Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object. I had a discussion with Senator Roth. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Senator Baucus. And if the majority leader comes to the floor, I will suspend. But I would take a maximum of maybe 7 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. As I look over at the flowers at Senator Chafee's desk, I feel a tremendous sense of loss. Senator Chafee's accomplishments are going to go down in history. They have been recounted on this floor, so I do not feel the need to go through all of his incredible accomplishments, particularly around environmental issues. I do hope we will not undo Senator Chafee's hard work on the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and so many of the landmark environmental bills on which he led us. I wish to comment about Senator Chafee's kindness and his goodness as a human being and what a joy it was for me to work with him on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to attend the dinners he hosted, always in a bipartisan spirit, and how much we are going to need that kind of spirit right now. Senator Chafee was a champion of the environment. He was a champion of a woman's right to choose, and he was a champion of sensible gun laws. On those matters, it was my great privilege to work with him, and I will miss him deeply.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. We would like to close the debate. If the Senator will take the minute, we appreciate it.

Mrs. BOXER. If there was any extra time, I hope we will keep it on our side. I discussed this with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and he has been gracious enough to agree, since our colleagues have time problems; what I would like to propound is that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes, followed by Senator Feinstein for 12 minutes, and then we will reserve the remainder of our time for the closing debate. And the Senator from Pennsylvania will then have an hour left on his side.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, the author of this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, 3 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I so yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I also want to say something about the prayer which I found to be quite beautiful. I think talking about making sure we have no hate in our heart is really important. It is so important to all of us as we debate this legislation, to understand that we have great differences but to try to reach for that part of ourselves that brings us all together. I thank the guest Chaplain as well. This morning I am very pleased to be here. I know that while Democratic Senators were attending a dinner last evening, the debate into the late hours was rather one-sided. So I really do appreciate the fact we have a little time this morning to set the record straight. I am very pleased the Senator from Iowa, who is on his way here, was able to place his amendment before the Senate so we could bring back this debate on a woman's right to choose, the fundamental right women won in this country in 1973 when the Court decided that, in fact, a woman in the earlier stages of her pregnancy has a right to choose freely, with her doctor and her husband and her family, as to how to handle their situation. I think it was a very important, landmark decision. The decision went on to say that in the later term, which we are talking about a great deal, the State has the right to regulate it. So what Roe did was to balance the rights of the woman, if you will, with the child she is carrying. It says in the late term and in the midterm, the States can regulate the procedure, and that is very important, but the woman's life and the woman's health must always be paramount. This is important. What we have in the underlying bill is just the opposite. The underlying bill makes no exception for a woman's health. Now, the Senator from Pennsylvania says there doesn't need to be that exception. I didn't know he had a medical degree. I would prefer to listen to the obstetricians and gynecologists. He cites 600 doctors. There are 40,000 strong. I prefer to listen to the nurses, to the women who have chosen to go into the health professions. All those letters were put into the Record. And so I believe very strongly that we must always protect the life and health of a woman while we grapple with the obvious religious, moral, and ethical questions as to what type of restrictions ought to be placed on abortion in the later term. I was very discouraged and saddened by the debate yesterday because I thought what came out on this floor were words that were full of hate. To call a doctor an executioner is wrong; to talk about killing babies is wrong; and I don't think it brings this Nation closer together on this issue. I do not think it sets an atmosphere in which we can try to work together. But this morning I think we are debating something different. We are debating a very fundamental Court decision. The Harkin amendment simply says that Court decision should not be overturned. I look forward to an overwhelming vote, and I hope it will be overwhelming, not to overturn Roe. Because I think if we do that, and that amendment is attached to the underlying bill, it will give the President even more reason to veto the underlying bill because we will affirm that this Senate stands in favor of a woman's right to choose, and of Roe. Remember, Roe says that at every stage of a pregnancy the woman's health must be protected. The underlying bill makes no such exception. When you talk about abortion, you are really talking about choice. Should the Government, this Government, this Senate, tell women and families what to do in an emergency tragic health situation? That is what we are talking about in the underlying bill. The Senator from Pennsylvania says, yes, the Government should tell families what to do. Unfortunately, in his argument, in my view--and it is shared by many-- he demeans women; he demeans families; and he demeans doctors. Worse than that, far worse than that, he demonizes women, demonizes families who do not agree with him. He demonizes doctors, doctors who bring babies into this world, doctors who help save lives, who protect our health, who protect a woman's fertility. He does that