the presiding officer: the senator is recognized.

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: will we suspend the quorum call? the presiding officer: without objection.mr. blunt: i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, january the 26th at 2:15 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar item 306 and that there will be 15 minutes for debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form and upon the use or yielding back of timing, the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, that if confirmed, the president be

immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. blunt: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that following morning business on tuesday, january 26, the senate proceed to calendar number 216, s. 2012 with a period of debate only until 3:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is that calendar number 218? mr. blunt: calendar number 217. -- 218. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. blunt: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my republican colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. we're here today to vote in really i think half an hour on the -- overriding the

president's veto of congressional action that would not have allowed us, the country, to move forward with the rule that's the so-called waters of the united states. now, mr. president, waters of the united states sounds like a lot until you look at the map beside me. this is the -- this is a map of my state, the state of missouri, of what would be covered under e.p.a. jurisdiction if this rule was allowed to go into effect. this map from the missouri farm bureau is a map that nobody has taken issue with. and only the red part of our state would be covered by federal government authority. only the 99.7% of the state that's shown here in red would suddenly be under the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. on all things related to water.

water running off a parking lot, water running off your driveway, water running off your roof, water falling in your yard, water falling on a vacant lot. if someone wants to build a house on that vacant lot. those things in 99.7 of the state. i think the .3 may be some kind of unusual seepage area where the water runs away in a way that the e.p.a. hasn't yet figured out to assert jurisdiction over. but the law passed in the early 1970's, the clean water act, mr. president, said that the e.p.a. would have jurisdiction over navigable waters. so if you believe the e.p.a. and believe this rule and believe in the president's veto, navigable waters would apparently be every drop of water in 99.7% of missouri.

if the president and the administration, the e.p.a., want to change the law where it no longer says navigable waters but where it says virtually all the water, there's a way to do that. you introduce a bill. you come to the congress. the congress votes on that bill. if the house and senate approves it -- i think it sounds like it's a pretty pedestrians discussion -- but apparently the president and the e.p.a. don't understand that that's the way to change the law, not just somebody decides that all of the water in missouri are or, to be accurate, 99.7% of the water in our state, of the geography of our state on any water issue suddenly becomes the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. i will assure you that if the e.p.a. gets this jurisdiction, there's no way that they can do what they say they think the environmental protection agency should do. that's the case in missouri. i'm joined by my colleagues from

north dakota and from wyoming to talk about this. and certainly we have been on the floor repeatedly to talk about this. we've also talked about remedies. the great remedy here would be any regulation that has significant economic impact should be voted on by the congress. it's a bill that we've all cosponsored called the rains a act. now, the analogy here is pretty good, to put the reins on government. but would really happen in the reins act is anybody who would vote for a rule like this would have to go home and explain it. and, frankly, i think anybody who doesn't vote to override the president's veto had better be prepared to go home and explain it. and senator barrasso, senator hoeven have been vigorously in this fight. and senator hoeven, i know this is something that matters where you live, where we live. but it's also a great indication

of what happens when the government somehow just believes no matter what the constitution says or the law says, that the all-knowing federal government should be in charge of everything everywhere. in this case, virtually all the water of the country. senator? mr. hoeven: well, that's absolutely right. i'm pleased to join my distinguished colleague from the state of missouri as well as my colleague from the state of wyoming and our colleague from the state of iowa. this is an incredibly important issue. it's probably the number-one regulatory relief that all business sectors need. i mean, starting with our farmers and ranchers, this is a huge issue. the energy industry. but across all sectors. because this is a big-time overreach by the e.p.a. and it really affects all property rights. so you're talking about private property rights that are at stake here. and there's a fundamental principle at stake in terms of how our government works as we

