily hustle and bustle of some of our most economically and socially stressed neighborhoods. The San Gabriel River system can and should provide that to them. This vision is shared by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who first introduced this bill in the House of Representatives in the last Congress. I look forward to working with her on passing this bill quickly and then taking the additional steps needed to restore the San Gabriel River.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be re-introducing today a bill that will take an important first step in restoring the San Gabriel River, which runs through Los Angeles, CA. During the 107th Congress, this bill received unanimous support from the House of Representatives and from the Senate as part of an omnibus California Parks bill. However, due to a technical error, unrelated to this legislation, the bill was never sent to the President. I am hopeful that this legislation will quickly receive the consideration it deserves so it can be enacted into law. The San Gabriel River has suffered from years of abuse and neglect and needs our help. For far too long, we have channeled, redirected, constricted, polluted, and simply ignored it. The result is that substantial portions of the river look nothing like its natural form. Instead of soft bottoms covered with aquatic grasses, stream banks lined with trees and bushes, and waters teaming with fish, these rivers have cement bottoms, cement banks, and little remaining wildlife. Today, we begin what will be a long, slow process in turning the tide for this urban watershed. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel River watershed to consider various mechanisms for providing federal protection and assistance to this river and its watershed. It is particularly important to restore the San Gabriel River so it can serve as a source of outdoor recreation for one of our Nation's most congested urban areas. Most communities in Los Angeles are desperate for open space. They seek outdoor areas where children can play, adults can meet, and people of all ages can find respite from the daily hustle and bustle of some of our most economically and socially stressed neighborhoods. The San Gabriel River system can and should provide that to them. This vision is shared by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who first introduced this bill in the House of Representatives in the last Congress. I look forward to working with her on passing this bill quickly and then taking the additional steps needed to restore the San Gabriel River.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to just read a paragraph out of each of their stories. The first is Viki Wilson, who writes: Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that has ever happened to us in our lives, but I am grateful that Bill and I were able to make this difficult decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy. Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do not complicate the tragedies we already face. Coreen Costello writes movingly. All of these are so moving that I would say if every American could read these, they would know that what we are about to do is wrong because it makes no health exception. She says: Losing our daughter was the hardest thing we have experienced. It has been difficult [to talk about our loss]. And it's ironic that I, with my profound pro-life views, would be defending an abortion procedure. God knows I pray for the day when no other woman needs this procedure. But until [then] . . . women must have access to this important medical option. Claudia Crown Ades, at the end of her beautiful statement, writes: Though I hope and pray that no one has to go through what my husband and I have, there are people who will. It can happen to anyone--to you, your wife, your sister, your daughter, your friends. All women should have the protection, the guidance and the access that modern medicine allows. All of these women were told by their physician that the safest procedure is the one that the Senator is going to outlaw here, without any exception. Then there is Vikki Stella. She is a diabetic. She was told she absolutely needed this. We went through her story. Then there are a number for whom I do not have photographs. Audrey Eisen--she says: ``Along with my sadness came a realization that if such legislation passed,'' tragedy would happen to ``those women who come after me.'' Outlawing these procedures, ``I don't know how these women will endure; I don't know how I would have endured.'' Erica Fox said: This procedure is not about murder. It's about finding way to go on. In the end, it's about life. A good life. A healthy life. The life I see every day shining at me in the eyes of my son. Tammy Watts: I understand the Senate is considering legislation that would ban the kind of surgery that I just had. . . . She goes on to talk about this terrible decision. She begs us not to outlaw this procedure. She says: I can't imagine where I would have been without [my doctor who performed this procedure.] He saved my family. . . . [He saved] my life. I couldn't have made it through this without him, and I know there are a great many women out there who feel the same way. Theresa Tauchi writes us on October 11, 2000: I know that it can happen to us again and that we will need to revisit the same heartbreaking decision every time--a choice that rightfully belongs to us and to us