Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. And the other side?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, how much time is available on our side.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH. I move to reconsider the vote. [[Page S 18224]]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would just ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown and I be allowed to do a brief colloquy on a matter that I neglected to mention and then we will vote.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the compromise language that was worked out by the House and Senate conferees with respect to an expansion of our diplomatic presence in Communist Vietnam. I also take vigorous exception to the remarks made by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in opposition to the work done by the conferees. I would say to my friend from Arizona that this language is so reasonable, that there is no way the House is going to back down on it, and I intend to use every means at my disposal to prevent any weakening of the approved language. Moreover, while I respect the Senator from Arizona's right to raise his objections, I must say that I am extremely disappointed that he would make such a statement with respect to this specific provision on Vietnam worked out by the conferees. I would note that, in addition to a majority of the House-Senate conferees, this provision is supported by the majority leader, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the Asian/Pacific Subcommittee, the chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, as well as the House chairman of the International Relations Committee and the National Security Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Moreover, four of our major national veterans organizations--the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and Vietnam Veterans of America-- support this language, in addition to the National League of POW/MIA Families and the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families. In short, there is broad support for this provision, notwithstanding the remarks by the Senator from Arizona. The fact is, Mr. President, that all Congress has asked for from the President in this provision is his assurance that Vietnam is fully cooperating on the President's own established criteria for measuring progress by Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue. Let me repeat, so there can be no misunderstanding: all the Senate and House conferees have asked for is the President's assurance that Vietnam is fully cooperating on the President's own established criteria for measuring progress by Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue. If Vietnam is not fully cooperating, then I would think most of my colleagues would agree that perhaps we need to take a closer look at the administration's policy toward Hanoi and whether it is working. If the President says Hanoi is fully cooperating, then it is full steam ahead with Vietnam relations. I am both confused and amazed that the Senator from Arizona does not like the term fully cooperating. All year long we have heard rhetoric praising Vietnam's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue from the administration and certain Members of the Senate using every adjective in the book--words like ``superb,'' ``splendid,'' ``unprecedented,'' ``undiminished,'' ``great,'' ``outstanding''--that is what we've been told, Mr. President. But now, when we ask the administration to put their assurances in writing, with words that have real meaning, some people up here get nervous and we see the kind of statement we heard earlier. Ironically, I think the remarks made earlier may cause the American people to wonder whether they have been deliberately misled by the President in order to allow the normalization of full taxpayer- funded relations with Communist Vietnam. I find it very troubling that my friend is raising a red flag on such a reasonable provision. Mr. President, should the Senator from Arizona or any other Senator want an extended debate on this issue, I would put them on notice right now that they will get such a debate from this Senator if they try to weaken this language in the coming days. The reason many of the wounds from the Vietnam war have yet to heal has [[Page S 18159]] to do with things like honesty, commitment, and priorities. That is what this debate will be about, because that is what the House and Senate conferees are seeking from the administration with the certification on POW/MIA cooperation in this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the referenced provision on Vietnam be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks in order that my colleagues may see how reasonable a provision it really is. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from Colorado that we support his amendment. We think it is a good amendment and [[Page S 18072]] enhances the bill, and we are pleased to support it. I appreciate the fact that the Senator has offered it. Mr. President, is the pending business the Smith-Dole amendment? Amendment No. 3081

