Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm.

Mr. SMITH. I respond to the Senator from Nebraska by saying the Senator has it exactly right. There is a life-of-the-mother exception here. I will specifically refer to it in a moment. I would just say that in this process, this partial-birth abortion process, a lot of the medical experts that we have have indicated it is a very rare opportunity when the mother's life would be in danger, but if it is, we take care of that, and I will point that out in a second. However, the issue here is that where you forcibly stop a birth by not allowing the head to be delivered, it would just seem to me, if the mother's life was threatened at that point, you would allow the baby to be born. Whatever happens to the baby after that, if your focus is on the mother, then let the baby be born. I cannot see how keeping the baby from being born and then going through the process that we have already described here helps or enhances the mother's health or life.

Mr. SMITH. I yield the time.

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

Mr. SMITH. This is a nurse named Brenda Pratt Shafer, an RN who assisted Dr. Haskell, I believe, in the clinic, or at least assisted a doctor who performed this. She was so overcome by what she saw that she basically [[Page S 16779]] quit--she quit the clinic where this was performed and then became an advocate against this procedure. What she says is very heartrending, frankly. I will read what she says, and it is up here on the chart. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then she goes on to say, ``I'm Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with 13 years of experience.'' And she goes on to talk about being there. She said she thought this assignment would be no problem for her to work in this clinic because ``I am pro-choice, but I was wrong. I stood at the doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure and what I saw is branded in my mind forever.'' The mother is 6 months pregnant, the baby's heart beat was clearly visible on the ultrasound. The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head inside the uterus. ``The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his feet were kicking.'' Then the doctor put the scissors through the back of the head, the baby's arms jerked out and the doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. The last line, and I yield to the Senator, that the nurse said is particularly compelling: ``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.'' I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma whatever time he may consume.

Mr. SMITH. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. SMITH. We have that and are happy to provide that to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH. Assume she wants to make that decision herself, which you say she has the right to do because it is a female baby, is that all right?

Mr. SMITH. I am willing respond to the Senator from Washington back on my time. She did not answer my question, of course, which is typical in this debate. This is not a medical procedure that deals with the life of a woman. This is a medical procedure--it is a procedure that takes the life of a child. We have had all kinds of testimony here on the Senate floor saying how one can explain to me--I have not had it explained to me yet--why preventing a fetus from being born, literally restraining the fetus from coming into the world, how that helps the life or protects the life of the mother? I am intrigued by the fact that no one will answer that question. Senator Boxer refused to answer it last night on ``Nightline,'' and we see it not answered again today on the floor. I will, at this time, yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

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

Mr. SMITH. I will yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

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

Mr. SMITH. In just a moment I will yield to the Senator from Ohio. I might just ask the Senator from Washington while she is here if she wishes to respond and answer a question on my time, I am happy to have her do it. Does the Senator from Washington support an abortion for the purpose of sex selection? If a woman wanted to have an abortion because she was having a female baby, would the Senator from Washington say that she has a right to do that?

Mr. SMITH. How much time is remaining?

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I yield myself whatever time I may consume. I just want to respond to a couple of points; they are minor points at this point in the debate. But in response to Senator Specter regarding this motion, we received a copy of a motion to commit with 45 days written on it. We came here today on the floor expecting to see that. Then it was changed to 19. It was crossed out. I will accept the Senator from Pennsylvania's word that he changed his mind or overruled his staff. That is fine. But this Senator received information from the Senator's staff that said 45 days, which would have delayed the bill on to the next year. But regardless, in any case, the issue here is still dilatory and it is also the issue of killing the bill. You would have to not have any sense of humor whatsoever to not realize what is going on here. There was a press conference yesterday with Kate Michelman. Question: ``Do you have any read on the breakdown on the Judiciary Committee if it goes to the Judiciary Committee?'' [That is the bill.] ``And does it differ from the Senate as a whole? Do you have a better shot at getting the kind of changes you might want in it?'' Michelman: ``Which is our goal, is to have it end there.'' Question: ``What is the read on the committee makeup?'' Michelman: ``So the committee, the constitution of the Judiciary Committee and where we hope to see the demise of this legislation really is a mirror of the Senate as a whole. There --I think that there are some anti-choice Democrats, some pro-choice Republicans, but I think the committee--I don't remember the whole committee--but I would say it's going to be very close, a very close vote. But it does give us the possibility of really making some very important rational arguments, presenting some expert testimony that we won't have the opportunity to do if this bill comes up today in such a rush, a mad rush to pass this legislation. ``So I think there's a great chance of, again, having a more moderating influence over the House-passed legislation if we can get it to the committee today.'' In other words, it is to kill the bill. That is all there is to it. I respect the right of the Senate to defeat the bill. I respect that. Of course, I do. That is democracy. But I would also like to have Senators step up to the plate and vote yes or no. I am going to again repeat that this Senate will vote on this before we go out for the Thanksgiving recess. We will vote on it on the debt limit, or on Bosnia, or on anything else that comes hear. The next vote that comes through here that I can get this on, it is going on if this thing goes to committee. We are going to vote on it because I want Senators on record either saying yes to this procedure or no to this procedure. We are going to have that vote. I make that commitment. I promise you we will have this vote. So I am hopeful that we are not going to have this thing referred to committee to basically repeat a process that has been going on for weeks and weeks and weeks, months in the House of Representatives. There has been plenty of materials written and plenty of studies, been plenty of hearings--a hearing in the House, markups, committee meetings, and so forth. So that is not the issue. If we were going to use as a prerequisite in the U.S. Senate not voting on anything that has never had a hearing, we could reduce the votes around here dramatically, believe me, probably by as much as 75 percent, because about 75 or 80 percent of our votes are on things we never had hearings on. So when it comes to something like this, one of the most important issues of our time, we want to shuffle it off to committee and try to kill it, because that is exactly what the goal is here as stated by Kate Michelman and other opponents of this bill. Madam President, at this time I yield whatever time the Senator may consume to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, no one else at the moment is interested in time. How much time is remaining?

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on the pending question occur on the motion to commit at 3:30 this afternoon, and that the time divided between now and then be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, at this time, I will say for my colleagues that Senator Specter is en route to the floor. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. SMITH. As I said yesterday, this bill is a straightforward and much needed remedy to a procedure that deserves to be condemned. Senator Dole and I believe, as many of my colleagues do, that this procedure cannot be defended on its merits. But as I understand it, opponents of this bill are arguing that they need a hearing in committee to explore the issues involved here. Senator Dole and I have discussed this. While neither one of us think this is necessary, we do think it may not be a bad idea in that the more one learns about this horrible procedure the harder it is to defend it. So our view is that we are willing to be fair. Let us go ahead and hold a hearing. After that, this bill will return to the calendar in 19 days, and we can consider it again. Senator Dole and I hope to take the bill up again, and I hope that the opponents of this bill will be as fair to us as we are being to them. And, when the time comes, I hope they will allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the merits and not engage in procedural tactics designed to kill this important bill. So with that, Madam President, in behalf of Senator Dole and myself, we are asking our colleagues to support the Specter amendment. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time is remaining? Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Did the minority leader yield?