[Pages S4219-S4223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FILIBUSTER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there has been so much misinformation on
the filibuster I want to make sure I put my thoughts into the record.
We hear Republican Senators actually get up and say they never
filibustered any judges. I was stunned, so we went back into history
and we have a chart for that.
The first filibuster in modern times was started by the Republicans
in 1968 against Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court. We know there have
been 11 in recent times, 11 filibusters. Here is one in 1971, probably
started by the Democrats, William Rehnquist to be a Supreme Court
justice. Here is one in 1980, probably started by the Republicans,
Stephen Breyer, to be a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Then in 1984 Harvie Wilkinson, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In
1986, Sydney Fitzwater, to be a judge for the Northern District of
Texas. 1992, Edward Earle Carnes to be judge on the Eleventh Circuit.
1994, Lee Sarokin to be a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 1999, Brian Theodore Stewart, to be a judge for the District

[[Page S4220]]

of Utah. In the year 2000--and this is my State--there was a major
filibuster; we fought hard and we beat the filibuster. We got the votes
needed, Richard Paez to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and Marsha Berzon to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit.
When we hear Republicans say they never launched a filibuster, you
can ask, what? Here is Bob Smith who led the filibuster, Republican,
from New Hampshire. Here is what he said:

. . . It is no secret that I have been the person who has
filibustered these two nominations, Judge Berzon and Judge
Paez.

Here he is again:

So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that we
don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of the
Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional role.

Here is a Republican Senator who started a filibuster against two
judge nominees for the Ninth Circuit. He called this a ``constitutional
role.'' Now we have other Republicans saying the constitutional option
is no filibuster. Wrong. You are contradicting your own people here.
Now, Orrin Hatch himself admitted there were filibusters on the
floor:

Indeed, I must confess to being somewhat baffled that,
after a filibuster is cut off by cloture, the Senate could
still delay a final vote on nomination.

That is Orrin Hatch. This is the major point I want to make, Who is
the real leader out there pushing to end the filibuster on judges?
Pushing, pushing, pushing?
And, by the way, it is unbelievable we have confirmed 205 of George
W. Bush's nominees to the courts. We have stopped 10. Let me say it
again: 205 have gotten through and we have stopped 10.
Now, do the math, and I will say to you: In your life, if you get 95
percent of what you want, wouldn't you go around with a smile on your
face? I would. If I got 95 percent of what I wanted from the Senate, I
would be so happy. If I got 95 percent of what I wanted from my
family--if they sought my way 95 percent of the time--I would be happy;
especially when they were teenagers, I would be really happy.
But do you know what. If I were arrogant, and I wanted everything,
and I thought I knew best all the time, and I wanted to grab all the
power, I would be sunk. So these folks over here, who got 95 percent of
what they wanted--205 judges, and then 10 whom we thought were out of
the mainstream--and, by the way, wow, are they out of the mainstream--
they are unhappy. And now they are going to change the rules in the
middle of the game.
For 200 years of our Constitution we have been able to speak and
express ourselves. I have to tell you, this is dangerous to our
democracy. When one party wants its all, when one party wants to stop
minority rights, that is dangerous. And that is where we are.
But here is the best of all--and I hope people will know this--when
we had this filibuster on Marsha Berzon, and when we had this
filibuster of Richard Paez, guess who voted to keep the filibuster
going on Richard Paez. I will give you a clue. He appeared on a big
screen over the weekend. I will give you another clue. He was elected
by the Republicans to be the majority leader of the Senate, Bill Frist.
He says filibusters are terrible, filibusters are wrong. Yet he voted
to continue the filibuster on Richard Paez.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Executive vote No. 37 of
March 8, 2000, on Richard Paez to cut off the filibuster be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the vote was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

YEAS--85

Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYS--14

Allard (R-CO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Helms (R-NC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)

NOT VOTING--1

McCain (R-AZ)
Mrs. BOXER. So let's hold people accountable for what they do and
say. I admit I was foolish on the filibuster when I was a freshman and
I came in here. I also wanted everything to go my way. I was wrong. And
it is hard for a Senator to say they are wrong. We do not like to admit
it. But I was wrong. But how can Bill Frist lead the charge, say that
filibusters are wrong, it is terrible, it is awful, it is against the
Constitution, and everything else he says--which I do not agree with
any of what he said--and then not address the fact that he voted to
sustain a filibuster. It does not make sense.
We have soldiers dying in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Lord knows where they
are going to go in this very dangerous world. And the mission: to make
sure democracy thrives. Do you know that when I was in Iraq, we were
told one of the reasons the minority groups there, the Kurds, felt
comfortable was they knew they were going to copy the model of this
democracy, including the filibuster?
They said: Oh, we know we are going to have our rights heard because
we are going to have the right to filibuster. They even told that to a
Republican Senator who went over there.
By the way, when I was in the Palestinian territories--this is
another interesting part of my trip--the first thing the Palestinians
said they want to do is make sure their people get a monthly social
security benefit that is guaranteed. I truly wanted to ask the Minister
there--I think he was the Minister of the Interior--to please contact
President Bush and tell him that a guaranteed social security benefit
was their first priority, as the President tries to undo the guaranteed
benefit for Social Security. That trip I went on was fascinating in so
many different ways. But mostly, what I realized was, we need to be the
model of freedom and democracy. If we start taking away minority
rights, if we start saying we cannot stand to hear each other--by the
way, I understand it. I know it is painful to hear me speak for some of
my colleagues who do not agree with me. They say: Oh, I can't listen to
one more word. And I feel the same way when they start talking about
things with which I fundamentally disagree.
But that is what it is about here because all of America has to be
represented here, from the most liberal, to the most conservative, to
everything in between. All of us have to feel represented. But if we
stop the ability of the other to debate and discuss, especially on
judges, where it is a lifetime appointment, at a very high salary--they
never have to face the electorate. This is the only moment.
So what if we say they have to meet a higher bar? That is a good
thing on behalf of the people. Because--guess what--do you know what
they rule on? They rule on everything to do with your life. They rule
on whether there should be child labor. They rule on whether you should
be harassed and exploited in the workplace. They rule on whether you
have the right to clean air and safe drinking water. They rule on
everybody's rights: voting rights, civil rights, human rights. They
rule on whether your child can get a good education. They rule on
whether corporate America must provide a safe workplace for you. They
rule on whether the Federal Government can say that people who pollute
have to clean up that pollution.
Why do you think there are so many people who want to get every
single judge? Because they want judges of a certain philosophy. That is
wrong. We should work for mainstream, fair judges--that is what we need
on the bench--who can see all sides. But when one side wants
everything, when 95 percent is not enough, when 205 to 10 is not good
enough, beware of what is coming down. Do not change the rules

[[Page S4221]]

in the middle of the game. That is not fair. That is not right. It is
throwing a fit over something, when you have gotten 95 percent of what
you want.
You do not change the rules in the middle of the game, like they did
in the House on the Ethics Committee. Do not do that. That is not
right, it is not fair, and it is wrong. It is wrong for the American
people.

Everyone in the world looks to America--everyone in the world. When
we start weakening our rules around here, and weakening the rights of
the people to exercise the rights they have been given as Senators, we
are in a lot of trouble.
So, Mr. President, I have gone through a number of issues, starting
off with the most solemn, which was reading the names of those in the
military who have died, who were either from California or were based
in California. I promised my constituents I would always come to the
floor periodically to remember them. The saddest thing: 26 percent of
the dead soldiers happened to be either from California or based in
California. That is a huge number. So it is with a very heavy heart
that I did that.
But we have a lot to do, a lot on our agenda. I hope we will stay
focused on the things that matter to the people--on the things that
matter to the people. Let's not spend time changing the rules of the
Senate that we have had for so many years. Let's not do that. Let's do
the work. Let's get a success strategy for Iraq. Let's get health care
for our people. Let's get education for our children. Let's make sure
the air is clean and the water is safe, that we protect our beautiful
places. Let's make sure we attack this issue of gas prices, which in my
State we are seeing $3 a gallon. I wrote to the FTC, and I said: Please
investigate what is going on with the refiners. Please look at these
mergers that are coming at us now that will make it even worse.
We have work to do. But, no, we have to have our leader go on a
Sunday, or whatever, and--big publicity--address a group about changing
the rules of the filibuster. This does not meet the test, it seems to
me, of doing the job.
We know there will be fallout. That is the nuclear option, and
nuclear explosions have fallout. It doesn't mean shutting down the
Senate, but I can assure you, it is going to mean working harder in the
Senate, working really hard, working on some things that maybe we
haven't worked on in a while, forcing that. But I have to tell you, 205
to 10, you should be smiling, not frowning, not addressing people and
saying how terrible you are doing. You should be happy. It is a heck of
a lot better than a lot of Democratic Presidents have done. You should
be happy.
You should bring us judges that are mainstream, and there wouldn't be
any filibusters. I have supported so many. You succeeded 205 times. You
failed 10 times because you tried to put people on there who really
were so far out of the mainstream it would be dangerous.
Can't we compromise this thing and come together? Let's get back to
work.
I ask unanimous consent that my prepared text on the Weldon amendment
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Weldon Amendment

Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the Weldon
amendment, a sweeping provision endangering women's health
that was slipped into the 2005 appropriations bill at the
last minute without any hearings, discussions, or votes.
In November, Senator Frist promised me an up or down vote
on repealing the Weldon amendment by the end of April. Last
week, I decided to hold off on that vote for the time being.
First, the Weldon amendment will expire in less than 6
months. I believe that the best way to defeat this provision
right now is to work with Senator Harkin and Members on both
sides of the aisle to remove or modify it in the next
spending bill.
I have talked at length with Senator Harkin about this. He
has promised that he will work closely with Senator Specter
and me to underscore our commitment to a real conscience
clause for doctors and hospitals without undermining our
commitment to the health of women across our country.
Second, two lawsuits have already been filed challenging
the constitutionality of Weldon. Their arguments are
compelling and I believe that the plaintiffs one of which is
the California attorney general--will prevail.
There has been a lot of misinformation about Weldon. So I
thought it would help to show this provision in black and
white:
Here is what Weldon says:
(d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be
made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State
or local government, if such agency, program or government
subjects any institutional or individual health care entity
to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity
does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for
abortions.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``health care entity''
includes an individual physician or other health care
professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization,
a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan,
or any other kind of health care facility, organization or
plan.
I have read this language over and over again. And nowhere
do I find the words ``religion, morals, beliefs, or values.''
That is because Weldon is not a conscience clause. It is a
denial clause because it could deny women emergency care when
their lives are in danger, deny low-income rape victims
reproductive health care, deny doctors the right to give
their patients vital information, and deny states the ability
to enforce critical laws ensuring the health of women.
Some are saying that Weldon is needed to protect the
religious beliefs of doctors and hospitals that don't want to
perform abortions. But that is not true.
No Federal law forces any doctor to perform an abortion.
And no Federal law forces any hospital to perform an
abortion, unless the woman will die without an emergency
procedure.
In fact, we already have many Federal and State laws
protecting the conscience of our health care providers,
including the 1973 Church amendment.
That conscience clause says that public authorities may not
require any individual or health care entity that receives
financial assistance under our federal health programs to
perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization
procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the
performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary
to his religious beliefs or moral convictions make its
facilities available for the performance of any sterilization
procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or
abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on
the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or
provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in
the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if
the performance or assistance in the performance of such
procedures or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to
the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.
Or discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination
of employment of any physician or other health care
personnel, or discriminate in the extension of staff or other
privileges to any physician or other health care personnel,
because he performed or assisted in the performance of a
lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he
refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a
procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or
assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion
would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral
convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral
convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.
It is not just the Federal law that offers protections. As
you can see on this chart, some 46 States--almost every one
of them--have enacted their own conscience clauses for
doctors and providers who don't want to provide abortions.
Some are claiming that Weldon is simply a clarification of
current law. I find that amazing, given that it takes hours
for even the most seasoned attorneys and lawmakers to make
any sense of this provision. There is nothing clarifying
about it.
Weldon is a giant loophole that effectively bars federal,
state, and local governments from enforcing laws protecting
the reproductive health of women.
Most Americans, including most people of faith, believe
that we need to strike the right balance between honoring
personal beliefs and protecting the public at large.
In one survey, 89 percent of people said they oppose
allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical
services on religious grounds.
Weldon takes it a step further, allowing any insurance
company, HMO, or other entity to refuse to provide services
or referrals on any grounds, and in any circumstances, even
if a woman's life is in danger.
Late last week, Rev. Carlton Veazey, the president of the
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, brought me 2,000
petitions from people of faith in all 50 States.
These petitions said that, ``Weldon is not just bad law, it
is immoral law, dangerous law, and women will be hurt by it,
some perhaps even killed by it.''
What do our consciences say about that?
What do our consciences say about helping the thousands of
women who become pregnant as a result of rape each year? The
Weldon amendment makes no exceptions for them, or for women
whose lives are in serious danger.
Weldon tells our State and local governments that they can
not ensure that any woman, including victims of rape and
incest, receive abortion referrals and services without
losing all their Federal health, education, and labor
funding.
Weldon tells our State and local governments that their
title X clinics no longer