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, to show more precisely why this amendment would gut the bill, let me focus on the legal meaning of the term ``health'' in the abortion context. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that very question in the 1973 decision of Doe versus Bolton. ``Whether the health of the mother requires an abortion is a judgment,'' the Court said, ``to be made in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, the woman's age, and relevant to her well- being.'' That is very clearly stated. In other words, the Court has given the broadest, most liberal terms imaginable to the term ``health'' in the abortion context. As U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John Noonan said, ``. . . it would be a rare case where a doctor willing to perform an abortion would not be convinced that his patient's well-being required the abortion she asked for.'' I am not trying to get into the debate about when a woman's health is at risk. We have had testimony, and we have called for witnesses to come before the committee of the Senate. We have heard testimony in the House. We sought to find people who would come in here, physicians, from anywhere in America, to come in and testify and tell us, the Senate or the House, where there is a case where you would need to do this type of abortion to save the life of a woman. No one testified to that effect. No one. They could not produce one. They could not even produce somebody that had a partial-birth abortion at the hearing we had, although they asked for the hearing. The Senate, in recent votes, has rejected this massive health loophole when it decisively defeated the Mikulski medical necessity amendment with respect to abortion coverage under the federal employees health benefit plan a few weeks ago. The Senate was not fooled then. The Senate will not be fooled now. This Boxer amendment would preserve the status quo, under which barbaric, cruel, and partial-birth abortion procedures are available on demand, a status quo under which a partial-birth abortionist like Dr. Haskell can freely take the lives of babies, like the Down's syndrome little boy that nurse Brenda Shafer saw him destroy. Brenda Shafer, for those that missed the debate, was a nurse who witnessed a partial-birth abortion, a little boy who had Down's syndrome. She was horrified. She called his little face an angelic face. She said, ``I looked into that face and I walked out of that clinic.'' She was a pro-choice woman who believed in abortion, taught her daughters that, but not this type of abortion. She was horrified, as any ordinary, normal person would be. My colleagues, all I am asking, in spite of my own personal feelings about this issue, all I am asking my colleagues to do today, all I am asking them to do is to vote to stop this single [[Page S 18075]] horrible, disgusting type of abortion which is unnecessary. The only circumstance under which such a hideous and cruel procedure could possibly be justified would be in a true, absolute case of self- defense where the doctor had no other way to save the mother's life. That situation--were it ever to happen in a most extreme case anyone can imagine--is provided for under the life-of-the-mother exception amendment that I believe the Senate will adopt. Stabbing an innocent, tiny baby through the skull and sucking her brains out--how can you justify that, in order to safeguard some vaguely defined expansive notion of the mother's health? How does it help the mother's health to do that? If it is hydrocephalic, you can drain off the fluid. In the 1 out of 100 that Dr. Haskell performed that was hydrocephalic--the rest were something also, 80 percent elective. I urge my colleagues, before you vote on this amendment, look at the Supreme Court's decision of health in the context as set forth in Doe versus Bolton. Health involves all factors: physical, emotional, psychological, and the woman's age relevant to her well-being. In light of that definition, a vote for this is a vote for partial- birth abortion on demand because there just is not any reason why you could not have one under that definition. A health exception to this bill's ban on partial-birth abortions is, quite literally, an exception that would consume the rule. In other words, in the abortion context, the word ``health'' in an exception, is a legal term of art, translated into plain English means abortion on demand. I say, if that is not the case, then I ask my colleagues on the other side, including the Senator from California, to simply stand up and say, ``I would not support aborting a child by the partial-birth abortion method.'' If a woman came in and said, ``I am 8 months pregnant, Dr. Haskell. I have a single baby and I do not want it.'' I say she should not have that abortion. If the Senator from California should stand up and say that, we will have made progress. I hope she says it, but do not hold your breath. If she does not say it, we know what the real agenda is-- abortion on demand, not just regular abortion. This kind of abortion, scissors, catheter, something you would not do to your dog or your cat. You know you would not. You know you would not do it. There is no way that you would do it. Why would you do it to a child? Why would you allow it to be done to a child? To be sure, Senator Boxer made a cosmetic attempt to narrow the definition of health by saying, ``Serious adverse health consequences to the woman.'' But the fact remains that under Senator Boxer's amendment, whether there is a serious adverse health consequence to the mother is left solely to the judgment of the attending physician. In other words, the sole medical judgment of the abortionist, the sole medical judgment of Dr. Haskell and his fellow birth abortionists. The interesting point, all this talk of life of the mother, if it is your daughter and she is in that situation, or your wife, would you take her to an abortion clinic if her life was threatened or would you take her to a hospital? These are performed in abortion clinics. That is interesting, is it not? In short, Madam President, this narrowing language does not narrow her health exception one iota. The words ``serious and adverse'' are so clearly subjective, vague and broad as to be utterly meaningless and provides no meaning. Senator Boxer's amendment remains the partial- birth abortion on demand amendment. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues, I plead, plead, plead with my colleagues one time, let us end this one, horrible, disgusting type of abortion. Let us have the courage to do it. These little kids cannot stand up here on the floor of the Senate. They do not have anybody. They cannot stand here. The ones that are killed never get a chance to stand here. They are not going to be the first woman President. They are not going to be the first minority President. They will not be President of anything. Do you know what their sin is? They happen to be in the womb of somebody who does not want them. That is their sin. If they were in the womb of somebody who wanted them after 8\1/2\ months, they would be allowed to be free and be born and live under the Constitution of the United States. That is their sin. That is their sin. We can do better than that in this country. We have more important things to do than that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Let me reiterate that we can play games with words, we can play semantics and obfuscate and distort the issue, and that is exactly what is occurring here, but the truth of the matter is, this is a life- of-the-mother exception. The other side knows it, but that is not the agenda. A perfectly normal pregnancy is not a disorder. That is what the agenda is. That is the agenda. They want the right to have an elective--elective--abortion, whether there is a life-of-the-mother exception or not. That is the agenda. A perfectly normal pregnancy is not a disorder in the sense that some complications arise. It is not an illness, and it is not an injury. It is rather a perfectly normal and natural condition in which millions of women all over the country, all over the world, find themselves in at a given time. Sometimes, however, a woman develops a physical condition or a preexisting condition worsens as a result of the pregnancy and that physical condition poses a grave physical threat to her life. That situation which I just described, where there is a threat to her life, clearly, in the words of the Smith-Dole amendment, is a physical disorder, and it is covered. To put it more simply, Madam President, normal pregnancy is a natural physical order. It is not a disorder, it is an order, a natural physical order, and a life-threatening pregnancy is a physical disorder. In short, our amendment could not be clearer. This is a fully adequate, genuine life-of-the-mother exception. Period. And not only that, it is exactly what Senator Boxer repeatedly--over and over and over and over and over again--on the floor of this Senate prior to the hearing said that she wanted. ``I want the life-of-the-mother exception,'' she said. She said it again in the debate last night. We have it. Then she said we do not have it. First she said we have it, then we do not have it. Let me say what I think is really going on here. I think that those on the other side, the Senator from California and others, know what this amendment is. They know, in fact, that it is a fully adequate, good-faith life-of-the-mother exception. That is what it is. What I suspect that they might be afraid of is that the Senate's adoption of the Smith-Dole amendment will make it much more difficult to achieve the real objective. Let us talk about that real objective. Do you know what the real objective is? To gut this bill. To gut the bill. To kill this bill with a life or health exception, which opens up big doors. The keyword is ``health.'' Everyone really knows in the abortion context what that really means. It means abortion on demand, but we are not talking, I say to my colleagues, about abortion on demand under any circumstances at all in this bill, except the partial- birth abortion. That is the only issue before us today. Nothing else. Whether or not you support, some time between the 5th and 9th month of gestation, the opportunity for any woman to say--let us just use, for example, at 8\1/2\ months gestation, that this is a female child and ``I don't want it. Therefore, because I don't want it, because it is a female, I am going to abort it in the following manner: I'm going to allow a doctor to enhance, induce the delivery of everything except the head.'' So all parts of the child come out of the birth canal with the exception of the head. It is then restrained by the doctor. It is held. Delivery stops because the doctor forcefully stops the child from being born, and then the child is killed by using scissors to the back of the head, with no anesthesia, and a catheter to suck out the child's brains. That is what happens. That is the type of abortion we are talking about here. It is the only type of abortion that we are talking about here. I say to my colleagues, let us not talk about these issues now, such as deformities. We will talk about those later. Let us talk about a healthy female child that somebody decides they do not want only because it is a little girl--no other reason--and they abort it in the manner that I described. That is what the agenda is for those who oppose this amendment. The Senate will consider, later this evening, this killer