Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, earlier today in Moscow, the world lost a renowned, first-class historian with the highest of morals, Russia lost a key reformer, America lost an ally in the search for the truth about missing American servicemen, and I lost a friend and colleague. I am speaking of retired Russian Gen. Dmitry Volkogonov who passed away earlier today at the age of 67, following a long battle with cancer. I first met General Volkogonov in February, 1992, when Senator John Kerry and I traveled to Moscow as the cochairmen of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. More than any other person in Russia at the time, General Volkogonov was eager to assist the United States in finding answers about missing American servicemen from the cold war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and even World War II. This was a very difficult situation for General Volkogonov because he had to deal with the archives, he had to deal with the KGB, and others who had much information that they would have preferred not to come to the surface. But General Volkogonov bravely pursued it on our behalf. I will never forget sitting in the general's top-floor office in the Russian Duma in February, 1992, listening to the general detail his preliminary work in Soviet archives on the issue of missing Americans. It was a cold, winter afternoon in Moscow that day, but as the meeting progressed, the Sun began to shine. In fact, the sunlight was so strong that we literally had to close the blinds in the office. The sunlight was a good sign that day, Mr. President. I knew we were on the right track to seeking answers now that we had found General Volkogonov. I also knew it would not be long before the Sun began to shine on important information previously tucked away in the darkest corners of the Soviet archives. Following my first trip to Moscow with Senator Kerry, then-President George Bush and President Yeltsin formally established a Joint Commission on the MIA issue between Russian and the United States. The Russian side was headed by General Volkogonov. I was happy that Senator Kerry and I were appointed to serve on that Commission, along with Congressmen Sam Johnson and Pete Peterson, both of whom were POWs in Vietnam. During the last 4 years, it was a privilege to work with General Volkogonov, and I was thankful for the opportunities I had to meet with him here in Washington, as well as in Moscow. Because of the research conducted by General Volkogonov, the United States has received important documentary evidence concerning the fate of unaccounted-for Americans captured or lost in North Vietnam, North Korea, China, and along the borders of the former Soviet Union. It is the kind of information, Mr. President, that never would have seen the light of day had it not been for General Volkogonov. He has turned over documents concerning discussions between Joseph Stalin and Chinese officials in 1952 about how many American POW's would be held back during the Korean war. He has also handed over Russian translations of North Vietnamese politburo sessions where it was indicated that more American POW's were secretly being held in North Vietnam than those eventually released. These documents are both dramatic and disturbing, and it remains for Vietnam, North Korea, and China to fully explain these documents. I will never forget General Volkogonov sitting in my office telling me that these documents were authentic, and that he would do everything in his power to get them and to get access to them on behalf of the American people. And this is a Russian general. When these documents were formally turned over to the United States by Russia, General Volkogonov stated-- It's a delicate issue, but we can't be quiet about it any longer, since it's a humanitarian issue . . . we are talking about men's fates . . . there is no political spin. We want to help the families. Those were the words of General Volkogonov. Mr. President, this was obviously a noble cause for the general. America could not have asked for a more committed ally on this issue. He fully understood our joint quest for the truth, and the importance that Americans attached to this inquiry. He had a way of knowing how we felt, how deeply we felt about this issue, specifically our Nation's veterans and the families of our unaccounted for Americans. When you think of the thousands, if not millions, of people lost in Soviet wars, most of them attributed to Stalin, General Volkogonov took the time to spend looking for these few--compared to the Russian losses--Americans. General Volkogonov always stood on principle. He took action when he knew it was morally correct to do so. He was not afraid, and he was not deterred. Nothing showed those traits more clearly than when he wrote his books on Stalin and Lenin, based on his archival research, and when he admitted he had been wrong in believing that Soviet-style communism could be more ``human and effective'' as he put it. Can you imagine the courage of a man who would write something like that? General Volkogonov was the first Russian general to admit the system had failed--he was the ``black sheep'' as he put it in an interview earlier this year. Mr. President, history will judge General Volkogonov very kindly. And historians will owe him a great debt for years to come. I know both the Russian people and the American people will always be grateful for his enormous contributions. I also hope both our governments understand how important General Volkogonov was in helping to build a bridge of partnership and cooperation between Russia and the United States on these humanitarian issues of missing American servicemen. I am going to miss my friend, Dmitry Volkogonov, and I know the American people join me in sending our condolences to his wife and two daughters. Let me conclude by expressing my heartfelt hope that President Yeltsin and the Russian Duma will find someone--it will be difficult-- but will find someone to follow in the general's footsteps who is equally committed to disclosing information about unaccounted for American POW's and MIA's. I can think of no finer tribute to this great man. And let me just say, it would be appropriate, I think, for us to remember him tonight because he is a part of history and he was a great historian. This is what we should have for the historical record for General Volkogonov. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two obituaries on General Volkogonov from newswire services be printed in the Record, and I also ask unanimous consent that the statement by the American chairman of the United States-Russian joint commission, Ambassador Malcolm Toon, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Boxer amendment.

Mr. SMITH. I further ask unanimous consent that if the Dole amendment No. 3081 is adopted, the Smith amendment No. 3080, as amended, be deemed agreed to without further action or debate.

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I might just respond briefly. It is amazing what you can do with semantics. This language is as clear as it can possibly be. This paragraph is exactly the line--referring back to the paragraph in terms of the issue of whether or not you can have a partial-birth abortion--this paragraph does not apply to a partial- birth abortion. Here is the language: ``That is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice.'' The focus of the remarks of Senator Boxer is physical disorder, a complication resulting from a pregnancy; if it is not a physical disorder, what is it? What is it? Of course it covers that. The Senator knows it. You cannot make it any clearer. We could play word games, but it is very, very clear. Again, the argument is so unbelievable here because, A, they use the line that the partial-birth abortion procedure does not exist, yet they still say we should not have to ban it. If it does not exist, what are they worried about the life-of-the- mother exception for? The truth of the matter is, of course, it exists. There are 1,000 that have been performed by Dr. Haskell alone. There are at least one or two that we know of, roughly, per day, that are still being performed in this country. Some people say that is not very many. Well, that is somewhere between 365 and 700 or 750. How many physicians who might cure cancer are in that group? How many future Presidents are in that group? Future Senators--perhaps from California or New Hampshire? Who knows, maybe even from Minnesota? Who knows who is in that group? It is interesting. We have heard on the floor here that President Clinton will veto this horrible bill as soon as he gets to it, this bill to ban partial-birth abortions that execute innocent children, three-quarters of the way out of the womb, but we heard it proudly stated on the floor that the President is going to veto this bill. I might say to the President of the United States--I know he is not listening tonight, probably--but, if he is, I would like to have the opportunity to have 15 minutes in the Oval Office to discuss this bill with him, because I do not believe, if he looked at the facts, that he would veto it because this process is so horrible that I think we have more important things to do in America than do that. Let me just conclude on this point this evening, again, on the amendment. This amendment is designed to assure that no baby will be subjected to this brutal procedure unless this partial-birth abortion procedure is the only way to save the mother, in other words, in a true case of self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense. In sum, I believe this is very carefully crafted language. It is fully adequate to provide the explicit life-of-the-mother exception to the bill's ban on partial-birth abortions. And those people who are now taking the words and fiddling with the words a little bit, trying to make things out of the words that are not there--do you know what the real issue is here, Mr. President? It is not that they object to this life-of-the-mother exception. No, it is not that. Their real problem is they do not want any exceptions. They do not want any exceptions. They want abortion on demand for whatever reason, mongoloid child, Down's syndrome child, a child with a cleft palate, a female child, a child with blue eyes, whatever. I call on any one of my colleagues who is opposed to me on this issue to come down to the floor and say to me, ``I will not support an abortion, partial-birth or otherwise, because it was a female child.'' Come down to the floor and state that right now. I think you will find the silence is quite deafening, because it is abortion on demand. But, and this is the key, it is abortion on demand in the most horrible way that any abortion could ever be performed. In spite of the fact that all of us have different opinions about when life begins--and everyone knows my position on that--that is not the issue here, my position on when life begins. That is not relevant today. What is relevant today in this discussion is whether or not we have the right, morally or otherwise, to kill an unborn child who is held in the hands of this doctor with the exception of the head. Three or four more inches and that doctor could place that tiny little head into his hand and cradle it. But, instead, he turns that baby over and executes him, with no novocaine, no anesthetic, nothing-- with a pair of scissors and a catheter, a child. That is what this is about. That is why, when this bill came to the floor for a vote, even without the language that I have now crafted for the life-of-the-mother exception--but with language that perhaps was not as clear but did have the life-of-the-mother exception--even with the old language, it passed overwhelmingly in the House. Why? Why did a pro-choice Republican woman like Susan Molinari vote for it? Why did a liberal Democrat like Patrick Kennedy, son of Senator Ted Kennedy, vote for it? Because it is reasonable. Because it is sickening to think of the fact that we would do this to our children here in America. That is the reason. This is not a radical, extremist position. The radicals and the extremists are the people who do this. So, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Boxer's amendment whenever we vote on it, tomorrow or whenever. Because basically it provides the opportunity to drive a truck through this whole process. It is a killer amendment. It might as well be called the partial-birth abortion-on- demand amendment, because it is designed to gut the bill. When you say ``health,'' you say anything. What is health? A sore toenail? A sore knee? I mean, it is a totally gutting amendment. If you want to gut the bill, then you would vote for Boxer. If you want abortion on demand, if you want to abort a perfectly normal, healthy child at 9 months because that child has blue eyes, or is a female, or a male, or whatever, then vote for Boxer. That decision is quite easy. But, again, the health-of-the-mother issue is a phony issue. It is not the [[Page S 18009]] issue at all. Everyone knows it. We have had this debate here before. We have had the votes before. It has always been voted down. So the issue is, if you want to truly protect the life of the mother, then you would vote for the Smith-Dole amendment because that is exactly what it does, it protects the life of the mother. Mr. President, Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, has prepared an outstanding, comprehensive analysis of H.R. 1833. It is entitled ``The Facts On Partial-Birth Abortions.'' For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four members of my staff, Steven R. Valentine, Tom Hodson, Ed Corrigan, and Noah Silverman, be granted the privilege of the floor simultaneously during the consideration of H.R. 1333, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Mr. SMITH. No objection.