alone. Kim Koster wrote to us. She said: The reality is that this is a terrible law [this S. 3], a grievous interference between doctor and patient, and would only compound the tragedy and the heartache faced by families like us. Please protect [our] . . . families. Miriam Kleiman; this is the last one I have. It is my hope that someday in the future when my doctor and his staff face the harsh rhetoric from the so-called ``right to life'' movement . . . they will not see the anger of the anti-choice activists, but will envision instead the face of our healthy son whose picture adorns their wall and will know that what they did for my family--and so many others--was right and they helped us reach this day. The reason Senator Harkin's amendment is so important is that under Roe v. Wade, the right to choose is guaranteed to a woman in the beginning of a pregnancy, the first few months. And after that we can restrict, but always with an exception for the life and health of the mother. That is Roe. Let me tell you why it was important that that decision be made. Because before Roe, 5,000 women a year died from back-alley illegal abortions. I don't hear anything about these women. It chokes me up. Women had to go and have back-alley abortions in other places--not a clean hospital, not a State-licensed facility, no practitioner who knew what he or she was doing. Money was slipped across the table, and 5,000 women a year died. That is why this vote is so important. We must not go back. We cannot go back to those dark days before Roe.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this straightforward motion essentially says it is important that this bill receive the guidance and the wisdom of the Judiciary Committee, since issues have been raised at the Supreme Court that have not been addressed in this bill. When I raised this in the beginning of the debate, a Senator on the other side said: We have debated this many times. Why do you want to go back to the committee? Well, there is a big difference between the three previous occasions that we have debated this bill and this time, and that is, the Supreme Court has spoken. In June 2000, in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court ruled Nebraska's so-called partial-birth abortion law is unconstitutional. I am told very clearly by the lawyers who were involved in that case that the current bill before us, S. 3, is legally identical to the Nebraska bill. The Supreme Court ruled that bill unconstitutional for two reasons. I would like to see the chart there. First, the bill contains no health exception. This is what the Supreme Court said: The governing standard requires an exception where it is necessary in the appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Our cases repeatedly invalidated statutes that, in the process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed significant health risks. Mr. President, this bill contains no health exceptions. I am very pleased Senator Durbin will be offering a health exception today, as well as Senator Feinstein later, and there may be others. But the bottom line is the bill itself, as it stands, contains no health exception. It makes it unconstitutional. The second reason the legally identical bill was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court is that it imposed an undue burden on women because the definition in the law is too vague. It covers more than one procedure. This is what the Supreme Court said: Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X-- By the way, there is no such mention of D&X in S. 3. its language makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of procedures. Therefore, it is putting an undue burden on the woman, Mr. President. With the Supreme Court's decision, we should at least have a bill before us that will pass constitutional muster. If I may see the other chart that summarizes the two. Here you see the summary of the problems with S. 3. Exactly the same as Stenberg: Undue burden on women because the definition is vague, and no exception to protect women's health. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure this bill is constitutional, and I would think that those of my colleagues who support this bill, even without a health exception, which I think is cruel to a woman and I think goes against the American value of caring about mothers and caring about their health--even if you support that, without a health exception, you ought to care about this being constitutional. It should be our responsibility because what is the point of all this--the President said he is going to sign it--if, in fact, the Court turns around and says it is the same problem all over again? You hear from others that this problem has been remedied and we have taken care of this in the findings, and they are tweaking some of the words, but the people who argued this law the last time said that clearly it is legally identical. I placed those letters in the Record, and I will read from them again. So we are spending time on the bill that experts tell us is unconstitutional. Yet we have so many other matters we should be addressing. If we want to address this bill, at least send it to the Judiciary Committee so that when it comes back, they will have looked at this question of constitutionality. In the meantime, we are not looking at the loss of jobs in this country. Yesterday, my colleagues on the other side voted down health insurance for