amendment. It is an amendment that is designed, again, [[Page S 18074]] to gut the bill. You may as well call it the partial-birth abortion- upon-demand amendment. That is what it is. I know my colleagues in the House--good colleagues, who have strong views on this issue, pro-choice views, like Susan Molinari and Patrick Kennedy, a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat--voted for this ban, because they were so incensed, outraged, horrified, and sickened by a process that would take the life of a child in this manner. We have seen testimony, Madam President, of people who aborted children in this manner. This is what we are talking about. Let us not forget the manner, because that is what we are talking about--in this manner: by scissors and a catheter in the back of the neck, because they had Down's syndrome. We had testimony on that. My colleagues will recognize and I am sure many of us know that people with Down's syndrome are very productive people. It is very interesting that some of those same people who were staunch advocates for the Americans With Disabilities Act would not want to protect an innocent child who may be born with a disability. That is the height of hypocrisy. It just does not get any worse than that. When one seriously examines the Boxer amendment, it becomes clear that the ``partial-birth abortion-on-demand amendment'' is what it is. It totally and completely removes all of the protections of the underlying bill from any baby who is not, in the sole judgment of the abortionist, viable. In other words, under the Boxer amendment, any abortionist who wants to use this brutal and inhumane partial-birth abortion procedure to kill an unborn child who is not yet viable--and viability occurs somewhere around 24 weeks--can do so with total impunity. The amendment denies previable babies any protection at all. I have no doubt that Martin Haskell, the Nation's foremost partial-birth abortionist, would be very pleased, indeed, if this amendment were adopted. Do you know why he would be pleased? Because Dr. Haskell, by his own admission in statements--he refused to come and speak to the Senate--said he performed a thousand of these abortions like I just described--a thousand of them. Guess what, Madam President? Twenty percent--in other words, 200--were because the child had some medical deformity--Down's syndrome, or who knows--and 80 percent, or 800, by his testimony, were perfectly normal children, who were aborted selectively and electively by someone other than that child, that is for sure. That is what is going on in America. That is all I am trying to stop. That is all I am trying to do here. I say to my colleagues, as I have said before, and to anybody listening, if you had a pet that you had to euthanize, put to sleep, would you do it by using scissors to insert a hole in the back of the head and suck the brains out of your puppy or your dog without anesthesia? Would you do that? You would be horrified if the local SPCA did that and that was in the paper tomorrow. You would be down there closing the place down, trying to adopt all the pets to get them away from there. That is what you would do. But this goes on. Every day a baby dies like this--in America, at least. We cannot stand here and stop it, with all of the problems we face in America today, such as balancing the budget, keeping the Government from closing down so people do not lose their jobs and are out of work for Christmas, deciding whether or not troops should go to Bosnia? We have to stand here and try to stop something as brutal as this, which should not even be happening? My God. This amendment that the Senator from California has offered allows any partial-birth abortion on any viable baby. If you do not believe that, I would urge Senator Boxer, when she speaks, to say I will make an exception if it is a little girl, I will make an exception if it is healthy, I will make an exception if it has blue eyes, I will make an exception if it is a little boy, I will make an exception--let me hear it. You will not hear it. You will not hear it because that is not the agenda, because we use it in this cloudy term called the ``right to choose.'' We are going to see pictures of happy families from the Senator from California. But one picture that is not going to be in that happy family is that little baby who, yes, may have had Down's syndrome, who could be productive, or maybe a normal little girl. You will not see their picture in the happy family, because they did not get a chance to be a part of that happy family. The post-viability language in the Senator's bill, like her pre- viability language, effectively removes all babies from the protection of this underlying bill. I want my colleagues to understand--and they all know my position on abortion. I believe life begins at conception and that life is sacred and should be protected. But that is not what we are debating today. We are debating one specific type of abortion, an abortion in which labor is induced and the child comes into the birth canal and it is executed with scissors and catheters, brutally, in late-term pregnancies. That is what we are talking about, nothing else. Do not be confused by the debate on something else because that is not what we are talking about. So the Boxer amendment would essentially leave the judgment of whether a post-viability partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health to the totally wide-open discretion of the abortion doctor. That, Madam President, is a prescription--to use a medical term--for abortion on demand. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH. In light of this agreement, Mr. President, the leader has asked me to announce there will be no further votes this evening. Amendment No. 3081 The second part of the Smith-Dole amendment is intended to ensure that in such dire emergency cases that we talked about, a partial-birth abortion could only be performed if it were the only medical procedure available to save the life of the mother. After all, as we all know now, the partial-birth abortion procedure is, first, brutal, and second, inhumane. It cannot possibly be justified except in a case of true self-defense when there is no other way--no other way--for a doctor to save the mother's life. In that case, self-defense is certainly legitimate and, of course, I would be supportive. In sum, Mr. President, both Senator Dole and I believe that this carefully drafted life-of-the-mother exception amendment is fully adequate. You will hear words to the contrary, but it is fully adequate to address the good-faith concerns of those Senators who are not satisfied with the affirmative defense provision in the underlying bill. As I indicated, I am satisfied with it. But others are not, and I respect the fact that others are not and am willing therefore and have been willing, and Senator Dole and others have been willing, to change it to clarify it more, to make sure there is no doubt that we support the life-of-the-mother exception. We are satisfied that our language assures that this exception will not be abused by doctors who are not acting in good faith to save mothers' lives. We feel we have taken care of that in the amendment. Let me be very clear, Mr. President, as clear as I can be. Under the Smith-Dole amendment, no doctor could be convicted of violating the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 unless the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor had performed a partial-birth abortion that was not covered--not covered--by this life-of-the-mother exception. As I indicated, Mr. President, this Smith-Dole life-of-the-mother exception amendment fully satisfies--fully--any legitimate concerns that the affirmative defense provision of H.R. 1833 [[Page S 18073]] does not adequately protect any doctor that might act to protect the life of the mother where no other procedure is available. We have gone the extra mile by doing this, even though--even though--those of us that have put this amendment forth believe that the affirmative defense provision does, in fact, protect such doctors. Mr. President, one of the Senators who has consistently made the argument that the affirmative defense provision does not protect doctors in life-saving situations is my colleague on the other side of the issue, the other side of the management here this evening, Senator Boxer. Last night after Senator Dole and I offered our life-of-the- mother exception amendment, Senator Boxer responded by saying--I want to quote from the Congressional Record. ``Here we have it, an exception now for life of the mother. I think that is progress. I think that is progress, * * *.'' And in the spirit of comity, c-o-m-i-t-y, as opposed to comedy, I welcome Senator Boxer's positive remarks. Senator Dole and I acted in good faith. We were pleased when she responded in good faith. But later in that same debate there was an about-face by the Senator from California. I say this with the utmost respect. There was an abrupt change in tune. Here is what Senator Boxer had to say about the Smith-Dole life- of-the-mother exception amendment in the same debate a few minutes after the statement that I just read: This so-called life-of-the-mother exception that has been offered by my friend from New Hampshire, with Senator Dole, is not--let me repeat--is not in any way a life-of-the-mother exception. I am going to repeat those two lines. First, early in the debate, a quote from Senator Boxer: Here we have it, an exception now for the life of the mother. I think that is progress. I think that is progress. And I welcome those remarks. Then, later in the same debate, the same evening, quoting Senator Boxer: This so-called life-of-the-mother exception that has been offered by my friend from New Hampshire, with Senator Dole, is not--let me repeat--is not in any way a life-of-the-mother exception. So, if there is confusion on the part those who are trying to figure out what Senator Boxer's view is on this, then I certainly understand that confusion. It is rather curious, is it not, that throughout the Senate's debate on this bill, the other side has repeatedly demanded a life-of-the- mother exception--repeatedly demanded a life-of-the-mother exception. Yet, when we offer one, we get praised for it, then the gears are switched and we are denounced. I do not know what a flip-flop is, but if that is not one, I do not know what is. Mr. President, after abruptly changing the position, we then get into rationalization. Then we hear the quote from Senator Boxer: So, yes, if a woman had diabetes or some other disease, there would be an exception. But if, in fact, the birth endangered her life, there would be no exception. That just simply is not true. It simply is not true, and any reasonable person who looks at this amendment will see that it is not true, because it specifically provides for a life-of-the-mother exception. This is bizarre. I mean it really is bizarre. I have been involved in a lot of debates. I have served in the Congress for 11 years--I served in the Senate for 5 and the House for 6--and I have