Mr. SMITH. Reserving the right to object. Just to clarify, that is amendment No. 3080 and amendment No. 3081 to amendment No. 3080, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some of the debate and comments made on the floor on this issue never cease to amaze me. The distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, a few moments ago on the floor of the Senate, made the statement that the doctors, in the medical testimony that she had seen or heard, said that partial-birth abortion procedures do not exist. If they do not exist, then why is there a problem in banning it? Maybe the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, could come back and explain that to me. If the procedure does not exist, as she says, then there ought not to be any problem banning something that does not exist. Again, these things never cease to amaze me. Also, Senator Boxer of California, a few moments ago again referred to the case of Coreen Costello, who spoke very passionately--and it was a very compelling story--before the committee of her terrible tragedy of losing a child. And, again, Mr. President, let me repeat that Miss Costello's abortion was not a partial-birth abortion. So that is not what we are talking about here today. We are talking about partial-birth abortions, when a child is allowed to come through the birth canal, with the exception of the head, and then is killed with the use of scissors and a catheter. That is what we are talking about--no other type of abortion. I have made it very clear, and I think most of my colleagues know, that I oppose abortion. I believe abortion takes an innocent human life, no matter what stage of life it is in, whether the day after conception or the day of birth. But that is not the issue today. The issue here is partial-birth abortion. Yesterday, we learned on the floor of the Senate, even though information was presented to the contrary, that when the witnesses came to testify before Senator Hatch's Judiciary Committee on this matter, there were no doctors called to testify, or no doctors who testified that had ever performed a partial-birth abortion, and there were no women who ever had one who testified. And we asked Dr. Haskell, who performed a thousand of them, partial-birth abortions, to come, and he refused. No women who had partial-birth abortions came. So it is interesting that Senator Feinstein says that partial-birth abortion procedures do not exist when Dr. Haskell has performed 1,000 of them. Maybe somebody can explain that to me with some logic. But it beats me, Mr. President. You have a doctor who is an abortion doctor, who has performed 1,000 partial-birth abortions, and then the Senator from California comes to the floor and says it does not exist. I will leave that to my colleagues to decide what the facts are. Mr. President, the amendment that I submitted a short time ago, which was [[Page S 18007]] second-degreed by the majority leader, Senator Dole, would make a very explicit exception to the ban on partial-birth abortions for cases in which the life of the mother is in danger. It is very specific. The language could not be clearer. To be perfectly candid about it, Mr. President, I do not believe that this amendment is really necessary. In the first place, there was no medical evidence--no medical evidence--presented at the November 17 Judiciary Committee hearing that the partial-birth abortion procedure, that brutal procedure that has been described a number of times here on the floor, which is banned by this bill, is ever necessary to save the life of the mother. There was no testimony to that effect. In the second place, Mr. President, the bill already includes an affirmative defense for cases in which the doctor reasonably believes the mother's life is in danger. For all intents and purposes, this affirmative defense provision, found in subsection (e) of the bill, is a life-of-the-mother exception. But that did not satisfy a number of my colleagues because they expressed to me their discomfort with the affirmative defense approach and asked me to consider placing a more explicit, more clear, if you will, life-of-the-mother exception in the bill, because I support a life-of-the-mother exception. Even though we cannot find any testimony anywhere in the record that I know of--no one has produced it yet--that it is necessary to do it to save the life of the mother, I am still willing to put that exception there. That is what I have done with the amendment that I have offered. I do not believe it is necessary because the affirmative defense provision provides for that exception, and the amendment now before the Senate would place an explicit life-of-the-mother exception into subsection (a) of the bill. I am more than happy to do that. I am more than happy to clarify for my colleagues. The issue is the life-of-the- mother exception here, even though there was no evidence presented at the hearing that a mother's life was threatened. No one testified to that effect. But I am willing to do that because I think it is fair, and colleagues of mine have expressed the concern that we clarify the language, and that is what I have done. So the language of this life-of-the-mother exception amendment is clear, Mr. President. It states, ``The ban on partial-birth abortions shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is in danger by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, provided that no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.'' That is very clear and explicit. Even though Senator Feinstein says there are no such procedures as partial-birth abortions, it is interesting that they also want an exception to a procedure that does not exist, and they ignore the testimony of a doctor who has performed 1,000 of them. So the first part of the amendment is designed to make it very clear and certain that the exception only applies to cases where the mother's life is genuinely physically threatened by some physical disorder, illness, or injury. Let me also state that, yesterday, when we discussed this process, this brutal procedure, we discussed the fact that this baby--this is a late-term baby, Mr. President, as you know, anywhere from the fifth month of gestation to the ninth--is prevented, physically restrained, from completely exiting the birth canal. The baby is turned in the uterus with forceps so that it comes out feet first, and the baby is then restrained and not allowed to be completely born, if you will, where it is then killed by using an incision with scissors and a catheter which sucks the brains from the child. We heard very compelling testimony at the hearing. We recited it here on the floor. There was testimony of a nurse who had witnessed this and had become so upset by it that she left the clinic because, as she stated it, after looking into the ``angelic face'' of this child that was aborted in this fashion, it was more than she could bear. She was horrified. We have heard a lot about the life of the mother and the eyes of the mother. We looked into this young woman's eyes, too, this mother of two daughters, and she was horrified by what she saw, that this child, contrary to what has been stated again on the floor of the Senate over and over again, this child's life was terminated for one reason--one reason, Mr. President. This child had Down's syndrome, so somebody made a decision to take the life of this child who had Down's syndrome. I remind my colleagues, not that they need reminding, there are a lot of very productive people in our society today who happen to have Down's syndrome. There is a television show involving people with Down's syndrome. The point I made yesterday, I guess we really did not need the Americans with Disabilities Act if we are going to terminate all the people who are going to be born disabled. I guess we could have it for those people who might be injured during the course of their lifetime. If anybody is going to be born disabled or in any way not normal, if you will, we would not need to have any coverage for them because we could just elect to terminate the pregnancy. I was accused--because I was horrified by that--I was accused of playing God. I do not know where that comes from. It would seem to me someone who chooses to terminate a pregnancy simply because a child has Down's syndrome, perhaps they may be playing God. Again, the issue here is 80 percent of the cases--not 20, not 10, not 5, not 1, in 80 percent of the cases--this is an elective procedure for no other reason other than that particular woman decides to have that abortion because--for whatever. ``I do not want a child, I do not want a child with Down's syndrome,'' or whatever. Mr. President, 80 percent of the cases are elective, not some horrible threat to the life or the health of the mother at all. The second part of this amendment is intended to ensure that in such dire emergencies, a partial-birth abortion could only be performed if it were the medical procedure, the only medical procedure available to save the life of the mother. I support that. I have no problem supporting it because I have no problem in understanding the fact that there is not any need, absolutely no medical need that anyone has ever testified to, that says that this is necessary to protect the life of the mother. Let me say why. How would restraining a child from coming through the birth canal, that could come through the birth canal, enhance the life or the health of the mother? I do not understand that. I do not think any reasonable person could understand it. We have had testimony that in the case of the hydrocephalic children, where the head is enlarged with fluids, that that can be drained so that the head can be a normal size and can be allowed to come through the birth canal. So we are talking about a brutal practice here, in 80 percent of the cases elective, and nothing to do with the life of the mother. Be that as it may, I agree with my colleagues. I agree with the Senator from California that a life-of-the-mother exception should be there, even though I disagree with her that there is a threat to the life of the mother. At least I have not seen any evidence to that in terms of testimony, but even that does not mean it cannot happen in the future. I am willing, certainly willing to protect the life of the mother.

