[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16804-S16806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, so much has already been said about the 
pending legislation, but, prior to the vote, I want to very briefly 
articulate my position and urge my colleagues to express themselves in 
the vote at 3:30 in opposition to the legislation as currently drafted 
and in support of the Specter motion to refer the bill to Judiciary and 
report back in 19 days.
  I say that for a couple of very important reasons. First of all, 
there are extraordinarily complex issues surrounding this medical 
procedure that ought to be explored through the normal hearing process.
  There are medical issues. There is the need to hear from physicians 
and others on the ramifications of a strict ban on late-term abortions. 
This is an emergency medical procedure reserved for cases where the 
life and health of the mother could be endangered or where severe fetal 
abnormalities are a major factor in the decision made by a woman and 
her physician. Whether or not we can delineate very clearly and 
legislatively when a doctor should and should not perform that very 
difficult procedure is something that ought to be explored in ways 
other than those we have employed so far on the Senate floor. So, 
clearly there are medical issues that this debate simply does not allow 
us to discuss and consider adequately prior to making a fundamental 
decision about the legality or justifiability of this procedure in 
various cases.
  Second, there are constitutional issues. As the distinguished Senator 
from California and others have laid out very clearly, this is a 
challenge to the fundamental decision made in Roe versus Wade. 
Decisions relating to whether or not States ought to have the ability 
to restrict late-term abortions in cases where the life and health of 
the mother is endangered--that, to me, is a question that ought to be 
pursued much more carefully, much more deliberately, much more clearly 
than we have done in the debate in the last couple of days.
  Finally, there are legal issues. This bill would criminalize a 
medical procedure for the first time. There ought not be any mistake 
about that. It would be an unprecedented intrusion by Congress into the 
practice of medicine. If a doctor is convinced it is an emergency 
procedure needed to save the life of the mother, he can use that 
affirmative defense only in the context of a criminal prosecution. 
Should doctors be prosecuted for saving a woman's life? I do not think 
so. In an emergency situation, do we want doctors hesitating to perform 
life-saving measures because they fear they will face criminal 
prosecution for doing so? I do not think we ought to put any doctor, or 
any woman, in that position.
  So there clearly are situations here where we owe it to doctors, we 
owe it to mothers, we owe it to women, we owe it to the American 
people, to explore far more carefully than we have so far the far-
reaching implications of this legislation. So, for those reasons if 
nothing else, this legislation ought to be referred to the committee 
for very, very careful consideration.
  Second, Madam President, if the procedure is being abused, then we 
should consider restricting it. But it is unclear that it is being 
abused. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about this 
procedure. We need hearings to clarify whether or not abuse has ever 
been documented and, if so, how best to stop it.
  There have been no hearings in the Senate and only one hearing in the 
House. Without having had the opportunity to listen to one expert, 
every Senator in this Chamber is being asked 

[[Page S 16805]]
to make a decision that I do not think they are prepared to make. I am 
not prepared to make it.
  I doubt that anyone, regardless of whether they have read the record 
or not, is capable of deciding today whether in these extraordinary 
circumstances a woman is going to be protected from life-threatening 
circumstances, a doctor is going to be protected from criminal 
prosecution for saving a life, and the rights of all Americans are 
going to be considered.

  So let us let the experts give us their guidance. Let us make a 
considered decision, not a rush to judgment.
  The motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee is completely 
reasonable. But if the facts show that restrictions are necessary, we 
can base our actions on those facts at that time. Let us take time to 
get the facts and consider the implications.
  All we are asking is for the bill to be considered in the next 19 
days. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask to give the Senate 
19 days to consider this issue more carefully, to bring in the experts, 
to look at each one of these concerns, and make a decision? There is 
nothing wrong--in fact, there is everything right--with delaying our 
decision to make sure we get it right.
  That is what this vote is all about at 3:30. That is why it is so 
important that the majority of Members of this body now support the 
Specter motion. And that is why I strongly support it this afternoon.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and one-half minutes.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for a couple of minutes of leader 
time to respond to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
  I am very pleased with this announcement. This comes as somewhat of a 
surprise. But I think it confirms what we have said--that, obviously, 
having the opportunity to listen more carefully to the experts, to 
consider more carefully the ramifications of something that is 
certainly in everyone's best interests, there is an acknowledgment of 
that on both sides of the aisle.
  I expect now a unanimous vote. I want to thank him, thank the 
majority leader, and thank those, including the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania and the Senator from California, for their work on 
this effort in the last couple of days.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SMITH. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time is remaining?
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate minority leader has minority leader 
time.
  Mr. SMITH. Did the minority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for yielding. 
I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I think what happened as a result 
of this is we avoided a very, very difficult split in this Senate, a 
split that really was not along party lines at all.
  I think this is a wise decision. I think with a hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee, which is really equally divided on this issue, 
which is important, every side would be heard. Physicians who deal with 
this will come forward and testify to this; nurses; families who have 
gone through the tragedy; and then all of us can make a far more 
reasoned judgment.
  I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for his 
extraordinarily courageous leadership on this issue. I think the way he 
handled debate was exemplary. I also want to say to my friend from New 
Hampshire, we are friends, and we were never disagreeable. We just 
disagreed. This is, I think, a good thing for the Senate.
  I thank again the Democratic leader for yielding me this time. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays, if they 
have not been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
commit. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 563 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--7

     Coats
     Cochran
     DeWine
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Helms

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Lugar
       
  So the motion to commit was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, may we have order, please? We need to hear 
the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order in the Chamber? We cannot 

[[Page S 16806]]
  proceed unless we have order in the Chamber.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has recognition.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield to the majority leader.

                          ____________________