[[Page S4222]]

have to refer a poor woman who asks about an abortion, even
if she has been raped or her life is in danger.
Weldon tells our State and local governments that they
should no longer honor the Hyde amendment, which provides
Medicaid coverage for low-income women who are victims of
rape or incest, or whose lives are in danger.
Here is what the Hyde amendment says:

None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none of
the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated
under this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. . . .
The limitations established in the preceding section shall
not apply to an abortion (1) if the pregnancy is the result
of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman
suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or
physical illness, including a life-endangering physical
condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself,
that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in
danger of death unless an abortion is performed. . . .

What if a poor woman is raped by her uncle? Say she does
not have a job. She relies on Medicaid for her health care.
She is not told about the option of emergency contraception
and becomes pregnant.
What if she cannot emotionally bear to give birth to her
relative's child--her rapist's child?
Under the Hyde amendment we say Medicaid must pay for her
abortion if she is the victim of rape or incest. But, under
Weldon, that is no longer the case.
What if she goes to her regular Medicaid managed care
organization, but is never told that these services are
covered, and never referred anywhere else? The States can no
longer enforce the Hyde amendment, or even their own laws
helping rape and incest victims.
What do our consciences say about helping women who will
die without emergency abortions?
Weldon has no exceptions for women whose lives are in
danger.
It tells States that they cannot enforce laws ensuring that
poor women who face life-threatening situations will receive
abortion referrals or services.
It undermines the 1986 Federal Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act, EMTALA, which says that if a pregnant
woman comes to a hospital with a life-threatening situation,
she will receive the treatment needed to be stabilized, even
if that includes an abortion.
This law states:

If any individual comes to a hospital and the hospital
determines that the individual has an emergency medical
condition, the hospital must provide . . .
. . .within the staff and facilities available at the
hospital, for such further medical examination and such
treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical
condition, . . .

A San Francisco doctor called my office to tell some of
these tragic stories. One of her patient's blood was not
clotting. She was bleeding for over an hour.
If she had been sent home or encouraged to continue her
pregnancy, she would have likely died. Thankfully, she got
care.
Another woman, a married mother, came to the hospital with
an ectopic pregnancy, which means the pregnancy was
developing in her cervix. If a woman grows a pregnancy in her
cervix, she can die.
Again, this doctor was able to save her life.
But, what if these woman had walked into a hospital that
refused to provide emergency abortions?
The Congress passed the Emergency Treatment and Active
Labor Act to ensure that no one is ever turned away if their
lives are in danger.
Now, Weldon tells a hospital or HMO to ignore this law. It
says they can let a woman die if they don't want to perform
an abortion.
And there is nothing States can do about it without losing
all their Federal labor, health, and education funding.
Weldon allows all health care companies to gag doctors, and
deny women vital information about their reproductive health
options.
Weldon tells State and local governments they can no longer
protect the doctor-patient relationship through Federal or
State laws without losing all their Federal health,
education, and labor funding.
Weldon conflicts with current title X Federal regulations,
which require family planning clinics to:

Offer pregnant women the opportunity to be provided
information and counseling regarding each of the following
options:
(A) Prenatal care and delivery;
(B) Infant care, foster care, or adoption; and
(C) Pregnancy termination.
(ii) If requested to provide such information and
counseling, provide neutral, factual information and
nondirective counseling on each of the options, and referral
upon request, except with respect to any option(s) about
which the pregnant woman indicates she does not wish to
receive such information and counseling.
Under Weldon, a title X clinic can take our funding, but
refuse to give women information. Think about what this could
mean for the poor women who rely on these clinics.
Last year, a married Latina woman in her early 30s came to
one of our title X family planning clinics in Los Angeles.
She had two children under six.
She had been to the clinic before because her husband is
unfaithful. He had infected her with severe STDs.
When she became pregnant again, she was very scared about
having the baby. Her home life was extremely unstable, and
she was worried about the impact of STDs on the fetus.
She made the extremely difficult decision to have an
abortion. She asked the clinic to refer her. It did. That was
the law.
But now Weldon is in direct conflict with this Federal
regulation saying that title X family planning clinics that
serve poor women must give them a referral if asked.
Now clinics can ignore this law. Women can be left without
information. And States have no power to act.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
says:
The Federal refusal clause would jeopardize a physician's
ability to inform a patient of all her legal medical options
at federally funded Title X family planning clinics, and
would categorize the Title X referral requirement as
discriminatory--effectively gagging physicians across the
country.
According to ACOG ethical guidelines, ``Under all
conditions of practice . . . consultation and referral should
be carried out in the patients' best interest.''
Weldon is not in the patient's best interest. It allows
title X clinics, HMOs, and anyone else to deny our health
care professionals their right to free speech and their
patients the right to full information about their options.
If States try to enforce their own laws, they could lose
billions of dollars in Federal labor, health, and education
funding. For example:
All 50 States have the power to ensure that hospital
mergers don't undermine the public interest. In some cases,
an attorney general might determine that, for a merger to go
forward, the two parties must find some way to protect the
reproductive health care of women.
The Indiana supreme court has held that limits on State
medical assistance for abortion in cases of life
endangerment, rape or incest are unconstitutional under the
State constitution because they do not include exceptions for
women's health.
The New Mexico supreme court held that a regulation
limiting medical assistance for abortion in cases of life
endangerment, rape or incest is unconstitutional under the
New Mexico constitution.
A court in Illinois has held that under a law limiting
State medical assistance for abortion to cases of life
endangerment is unconstitutional, under the constitution of
Illinois.
Under Weldon, States face a Hobson's choice between denying
reproductive health services and information to women or
losing billions of dollars in Federal labor, health, and
education funding.
They are told they have to ignore their constitutions, to
ignore Federal law and State law. They are told they no
longer can find creative ways to ensure women's health.
In New Jersey, a court approved an arrangement that set
aside some of the assets of a secular hospital prior to its
acquisition by a Catholic hospital.
The assets were meant to support the continuation of the
secular hospital's mission of providing reproductive health
services, which it would not be able to fulfill after the
merger.
Now, New Jersey can no longer enforce this arrangement
without risking more than $7 billion in Federal funding.
Now, some say that States are free to enforce laws
protecting reproductive health. They say States can do
whatever they want if they just give up Federal funds. Sure.
Let's look at what States would lose. And, keep in mind:
these numbers are very conservative.
This chart has California losing at least $37 billion in
Federal funding, but our Attorney General has put the number
at $49 billion.
No State can afford to give up substantial resources that
help educate and care for its children, provide for and train
its workers, and bring health care to all its citizens.
This is not about choice, it is about coercion.
That is one of the many reasons why the California attorney
general has sued in Federal court, a lawsuit that I believe
will prevail.
The suit says the Weldon amendment is unconstitutional
because it restricts a woman's right to abortion when
necessary to preserve her life or health.
It says that Weldon exceeds Congress's spending power
because it is so vague.
In South Dakota v. Dole, 1987, the court said that when
``Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of
federal funds, `it must do so unambiguously , enable[ing] the
States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the
consequences of their participation.'''
Another lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia on behalf
of health care clinics makes the same claim. It says: ``The
amendment `leaves Title X grantees to guess how to meet
Weldon's mandate while meeting the mandates of [Title X
regulations], and, indeed, whether this is even possible.'''
If States aren't sure how to comply with Weldon, they
cannot make a knowing choice. And, with the amount of funding
at stake, they are bound to err on the side of extreme
caution, thereby creating a chilling effect.
The California lawsuit says that Federal funding conditions
must be rationally related to the Federal interest in the
program receiving them.

[[Page S4223]]

What does unemployment insurance or No Child Left Behind
funds have to do with reproductive health?
Nothing. But the penalties under Weldon are so
unconstitutionally extreme and coercive that States have no
choice but to comply.
This amendment is unconstitutional and dangerous.
It is not a conscience clause. We already have that.
It is a denial clause that will cause unnecessary hardship
for victims of rape, women whose lives are in danger, poor
women who rely on their doctors for information, and States
that will be forced to choose between protecting women and
losing billions of dollars in funds.
If the Senate wants a new conscience clause, we can draft a
real conscience clause.
I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to do just that.
But I will not back down until we alter or repeal the
Weldon language as written and do right by the women,
doctors, and States across America.

____________________