Mr. SMITH. I know of no other amendments on my side. I certainly will not be offering any, and I do not intend to go very long. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. The intention is to go to it at about 5:30.

Mr. SMITH. I do not have any information on that at this time. I have no intention to delay the debate, I say to the Senator from California.

Mr. SMITH. Only that Senator Thomas asked me for time to give a tribute to Senator Simpson. That is the only reason.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business until 5:30.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Boxer and I have an informal agreement that after approximately 30 minutes I would yield the floor to her, if the Chair would be kind enough to remind me if I get carried away. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. I at this time would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, first, for his splendid leadership on the issue of protecting the rights of the unborn. He has long been a champion of that issue, long before this Senator came to the Senate. But, also, I thank him for conducting the hearing, doing it in a fair manner, allowing all witnesses on both sides of the issue to be heard. He certainly performed a very valuable service, and I very much owe him a debt of gratitude for that. Mr. President, as I am sure you know, initially I opposed the motion to refer this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing given the full record developed during the House's consideration of the bill. I did not really believe that the Senate needed to have a hearing. The House had extensive hearings on the bill, as you know, and quite a bit of debate. Ultimately, however, I agreed to support the motion to refer the bill to the committee for the hearing because I was convinced that the more my colleagues could learn about this procedure about the brutality and the inhumaneness of it, the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, I believed that the more my colleagues learned, the more I would have an opportunity to get more votes, frankly, in opposition to it. I believe that the bill will garner support, in other words, garner support to outlaw this procedure. Later in my remarks today I am going to comment in some detail about the excellent hearing held by Senator Hatch and the Judiciary Committee on H.R. 1833. That hearing was held on November 17. But first, Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of just why it is that we are here. I want to focus again one more time on exactly what a partial-birth abortion is. The term ``birth'' involved in this procedure is somewhat interesting in the sense that it is called a partial birth, yet it is an abortion. I want to remind my colleagues of why a supermajority, a two-thirds majority, of the House of Representatives voted to pass this bill on November 1--two-thirds. And I would also like to remind my colleagues of why that supermajority encompassed both party and ideological lines on both sides, why it crossed those party [[Page S 17885]] and ideological lines, why it included such people as House minority leader Richard Gephardt, Speaker Gingrich, House minority whip David Bonior, and House majority leader Dick Armey, pro-choice Democrat Patrick Kennedy, and pro-choice Republican Susan Molinari. Mr. President, the sole purpose of H.R. 1833 is to ban a very specific method of abortion that is performed at a time in the gestation period of about 5 months and continues on through the ninth month of gestation. So at any period of time between the fifth and the ninth month of gestation right up until the day of birth, these abortions can be and are performed. These are late-term babies, Mr. President. There really is not any other term for it. You can cover it up and coat it a little bit by using other terms. But they are late-term babies, the youngest of whom--the youngest of whom--at 5 months may have a fighting chance to live on their own outside of the womb, and the older of whom unquestionably, unless there were severe abnormalities or birth defects, could live outside the womb. So this specific abortion method called partial-birth abortion--that is what it is called--it is a straightforward, plain English term for a procedure in which a living baby's body is brought entirely into the birth canal, except for the child's head, which the abortionist holds inside the mother's womb, in other words, keeps the child from coming completely out of the womb, restrains the child, keeping the head inside the womb before he punctures the baby's head with scissors and inserts a suction catheter inside that incision and literally sucks the brains out of the child. It is understandable that the defenders of partial-birth abortions do not like the clearly descriptive and entirely accurate term ``partial- birth abortion.'' I think most people on both sides of the aisle would, if they do not always agree with, certainly respect the words of Pulitzer Prize winning commentator George Will, who points out in an excellent column in the latest issue of Newsweek--he says, ``Pro- abortion extremists object to that name, preferring,'' instead now of partial-birth abortion, ``preferring `intact dilation and evacuation' for the same reason that the pro-abortion movement prefers to be called pro-choice.'' Mr. Will goes on to conclude that what is intact here is a baby. That is what is intact, a baby. So, instead of ``partial-birth abortion,'' we call it ``intact dilation and evacuation,'' the removal of a child from the womb after taking the child's life by inserting a catheter into the back of the head through an incision made by scissors, with no anesthetic, and suck the brains out. As I remind my colleagues today what a partial-birth abortion is, I am going to again use a series of illustrations that depict the partial-birth abortion procedure. I have done this before on the floor. I have been criticized for it. The press has not gotten it right. Some of them have not gotten it right. I was accused of showing photographs of aborted babies. I was accused of displaying a rubber fetus, whatever that is, all kinds of distortions of the record. But what I have here are simple medical diagrams. That is all they are. They simply say what the procedure is and simply show it in pictures. I am going to show it again briefly here to show what we mean by partial-birth abortion because I think we should understand what it is. As I do it, keep in mind that these illustrations have appeared in the American Medical Association's official newspaper, the AMA News. These are not my drawings. They are not drawn by the pro-life movement. They are not drawn by anyone other than they appeared in the AMA News. So they are medically accurate, they are straightforward, they are honest depictions of the partial-birth abortion procedure as described in an 8-page paper written in 1992 by Dr. Martin Haskell who has confessed, admitted, to performing more than 1,000--1,000--of these abortions--1,000 by one doctor, 1,000 abortions between the 5th and 9th month, Mr. President. Dr. Haskell's papers are included in the Judiciary Committee's official record of its November 17 hearing on this bill. In a tape recorded interview with the AMA News on July 5, 1993, Dr. Haskell himself said: The drawings are accurate from a technical point of view. Moreover, during a June 15, 1995 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee, Johns Hopkins University Medical School Prof. Courtland Robinson, testifying on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, was questioned by Congressman Charles Canady about the same illustrations of the partial-birth abortion procedure that I will be showing my colleagues again today. Dr. Robinson agreed that they were technically accurate, commenting ``this is exactly probably what is occurring at the hands of the physicians involved.'' This is a person who testified for the National Abortion Federation. So I think we ought to lay to rest the misrepresentations and the distortions and, frankly, the outright lies that have been perpetrated about me and about what I have presented on this floor. These are medically approved drawings that even the other side says are technically accurate. Dr. Watson Bowes, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the medical school of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, also, in his own right, an internationally recognized expert on fetal and maternal medicine, wrote a letter to Congressman Canady: Having read Dr. Haskell's paper, I can assure you that these drawings accurately represent the procedure described therein. Let us look at the first illustration. With the aid of ultrasound, the abortionist determines the position the baby is in, and after he determines that, he reaches in with the forceps and takes the child by the feet with the forceps and turns it around inside the womb. Keep in mind that this is a late-term living baby. Then, as you can see, Mr. President, the baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal with the aid of the forceps. The baby is turned around so that it is a breech birth, because, obviously, if the head comes out first, it becomes a breathing child. If the feet come out first, it can be aborted, not a living thing. That is what we are told. So the abortionist has to turn the child around. Usually it is the other way around, but now we turn the child around and make a breech birth here. So the baby's leg comes through the cervical opening and into the birth canal. In the third illustration, we see that the abortionist now has the child enough removed from the forceps to be able to take the child in his or her hands from, as you can see in the drawing here, somewhere about midtorso. The abortionist takes ahold of this child, and he or she begins to pull the child all the way out of the womb and into the birth canal, with the exception of the head. Let