poor, pregnant women--the ability for women to have contraceptives so they would avoid unintended pregnancies. Oh, this is amazing to me. These are the issues people confront every single day. So we have 14 pages of findings that basically say the Supreme Court found this, found that, and we find this, we find that; therefore, essentially, what we are doing is constitutional. It is amazing to me the authors of this bill would bypass the committee their own party controls and bring this bill straight to the floor without stopping in the committee of jurisdiction after the Court has very clearly spoken that this S. 3--because it is identical to Stenberg in a legal sense-- is unconstitutional. No health exception. How can anyone who has ever read the Stenberg case or, for that matter, case law regarding abortions since many years ago, argue that if you don't have a health exception, you are meeting the constitutional standard? I guess the Justices have felt all these years that a woman's health is important, and I guess some people in this body don't feel that way. That is your choice. But it is not constitutional. I think a hearing would be salutary. We could hear from the scholars, hear from the people who were involved in the Stenberg case. We could once again hear from the women who have gone through this procedure, many of whom I have shown you on the floor of the Senate. They call themselves very religious, very pro-life. Yet they chose to have a procedure that their doctors told them was necessary to preserve their fertility, to make sure they would not wind up being paralyzed. I am looking forward to Senator Durbin's amendment. I want to hear people argue against Senator Durbin's amendment when he spells out the health impact that could occur to a woman if this type of procedure is not available to her. We have a committee system and it ought to be used. I want to let the Senate know that this idea of taking a bill to committee is certainly not a new idea. Let's see what some of the Republican leaders said about sending bills to committee. This is March 6, 2002. This is Senator Don Nickles on bringing a bill directly to the floor and bypassing the committee, which is exactly what is happening today. This bill bypassed the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee, and was brought to the floor. Let's hear what Senator Nickles said: Where is the committee report? One of the reasons we have markups in committees is to have everybody on the committee who has expertise on the issue to have input, to support it or oppose it--to issue a committee report so we can find out what is in it, so you can read what is in it in English, not just the legislative language, which is difficult to decipher. Our competent and capable staff prepare a committee report explaining in English, here is what this provision does, here is what this provision means. This is why it is important to send bills to committee, particularly on a subject the Supreme Court has taken up and has found terrible problems, constitutional problems, with a similar, if not legally identical, bill. Let's look at what else has been said. This is another statement by Senator Nickles on bringing a bill directly to the floor and bypassing the committee: I think that bypassing the committee and bringing a bill directly to the floor is a violation of Senate protocol-- spirit, basically telling the minority they don't matter. It doesn't make any difference if there are 49 members on the Republican side, you don't matter; you have no input. I think this is quite amazing. And we have more statements as to why bills should go to committee by the Republicans who have bypassed committees just a year later--not even a year later. Senator Frank Murkowski, now Governor of Alaska. He said this on bringing a bill directly to the floor and bypassing a committee: The question is, why in the normal course of events would a bill under the jurisdiction of the committee not be referred to that committee? To suggest that there is an effort to obstruct the process by giving members input on the bill through the normal process of amendments is a travesty of the process associated with the traditions of the Senate. That was February 5, 2002. That is a statement of Senator Murkowski, Republican, now Governor of Alaska. ``It is a travesty of the process to bypass a committee.'' And this is about a bill that has, by the way, no constitutional problem as far as anyone knew, and here we are talking about a bill that comes out after a Supreme Court case and acting as if it never happened, in my view, because the operative language of the bill still does not meet the constitutional challenges laid out by the Court. This is another statement on bringing a bill directly to the floor and bypassing the committee, by Senator Nickles: I am very disappointed in this process. This process should not be repeated. It should not be repeated by Democrats or Republicans. Let me say that again: This process should not be repeated by Democrats or Republicans. We have committees for a purpose. We have committees for a purpose: So we can have bipartisan input, so we can have the legislative process work, so we can have hearings on legislation so people can know what they are voting on, to where they can try to improve it, to where any member of the committee has an opportunity to read the bill and to amend it, to change it--win or lose, at least they have the opportunity to try. We