[Page: S2832]
---

   Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to depart from the debate on the issue before us, which is an important issue. I appreciate the remarks made by my colleague from North Dakota. I listened intently to what he had to say, and I can understand his deep feelings about this issue.

   I want to talk about another issue because today, across the street from where we sit in the Halls of the Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a case involving the so-called partial-birth abortion law of the State of Nebraska. That law, passed by the Nebraska Legislature, is quite similar to the version the Senate and the House have debated over the years. In fact, it is very similar to the one passed by the Senate last October.

[Page: S2833]

   However, the real issue in the case before the Supreme Court and in the legislation before Congress is not about banning late term abortions. The real issue is about a systematic effort to overturn Roe V. Wade and to criminalize all abortions. The real issue is about whether we trust women, in consultation with their faith and their family, to make this very difficult, personal decision or do we put that trust in politicians? That is what this is really all about.

   Last October 21, during debate on the so-called partial-birth abortion bill in the Senate, I, along with Senator BOXER, offered a resolution to this so-called partial-birth abortion bill. Our resolution was very simple. It stated that it was the sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and should not be repealed.

   Let me read for the record the entire text of that resolution because it was very simple and very straightforward.

   (a) Findings: Congress finds that--

   (1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law;

   (2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973));

   (3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy; and

   (4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade decision.

   (b) Sense of Congress: It is the sense of Congress that--

   (1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an important constitutional right; and

   (2) such decision should not be overturned.

   That is the full text of the resolution that I and Senator BOXER offered last October 21.

   By invalidating the laws that forced many women to seek unsafe, and often deadly back-alley abortions, Roe was directly responsible for saving women's lives. It is estimated that as many as 5,000 women a year died from illegal abortions before Roe.

   Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy on which American women have come to rely. It recognized the right of women to make their own decisions about their own reproductive health. And very importantly, it provides specific protections for the life and the health of women.

   So the vote on the Harkin-Boxer amendment last October to finally put the Senate on record about its support for the mainstream Roe decision was very important. It was the first vote directly ever held here on whether the Senate wants to go back to the days of back-alley abortions.

   Our amendment barely passed, 51-47. Fifty-one said yes, Roe v. Wade was a good decision, it should not be overturned. Forty-seven Senators voted against that resolution, basically saying they did not agree with Roe v. Wade and that it should be overturned.

   Frankly, I was shocked at how close the vote on our amendment was. In fact, in offering the amendment, I thought: Here is a chance for an overwhelming vote of support by the Senate in confirming the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.

   But after that close vote, I then realized that the vote really lifted the veil of moderation of antichoice Senators. For so many who were saying, that they support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, they just want to ban partial birth abortion, here was the chance to express that. With 47 votes

   against Roe v. Wade, the veil has been lifted. Now we know what is the real agenda. The agenda is to criminalize choice, criminalize freedom of choice for women.

   While the Nation's attention is refocused on the issue of choice with today's Supreme Court case, I also want to shed some light on what has been going on behind the scenes in Congress since the Senate very closely approved our amendment.

   What would normally happen is that after the Senate passed the bill with our amendment, the House would act on the Senate-passed bill and request a conference with the Senate to work out the differences between the two bodies. Instead, the House of Representatives avoided a vote on our amendment. They took up a clean bill and sent it over here in order to avoid a conference. So it is clear that the Republican leadership in the House does not want to have to take a vote on this issue. In fact, the House has never had a vote on the issue of support for Roe v. Wade.

   Why else would the House majority take the unusual step of punting the bill back to the Senate for a unanimous consent instead of taking it to conference? It is clear the Republican leadership in the House did not want to have a vote, which would be allowed under the House rules to instruct the House conferees to support my amendment in conference, thus putting the House on record, once and for all, as to whether or not they support Roe v. Wade.

   Again, the Republican leadership in the House wants to continue to hide their true agenda. They want to hide behind a false cloak of moderation on the issue of choice.

   Senator BOXER and I have objected to this latest maneuver. Let me be clear. Every time the so-called partial-birth abortion bill, or any other antichoice legislation, comes to the Senate floor, I will offer my amendment, and there will be another vote on the Roe v. Wade resolution. People in the leadership know that. That is why they have not bothered to bring up any of their antichoice legislation since the last vote on October 21. They know I will offer my amendment every single time to lift their veil of moderation.