me just pause here for a moment to reflect on what is happening. If this were a doctor and this were a happy time, a woman wanting this child for whatever reason, this little child would be a patient--a patient, Mr. President. But this child is not a patient here, not in this procedure. There is no choice of his or her own. This child is not a patient. This child is a victim of the abortionist's hands. What could be kind, loving, gentle hands are now the hands of death, because, sadly, the abortionist's purpose we now see coming in the fourth illustration. The horror of this is beyond all imagination, as far as I am concerned, having witnessed the birth of three of my own children, knowing what a beautiful experience that is to see. The abortionist holds the baby by the shoulders--I mean holds the baby by the shoulders--to prevent the child from being born, because the moment the head comes through the birth canal and out into the world, it has the protection of the Constitution of the United States. So this doctor has to be very sure that this little head does not slip out, so he holds the child, he prevents the child from being born, because--and this may be a little girl or a little boy, but let us, just for the sake of argument, call it a little girl--if her head slips out, she is born alive. We cannot let that happen if we are abortionists, can we? That is a problem. The columnist, John Leo, pointed out in his excellent article in the November 20 issue of U.S. News & World Report: [[Page S 17886]] Stopping the head just short of birth is a legal figleaf for a procedure that doesn't look like abortion at all. It sounds like infanticide. So, as I said, Mr. President, the abortionist holds the baby's head with the hand tightly. Obviously, the muscular action here, the contractions move this child from the womb. That is natural. But after the gripping at the shoulders with these hands in an unspeakably brutal act of, I believe, inhumanity, the abortionist jams a pair of scissors into the baby's skull. This is a late-term baby, fully capable of pain and feeling pain, and before he withdraws those scissors, which he opens to separate the wound, he enlarges that hole at the base of the baby's skull and inserts that catheter. As you can see in the last drawing, what was moments before a living baby now hangs limp in the hands of the abortionist. Remember what happens: Catheter in, suck out the contents of the--it is interesting, some of the pro-choice, pro-abortion people call it the contents, the contents of the head, not the brains. You see, it sounds too much like a baby or a child to say ``brains,'' so you say ``contents,'' as if we were talking about a can of beans or something that you empty. Then in order to kill this baby, he uses that suction catheter to suck the baby's brains out--not the contents of some inanimate object--and the dead baby then is removed. I ask my colleagues, if that is not a baby there, what is it? I ask anybody who wants to take the floor today and say to me that you support this procedure, tell me what it is if it is not a baby. And if it is a baby, then we are killing it, are we not? If it is not a baby, what is it? What is it? I ask my colleagues and anyone else who may be listening, if you picked up the newspaper tomorrow morning in your hometown, wherever that may be--Anywhere, U.S.A.--and the front page of that paper said that the local pound decided to kill 100 unwanted puppies and kittens, with no anesthetic, by putting scissors in the back of the neck, by inserting a catheter in the back of the head and sucking the brains out, what would you think? My colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, American people, I think you would be outraged, I think you would be protesting probably in front of the SPCA; you would be calling it horrible, disgraceful, and saying, ``What are we doing? Why would I put my dog to sleep in such an inhumane manner?'' Well, Mr. President, we are doing it to children. We are doing this to children. There you have it. But for the decision of someone else, not the baby, what could have been that beautiful journey in the process of birth, through the birth canal and into the world, which each and every one of us took because nobody got here without being born--there may have been other procedures, I grant, such as a cesarean, where you may have been born, but in most cases through the birth canal. But that beautiful journey from our mother's safe, warm womb in the birth canal and out into the wonderful world. But that is not what happens here. It is perverted by the abortionist into a savage rendezvous with death. That is exactly what it is. It is a rendezvous with death. Do you know what? I have been called an extremist because I have said that, because I have been down here on the floor showing these drawings, pointing out to the American people what this is. I am accused of being an extremist. What is the person who performs this act? What is that person? In a partial-birth abortion, the journey of life, the beautiful process of birth--birth--this is not the average abortion we are talking about. They are bad enough, and everybody knows how I feel about those, but that is not the issue here. This is the issue of late-term abortions, which is why so many pro-choice, clear- thinking, sensible Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, in the House of Representatives voted to stop it, because they were horrified by it. The people who do it are the extremists. That is who the extremists are. This journey of life is interrupted in the ultimate act of violent oppression. The abortionist uses his brute strength, his powerful hands, against an innocent little child, helpless, defenseless child. He stops her journey into life, holds her by the shoulders and jams scissors into her head and removes her brains. Mr. President, this is the United States of America. When I came to the Senate in 1991, I never really dreamed that I would have to take the floor of the Senate and defend the right of a child, perhaps as old as 8\1/2\ to 8\3/4\ months in the uterus, to have to stand here and defend this child. What a sick, horrible perversion. How could this be in this country? How could we possibly stand by in this country and let this happen? But then, again, there is great precedent for this, Mr. President, because we saw it in the Civil War, prior to the Civil War, a couple hundred years prior to the Civil War-- almost 300 years prior to the Civil War--well, 200 anyway. Slavery, which was a brutal act against our fellow mankind. We stood around for a couple hundred years before we stopped that. But here we are. What have we come to as a people? We stand here on the floor day after day, month after month, year after year and talk about the great issues of the day--the deficit, the debt, whether or not we ought to send troops to Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, nominations of Supreme Court Justices, great issues. We have had some great debates here. But what have we come to, to be here on the floor, to have to try to stop something as barbaric as this? It should be stopped. It should not be happening. We should not have to be here. A little baby has a right to be born. In a partial-birth abortion, a doctor who swore to the Hippocratic oath ``to do no harm'' does the worst possible harm to the youngest, most defenseless little patient that he could ever have. No wonder the foremost expert practitioner of this procedure, Dr. Martin Haskell, the man who admittedly performed a thousand of them, did not have the guts to accept Chairman Hatch's invitation to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend his procedure. Mr. President, we spent hours on the floor of the Senate in the early part of November with my colleagues on the other side of this issue demanding a hearing. ``We must have a hearing,'' I heard said. ``We must have these people come in and tell us about this procedure, because we can defend it.'' But Dr. Haskell did not come. In the November 20 issue of the American Medical Association's AMA News, one of Dr. Haskell's fellow abortionists really told us why Dr. Haskell did not have the guts to appear at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Here is what he said, speaking of the procedure, and this is Dr. Warren Hearn, author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures: ``You can't defend it.'' He said, ``You can't defend it.'' That is why he did not show up. You cannot defend it. Thankfully, however, Mr. President, a nurse who once witnessed one of Dr. Haskell's partial-birth abortions, Brenda Pratt Shafer, did have the guts to appear before the Judiciary Committee. This is how she described what she saw: I am Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with 13 years of experience. One day in September, 1993, my nursing agency assigned me to work at a Dayton, Ohio, abortion clinic. I had often expressed pro-choice views to my two teenage daughters, so I thought this assignment would be no problem for me. But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure, and what I saw is branded forever on my mind. The mother was 6 months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was visible, clearly, on the ultrasound. The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down through the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his feet were swinging. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinched, startled reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now, the baby was completely limp. Then, the last line--and I am going to end here and yield the floor to Senator Boxer--the last, most compelling line, ``I never went back to that clinic, but I am still haunted by the face of that little boy-- it was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.'' Brenda Pratt Shafer. [[Page S 17887]] I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I heard during the course of the debate from the Senator from California that we should look in the eyes of a mother. She used her example of a woman who went through this very difficult decision, which I understand. Here we can look into the eyes of a mother, Brenda Shafer. She has two children. She was horrified by what she saw, so horrified that she quit her job at that clinic. We also heard the Senator from California make great mention of the life-of-the-mother exception. Of course, there is a life-of-the-mother exception in the bill, but it is easier to say it is not in there, so we can continue this debate, I guess; so we have something to say. But I guess my question would be something along these lines. If this is a life-of-the-mother threat that Brenda Shafer witnessed, why was it done in an abortion clinic? Why was it not done in a hospital? If the mother's life is under threat, then I would certainly think it would be done in a hospital where we could get the maximum medical attention, not in a clinic, whose specific and only purpose is to perform abortions. So, you see that is another falsehood that is being perpetrated in the debate here. Also, another falsehood is we are somehow part of the radical right because we oppose this procedure. The radical right, we were called. In the House, Patrick Kennedy, son of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, voted for this. So he is in the radical right. I guess I must have missed something in the newspapers somewhere. I missed it, I guess. The minority leader, former majority leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, is a member of the radical right. And so many others who were pro-choice who voted for this bill. You see, the reason they voted for it is because those on the other side are the radical ones. Nurse Shafer was so horrified by this, to her everlasting [[Page S 17899]] credit, she stood up and exposed this for what it is. It is not done to save the life of the mother. We have a life-of-the-mother exception, but this is not done to save the life of the mother. As I said, if it is to save the life of the mother, then get the mother to the hospital, not to an abortion clinic. Nurse Shafer told the Judiciary Committee at its November 17 hearing on this bill that this partial-birth abortion that she witnessed was carried out--this is very important, I say to my colleagues--was carried out because the little boy involved, the one with the angelic face that she describes right here: ``I never went back to that clinic, but I am still haunted by the face of that little boy--it was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.'' Do you know what that little boy was diagnosed with? Do you know why he was aborted? He was diagnosed with Down's syndrome. I have heard a lot today on the floor, from the Senator from California and from the Senator from Illinois and others, that somehow I am in the business of playing God here. When a woman electively, selectively makes a decision to abort a child because it has Down's syndrome, that is the only reason, that is the little angelic face-- because of that, only, that is what we are talking about here in this particular case--is that not playing God? Somehow there is a twisted sense of logic here. I guess I have to wonder where we draw the line. Is it a missing foot, a deformed foot? Does that qualify for that decision? A cleft palate, does that qualify? I am having trouble understanding just where it comes down. Where does it come down? God? Playing God? Who is playing God here? Think about it: Down's syndrome. Do you know, we see Down's syndrome people acting on television everyday. There is a television series involving a young man with Down's syndrome. This little baby boy was killed with a catheter to the back of his head because he had Down's syndrome, in the United States of America. He did nothing else. He did not do anything wrong. He did not commit any crimes. Even killers on death row who are executed are done so more humanely than this little boy died because he had Down's syndrome. Where are we, in China? What is the next election, female child? Is that all right? Male child, twins, cannot handle that? This little baby boy, described by Nurse Shafer, with scissors jammed into the back of his head and the catheter sucking his brains out, his crime was that he had Down's syndrome. This little boy, as nurse Shafer said, was executed by Dr. Haskell because he had Down's syndrome. You know, it is no small irony, Mr. President, if I do say so myself, that we now see the sad spectacle-- and it is a sad spectacle--of some of the Senate's most respected and vigorous liberal advocates of the rights of disabled persons in our society coming to the Senate floor to defend an abortion procedure that often targets disabled children, targets them for destruction for one reason--they have a disability. That is what the Senator from California is talking about. No, I am not playing God, Mr. President. I am not. I am trying to prevent other people from playing God. I am not playing God when I am trying to protect those under the Constitution of the United States any more than I am playing God when I say that a person in this country has the right to the protection of life under the Constitution. Later on in this debate we may see an amendment. Who knows, somebody may offer an amendment, offered by one or more of those so-called disabled rights advocates, seeking to exempt the disabled from this bill who are disabled through no fault of their own, through some genetic abnormality. How can they claim to be defenders of the rights of the disabled and turn around and single out to target, to execute, out of the womb--not in the womb; out of the womb--disabled babies? Disabled babies. I would like to see an opportunity where one of these disabled young Americans today, perhaps a young man or woman with Down's syndrome, or perhaps someone with a cleft palate or perhaps someone with a foot or an arm missing due to some horrible birth defect, I would like to see that person come face to face with some of these U.S. Senators and look them in the eye and say, ``You know what? No, I don't have the same privileges you had in terms of health, but I am trying to make something of myself, I'm trying to contribute to society. And I'm doing it. And thank you, I don't appreciate it when you say you want to take my life because of what I was dealt.'' That is what this debate is about. That is what it is about, Mr. President--make no mistake about it--killing disabled children. One of the primary debating tactics that the defenders of the partial-birth abortions employ is to argue--they argue that this brutal, grizzly procedure is utilized only in the hard cases, only in medical emergencies, only in medical emergencies threatening the life of the mother or in the case of severe congenital abnormalities. But the words, Mr. President, of the only living doctor in America who has publicly--I will strike the word ``confess''--admitted, publicly admitted that he does partial-birth abortions, Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, OH, has given the lie to this deceptive debating tactic. Haskell told the AMA News that the overwhelming majority--this is Haskell himself. This is not Smith, this is not the distinguished Senator from Ohio sitting in the Chair, this is not somebody from the pro-life movement; this is Dr. Haskell himself. And in the AMA News he said the overwhelming majority of the partial-birth abortions that he does are for elective reasons--elective reasons. Haskell performed 1,000 of them. So 800 babies, 800 babies --who knows what those 800 babies may have been--doctors, lawyers, maybe somebody who came up with a cure for cancer, the first woman President, the first black President? Who knows. We will never know. They never had a chance. In the United States of America this is going on. And people come down here on the floor, time and time again, every time we debate this issue, and accuse me and others of playing God. Haskell said, ``Most of my abortions are elective in that 20- to 24-week range, and probably 20 percent, 20 percent, 200 out of the 1,000 are for genetic reasons.'' So let us call it like it is and stop distorting the record and saying things that are not accurate down here. Let us call it like it is--1,000 abortions, partial-birth abortions in the birth canal, everything but the head; 800 elective, 200 for genetic reasons. Haskell later tried to claim he had been misquoted. It turns out, however, that the AMA News tape recorded the interview. They tape recorded it. They prepared a transcript. There was not any misquoting in there. Dr. Haskell was quoted accurately. Like I said earlier, Mr. President, no wonder he did not have the guts to appear before the Judiciary Committee and try to defend his employment of this, because you cannot defend it. They have a bit of a problem with Dr. Haskell's confession that he performs partial-birth abortions on perfectly healthy women with perfectly healthy babies. We did not hear about that from the Senator from California. We did not hear anything about the perfectly healthy babies. We did not hear the Senator from California stand up on the floor and say, ``I support that healthy baby having the right to live and not die at the hands of an abortionist with a catheter and a pair of scissors to the back of the head.'' No, we did not hear about that. They tried to claim that somehow the word ``elective'' includes ``hard cases,'' quote unquote. Well, Mr. President, that is another blatant and deliberate deception. And as we debate this bill, there is litigation going on in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which I am sure the Senator in the chair is aware of, in which Dr. Haskell is challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's new State law banning partial-birth abortions. He is an advocate. I give him credit. He