well. the e.p.a. has taken, through its own regulatory fiat, additional authority that it does not legally possess and it's done so under a legal theory that it's advanced called significant nexus and essentially has gone above the regulation it has, which has gone to navigable waters that it already has, say the missouri river, to essentially say they can now regulate all water wherever it finds it everywhere. now, think about that. if part of the executive branch or a regulatory agency can unilaterally say, you know what? we're not just going to operate under our legislated authority. we're just going to take additional authority that we don't legally have in order to do what we think is our job. then we've got a fundamental problem because that defies the underlying concepts of the checks and balances in our government, where the legislative, judicial and executive all offset each other in order to protect private

property rights. and that's absolutely what's at stake here. and essentially now the e.p.a. has stepped into a role where they can regulate water anywhere in any capacity. so if a farmer, after a rainstorm, goes out and wants to move water in a ditch or even an individual private property owner wants to do that, do they have to apply to the e.p.a. for a permit? how do they know? who do they go to? are they going to get consistent rulings? and why in the world should they be subject to an agency without legislative authority just deciding that they're going to have jurisdiction or authority in cases where they don't have. so it's a very important principle in terms of protecting private property rights as well as the fundamental fact that has such a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers and really every sector of our society. and so i would turn back to my colleague from missouri and ask

him to touch on maybe just a minute, what we can do about it. we're here on this floor today to have a vote. and i think we need to point out how important it is that our colleagues joining -- join us in making sure that we override this presidential veto. mr. blunt: well, i appreciate that. you know, this is a -- this is a bill that's been on the president's desk. it passed the senate which means that 0 senators -- that 60 senators were supportive of this rule not being able to go forward in its current status. the president vetoed the bill. this would be the time for the congress to stand up. and if you didn't have any other interest in this fight, the time for the congress to stand up and say, if you're going to change the law, the only way to change the law is for the congress to change the law. the president appears to be willing to discover all sorts of ways that can't be found in the constitution to change the law. but even if you were on the other side of this issue, even

if you'd want to come to the floor of the senate and vigorously argue that e.p.a. needs the jurisdiction of all the water in the -- over all the water in the country, as a member of the senate, the senate should do that, the house should do that. the constitution should work. and senator barrasso, it's clearly not working here. navigable waters was used in federal law since about 1846, and until the last couple of years when the e.p.a. asserted differently, everybody always thought they knew what that meant. you could move something on it, you could navigate it, which, of course, the constitution says the federal government has an obligation for interstate commerce, and so debating how much of the missouri river, as senator hoeven brought up, is navigable is a -- is a constitutional debate to have because it's a commerce issue. but suggesting that all the water in the country, senator barrasso, is navigable doesn't

make sense. and you've been one of the leaders in trying to point out for months and years now that this rule will be ruinous to economic activity. mr. barrasso: well, mr. president, i just want to agree and second everything that my colleague from missouri, senator blunt, has had to say. that map of missouri, 99.7% of his state under water according to the e.p.a. we had a hearing and i look at a map of -- i looked at a map of wyoming that the e.p.a. presented. it looked like the entire state of wyoming wasunder water according to the e.p.a. this is an incredible overreach on the part of this administration. this e.p.a. and it's so interesting because the president of the united states always says, if you have better ideas, bring them. if you have better ideas, bring them. well, we did. a number of us cosponsored legislation, bipartisan. we had a number of democrats supporting it as well to allow for congress to establish the principles of what a new e.p.a. rule would look like. didn't say get rid of the whole

thing. it said, there are ways to make it better. ways to make it better. let people on the ground make those decisions. who are the best stewards of the land? i mean, here we are, the presiding officer, former governor of south dakota, knows that the people of his state have much better love of the land of south dakota, just like the former governor of north dakota, who's on the floor, knows the people on the ground there in north dakota, much greater love of the land and respect for the land and desire to protect the land and the water and keep the water clean, just as we do in wyoming, just as they do in missouri. that's what this is about. it's about letting people who have the best interests, the best stewards of the land make those decisions, not, again, a federal grab that is absolutely absurd. and it shows a president of the united states who is acting in a way that i believe is lawless to the point that the courts have now weighed in. the courts have begun to weigh in on the concerns with this