   So today I am challenging the House Republican leadership to allow a vote on our amendment. Let's let people know where their representatives stand on the basic issue of choice, the basic issue of Roe v. Wade. Because Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy on which American women have come to rely. The Roe v. Wade vote in the Senate should send a wakeup call to all Americans that this policy is in jeopardy. They need to act to maintain it.

   In this most personal of decisions, we need to trust women, not politicians, to make the choice. That is what this is all about. Whether it is the case in front of the Supreme Court or whether it is the vote in the Senate, the issue is simply this: Do you trust politicians, whether they are in a State government or in the Federal Government, to make this decision for women or do you trust women?

   People of strong faith and good conscience have very different views on the issue of abortion. I respect both sides on this often divisive issue. I have struggled with it personally myself.

   Whether or not we agree, we should all work together to find commonsense, common ground steps to reduce the number of abortions and to protect the health and well-being of women and children. That means fully funding maternal and child health programs, fully funding the Women, Infants, and Children's feeding programs, fully funding contraceptive coverage, family planning services, and better adoption options, just to name a few of the policies we ought to be about.

   But the bottom line is this: Roe v. Wade was an enlightened decision. It is moderate. It puts the basic decisions on reproductive health where it belongs, with the woman and not with the Government.

   Today, as the Supreme Court, across the street, listens to the arguments on the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law, let us resolve that we are going to maintain a woman's basic right to choose, that we will not let the politicians take it over, that we will not return to the dark days of back-alley abortions and the criminalization of a woman's own right to choose her reproductive health.

   That is what this issue is about.

   The women of this country are counting on us to make sure we uphold the decision in Roe v. Wade. We cannot afford to let them down.

   I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate because I noted that my friend, Senator HARKIN from Iowa, was talking about a very important subject, a woman's right to choose. This right has been protected.

[Page: S2834]

   Today we are looking at a different type of constitutional amendment. Senator HARKIN made the point that, in fact, we have a case being heard at the Supreme Court which is going to essentially look at a woman's right to choose. I think it is appropriate that he would come over to make a few points, and I would like to engage him in a colloquy, if he would be willing to do that.

   First, I ask him to reiterate for me the basic point he made. We see in the Senate tens of votes we have to face on the issue of a woman's right to choose and the different aspects of it, whether a person who lives in the District of Columbia can use her insurance paid by the city to obtain a legal abortion, whether a Federal employee has that right, whether a woman in the military has the right to use a clean medical facility to exercise her rights, whether a woman in the late stage of a pregnancy that has turned desperately wrong has the right to have her health protected. We stand here on so many occasions casting these votes, having this debate ostensibly about a narrower issue surrounding a woman's right to choose.

   I wonder if my friend believes that is the real goal of the people who continually bring up this matter or whether it is, in fact, something quite deep, which is trying to erode a woman's right to choose, that basic right that was given to her after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

   Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her long and strong support for the decision in Roe v. Wade. The Senator from California has been one of the most persistent and enlightened voices in the Senate--indeed, in the country--on protecting a woman's basic right to choose. I follow in her footsteps in many of these issues.

   The Senator from California has really put her finger on it, the point I was trying to make today. This partial-birth abortion law that the Supreme Court is reviewing today, as well as the legislation before Congress--is just a smokescreen. Its a smokescreen which anti-choice Members and groups are hiding behind in order to get their eventual goal, which is the total repeal and overturn of Roe v. Wade, to take away the essential and basic fundamental rights about which the Senator just spoke.

   Without Roe v. Wade and without that constitutionally protected right of women to have control over their own reproductive health, many of the things about which the Senator just spoke would be gone. There wouldn't be any right for women in the military, there wouldn't be any right for women in the District of Columbia or anywhere else, to have the kind of health coverage that would protect them in dire need when they need help, when perhaps a pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and they need immediate and very intensive medical help.

   That was why I wanted to talk about it today. I don't want to interfere in the Supreme Court decision. That is for them to decide over there. What I wanted to point out was that in conjunction with that, here in the Halls of Congress there is a very dangerous game being played out where proponents of so-called partial-birth abortion really have want to overturn the basic right to choose for women. That is why the two of us joined together last fall to offer that amendment.