have a bill before us that should have gone to the Judiciary Committee. Senator Trent Lott's comments on bringing a bill directly to the floor and bypassing the committee: If we bring these important issues to the Senate floor without them having been worked through committee, it is a prescription for a real problem. What do we have? A bill that never went through the committee, a changed bill that never had a hearing at Judiciary, about a subject that is as important as life and death. Unbelievable. So my motion to commit this bill to the committee--where, by the way, the Republicans have control--is a proposal that is not partisan and that is sincere because I believe, with all the problems we have in the world, the last thing we need to do is pass a bill that is unconstitutional and then have it brought back again, where we have to start all over, we have to have pictures that some of my constituents told me they could not even look at. The Supreme Court said you must have a health exception: The governing standard requires an exception where it is necessary, in the appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. My colleagues want to put themselves in the doctor's shoes and decide they know what is best in an operating room. They know. They may not have gone to medical school, but they know. The Supreme Court wrote: Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that, in the process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed significant health risks [to the mother]. The Supreme Court wrote: Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X, its language makes it clear it also covers a much broader category of procedures. What I have presented in my opening statement is the following: We have a bill that deals with a subject of life and death. We have a bill that, if it passes, makes no exception for the health of the mother. We have a bill that legal experts say is legally identical to the law that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. We have a bill that affects real people. We heard their cases, and we will hear them more when Senator Durbin presents his amendment. At a minimum, could we have a little humility and send a bill such as that to the appropriate committee? Could we have a little humility? Could we be a little humble? Senators are playing doctor, and that is wrong. Senators are ignoring a Supreme Court decision that says there must be an exception for the health of the mother. That is wrong. My mother always said to me, there is right and there is wrong. You should be humble, and you should care about other people. Those are the values I grew up with. As a mother of two children, having had two premature babies and, thank God--in those years it was not easy--they made it, with God's help, and as a grandmother who saw a daughter have a very challenging pregnancy, I know these things do not always go smoothly. And I know, because I have lived long enough to know, that if a doctor says to a mother or a father of a daughter or a husband of a daughter or family members of a woman, she could have a hemorrhage and die if we do not use this procedure, she could have a uterine rupture, she could be made infertile, she could have a blood clot, she could have an embolism, she could have a stroke, she could have damage to her nearby organs and she could be paralyzed for life if she does not have a procedure, it is a very serious matter. This is not a list that was made up by anyone. It comes from physicians. I have the letter, and I have placed it in the Record. There are other things, such as a coma, that I did not put on the list. I am saying to my colleagues, be a little humble. At the minimum, send this bill to the committee. Have these doctors come forward. Create a health exception that is fair. Do not give us a bill with no health exception because that is cruel, it is wrong, and it goes against American values of caring about each other. I hope we will have a good vote and that this bill, S. 3, will go to the Judiciary Committee. Senator Santorum can appear before them. He can tell them why he believes he has met the Supreme Court case, the challenges that were laid down in Stenberg. I could be there, Senator Feinstein, other colleagues who feel another way. We could present our witnesses, we could talk about it, and then the committee could decide which way to go on it.

Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. In addition, I say to my friend, have the lawyers who are familiar with the Stenberg case. This chart shows the differences between this bill and the Stenberg case in terms of the legalese. Basically, they are identical. What we have is the Stenberg case that ruled that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional because it placed an undue burden on women because the definition is vague and there is no exception to protect women's health. Lawyers and constitutional experts tell us that the same problem exists in S. 3. So my friend is right. We would bring the legal people together. We would bring the women back. We could have another debate and then, regardless of how one feels--and I know the Senator and I may come down differently on this in the end--that is fine. I do not expect my position to prevail, let's be clear. But I think the Senate should, at the minimum, have the humility to hold a hearing and find out how they ought to draft this bill.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.