rule that we're going to vote on today and we hope we override the veto of the president. because the courts have said, hey, we need to take a pause. judge erickson of the district of north dakota august 27 issued an injunction that blocked the waters of the u.s. rule in 13 states because he said the rule-making record was, listen to this, inexplicable, arbitrary, devoid of a reasoned process. devoid after reasoned process. yet the president is saying, oh, no, no, no ... they got if all right. the court of appeals put a nationwide stay in october. the court said the sheer breadth of the ripple effects of the rule's definitional changes, they say, counsel strong any favor of maintaining the status quo for the time-being. yet the president of the united states i.g ignores it aumf the congress needs to have a say,

the president need to realize that his actions have negative impact on the economies of our states, our communities and certainly of the entire country. so it is a privilege to be here to join my colleagues from south dakota, north dakota, missouri, and soon from -- my colleague from iowa who will weigh in, supporting the effort to override the president of the united states on this specific piece of legislation. mr. blunt: and, mr. president, we're urging our colleagues to do just exactly that. vote to override, reassert the constitutional authority of the congress and to finish up our -- part of our discussion here this morning. somebody who also understands the importance of the land, what it means to love and appreciate the land, how you can do that closer to the land than you can further away, the senator from iowa, senator ernst. mrs. ernst: thank you. thank you. mr. president?

mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrthesenator from iowa. mrs. ernst: i want to thank my colleagues for their colloquy. the senators from missouri, north dakota, and from wyoming. this is a big deal, not jus jusr those of us from these states but for all americans. we have a choice today. we do have a choice. we can stand with our farmers, with our ranchers, our small businessmen, our manufacturers, our homebuilders, or we can stand with an overreaching federal agency that is committed to expanding its reach to over 97% of our land in iowa. as my colleague from missouri stated, 99.7% of the land in missouri. i know what i'm going to do. i'm going to stand with my constituents. i'm going to stand with ey iowas who have told me time and time

again that their voices weren't heard in this process and that their livelihoods are being threatened. instead of listening to those that will be most impacted by this rule, the e.p.a. thought it would be better to use taxpayer dollars to illegally solicit comments in an effort to falsely justify their power grab. and a little over a week ago, president obama -- president obama in his state of the union address pledged a willingness to work with congress on cutting red tape. and this bipartisan legislation presented a great opportunity to do just that. but, instead, he sided with unelected bureaucrats and an unchecked federal agency. so, apparently, he must have already forgotten what he had said. i would also like to remind

everyone that in november, 11 of my democratic colleagues voted to uphold president obama's rule at the behest of liberal special interests and then immediately they ran for cover by sending a letter warning the e.p.a. they may oppose the rule in the future if it isn't fixed. only in washington could someone reserve the right to do their job at a later time. and now here we are three months later, and this rule isn't fixed. well, i say to those colleagues, today is that later time. join me and help fix this rule today. in closing, we all want clean water. that is not disputable. i have continuously emphasized that the water we drink needs to be cleaning and safe. however, this rule is not about

clean water. it is a regulatory power grab that harms our farmers, our ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, and homebuilders. stand up for them today, not a federal agency gone wrong. i urge all my colleagues to vote to scrap this ill-conceived waters of the united states expansion. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i take this time to urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution that we'll be voting on shortly. support the clean water act. support the clean water rule. i was listening to my colleagues, and first let me say that the basis of the regulation issued by the environmental

protection agency is based upon the clean water act. the clean water act was passed by congress because congress recognized it had a responsibility to the american people for clean waters, for public health reasons, for economic reasons, for reasons of generations that we needed to make sure that we have clean water supplies for drinking, clean water supplies for recreation, clean water supplies for public health and our environment. so the authority to issue this clean water rule comes from an act of congress. now, the administrations have been enforcing the clean water act for many years, and it was fairly well understood the waters of the u.s. -- until there were a couple of supreme court cases. the rabano case was 2006.