   I say this because the Senator and I worked together on this amendment. We offered the amendment in good faith, thinking we were going to get an overwhelming vote of the Senate saying, yes, we support Roe v. Wade. I think both of us were shocked at how close we came.

   Mrs. BOXER. I was stunned that Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thread in the Senate: 51-49; is that correct? It was very close.

   Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 51-47; there were a couple of people who were not here.

   Mrs. BOXER. There were a couple of Members who were not here. To think that a basic right won by women when we were very young, in 1973, all those years ago, would be hanging by a thread in the year 2000 is really amazing. I really do pray that the Supreme Court, as they independently decide these issues in this particular case of the Nebraska statute will recognize that what the Senator from Iowa says is absolutely true. It is so important.

   We have a big debate over some made-up terminology that doesn't even exist in medical books. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. There is either a birth or an abortion. That is it. The description of the method used is really a method that is used in the early stages of a pregnancy as well. So if, in fact, that Nebraska case is upheld, women will be denied what is considered by many doctors to be the safest method. That undermines Roe because Roe was a very moderate decision. It basically said that before that fetus is viable, the woman has an unfettered right to choose. But at any stage in the pregnancy, one thing has to come first: the woman's life and the woman's health.

   I say to my friend, when we get into a pattern of outlawing specific procedures and playing doctor--by the way, we do have one doctor in this Senate, but he is not an OB/GYN--when we start to play doctor in the Senate, we are going to endanger women's health.

   If we start outlawing procedures we don't like--by the way, there is no medical procedure--something that is gruesome or you don't get upset by--if we start doing that, we will overturn Roe right here because we will be saying a woman's health really is subordinate, doesn't matter, and what does it matter if a woman can't have a particular procedural and as a result she is paralyzed or can never bear another child? It would be a disaster, and it would be overturning this basic right.

   So I want to say to my friend that I appreciate his leadership. I enjoy working with him on this because we feel so deeply about it. Before he leaves, I will make one more comment. I trust my friend mentioned this, but I am not sure because I was on my way over here. The House of Representatives denied the House the opportunity to vote on the Harkin-Boxer amendment. The House of Representatives in this year has used a gag rule, if you will, to deny the Members of the House a chance to stand up for or against Roe v. Wade. I wonder what they are so afraid of. Are they afraid that some of their Members are so to the right on this issue and so against public opinion, it would hurt them in their reelection?

   Now is the time to be heard, when Roe is hanging by a thread, and we need to have a vote over there. I hope my friend will continue to press this point, as we say together that it is wrong to deny the House a chance to vote up or down on Roe.

   I ask my friend for his closing comment on that.

   Mr. HARKIN. Again, I appreciate the Senator's very lucid and clear delineation of exactly what is going on here. It was a gag rule in the House. That is what they did. Under their rules, the Republican leadership would not allow a vote on our amendment. Again, I think it is because they don't want their veil of moderation lifted. They want to say this is only about partial birth. It is not, and we know it. It is about Roe v. Wade. Yet they don't want to have their people out there voting on it.

   I think the American people have a right to know where we stand on this most fundamental right of women in this country.

   Again, I thank my friend from California for her long and strong leadership on this issue. It is vitally important to all of us in this country that the basic, fundamental, constitutional rights that were enumerated in Roe v. Wade for the women of this country remain, and remain strong, and not be undermined in this body. So I thank the Senator for her strong leadership in this effort.

   Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor, so I will wrap up.

   I think it is interesting and important, as we look at new amendments to the Constitution, that we think about the rights we already take for granted. The women in this country have counted on the Constitution to protect their right to choose. I only hope they will continue to have that right. It is, in fact, hanging by a thread here in the Senate with only 51 votes supporting that basic decision.

   So I say it is a day to look at our rights, as we are looking at victims' rights, or their lack of rights, and what ways we want to make sure victims have rights, and that we also consider if a woman is denied a fundamental right to have control over her own

[Page: S2835]

   So it is a good day to talk about Roe v. Wade. As we look at new rights we are giving people, let's also make sure we don't take away any rights.

   I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.

END