Mrs. BOXER. Clearly, we are trying to get an in-depth knowledge of the issues and the challenges. We want to make sure the bills we present to the full Senate, or the full House on the other side, are carefully thought out; they make sense; there are no unintended consequences that could occur. It is for all of those reasons. Of course, it becomes a place for the public to get involved, because right now--Senator Frist, who is a doctor, his expertise is heart surgery and transplantation--we do not have anyone in the Senate who is an OB/GYN. The other point I want to make while my colleague is in the Chamber, in addition to the fact that there is no health exception, is to bring out one of the things Senator Nickles said last year about bypassing the committee. This is a statement made by Don Nickles when a bill bypassed the committee of jurisdiction and came straight to the floor. He said: I am very disappointed in this process. This process should not be repeated. It should not be repeated by Democrats or Republicans. We have committees for a purpose. We have committees for a purpose: So we can have bipartisan input, so we can have the legislative process work, so we can have hearings on legislation so people can know what they are voting on, to where they can try to improve it, to where any member of the committee has an opportunity to read the bill and to amend it, to change it--win or lose, at least they have the opportunity to try. That goes directly to my friend's question about why we have committees and what their purposes are.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. This is not a motion to recommit; it is a motion to commit. Senator Lott said, on bringing the bill to the floor and bypassing the committee: If we bring these important issues to the Senate floor without them having been worked through committee, it is a prescription for a real problem. I say to my friend, Senator Reid, you may be interested in this statement of Senator Murkowski: The question is, why in the normal course of events would a bill under the jurisdiction of the committee not be referred to that committee? To suggest that there is an effort to obstruct the process by giving Members input on the bill through the normal process of amendments is a travesty of the process associated with the traditions of the Senate. It is very unusual for me to bring out statements made by the other party when arguing for a position. I am not saying it any more eloquently than they said it. I say to my friend, our assistant Democratic leader, what they are referring to is the energy bill. That never really had a constitutional question. We have here a situation where we have the Supreme Court ruling on a legally identical bill that this is unconstitutional. I hope we will have support. I look forward to the remainder of the debate. I also look forward to Senator Durbin's presentation on making sure we get a health exception. I hope colleagues will support that. That is what they ought to do if they really care about families and women and women's health, and we can move on, complete this bill, and have it, hopefully, committed to the Judiciary Committee where they can look at the constitutional questions and call on the doctors, have a good debate, and bring this back to the floor having had the benefit of the wisdom of the members of the Judiciary Committee, both Democratic and Republican. I retain the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have reached a point of this debate where there has been screaming and yelling on the Senate floor. I will try to react to those screams as calmly as I can and say that this bill doesn't protect the health of women. It puts our daughters in harm's way. That is not groups saying that. That is 45,000 OB/GYNs. Talk about loving hands; they are saying that. It is women who have had the procedure. They are saying that. And guess what. The Supreme Court says that. Because of that, we need to send this bill back. Actually it is not back to committee; it never went to committee. I never said it was identical. I said it was legally identical to the Stenberg case. I have said that over and over. This morning we have been listening to a series of lectures about medicine. I guess I find that odd on the Senate floor, especially the one about breech babies because my daughter was delivered breech. I understand that. I don't need to be lectured about that, about what it is, about what the risks were to me or my baby because I lived it. I do know one thing: My constituents are right to look away from this drawing. No one wants to look at abortion. We want abortion to be rare. We want it to be safe. We want it to be legal. The vast majority of people in the State I represent, a State of 35 million people, support Roe v. Wade because it is a moderate decision that balances all the interests. Yes, the health and life of the mother always, and the interest of the fetus where, after the first 3 months, States can in fact set the rules of abortion, but always, always with the life and health of the mother at the forefront. This bill does not do that. Therefore, this bill is unconstitutional, in addition to being cruel, in addition to being dangerous, in addition to putting women in jeopardy. Again, I say to my colleague that he has chosen to put this drawing here. I could have chosen to put