decisions are made on a case-by-case basis giving great uncertainty as to what is covered and what is not covered. mr. president, that was a decade ago. congress could have acted diewrk -- during that decade, but congress chose not to act. we could have clarified the law and, therefore, given e.p.a. specific instructions, but instead the uncertainty has remained. and i listen to my colleagues often talking about one of the most demanding problems we have is when we create uncertainty. the short-term extension of tax provisions, short-term c.r., that we don't give predictability. that's one of the things we need to do for farmers, ranchers, developers, and the american people to be able to take full advantage of the opportunities of this country. they need to know the ground rules. that's exactly what this clean water rule does. it sets the parameters of what's

going to be regulated and what's not. and it uses the prior application before the supreme court cases as its guideline. it's not waivin paving new grou. it's basically when the stakeholders and the public thought was the law before the supreme court cases, which added to the uncertainty. now, if you listen to some of my colleagues, you would think, well, they just built -- put pud this regulation out of thin air. they had over 200 meetings, millions of comments were reviewed before the final regulation was issued. so this went through a very deliberative process. and first and foremost, it offers certainty on the application of the law and uses the prior application as the main way of determining what is covered, and it rejects the

case-by-case uncertainty that is under existing law. the rule protects public health, our environment, and our economy. let me just talk a little bit about that. one out of every three americans would be getting drinking water that would not be covered, if we don't get the clean water act in full application. 67% of marylanders. there are millions of acres of wetlands that are at risk here of not being regulated. millions of acres of wetlands. wetlands are critically important for flood protection in many of our states, to recharge groundwater supplies, important to many of our states; to filter pollution -- that's very important in maryland. i can tell you about the chesapeake bay and how the chesapeake bay's environmental future very much depends upon the quality of the upstream waters and the wetlands, and it's at risk if we don't move

forward with the full application of the clean water act. and it's certainly important for wildlife habitat. i hear about my friends talk about the importance of preserving our wildlife. it also deals with our economy and some of my colleagues have talked about that. and certainly i could talk about the wildlife recreation benefit to my state of maryland. it isa-- it is a $1.3 billion industry in my state of maryland. if you have polluted waters, you're going to lose your wildlife recreational industry. my colleagues talk about agriculture. agriculture of course needs clean water. we'd be the first to acknowledge that clean water is very important to agriculture. but there are so many special exceptions, as it relates to the agricultural community, in the clean water rule. so let's be at least straight as to what's covered and what's not covered. many of the examples that have

been given on the floor of the senate are just not covered body oz of water under the -- covered bodies of water under the clean water rule being presented here. so the bottom line is that this rule is not only good nor our environment, it is not only good to make sure we have clean drinking water and we have clean streams and wetlands are protected and water bodies that flow into navigable waters are protected. it is also important for our economy because of the direct impact it would have as well as so many industries that depend upon clean water supplies. and we've gone through so many of them that are very much dependent on clean water supplies in order to produce the products in agriculture that are critically important. for the sake of our environment, for the sake of of our economy, i would urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. let me add one last point.

we're all proud members of the united states senate. we're all proud members of this congress. i would hope that one of the legacies that each one of us want to leave when this term is over, that we've added to the proud record of those who've served before us in protecting our waters, protecting our air, because that has been the legacies of the congresses before us. the clean air act, the clean water act, the chesapeake bay program, great lakes -- many of these programs congress was responsible, and i can tell you on the chesapeake bay, but for the actions of congress, that program would not be what it is today. the funds wouldn't be there. we initiated -- it wasn't even in the administrations' budgets. we did that because we recognized the the chesapeake bay is a natural treasure. so we acted.