does not see anything wrong with it. During the course of the proceedings in that case, Dr. Harlan Giles has testified about what ``elective'' means. Dr. Giles is an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Medical College of Pennsylvania and Allegheny General Hospital who has a subspecialty in the field of perinatology, which includes maternal fetal medicine, high-risk pregnancy, ultrasound and genetics. During his testimony before the U.S. district court in Ohio, Dr. Giles was [[Page S 17900]] asked to tell the court what an elective abortion is. What is it? Here is what Dr. Giles said: 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 grounds, emotional grounds, financial grounds, etc. If there are no medical indications from either a fetal or maternal standpoint, we refer to the termination as elective. There we have it, Mr. President, 8\1/2\ months, bring the child 80 percent into the world, making sure you bring it out feet first so that it cannot breathe first, and kill it. That is exactly what we are doing. That is what an elective abortion is, not for medical reasons. Once in a while that is done. But that is not what we are talking about here in 80 percent of the cases. To sum up what he said is an elective abortion, it is one that is done on a perfectly healthy mother with a perfectly healthy baby--not always. Therefore, what Dr. Haskell told the AMA News is that 80 percent of partial-birth abortions he does are done on perfectly healthy mothers with perfectly healthy babies. But we did not hear about that today--nothing. We did not hear about that at all. That is the truth. I said during the outset of my remarks, Mr. President, that I would offer my colleagues a detailed assessment of the November 17 hearing that the Judiciary Committee held on this bill. I would like to focus a few remarks on that at the outset of this November 17 hearing. My colleague, Senator Kennedy, described H.R. 1833 as ``extremist legislation at its worst.'' I found that somewhat puzzling that Senator Kennedy would say this because his own son, Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, voted for the bill in the House, in the exact form that it is here before us in the Senate. So I assume from that that he means his son is an extremist, and he may very well feel that way. I do not know. We already mentioned Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Bonior. I guess they are extremists. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy got it wrong, with all due respect to my colleague. The real extremists are those who believe that partial- birth abortions should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. We are talking about in the latter months of pregnancy, the latter days in some cases. Those are the extremists; they think it is legal for Haskell to use this method to kill a little Down's syndrome baby. They are the extremists. That is who the extremists are. Frankly, I initially opposed sending the bill to the committee for a hearing because I did not think it was necessary. But I am glad we had a hearing. As you know, I agreed to have it and allowed the vote to go that way, did not object, because I think that hearing transcript, which the distinguished Senator from Ohio had the opportunity to be a part of, is now available, and I invite my colleagues to review it in detail. Before you vote, read it. It demonstrates just how bankrupt the arguments are on this issue. When this bill first came to the Senate floor on November 7 and 8, we heard the opposition floor manager, Senator Boxer, repeatedly assert that partial-birth abortions are emergency operations. Senator Boxer said it again today, undertaken to save women's lives. During the November 7 floor debate on this bill, for example, Senator Boxer referred to partial-birth abortion as ``an emergency medical procedure that must be performed on certain pregnant women lest families lose that mother forever.'' You heard it again today. During her appearance on ``Nightline'' with me on November 7, she claimed that partial-birth abortions are emergency medical procedures and asserted that H.R. 1833 would ``outlaw an emergency medical procedure.'' The next day, on November 8, Senator Boxer helped lead the charge on the Senate floor for a hearing on H.R. 1833. And when the Senate agreed to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee for the hearing, it was incumbent upon Senator Boxer and allies on the committee to produce testimony to support her repeated assertions that a partial-birth abortion is an emergency medical procedure. Well, they had plenty of time to prove it, but they failed to do so. You were there, Mr. President. The lead witness that the opponents of this bill presented was Dr. Nancy Campbell, who is the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood here in Washington. Far from claiming that any partial-birth abortions are undertaken as emergency procedures to save the lives of women, Dr. Campbell asserted that the vast majority of these procedures are done because of severe fetal malformations. So Dr. Campbell's testimony failed to support Senator Boxer's claims. A partial-birth abortion that is undertaken to destroy a baby because the baby has a disability is not necessarily an emergency abortion done to save the life of a mother. So it is not true what is being said here. At some point in the debate, perhaps tomorrow when we go back to this debate--as the Chair knows, we are going to break at 7:30 and recess the Senate until tomorrow, but at the appropriate time I am going to read into the Record comments in a large number of letters from ob- gyn's who take a very interesting view of this bill. They support the bill, and they say the process of partial-birth abortions is simply not necessary to save the life of a mother. In fact, regarding Dr. Campbell's assertion that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are done because of severe fetal malformations, that is also unsupportable. Campbell cited no academic studies, no medical journal articles, no government or private statistics, nothing--nothing. Just stated it, no support. In fact, her statement to that effect appears only in the transcript of her oral argument, not in her written statement. So as I pointed out earlier, the only reliable testimony that we have on this point comes from the only living doctor who is willing to admit publicly that he does these, Dr. Martin Haskell. Haskell told the American Medical Association News that 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he does are purely for elective reasons. It is entirely reliable because he does them. The man knows what he is talking about. Give him credit for admitting it. He is telling the truth. He is not trying to hide it. Campbell's assertion, on the other hand, is completely unreliable because she does not do partial-birth abortions and cited no other evidence to support her completely unsupported claim. It is interesting that they had Dr. Campbell testify and she does not do partial-birth abortions and the guy who does do it, Haskell, he does not testify. He cannot be here. The only other medical witness on the other side was Dr. Courtland Robinson, who is a medical professor at Johns Hopkins, and during his testimony Robinson managed to contradict both Senator Boxer's claim that partial-birth abortions are done for emergency reasons to save women's lives and Dr. Campbell's assertion that the vast majority of them are done because of severe fetal abnormalities. On the other hand, though, Robinson's testimony supports Dr. Haskell's statement to the AMA News that the overwhelming majority, 80 percent of these abortions are done for purely elective reasons. We have all heard the debate on abortion, about whether or not a woman has the right to choose in the first month, second month, third month. That is a debate that we have had on the Senate floor, and everyone knows where I come from on it. That is not the debate we are having on the Senate floor right now. We are having a debate on the Senate floor now as to whether or not we approve of this procedure that I have earlier described of allowing a child to be brought out through the birth canal with the exception of the head and killed with scissors and a catheter with no anesthetic. And as I said then, would you kill a pet, would you euthanize your pet in that way? Yet we do it to children. During his oral testimony before the committee, Robinson said that ``women present to us for later abortions for a number of reasons. I am a doctor,'' Robinson continued, ``and it is not my place to judge my patient's reasons for ending a pregnancy or to punish her because circumstances prevented her from obtaining an abortion earlier. It is my place to treat my patient, a woman with a pregnancy she feels she cannot continue. [[Page S 17901]] But bear in mind the timeframe we are talking about--5th through 9th month. I again give the doctor credit for his candor. In seeking to justify the use of the brutal and shockingly inhumane partial-birth procedure, Robinson did claim, as Senator Boxer does, that these are emergency medical procedures. Neither did Robinson assert, as did Campbell, that the vast majority of such abortions are undertaken because of severe fetal malformations. No. Dr. Robinson told the truth. He corroborated what Dr. Haskell said--80 percent of the partial-birth abortions are purely elective. So, in conclusion on that point, there are only two witnesses, medical witnesses, that the supporters of partial-birth abortions offered at the 17th of November Judiciary hearing--Campbell and Robinson. Neither one had ever performed a partial-birth abortion, and they flatly contradicted each other about why partial-birth abortions are performed, Campbell claiming the vast majority are because of severe fetal abnormalities, and Robinson said they are done for elective reasons--in other words, on demand. No consistency