a drawing of a woman having a hemorrhage behind me. I could have chosen to put a drawing of a woman's uterus rupturing and everyone running around in the emergency room desperately trying to save her. I could have chosen a drawing of a woman slipping into a coma, having an embolism. I could have put a drawing of a woman paralyzed for life because perhaps she couldn't get this procedure which my colleague has decided doctors say they don't need. That is false on its face, and that is the reason we need to have a hearing. We have letters from doctors. We have letters that lay out why, in fact, this procedure is necessary and why this bill is unconstitutional. A letter from the University of California, San Francisco, signed by Felicia Stewart. She says this bill: . . . fails to protect women's health by omitting an exception for women's health; it menaces medical practice with the threat of criminal prosecution; it encompasses a range of abortion procedures; it puts women in jeopardy. She names the various abortion procedures which could be outlawed. I would like to have this bill go to the Judiciary Committee because I would like to know why one procedure wasn't mentioned in the bill ever. It is on purpose because it is meant to cover more than one procedure. That is another unconstitutional provision. By the way, the proponents of this said before that the laws before the court would be deemed constitutional. They were not. They were wrong then; they are wrong now. And surely if they think they are so right, why don't they want to take the time and have this bill go through the Judiciary Committee. Dr. Stewart says: If the safest medical procedures are not available to terminate a pregnancy, severe adverse health consequences are possible . . . And she lists them. They are even more than what is behind me. The individual who argued the Supreme Court case that we are talking about, Stenberg, says the new Federal bill, S. 3 ``contains the same two flaws of the Nebraska bill that was ruled unconstitutional.'' And she goes on to explain why. I don't want to be terribly repetitive, but there were two problems in the Stenberg case. The ban was too vague and, therefore, there was an undue burden on the woman because she could be denied all kinds of procedures. Secondly, there was no health exception. So, yes, I could have had a drawing that showed a woman in severe crisis and constituents would have turned away from that as well. That is why Roe v. Wade is such an important decision because it knows that this issue is so difficult. It weighed the competing interests and it said, in the first 3 months of a pregnancy, government stay out. A woman and her doctor can decide. Senator Santorum should not decide, although in his opinion, I know he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. He thinks government should decide. I take issue with that. But there is no difference on the rest because I do believe later in a pregnancy, the State has a right to set the rules, always making an exception for the life and health of the mother. I don't know what all the yelling is about because I could tell my colleague that we could probably get, if the leaders on his side of the anti-choice would agree, we could get a bill that could ban all late- term abortions--all--except for life and health of the mother. Wouldn't that be something we could do? We will have the chance because, as I understand it, Senator Feinstein will be offering that very bill. Let's see how our colleagues feel. They will have a chance to ban all late-term abortions with the life and health exception. My colleague said, in answer to Senator Nickles' comments about how important it is to send bills to the committee of jurisdiction--I wrote down what he said--they were talking about a complex piece of legislation, major complex piece of legislation. They were talking about a big piece of legislation, many pages. Well, I ask the question: What could be more important for the Senate Judiciary Committee to look at than a matter that deals with life and health? What could be more important for the Judiciary Committee to look at than a possible ban on a procedure that has no health exception, which could lead a woman into a life where she is paralyzed, where she has a stroke, where she cannot bear children anymore, where, in essence, she is taken away from her family? What could be more important to take 2 days on? Are women not worth a couple of days of hearings here? Are women not worth it? They are your mother, they are your sister, they are your wife, they are our daughters.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. It is legally the same. There are a couple of tweaks in the language, and there are a series of findings, but the lawyers who argued the other case tell us it is legally the same because there is no health exception and the language is so vague that it creates an undue burden. I have behind me on a chart the two reasons the Court found that Stenberg was sufficient. Those issues remain in S. 3. That is why this motion to commit is an attempt to do the right thing by the women in this country, and for the children of this country, and for the families in this country, and for anybody who cares about this matter, and to have a couple of days of hearings to see if we can get a bill that would pass constitutional muster.