so what's going to be the legacy of this congress? is this going to be a congress that moves in the backward direction in protecting our clean water? i hope that is not the legacy of this congress. so i would urge my colleagues to be on the right side of clean water, to be on the right side of what americans expect us to do and protect the water supply of our nation and to vote against this resolution. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators snorns with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the veto message on s.j. res. 22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval for the rules presented by the corps of engineers relating to the

definition of waters of the united states under the federal water spliewtio pollution contr, signed by 1 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the veto message on s.j. res. 22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rules submitted by the corps of engineers and the environmental protection agency relating to the definitions of "waters of the united states" under the federal water pollution control act shall be imrawt to a close? -- shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vot

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 40.

three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. cloture not having been invoked he under the previous order, the veto message on s.j. res. 22 is indefinitely postponed. mr. roberts: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. the senate ithe presiding office senate is not in order. the senate is not in order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. thank you to my colleagues who are joining me here today and on so many other efforts to stand up for women. the 43rd anniversary of the

supreme court's historic ruling on ro roe v. wade is tomorrow. this is an important time to realize how much this decision has meant for women's equality, opportunity and health. why it's so important we continue defending the hard-won gains that women have made and why we need to keep pushing for continued progress. for anyone who supports a woman's constitutional right to make her own health care choices, this has been a tough and trying congress. to be honest, at the beginning of 2015, i gave my republican colleagues the benefit of the doubt. i hoped that in the majority, they might focus more on governing and less on trying to get inbetween a woman and her rights. unfortunately that didn't last long. since this congress began, more than 80 bills have been introduced in congress that would undermine a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own choices about her own body.

the house and senate have voted a total of 20 times to roll back women's health and rights. and that's not all. republicans have pushed budget proposals that would dismantle the affordable care act and slash funding for family planning. and after a summer of using deceptive, highly edited videos to discredit planned parent mood and try to take away -- parenthood and try to take away health services, the house has doubled down by launching a special investigative committee to keep up the political attac attacks. nowhere is that clearer than in texas. where an extreme antiabortion law could force 75% of the clinics statewide to close. if that law stands, 900,000 women of child-bearing age will

have to drive as far as 300 miles round-trip to get the health care that they need. madam president to, to be clear a right means nothing without the ability to exercise that right. and laws like hb-2 in texas driven by efforts it to undermine women's access to care is without question aimed at women and their rights, especially women who can't drive hundreds of miles just to get health care. later this year the supreme court will decide whether to uphold texas extreme antiabortion law and in doing so they will decide whether women can l act on the rights they are afforded in the constitution. this law puts women's lives at risk. it is the biggest threat to women's constitutional rights in over a decade. that's why i'm working with many

of my democratic colleagues to call on the supreme court do uphold roe v. wade and protect a women's right to make her own health care decisions. today as we head into a year that is absolutely critical for women, i've got a message for those who want to turn back the clock. those efforts to undermine women's health care are nothing new. women have been fighting them for generations and we're going to keep fighting back today. we're not going to go back to the days when because women have less control over their own bodies, they have less equality and less opportunity. and as we defend the progress we've made, we will keep pushing for more, from continuing to expand access though that where a woman lives doesn't determine what health care she can get to expanding access to affordable birth control and family planning, to fighting back against domestic violence and sexual assault which disproportionately impacts women. we're going to keep pushing for

progress because we believe strongly that the next generation of women, our daughters and our granddaughters, should have stronger rights and more opportunity, not less and my colleagues in the senate are going to keep working every day to bring women's voices to the senate floor to show when women are stronger, our country is stronger. thank you and let's keep up the fight. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to put into the record the statement from my colleague, senator boxer, from california. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, i rise today to mark the anniversary of roe v. wade, 43 years ago, within the lifetime of most of us here, the supreme court's decision effectively reversed draconian state laws prohibiting abortion and gave women power over their own health care decisions. before roe v. wade, nearly 5,000