whatsoever. Now, the next two witnesses that the supporters of partial-birth abortion presented--and this is the interesting part--were two women who had late-term abortions. Interestingly enough, however--and this was not brought out by the Senator from California--neither one of them had a partial-birth abortion. The Senator from Ohio pointed it out when he was speaking, that neither one of the women had a partial-birth abortion. The stories they told before the committee were very compelling and very emotional, and I respect that. I understand it. But they were not partial-birth abortions. The first woman was Miss Coreen Costello of Agoura, CA. She explained to the committee that she sought a late-term abortion because her baby had severe deformities and was not expected to survive. She then described her abortion, and what she described was not a partial-birth abortion. It was not a partial-birth abortion. She said her baby died in the womb before any part of her was removed. She said the baby was not stabbed in the head with scissors. Third, Miss Costello said no part of her brain was missing. Of course not. It was not a partial-birth abortion. The baby died in the womb. That is different. Clearly, what Ms. Costello described is something else. I do not intend, Mr. President, to make light of the agony that Ms. Costello's anguish caused her over her baby's condition and her abortion. The only thing I want to point out is that this debate is about partial-birth abortions. They could not find anybody to testify who had a partial- birth abortion because the life of the mother was threatened. They could not find anybody to do it. That is my point. That is why we are here, to stop a brutal practice. To be honest, Ms. Costello's testimony, although very emotional and very personal, is not relevant to the debate we are having today. The second and last witness who had received a late-term abortion to support partial-birth abortions presented at the November 17 hearing was Viki Wilson. The Senator from Ohio mentioned her. Ms. Wilson, like Ms. Costello, told the committee about her child's condition and why she had decided to have a late-term abortion. Like Ms. Costello, Ms. Wilson proceeded to describe an abortion that very clearly was not a partial-birth abortion. She said her little girl died inside the womb. ``My daughter died with dignity inside my womb,'' Ms. Wilson testified. ``She was not stabbed in the back of the head with scissors, no one dragged her out half alive and killed her. We never would have allowed that.'' That is interesting, she never would have allowed that, but we are allowing it here. It is going on. Maybe she would not, and I give Ms. Wilson credit for saying she would not allow it, but others do and it is happening. One thousand Dr. Haskell performed. The estimates are one or two a day. So not only did Ms. Wilson, like Ms. Costello, not have a partial- birth abortion, she also told the committee she never would have consented to it. Very interesting. Their witness. In summary, Mr. President, the supporters of partial-birth abortions were not able to produce at the November 17 hearing a single doctor who had ever performed a partial-birth abortion. The only doctor who has publicly confessed to performing them refused to appear, and all they did produce was two doctors who had never done partial-birth abortions, but nonetheless speculated, and in the process contradicted one another about why partial-birth abortions are done. In short, the supporters of partial-birth abortion produced not a single doctor who cast any doubt whatsoever on the one who has done them, Dr. Haskell. In his own unrefuted statement to the AMA News, 80 percent of partial-birth abortions he does are purely elective. Nobody refuted it. The supporters of partial-birth abortion were not able to produce as a witness a single woman who had ever undergone a partial-birth abortion. Of course, they are out there, but they did not produce any. Senator Boxer says that partial-birth abortions are an emergency, and yet she could not find anybody to say that. Other supporters of partial-birth abortions talk about how the procedure is done to eliminate children with severe abnormalities, yet they could not produce a witness who had a partial-birth abortion for that reason. There you have it, the supporters of partial-birth abortion demanded a hearing to tell their side of the story, and what did they produce? Two doctors who had not done any and two women who had not had any. There is their hearing. They fought hard for it. They wanted it. They got it. The last witness produced by the supporters of partial-birth abortion at the hearing was a constitutional law professor by the name of Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown University Law Center. Frankly, as a Catholic myself, I am a little surprised that a Catholic university has on its payroll such a highly partisan, indeed enthusiastic, supporter of abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. But to each his own. Predictably, given Professor Seidman's undisguised enthusiasm for a right to an abortion, that is, Roe versus Wade, it is not surprising he confidently predicted that the Court would strike H.R. 1833 if it were to be enacted. The other constitutional law expert on the panel was Dr. Kmiec, who served as Assistant Attorney General of the United States at the Justice Department under President Reagan and who now is a professor of law at Notre Dame. He strongly disagreed with Professor Seidman, and I believe Professor Kmiec made, by far, the better case. Much to my disappointment, though, the Supreme Court in 1992, by a vote of 5 to 4 in the case of Planned Parenthood versus Casey, reaffirmed the basic holding of Roe versus Wade. But the Court did not address in that case, which involved a Pennsylvania State law, a congressional statute like H.R. 1833 that aims to protect babies who have emerged into the birth canal from being brutally killed. Kmiec has no doubt this will be held constitutional if this law passes. A born child is a constitutional person. Why is a little baby whose whole body beneath her head has already entered the birth canal and entered outside the birth canal be less of a person than one whose head remains inside the birth canal? Can someone please answer that question for me? Why is it any less a person? Three inches, three seconds; three inches, three seconds. If you do not stop the baby from being born, in 3 seconds it is out; it is a living child, 3 inches or 4. What is the difference? If somebody can tell me what the difference is, I sure would like to hear it. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Congress is powerless to protect such a child from Dr. Haskell's scissors and catheter? Where in the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say that? The God-given right to life, of which Thomas Jefferson wrote in the magnificent Declaration of Independence, protects the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of each and every child who falls victim to Haskell's scissors and his suction catheter, and our great Constitution which guarantees the right of each and every person to [[Page S 17902]] equal protection under the law protects these defenseless, partially born babies from being attacked by Dr. Haskell and other abortionists like him. The American people know it, and the people sitting in this Chamber now, members of the staff, they know it, my colleagues know it--we all know it. You ought to witness one of these things if you have any doubts. See if you can come away like Nurse Shafer and not be affected. I am going to have a lot more to say on this tomorrow, but I know we have a gentleman's agreement to get this place closed down, because we do not have anybody else to relieve the Chair. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in the 1994 elections, Americans demanded a smaller, smarter Federal Government and a more rational, cost-effective system of regulation. While Americans do not want to compromise on public health protection, they do want an assurance that the public health and environmental protection dollars are being spent wisely. That is why Federal and State Governments must prioritize and target scarce resources toward reducing health threats based on actual or likely risks. This concept makes sense and is supported by public health agencies as well as the scientific community. There are several environmental statutes that, although they were enacted with the best of intentions, have been unworkable in their implementation and enforcement--the Safe Drinking Water Act being one of them. No one disputes the importance of preserving this public health statue. However, there are reforms that need to be made. At the same time, this Congress is not here to gut any environmental laws, as some national environmental organizations would have the public believe--our goal is to make them work more effectively for the benefit of all our citizens. When we talk about the issue of unfunded Federal mandates, the Safe Drinking Water Act is regarded by many State and local governments as the king of unfunded mandates. It is particularly burdensome on economically distressed communities and those with a small or diminishing tax base. While the issue of Federal mandates is not new, the level of concern among municipal governments has risen dramatically in recent years, and with good reason. According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, the number of Federal mandates is increasing while Federal aid to State and local governments for categories other than welfare has been falling on a per capita basis since 1978. Contributing to the mandate burden is the insufficient flexibility in Federal regulations. Last year's Safe Drinking Water bill represented a major improvement over existing law, especially through the elimination of the arbitrary requirement that EPA regulate 25 contaminants every 3 years. This year's proposed modifications, however, fine tune the statue's ability to achieve congressional objectives of providing more flexibility and authority to State and local governments, lessening the burden of Federal mandates and prioritizing resources according to risk--thereby achieving greater public health protection. I support the efforts of Senators Kempthorne and Chafee in reaching an agreement with other committee members on a Safe Drinking Water reform bill. I have been closely involved [[Page S 17762]] in negotiating many of its provisions, including: a more reasonable radon standard that will save New England water suppliers and their ratepayers millions of dollars without compromising public health; and the authorization of five small system water technology centers at academic institutions around the country to assist in developing and testing affordable treatment technologies for small systems. One of these centers I hope will be established at the University of New Hampshire, which has extensive knowledge and experience in water technology. So today, Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is giving approval of these much needed reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill received the unanimous support of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, as well as the coalition representing State and municipal government and public water supply community. I now urge the House to act expeditiously on its reauthorization bill so that our communities can soon receive the regulatory relief and financial assistance they need. Amendment No. 3076 (Purpose: To strike the provisions with respect to comparative risk assessment)

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, true dynasties in sports are hard to come by these days. I am pleased to report, however, that a group of high school athletes and coaches in my State have achieved a special kind of success. The Gilford Middle High School Golden Eagles varsity soccer team won their national record-setting ninth straight State championship on November 6. Senior All-American striker Kris Keenan finished off a brilliant high-school career with the game's only goal. Keenan's goal 10:06 into sudden-death overtime came at the expense of the Coe-Brown Northwood Academy Comanches. The loss was the first of the season for the Comanches, who had a tremendous season in their own right. Winning the championship game extended Gilford's undefeated streak to 100 consecutive games. The team's last loss occurred almost six full seasons ago. With four more wins at the start of the 1996 campaign, the Golden Eagles will hold this national mark, as well. The one constant throughout this amazing string of success has been head coach David Pinkham. Coach Pinkham came to Gilford in 1977, fresh off of his career as an All-American soccer player at Plymouth State College in Plymouth, NH. In 19 seasons, Coach Pinkham has compiled a career record of 281-28- 13. That is good for a .893 career winning percentage. Under his tutelage, the Golden Eagles have gone undefeated the past five seasons, and in seven of the past nine. Gilford's record since the beginning of its first championship season in 1987 is an incredible 152-2-7--.966. Over the duration of his coaching career, Coach Pinkham's teams have scored almost seven and a half goals for every one of their opponents. Before a scoreless tie earlier this year, his teams had not been shut out for 121 consecutive games. This too, may be a national record. Gilford has made the playoffs 17 consecutive years and has advanced to at least the Class M State semifinals for 15 straight seasons. Amazingly, the last time it failed to make it to the final four--1980-- some members of this year's team had not yet been born. The Golden Eagles have earned the respect of their opponents and followers of New Hampshire high school soccer not only for their athletic accomplishments, but also for the way they conduct themselves on the field. Gilford's players work extremely hard for their success and play the game with a tremendous amount of pride and class. At the same time, they show a great deal of respect for their opponents and the game they love. These attributes that produce so many on-field accomplishments are evident in the rest of the players daily lives, as well. The Gilford community is rightfully proud of the dozens of fine young men produced by the Gilford soccer program. Congratulations to Coach Dave Pinkham and the 1995 Class M State Soccer Champion Gilford Golden Eagles. On behalf of the citizens of the State of New Hampshire, I commend your outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is now or never time in the economic history [[Page S 17298]] of our country. At the end of this year, our national debt will exceed $5 trillion. We are adding to the debt at the astonishing rate of $9,600 per second. As I speak, every man, woman, and child in America is more than $18,000 in debt. There is little doubt that a crisis is at hand. The only question remaining is: Will the Congress and the President of the United States step up to the plate and solve the problem? The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 before the Senate today is the congressional answer to our crushing debt problem. It may not be the final answer, it may not be the perfect answer, but it is the only answer put forth thus far. President Clinton has never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, and has made it clear that he never will. In fact, as the ongoing Government shutdown shows, the President would rather close the Federal Government than agree to balance the budget. Clearly, President Clinton does not have his priorities straight. Over the past several weeks, we have heard vicious attacks on the balanced budget bill that is before the Senate today. The Republican balanced budget has been called ``immoral'' and ``irresponsible.'' The American people have been warned of ``devastating'' cuts in spending. To the casual observer, it might appear that the sky is about to fall. The truth, however, is quite different. In fact, the budget before the Senate today is the only chance to save our country from an immoral, irresponsible, and devastating future. Mr. President, if there was an easy solution to our fiscal problems, you can rest assured that Congress would have found it long ago. I do not agree with every provision in the bill before the Senate. If I could pick and choose, there are many priorities that I would change. On the balance, however, I think the product is a good one because it gets the job done. There are no smoke and mirrors, just a solid balanced budget using solid economic assumptions. I would like to commend Senator Domenici for his leadership and hard work on this bill. The bill before the Senate will balance the Federal budget in 7 years. That fact has been certified by the Congressional Budget Office. The budget will save Medicare from bankruptcy, and strengthen and protect the program for future generations. The legislation completely overhauls our broken welfare system. It transfers power away from Washington bureaucrats and returns it to State and local officials. The benefits of a balanced budget far outweigh any temporary pain. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a balanced budget will result in a reduction of long term interest rates of approximately 2 percent. On a typical student loan, that reduction would save American students $8,885. On a typical car loan, it would save the consumer $676. On a 30 year, $80,000 mortgage, lower interest rates would save the homeowner $38,653 over the life of the mortgage. Mr. President, the Senate bill also provides significant tax relief to American families. I know that many of my colleagues have expressed disdain at the idea of cutting taxes. Apparently, they find it offensive to let American taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. I would ask, is it offensive to provide a $500 per child tax credit? Is it offensive to create a tax credit for adoption expenses? Is it offensive to provide a tax credit for interest paid on a student loan? I certainly do not think so? The critics of tax cuts think Members of Congress can spend money better than a family of four in Berlin, NH, or Cleveland, OH, or Atlanta, GA. I would respectfully disagree. The only way to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government is to limit its source of energy. The Federal Government is fueled by taxes. Simply put, the more Uncle Sam collects in taxes, the more Uncle Sam will spend. In 1993, President Clinton raised taxes on the American people by $250 billion. He wanted to expand the Government. In 1995, the Republican Congress proposes to reduce taxes by $245 billion. We want to shrink the Government. Mr. President, I have held a good many town meetings in New Hampshire to talk about the budget, taxes, welfare reform, and Medicare. Often, when I say that Congress intends to balance the budget in 7 years, my constituents ask why we are waiting that long! It is a difficult question to answer. There is no danger in going too far, too fast, as many would have us believe. The real risk to all Americans is the risk that we will not get the job done. I have waited 10 years for the opportunity to vote for a balanced budget. The time for waiting is over and the time for acting is now. This budget is bold; it is real, and it stands alone as the only solution to our Nation's fiscal problems. I urge my colleagues to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, and I urge the President to sign the bill into law. ``midnight in america'' and budget priorities

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate the Senator's inquiry, and I am delighted to respond to it.

Mr. SMITH. I will yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch.

Mr. SMITH. How much time does the Senator need?