Mrs. BOXER. Correct.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I thank my friend. As an attorney, as he is, and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, he understands that this is in fact a wasted amount of time because there are so many other issues we could be dealing with here regarding the people of our country, who are struggling now under terrible economic times and are worried about foreign policy problems; and we are spending time on an extremely emotional issue. There is no question it is very difficult for this Senator to be here talking about it, because it deals with a situation where I believe the health of women could be jeopardized and doctors could be put in jail for trying to do the best for their patients. The other side gets very emotional as well. In the end, we have a piece of legislation that doesn't pass constitutional muster and this will be brought back again. So it seems to me the intelligent thing to do is to bring it to the committee and make sure that this bill, as Senator Santorum says, meets the constitutional issues that were raised. Experts tell me it does not. The record is replete with references that colleagues on the other side thought the Nebraska case would pass constitutional muster and it did not either. I also would like my friend to see a comment made by Senator Nickles regarding the importance of going to committee because I think it stands out here as a way to make the point that, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, you should respect the fact that we have committees for a reason. When a bill bypassed the committee, he said he was very disappointed in this process, and this process should not be repeated, so that we can have bipartisan input, have the legislative process work, have hearings so people know what they are voting on, et cetera. I think what we are doing makes a lot of sense because it impacts the health of women, the lives of women, and life and death itself, and it ought to go back.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend that that is the whole point. When you are dealing with these emotional, difficult, terrible issues, you have to look at all of that. That is why, on our side, we are willing to say we would ban all late-term abortions, as the Senator's bill would do, except for life of the mother and, in your case, a health exception which is a pretty tough health exception.

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to support you. I am also going to support Senator Feinstein's, which gives a little more leeway to the patient and the doctor. The point is that is the right approach to balance the fetus's rights and the mother's rights. That is the whole point of Roe and why it was such a reasoned, reasonable, and moderate decision because all of this is difficult. For us to outlaw medical procedures which doctors tell us are necessary-- and my colleague keeps saying they do not. I put in the Record the letter from the OB/GYNs, 45,000 strong, who say do not do away with this procedure and, if you do, make a health exception. I have told stories and I want to quickly go through one--how much time do I have remaining on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. Can I be told when I have 5 minutes remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to my friend, he posed a very good rhetorical question which was: Does the Senator believe if people could hear these stories of the women and their families who are going through these choices, would they not also be touched and be moved? The answer is clearly yes. I wish to tell my colleague about Coreen Costello who went through this procedure. I want to tell you how she defines her own ideology and religion. She says: We are Christians and conservative. We believe strongly in the rights, value, and sanctity of the unborn. Abortion was simply not an option we would ever consider. She was told the muscles of the baby she was carrying had stopped growing and her vital organs were failing. Her lungs were so underdeveloped they barely existed. Her head was swollen with fluid and her little body was stiff and rigid. She was unable to swallow and, as a result, the excess fluids were puddling in her uterus. They tried desperately to save the pregnancy. She said: We wanted our baby to come on God's time, and we didn't want to interfere. We chose to go into labor naturally. Eventually she was told if she did that, she could die. We asked our pastor to baptize her in utero. We named her Catherine Grace, Catherine meaning ``pure'' and Grace representing God's mercy. We talk about the problems families face. These families are desperate to do the right thing for the family, for the child in utero, and eventually she had to have this procedure that the Senator wants to outlaw. She said it saved her life and it saved her health, and it was the only choice she had to save her fertility. She said: Losing our daughter was the hardest thing we ever experienced. She said it has been difficult to come to Washington and tell her story.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, no one can be more eloquent than he. I think this whole debate is about Senators thinking they know more than families, doctors, the ability of families to sit around and choose the safest option in a real emergency situation. My colleagues say it is not an emergency; the procedure takes 3 days. That does not even make sense to me. I think if you find out you are going to have a cancer operation and it takes a long time, it still is an emergency. The fact the procedure takes a while probably indicates it is even more of an emergency. We have a lot to do. We have a lot of responsibilities. I do not want to do harm. I think that by sending this bill to the committee of jurisdiction to further explore the constitutional ramifications of this bill, which is legally identical to a law that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is the right thing to do. To listen, again, to some of the people who have lived through this is the right thing to do. To do no harm is the minimum we should be doing. I think when the Senator offers his amendment to have a pretty narrowly drawn health exception, it ought to win because how do we stand here and say we have a heart when we ignore stories like Vikki Stella's?