american women died every year seeking abortion care that was legally not available to them. that number dramatically dropped after the decision because women were able to get abortion care from trained medical legally out in the open. the court found that a woman's right to access abortion care is a fundamental constitutional right. while as with many constitutional rights not totally unfettered, this decision enabled women to gain control over their own bodies and, in turn, their futures. if the government interfered in other patient-doctor decisions the way that state and federal governments have interfered with women's reproductive rights, there would be a national uproar. why is it different when we talk about a woman's body as opposed to a man's? can you imagine if states passed laws restricting fundamental decisions about a man's medical

care? why is it that women have to defend deeply personal decisions over our own bodies in court and in legislatures? i recognize that there are deeply held beliefs by good people on both sides of this issue which is why the right to choose should be left to the individual woman and her doctor. yet ever since the roe v. wade decision, state and federal lawmakers have attempted to chip away at a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. hundreds of laws have been passed by states to place limitations and roadblocks to a woman's right to choose. restrictions such as mandatory delays, unduly burdensome regulations, and unsign civic 2s are all attempts to undermine roe v. wade. in congress, we continue to see unprecedented attacks on women's

reproductive health. destructive policy riders in spending bills, attacks on providers, and efforts to reduce women's access to health care services. all in the name of prohibiting abortions. these attempts are not based on facts or science. they do not advance any public policy goals in the interest of women, which is why many of us characterize these efforts as part of a deeply antiwomen agenda. moreover, these restrictions disproportionately impact women of color and low-income women. apparently it is not enough to remove funding for reproductive services. the antiwomen agenda includes reducing funding for maternal health programs and services for infants and children. the lawmakers writing these restrictions are not the ones who will have to live with their negative consequences. it's the women across the

country who will have to live with these consequences. and, of course, the legal battles continue. for example, the u.s. supreme court will be hearing arguments later this year on a texas law that severely restricts the ability of a woman to access safe reproductive health care. my colleague from washington touched on the problems and challenges that this texas law imposes. again, this law, which disproportionately impacts low-income women, has already severely affected the ability of women in texas to get the reproductive care they need. the rhetoric around this case, as well as the rhetoric employed by abortion foes, has become increasingly dangerous. leading to attacks on providers, clinics and women seeking care. i hope we can all agree to not return to the pre-roe v. wade

landscape, where women endangered their lives seek reproductive care and thousands died doing so. i urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that women can continue to control their own destinies for the next 43 years and beyond. i yield the floor. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, tomorrow marks the 43rd anniversary of the u.s. supreme court's ruling in roe v. wade, recognizing a woman's constitutional right to liberty and personal autonomy in her decision whether to have an abortion or not. this landmark case not only recognizes those rights, but it

is also responsible for saving countless women across the country for the devastating and deadly outcomes of back-alley abortions. i want to speak to that because i have some personal knowledge here. i was a young state attorney in vermont before roe v. wade. i'll never forget getting a call from the police and went with them to the emergency room at the local hospital. a young woman was there who had nearly died from an unsafe, illegal abortion because she could not legally receive that care from a doctor. i want to speak of that tragic history today because i feel the current effort in many states to roll back roe v. wade by denying women access to doctors could drag women back to those dark and dangerous times. in the years leading up to the

supreme court decision roe v. wade, i was the state's attorney in chintlin county, vermont. abortion was illegal in my state of vermont. despite the state ban many women sought this medical care and some doctors risked their freedom and livelihood by providing women with abortions in local hospitals. these were safe abortions in medical facilities. they saved women's lives. they protected their health. knowing this, i made it clear to the doctors in my county that i would not prosecute any of them for providing this medical attention to women in a medical context. i did, however, prosecute to the full extent of the law others who preyed upon women's fear and desperation by back alley

abortions. of there are 100 senators in this body. i am the only united states senator who has ever prosecuted somebody in an abortion case. and i vividly remember that horrific case. the spring of 1968, and i was called to the hospital to see this young woman, as i mentioned. she had nearly died from hemorrhaging caused by the botched abortion. and i prosecuted the man who arranged for the unsafe and illegal abortion that nearly killed her. after that case and witnessing firsthand the tragic impact that the lack of safe and legal abortion care had on women and families in my state, i talked to the local doctors about challenging vermont's abortion law. a year later a group of women and doctors brought a class action case to overturn the law.