only if these women and these families and these doctors do not agree with his views. I guess perhaps the biggest insult and the biggest injury that was done yesterday on this floor was when the Senator from Pennsylvania dismissed heartfelt stories of women and their families who have struggled through the biggest tragedy, almost, that anyone can imagine--of having to terminate a pregnancy at the final stages because something has gone horribly wrong and the baby, if born, would suffer and the mother would suffer adverse health consequences, irreversible; he called those stories anecdotes. Don't be blinded, he says, by the anecdotes of women. I want to say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, with no hate in my heart whatsoever, you call these stories anecdotes. I say these stories are these families' lives. It is what they have experienced. It is what they will forever have to live with. I think it is shameful to dismiss them in that fashion. Many of these women are here in the Capitol. They are here with their families; they are here with their children; they are telling their stories. To dismiss it and say don't be blinded by a few anecdotes is, to me, very cruel, indeed. I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senators who support him, that I support his right to view this issue in any way he chooses. I support the right of his family to handle these health care emergencies in any way they decide with their doctor, with each other, with their God, with their priest, with their rabbi, with their minister. It is their right. I would no sooner tell the Senator from Pennsylvania's family how to handle this matter than anything I can imagine. I would never do that. I do not want the Senator from Pennsylvania telling my family and my rabbi and my children how to handle a health emergency. I resent that. I have enough respect for my family that we would do what is right. I have enough respect for every family in America that they would do what is right. If the families in America did not agree with me, I would say God bless you; you handle this in any way you want. That is where the differences lie between the philosophy of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the philosophy of those of us who consider ourselves pro-choice. We trust the women of America. We trust the families of America. We trust them to seek the appropriate counsel. We trust them to make this painful and difficult decision without Government telling them what to do. When the women in this country have a health problem, they do not go to see their Senator. They don't go to see Dr. Santorum or Dr. Boxer or Dr. Helms or Dr. Mikulski. They go to their physician. We should not play doctor. It is not appropriate, it is not right, and it is dangerous. It is very dangerous to the health of women. We will get into that when we talk about why the Roe v. Wade decision was so important. As long as the women in this country and the families in this country choose what is legal and available to them, we should respect that. The legalities have been settled since 1973. Make no mistake about it, the entire purpose of this underlying bill and other amendments that may come before us--I do not know what amendments they will be--are all about one thing: undermining this basic legal decision called Roe v. Wade. At 11:30 this morning, the Senate will make an important vote as to whether or not they believe Roe v. Wade should be confirmed by this Senate. I want to read a quote that was put in the Record yesterday. I think it is very important to understand this statement is a statement of Supreme Court Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. In a case called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, listen to what these three Justices, all Republicans appointed by Republican Presidents, said about the basic issue we are talking about: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. ``Compulsion of the State.'' What these Justices said, all appointed by Republican Presidents, was that the state should stay out of this crucial decision. It is something that exists in our hearts, in our souls, in our beings. The ``meaning of the universe and the mystery of human life'' should not be dictated by the state, by Senator Santorum, by Senator Boxer, by any Senator. It is up to each individual. When Roe was decided and it was reaffirmed by the Court, and hopefully it will be reaffirmed today by this Senate, it basically gave that liberty to the people of this country. I think it is very important to note it has been stated on this floor over and over again, the underlying bill has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. I ask you, colleagues, to look at the 19 Court decisions that have contradicted that statement. In each and every case, the Court said the Santorum bill, the approach he has taken, contradicts Roe, because in each and every case they found the definition of this partial-birth abortion--of which there is no medical meaning, there is no medical term--is so vague that it could, in fact, apply to any procedure and, therefore, it essentially stops all abortion. Indeed, if you look at some of the States, in some of the States, before the Court overturned these statutes, there was no abortion being performed at any stage because of the vaguely worded law, the words of the Santorum bill. In Alaska, the vagaries of the law are obvious, and Alaska overturned the Santorum bill. In Florida, this statute ``may endanger the health of women''--they overturned the Santorum bill. In Idaho, the act bans the safest and most common methods of abortion and they overturned--this is Idaho--the Santorum bill. In Louisiana, the judge said this is truly a conceptual theory that has no relation to fact, law, or medicine, and they overturned this bill. In Michigan, they said physicians simply cannot know with any degree of confidence what conduct may give rise to criminal prosecution and license revocation, and they overturned the bill. And it goes on--Missouri, Montana. They say the problem here is that the legislation goes way beyond banning the type of abortion depicted in the illustrations. Court after court has stated this bill overturns Roe, and that is why the Senator from Iowa was so correct to bring his amendment to the floor to reaffirm Roe. I see the Senator from Washington is here, and I ask her how many minutes she would like to use on this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is correct. I want to say his series of questions and comments have moved me greatly. I consider him a great Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be brief. The courts in twenty States have said the Santorum law that has basically been adopted in those States is unconstitutional. Senator Santorum, in an effort to fix his bill, sent up a modification to the desk which he believes has narrowed the definition of what he means by the term ``partial-birth abortion,'' which is not a medical term. I have letters I have put in the Record from the obstetricians and gynecologists organization saying that, in fact, the new language doesn't do anything to narrow the definition; the same problem still holds. This ban is so vague, it could impact all abortions. That is why the courts say it is wrong. There is no exception for the health of a woman. That also goes against Roe. And 51 of us voted in favor of Roe. I hope we will vote no. I believe at least 35 of us or so will do that. That will be enough to sustain the veto. I hope more of my colleagues will consider standing with the life and health of a woman and voting no on this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER. Senator Landrieu has 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand the unanimous consent agreement, Senator Landrieu will have 1\1/2\ minutes and the other side will have 1\1/2\ minutes on her amendment, which I strongly support.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to vote shortly on the Smith amendment. I tried very hard to work with my colleague. There is one very serious flaw in his legislation which I fear could escalate the violence at health care clinics all over this country. Now it is illegal in any way to sell fetal tissue. We all support that ban. We have voted on that ban. You cannot sell fetal tissue. The Senator is concerned that this sale, nonetheless, is taking place. He wants certain disclosure as it relates to this issue. In the course of that, he has amended his legislation to deal with some of my problems by making sure that we can identify the woman who agreed to donate that tissue for research. It won't identify physicians. For that I am grateful. The one area we couldn't reach agreement on had to do with the identity of the health care facility in which the woman had her legal and safe abortion. That will be subject to disclosure. Anyone could find out through a Freedom of Information request where that clinic is. There have been 33 instances of violence against health care facilities since 1987. I really am sad that the Senator from New Hampshire was unable to protect the confidentiality of these clinics. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please protect the identity of these clinics. We don't want to have anyone calling up and finding out where they are. I am very fearful it could escalate the violence. We certainly don't want to do that unwittingly. Thank you very much. I will be urging a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have a minute and a half per side.

Mrs. BOXER. Fine. That is fine with us.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--can we be sure the 3 minutes are equally divided between the two sides?

Mrs. BOXER. Would my friend yield for a question so I have a chance to thank him for that support, and thank his son, and tell his son that I am going to fight just as hard to protect the life and health of his mother and all the moms of this country and to make sure we protect the children as well. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER. I heard them yesterday. He said to me how touched he was by them. I think it would be suitable to quote them again, reminding everyone these are three Republican Justices of the Supreme Court. In their decision upholding Roe v. Wade, this is what they said: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. The Senator from New Jersey and I and those of us in this body who voted today to uphold Roe, and many of us who will vote against the Santorum bill, believe the State must not, should not be able to tell people in this country how to think, what to believe, and especially what to do for themselves and their families when it comes to a medical procedure. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, he has asked me if I will continue to fight for the women of America. The answer is yes. I believe while I fight for them, I am fighting for their families, for the people who love them, their fathers, their mothers, their grandfathers, their grandmothers, and their children. I think underlying all this debate is that basic difference between myself and the Senator from Pennsylvania; between the Senator from New Jersey and the other Senators on the other side of the aisle. I think it is about basic respect of the women and the families of this Nation. In concluding my remarks, because I know the Senator from Illinois has been waiting very patiently, I will conclude with a quote from three Justices. I ask my friend from New Jersey to once more listen to their words.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. I recall.

Mrs. BOXER. I am aware of that.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as my colleagues know, I have been urging the Majority Leader to schedule Senate debate and votes on two nominees for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals --Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez. Judge Paez was first nominated 45 months ago. Ms. Berzon's nomination has been pending for almost 2 years. I know that the Majority Leader supports the nomination of Glenn McCullough to the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I have no objection to voting on Mr. McCullough. I voted him favorably out of the Environment and Public Works Committee this week. What I do object to is keeping the nominations of Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon from the Senate floor long after they have been voted out of committee. So I have no problem with Senator Lott's nominee, who has been waiting for a Senate vote for two days--as long as Senator Lott and the Republican majority also consider those who have been waiting years for a vote.