been involved in debates on everything. You name it, I think I have debated it here somewhere. But I do not think I have ever heard a statement that was as quick a turnaround in the same debate as that. And I guess my question is, what is the position of the Senator from California? What is the position of the spokesman on the other side of this issue? Is it that we have a life-of-the-mother exception or we do not? She said both. I am curious what the position is. Maybe we will hear it. I do not know. I said last night if a complication resulting from a pregnancy is not a physical disorder, what is it? I am not a physician. I do not pretend to be a physician. I have never advocated being a physician. I have never said I was a physician, but if a physical disorder, a complication resulting from a pregnancy is not a physical disorder, I do not know what it is. (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)

Mr. SMITH. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the two back-to-back votes tomorrow, that Senator Smith or his designee be recognized.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair. That being the case, at this time I rise in very strong support of this pending amendment, Dole-Smith or Smith-Dole, life-of-the-mother exception amendment. In addition, I also, in the course of my remarks, would be addressing another amendment that the Senate will be considering later this evening, which is the Boxer amendment, Senator Boxer's partial-birth abortion-on-demand amendment. Mr. President, the underlying bill, H.R. 1833, which came to us from the House, bans what I have described as the brutal and inhumane partial-birth-abortion procedure. That is the only abortion procedure that it bans. Testimony to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the only abortion technique, the only abortion method that is banned under 1833. It includes an affirmative defense exception under which a physician would be subject to no penalty if that physician is able to demonstrate that he or she reasonably believed that the mother's life was in danger and no other medical procedure would suffice to save her life. Obviously, Mr. President, a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives believed that the affirmative defense provision of H.R. 1833 fully protected the life of the mother. It was an overwhelming vote in the House, and, of course, as we indicated yesterday, there were pro-choice Republicans, pro-choice Democrats, and pro-life Democrats and Republicans who supported overwhelmingly this legislation. So in spite of the fact that it has been called extremist, the truth of the matter is many people on all sides of the issue supported H.R. 1833 in the House. In addition, as I have noted previously, the American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted unanimously to endorse H.R. 1833 with the affirmative defense provision in it. It is clear then, based on that decision, that the AMA Council also believed that the affirmative defense provision would fully protect any doctor who performed a partial-birth abortion if it was performed to save the mother's life when no other procedure was available to save the mother's life, even though, as we have indicated over and over in the testimony and debate in the Chamber of the Senate, we have not seen any witnesses who have come forth in the hearing who said that the mother's life was threatened. But, nevertheless, to be fair, we have put in this exception. In spite of all that, a number of Senators have argued on the floor and have made the same point to me in private, frankly, that the affirmative defense approach may not give doctors who encounter an exceedingly life-endangering condition of the mother the sufficient latitude that they need. There is no medical evidence in the record produced as a result of the hearing on November 17 before the Judiciary Committee that the partial-birth-abortion procedure is ever necessary to save the life of the mother. As I said, there simply was no testimony. But Senators have expressed discomfort, as I said, in private to me, some wanting to vote for this but felt that they were not comfortable with the affirmative defense approach. In a good-faith effort to accommodate these concerns, last night Senator Dole and I offered a life-of-the-mother exception amendment, and the new language which would be added immediately at the end of subsection (a) of the pending bill reads as follows: This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose. Now, we heard some debate here last night from some as if to say a physical disorder would not cover the complications that may arise from a pregnancy where a partial-birth abortion would be performed. Of course, that would be covered. We are playing semantic games. The intent is to cover this if, in fact, there is a need to protect the life of the mother, which at this point we have never seen any testimony before any of our committees. The language of this Smith-Dole life-of-the-mother exception amendment is very clear. It could not be clearer. The first part of the amendment is designed to make certain that the exception only applies to cases in which the mother's life is genuinely, physically threatened by some physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. I yield myself 18 seconds and the remainder of the time to the Senator from Ohio. I say in response to the Senator from California, if the 800 children who were perfectly normal electively aborted could speak here on the floor today, they would be angry, too.

Mr. SMITH. I also ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations conference report, that there be 60 minutes to be equally divided in the usual form for closing debate on the two amendments.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes equally divided between myself and Senator Boxer for debate on the Dole amendment No. 3081 and the Boxer amendment No. 3082, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the amendments be laid aside, and the votes occur first on the Dole amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on the Boxer amendment on Thursday, December 7, with the time to be determined.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield myself 11 minutes. This is really an interesting debate, and I said last night, Viki Wilson's story is truly a tragedy and my heart goes out to Viki Wilson. I understand the difficulty and horrible situation that she went through. But let me read a paragraph from Viki Wilson's testimony. Viki Wilson, before the Senate Judiciary Committee just recently: My daughter died with dignity inside my womb. She was not stabbed in the back of the head with scissors. No one dragged her out half alive and killed her. We would never have allowed that. My bill, the bill that is on the floor before us, or the amendments, would not have precluded Viki Wilson from that procedure. Viki Wilson herself just admitted she would not have done that procedure. I also want to respond to Senator Boxer on a couple of other points. She made much of the term ``elective procedure,'' as if somebody made it up on the floor when talking about abortion. This is Dr. Harlan Giles' testimony in court where he says as follows: An elective abortion is a procedure carried out for a patient for whom there is no identifiable maternal or fetal indication; that is to say, the patient feels it would be in her best interest to terminate the pregnancy either on social, emotional, financial grounds, et cetera. If there are no medical indications from either a fetal or maternal standpoint, we refer to the termination as elective. So I think that is pretty clear that I did not make it up and that it is accepted. I am also looking at the Standard College Dictionary, published by Harcourt Brace. I do not know whether that is acceptable to the Senator from California or not. But the definition of an abortionist is one who causes abortion. That is pretty clear. I do not know why anybody would object to the term ``abortionist'' when someone being called an abortionist causes an abortion. It seems to be awfully defensive to me. I want to respond to the Senator from Illinois, and I am sorry she is not here on the floor, in regard to her remarks. The Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, a few minutes ago said that this bill is unconstitutional. Even in Roe versus Wade --I want to point out, she said it was unconstitutional, but even in Roe versus Wade, the decision that is thrown around here all the time by the pro-choice people, obviously, the Supreme Court said that the born child, that is the exact terminology, ``the born child'' is a ``person'' entitled to ``the equal protection of the law.'' Let me repeat that, because the Senator from Illinois said this bill is unconstitutional. Even in Roe versus. Wade, the Supreme Court said that the born child is a person entitled to the equal protection of the law. Now, I ask any reasonable person, if there is anybody left on the face of the Earth who is undecided--hopefully somebody may be in the Senate because we are the ones who have to vote; hopefully, I pray, there might be somebody out there listening and trying to make up their mind--how can anyone reasonably say that a child, feet, legs, toes, little soft rear end, torso, shoulders, arms, hands, part of the neck out of the birth canal, born is not a child or a person because the head still remains inside the birth canal? How can anyone say that? What is not child or not person about what the doctor is holding in his hands? Suppose it was reversed, Mr. President, and the child's head came first and he began to breathe, is he then born? You bet he is. You bet he is, because that abortionist cannot do a thing to that child when the head comes out first and that child is breathing. He cannot do anything to it, and my colleagues know that. So what do we do? We reverse the position in the womb, so that the feet come first, with forceps. We reverse the position in the womb. It is a deliberate act, the most horrible act against an innocent child. That is what we are talking about here. That is what we are talking about here. That is not a ``partial birth.'' What is that? That is a child. How can anyone say that does not deserve protection under the Constitution of the United States? With the greatest respect for the Senator from Illinois, I sure do not read that in the Constitution. I sure do not read that in Roe versus Wade. A born child. Now, if the Senator from Illinois, or any other Senator, wants to take the floor and say here and now that that is not a child, 90 percent of [[Page S 18084]] which is in the hands of that person--call him a doctor, an abortionist, call him what you want--and is wiggling, moving, and you can feel the heartbeat, of course, and you can feel the movement of the child--it is wiggling. That is not a child? What is it? My God, what is it? Let us be serious. Of course it is a child. And you deliberately reverse the position in the uterus to make that child come out feet first. A ``chamber of horrors,'' my colleague said. You bet it is. It is a chamber of horrors in the United States of America. And I have to stand here with some of my colleagues and try to stop something that should not be happening. I heard a lot about doctors and OB-GYN's. No one testified in that hearing who performed one of these, and no one--no one--including Viki Wilson and others, and including the young woman that Senator Moseley-Braun spoke about, had a partial-birth abortion, because a partial-birth abortion involves killing a child by inserting a catheter and scissors in the back of the head, in the canal. That is a partial-birth abortion. That is what I am stopping. We are not stopping anything else. I do not know if the Senator from California knows Mary Davenport, OB-GYN, Oakland, CA. She wrote to me on December 1, 1995: Dear Senator Smith: I am writing to you in support of the partial-birth abortion bill. There is no medical indication for this procedure, and the performance of this operation is totally in opposition to 2,000 years of Hippocratic medical ethics. Please do your best to eliminate this procedure. It is not done in any other nation of the world. If you think I solicited that letter, I have 250 more of them from OB-GYN's all over America who are outraged and disgusted and horrified that we would do this to our children. What kind of a country are we? I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I now call for the regular order with respect to the Dole amendment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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