the case was styled as a suit against me as a state prosecutor , but this was a test case against the law and i publicly welcomed the case. even when the state attorney general's office told me that it lacked the resources to devote to any defense in this case, i decided to file supreme court briefs on my own. i filed briefs on my own, but the case was unable to proceed because none of the plaintiffs were seeking abortions at the time. the particular nature of the constitutional claim to abortion, which is by its nature a time-limited claim, made it extremely difficult to bring actionable cases before the courts. later that same year we got another chance. a case where i represented the state and i did the briefs, the case was beachum vs. leahy and

quickly made its way to the supreme vermont supreme court. at that time our state's high court was comprised entirely of republicans, but these five conservative justices understood what we had been arguing all along. the statute's stated purpose was to protect women's health, and yet denied women access to doctors for their medical care with sheer and dangerous hypocrisy. the court's opinion was in question. where is that concern for the health of a pregnant women when she was denied the advice and assistance of her doctors? the court's ruling in beachum assured the women of vermont would no longer be subjected to the horrors of back alley abortions. it is a victory for women's health in vermont, and even though the attorney general at

that time moved for re-argument, i told the court as state's attorney that i had no objection to the ruling and concurred. a year later the u.s. supreme court in roe v. wade held it was now the law of the land. women have a constitutional right to their autonomy and bodily integrity and protects the decision to have an abortion and make that decision with their doctors. i recount this history not just to mark another year of women's rights and safety under roe v. wade and beachum vs. leahy, but also to connect the history to the attack today on women's access to safe and legal abortions that are struggling to take us back to those times. states looking to roll back women's rights have returned to penalizeing doctors to deter them from providing women safe health care.

i find it most appalling that these states are passing these laws claiming they somehow protect women's health. these laws have nothing to do with women's health. they have everything to do with shutting down women's access to safe and legal abortion. and when you deny women access to doctors for medical services, you deny them their constitutional rights. you also deny them their safety. in some cases, their lives. this is a fact that legislatures passing these laws either callously ignored or chose not to hear. i still remember that case as though it was yesterday. i still remember that young woman, and i still remember the history of the person who was performing those illegal abortions. that is why i joined an amicus

brief with 37 other senators, 124 members of the house and the whole women's health versus halstad case currently before the u.s. supreme court. our brief urges the court to overturn this state law, requires doctors to provide abortions and meet onerous restrictions that apply to no other medical procedures. they are extremely unrelated to protected women's health. this law would have the effect of shuttering 75% of all women's health clinics and abortion provider services in the state if fully implemented. it would also shutter all the other services they provide. already parts of the law in effect have had an devastating effect on women's health. the university of texas showed after the law went into effect an estimated 100,000 to 240,000

women tried to end their pregnancies on their own without seeking medical attention. with nowhere to turn, they resort to herbs, illicit drugs. if this law was passed on a pretense, women's health is a travesty, it should be struck down. the supreme court justices can't ignore the impact the state law would have on hundreds of thousands of women in texas and across the nation. when i see these efforts to prevent women's access to safe and legal medical services, i think about all the young women in vermont who have grown up knowing that the constitution protects their liberty, both the u.s. constitution and the vermont constitution. it also recognizes their capability, saying for themselves matters that control their lives and their destiny. i hope they and generations after them never experience otherwise from the supreme

court. i will speak further on this subject another time, madam president, but when i think what that young woman turned to in vermont, i'm glad that our -- our tastes to uphold our constitution right to privacy, beacham versus leahy is on the books. i applaud the very conservative, very republican supreme court justices who wrote it in a unanimous opinion. mr. president, i yield the floor and ask consent my whole statement be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: