Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, February 28. I further ask, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there then be a period of morning business with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, except for the following: Senator Thomas for up to 30 minutes, Senator Daschle or designee for up to 30 minutes, Senator Hagel for 10 minutes, Senator Lieberman for 10 minutes, Senator Reid for 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I would like to draw the Senate's attention to a statement that was made yesterday by an individual heavily involved in the debate on partial-birth abortions. Like most Americans, I oppose partial-birth abortions. These latest facts which have now come to light show that the defense of this indefensible procedure has been built on some outright lies. Yesterday, Wednesday, February 26, in the New York Times, there was a story that ran on page A-11, detailing the admissions of Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. In the course of that article, and in another published in the American Medical News dated March 3, Mr. Fitzsimmons admits to lying, ``through [his] teeth,'' during his defense of partial-birth abortions, when he said that the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged. ``It made me physically ill'' to make these statements, he said. ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.' '' The lies he admitted to focus on three major issues about partial- birth abortion, which is a terrible procedure, a late-term child being pulled out, mostly delivered, turned over, and then the abortion performed. The lies he admitted to focus on three major issues: No. 1, the number of these abortions performed annually in the United States; No. 2, the physical health of the mother and child involved; and, No. 3, the timing of the majority of partial-birth abortions. In an April 10, 1992, news conference announcing his veto of a ban on this procedure, H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the President said, ``This terrible problem affects a few hundred Americans every year.'' And that has been continued to be claimed by a number of others. Yet, Mr. Fitzsimmons' admission is different. In the New York Times he now says the ``procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.'' The Medical News story reports on an investigation done by the Record, a Bergen County, NJ, newspaper, and they stated this: The New Jersey paper reported last fall that physicians at one facility performed an estimated 3,000 abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks of which at least half are by intact D&E [dilation and evacuation]. One of the doctors was quoted as saying, ``We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount . . . most are for elective, not medical reasons; people who did not realize, or didn't care, how far along they were.'' The Washington Post investigation turned up similar findings. I report that and put that forward here to the Senate, as this is an issue that is one of the front 10 Senate bills to face this body. It is a bill I hope we can act on. It is a bill, passed last year by both the House and Senate and vetoed by the President, to ban this late-term- abortion procedure, a procedure that is an abhorrent procedure, opposed by virtually all American people. Now we are finding out from some of the leading people advocating on the other side that they misrepresented--indeed, he said, ``outright lied'' about the number and the timeframe as to when these were performed. I hope we can move forward aggressively and quickly on banning this procedure in America. And I hope the President will reconsider, in light of these factual statements, in light of this information that is coming forward from particular people involved directly in the industry, and that he will sign the bill this year, when we pass this, to ban this horrendous procedure that has continued to be allowed in our civilized country. I commend all Senators to read this article that appeared yesterday in the New York Times, and the article I cited that is going to be appearing in the Medical News. I think it will add new light to this situation, and, hopefully, we can move forward, united, to take away this terrible situation that continues to happen in our country. With that I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendments No. 9 and No. 18 be withdrawn.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate Joint Resolution 18 be placed on the calendar.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Finance Committee Subcommittee on Health Care requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 27, 1997, beginning at 2 p.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Relations of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 1997, at 11 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday, February 27, 1997 to receive testimony on ballistic missile defense programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1998 and the future years defense program.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony concerning the Department of Defense actions pertaining to the Persian Gulf illness.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on February 27, 1997, at 10 a.m. on TV Violence.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 27, 1997, beginning at 11 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. to approve the committee's letter to the Committee on the Budget concerning the committee's budget views and estimates for fiscal year 1998 for Indian programs. The meeting will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Reauthorization of Higher Education Act during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing on S. 208, the HUBZone Act of 1997 on Thursday, February 27, 1997, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in session tomorrow for a period of morning business. As announced earlier, there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate. The Senate will also be in session on Monday, for a period of morning business. However, no rollcall votes will occur on Monday. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume the balanced budget amendment on Tuesday. By order, a vote will occur on passage of the constitutional balanced budget amendment on Tuesday, at 5:15 p.m. For the information of my colleagues, that will be the next rollcall vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on the balanced budget constitutional amendment being considered before us today. In the House of Representatives, I was fortunate enough to have been involved with the passage of this amendment during the 104th Congress and I am honored to be active once again in our efforts to pass this important amendment, and to help secure the American dream for future generations. Now, proposing an amendment to our national charter is not something to be taken lightly. It should be undertaken only for the most important of causes. The Constitution has guaranteed and protected the freedom of the American people. But it can only continue to defend those freedoms if we give it the ability to defend them. An amendment to balance the budget will give our Constitution the strength it needs to continue protecting and defending the freedoms that so many Americans enjoy. A balanced budget promises hope for the future, not fear as the naysayers will tell you. It promises to draw down interest rates, spur new investment decisions and increase our gross domestic product. It promises lower unemployment and more take home pay. And very importantly it promises to help protect our Social Security system. Without it our economic security is threatened. One of the most insidious aspects of our budget deficit is that it amounts to a hidden tax on our income, and on our children's future income. This hidden tax is felt by everyone who has taken a loan to pay for school, buy a car, or purchase a home. Higher interest rates are the taxes levied by a government that has not the courage to live responsibly or even honestly. We must balance the budget and thereby eliminate this hidden tax. The Joint Economic Committee estimates, and you have heard the estimates before, but I think they bear repeating, that yearly savings on an $80,000 home mortgage would amount to $1,272 by balancing the budget and that a student fresh out of school paying back a student loan would save about $180 per year because of the lower interest rates. These are not illusory effects or empty promises; they are rather the assurances of a responsible Government that balances its budget year after year and pays down the debt. But the Keynesian apostles will tell you the economy will collapse in tough times with a balanced budget amendment because it could force Congress to take actions that could exacerbate a recession. They are wrong. Opponents of the amendment before us argue that deficit spending is sometimes necessary to offset the negative effects of a recession, natural disaster, or war and to ease the flow of the business cycle. Now, they would argue that during tough times the Government should deficit spend and borrow against future prosperity. But this is simply the wrong approach. Future prosperity is our children's prosperity, and it should never be leveraged to provide for the consumptive desires of big Government. This amendment would not force Congress to raise taxes during a recession. Our fiscal policy over the last 40 years has hinged on the desire to deficit spend during times of both recession and expansion. So those who claim this amendment would place a straitjacket on our Nation's fiscal policies are correct. It would place a straitjacket on bad fiscal policies by placing emphasis on less Government spending rather than more. Deficit spending exacerbates the Federal debt, crowds out private investment decisions that bolster the economy, and leverages the country out of future economic growth and prosperity. We must balance the budget by cutting taxes, the right taxes, and Government spending, cutting that. So why are the opponents of this measure trying to stop the balanced budget amendment? Because, as a matter of economic policy this amendment means an end to the tax and spend economics that has given us our bloated, centralized Federal Government. What it boils down to is this: This amendment will help us put our fiscal house in order by ending faulty Keynesian policy and freeing up private enterprise and encouraging entrepreneurship. What works in America is the individual creativity and ingenuity of our people. This amendment will give us the tool to help realize that truth. Unfortunately, the fear-mongering attempts by the administration have been focused on transforming this debate from a debate about hope and future prosperity to a debate about an imagined fiscal doomsday. They want to continue following the failed Keynesian policies that have produced the most massive peacetime debt in our Nation's history and they know that this amendment will not allow them to do that. Now, I have a chart of what has happened to our Nation's debt over the course of our country's short history. I think it is pretty interesting and telling. You can tell that in earlier times we would hold a major debt during times of war, such as during the Revolutionary War, when we had a high debt in this country. During the Civil War, we had a high debt. Certainly, during World War I and World War II, we had a high debt in this country. But then when you look at between the times of war, we virtually didn't have any debt at all, or we pushed it down--up until the past 30 years. Instead, during this period of time, we have increased our debt into the massive debt that we have today. Mr. President, there is no reason for this debt that exists today. It has been fiscally irresponsible, morally irresponsible. It is a debt, a burden, a mortgage on America that our children will have to pay off. It is morally wrong of us to do that. This balanced budget amendment will keep this from happening in the future, so that future generations, future children coming into this country, won't be burdened with this tax on them, a tax which they never even voted on. Yesterday morning, when I walked into my office, the national debt was $5,325,298,771,668.63. This morning, when I walked into the office, the national debt was calculated at $5,325,967,417,901.67. Now, that means that, while America worked yesterday, its commitment to paying off the debt increased by almost $670 million. Mr. President, that was actually a cheap day for what we are running here lately. Every day that the Senate debates this issue, the average increase in our debt has been a $694 million. So we actually had a good day yesterday. But it's still a $694 million increase per day. Every day we debate this issue, the debt of our Federal Government grows. Wait, let's talk about it in real terms, per person. Statistics compiled by the Tax Foundation indicate that the median dual-income family pays a little over $15,000 in Federal taxes each year. That means that over 46,000 families will have to work the entire year just to pay for the time we spend debating this amendment today alone. That is money that could have been spent to send a child to college, or to make a downpayment on a home. I want to talk about it in more personal terms, about Bud Hentzen of Wichita, KS, and his family and what they are going to owe for interest on the national debt. Bud is a proud family man. He has 10 children. He also has 30 grandchildren. He did a calculation, and he was a little nervous about this. He is proud of his children and grandchildren, as well. He wants to leave them a better and brighter future. He has worked hard all his life to provide for his children and for their future. He wants his country to be strong for them in the future. While he personally has been responsible for providing for those children and educating them, he looks at his Federal Government and calculates that his 10 children collectively owe over $700,000, and his 30 grandchildren collectively owe over $4.8 million for a total of over $5.5 million just to pay the interest on the debt for the Bud Hentzen family. That is not right. That is not what we are sent here to do. That is certainly not what Bud Hentzen would want us to do. He told me that the only thing he could tell them about the national debt was, ``I am sorry we left you this debt.'' Well, so am I. We ought to be more than sorry--we should be ashamed. This story makes it clear that this debate is about our children and their future. And it is about the immorality of our present system and whether or not we have the courage to change it for the better. Yet, opponents also claim that Congress does not need a balanced budget constitutional amendment in order to achieve balance. It simply needs courage. Well, our recent history proves that this claim is false. This argument is dubious because it admits that opponents of this amendment are motivated by political expediency, not true reform. For should the importance of a balanced budget disappear from the mind of America, the pressure to balance the budget would likely disappear from the minds of Members of Congress and the Senate. We are here to debate an issue of national importance that the march of time cannot and should not erode. This debate is not about the political whim of the day, it is about the economic future of our country. Let us then bind ourselves not by the political culture of the day, but by the resolve to complete the work we have started. The time to act is now. We must not betray our duty to our children and grandchildren, to Bud Hentzen's children and grandchildren, by failing to act on an issue that is so important. It is a moral imperative that we balance the budget and that we further give ourselves the tools we will need. How will future generations judge us if we have not the strength to end this practice of spending our children's inheritance for the sake of big Government? No doubt, when the pages of history have spoken, the debate we are herein engaged will be remembered not by the shrillness of the rhetoric, but by the consequences of our action. May those consequences enrich our Constitution, defend our freedoms, and protect our children. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] joins with me today in offering this bill to address an injustice that has developed out of current law. Under current law, commercial air carriers are prohibited from providing service between Dallas' Love Field and points located outside of Texas or its four surrounding States. This effectively limits travel into and out of this airport to destinations only in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Flights originating from any other State must fly into the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in order to have access to the highly traveled Dallas area. The original intent of the Wright amendment was to protect the then relatively new Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. It is now the third busiest airport in the country and no longer needs to be protected from competition. The amendment distorts the free market and condones anticompetitive law; it also limits travel and forces passengers to pay artificially and unreasonably high airfare. Furthermore, it causes unnecessary delay and inconvenience for passengers, especially the disabled, elderly, and those traveling with small children. Finally, Dallas is the top destination for passengers flying from Wichita and this restriction denies Kansas lower fares. This restriction not based on any standards appropriate for the airline industry. It is not based on mileage flown, size of the city serviced, or noise generated by the aircraft. Instead, it is an outdated restriction based on political boundaries which were in place before the advent of airplanes. As a law that is based on political concerns rather than practical realities, this is a prime example of unwarranted and unnecessary government regulation. It is a prime example of a lack of common sense and it is a prime example of why so many Americans have lost confidence in their Government. The Wright amendment is wrong for America, and I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting this biased situation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] joins with me today in offering this bill to address an injustice that has developed out of current law. Under current law, commercial air carriers are prohibited from providing service between Dallas' Love Field and points located outside of Texas or its four surrounding States. This effectively limits travel into and out of this airport to destinations only in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Flights originating from any other State must fly into the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in order to have access to the highly traveled Dallas area. The original intent of the Wright amendment was to protect the then relatively new Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. It is now the third busiest airport in the country and no longer needs to be protected from competition. The amendment distorts the free market and condones anticompetitive law; it also limits travel and forces passengers to pay artificially and unreasonably high airfare. Furthermore, it causes unnecessary delay and inconvenience for passengers, especially the disabled, elderly, and those traveling with small children. Finally, Dallas is the top destination for passengers flying from Wichita and this restriction denies Kansas lower fares. This restriction not based on any standards appropriate for the airline industry. It is not based on mileage flown, size of the city serviced, or noise generated by the aircraft. Instead, it is an outdated restriction based on political boundaries which were in place before the advent of airplanes. As a law that is based on political concerns rather than practical realities, this is a prime example of unwarranted and unnecessary government regulation. It is a prime example of a lack of common sense and it is a prime example of why so many Americans have lost confidence in their Government. The Wright amendment is wrong for America, and I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting this biased situation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for recognizing me for this opportunity. This is my first opportunity to speak, as well, on the U.S. Senate floor. It is a tremendous honor, privilege, and responsibility to do so. I am delighted to be speaking on the U.S. Senate floor for the first time about balancing the budget and about the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which I feel is basically very important and critical for future generations. Now is the time for us to act and to address not just the financial health of our country, but also the freedom of our children and grandchildren, by passing the balanced budget constitutional amendment. The U.S. Constitution is not only the foundation of our country, but also the standard bearer of our worth as a principled nation. The Constitution has guaranteed and defended the freedom of the American people. The balanced budget amendment is necessary to protect and defend that freedom for future generations. But we must act now to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by giving it the strength it will need to continue protecting and defending the American people. The balanced budget constitutional amendment will protect our families, our children--my children, Abby, Andy, and Liz--and our future from the excesses of a government which, for much of this century, has shown its contempt for the integrity of our people by equivocations and false assurances. Deficit spending must stop, and the budget must be balanced. Right now, as I speak and as we have heard several speakers just before me speak on the U.S. Senate floor, our Federal debt is at an astounding $5.3 trillion, which means that every American--every man, woman, and child--in this country owes today over $19,000 per person. They can't just pay that off and say, ``I am done with my share of the Federal debt.'' It keeps growing and growing. This is wrong. It is immoral and must stop. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment will try, and have tried, to frame this debate in terms of fear. The Keynesian apostles will tell that you the economy will collapse in tough times. But the debate over the balanced budget constitutional amendment should not and must not be a debate framed in fear and falsehoods. It is really a debate about hope and about the future, and ultimately about the American dream. That is why I believe that good Government is not sustained by the politics of cynicism and fear. Quite to the contrary, it is sustained rather by the honest desire of each individual to work for that which he believes to be right and just. The balanced budget is both right and just. It is right because it means an end to the days of reckless Government spending when politicians made pork barrel promises that added too little to the public good and too much to the public debt. The balanced budget amendment is just because it helps our families and protects our children by curbing the practice of tax and spend. It is just because it means an end to the hidden tax that our Government levies every year when it fails to balance its budget and pay down its debt. It is a moral imperative, as some of my colleagues have spoken to, that we balance the budget and that we give ourselves the tools we need to balance the budget. How will future generations judge us if we have not the moral wherewithal to abolish the shameful practice of enslaving our children to the reckless desires of our bloated Federal Government? The system of burdening our children with the full cost of our present consumption is a great crime. We must not hesitate to bring it to an end. One of the most insidious aspects of the budget deficit is that it amounts to a hidden tax on our income and on our children's future income. This hidden tax is felt by everyone who has taken out a loan to pay for school, buy a car, or purchase a home. Higher interest rates are the taxes levied by a government that has not the courage to live responsibly, or even honestly. By balancing the budget, we will pay down the debt and we will free future generations from the shackles of Government debt. But we will do much more than free future generations. A balanced budget will draw down interest rates, spurring new investment decisions, and increasing our gross domestic product. Lower unemployment and higher productivity is not the empty promise of a campaign season, it is the real promise of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Yet, the ivory tower has railed against the balanced budget constitutional amendment because it would mean the end to unlimited Government deficit spending. The effects of a balanced budget promise a brighter future not only for our children and grandchildren but for ourselves as well. By eliminating the hidden tax on our American families, a family could easily save over $1,500 per year. A balanced budget will produce that savings. Estimates by the Joint Economic Committee indicate that yearly savings on an $80,000 home mortgage would be over $1,200, and a student fresh out of school paying back a college loan would save about $180 per year because of the resultant lower interest rates. American families and children are already taxed too much. They are taxed to the max. They, more than anyone else, deserve a break. The balanced budget amendment is right in principle and in practice. In fact, it was Jefferson in 1816 who acknowledged, ``Public debt is the greatest of the dangers to be feared.'' As I said frequently during my campaign for the U.S. Senate, which was just completed and which placed me in this body with the gracious will of the people of Kansas, I believe that we are each placed on this Earth for a reason and for a short season. I believe that the task of our generation is to renew the American culture and to restore responsible Government and the promise of the American dream to the people. We must act now. And in this matter of balancing the budget, we must act now and pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it is with regret that I announce that today I will be voting in opposition to the nomination of William M. Daley to the position of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. While Mr. Daley's character and his distinguished career in public service demonstrate that he has the qualifications for the position to which he has been nominated, these qualifications are necessary, but in and of themselves, not sufficient to merit my vote. My chief concerns regarding Mr. Daley's suitability for the position reflect: First, questions over his willingness and commitment to deal with corporate welfare in the agency; and second, his commitment to engage in the fundamental overhaul of a Department whose management practices and many missions have been called into question by numerous reports by the Department's inspector general and by the General Accounting Office. Corporate welfare has no place in this Government today. Mr. Daley generally agrees we should not have corporate welfare in the Federal Government. However, he disagrees with the appropriate definition of corporate welfare. I asked repeatedly for a specific commitment from him to study whether corporate welfare was being doled out by the agency. He was unwilling to do so, although he made a similar commitment with respect to the issue of foreign trips conducted by the agency. My second concern is the redundancies at the Department of Commerce. According to a recent GAO study the Department of Commerce functions are duplicated 71 times throughout the Federal Government. I discussed this problem with Mr. Daley during the hearing. He stated that he would consider the issue, but made no specific commitments as to when he would address the issue nor in what quantity. He would not commit to report to Congress within 6 months or 1 year on these known redundancies nor would he commit to cutting back the number of redundancies by a minimum of even 10 percent. He did make such specific commitments regarding political appointees, which he agreed to reduce by 100. Because Mr. Daley has refused to make specific commitments to address these problems I do not support his nomination. The next Secretary of Commerce should be someone who recognizes the seriousness of these problems, and who is committed to addressing them.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Australian Planned Parenthood Director Lists Many Reasons for His Partial-Birth Abortions (By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Federal Legislative Director) The medical director for Planned Parenthood of Australia has revealed that he uses the partial-birth abortion procedure as his ``method of choice'' for abortions done after 20 weeks (4\1/2\ months), and that he performs such abortions for a broad variety of social reasons. These revelations by Dr. David Grundmann have provoked a storm of controversy in the state of Queensland, the large state that occupies northeastern Australia. Dr. Grundmann performs abortions at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brisbane, the capital of Queensland. He described his abortion practices in a paper that he presented on August 30, 1994, at a conference at Monash University. In the paper, Dr. Grundmann wrote that ``abortion is an integral part of family planning. Theoretically this means abortion at any stage of gestation. Therefore I favor the availability of abortion beyond 20 weeks.'' Dr. Grundmann wrote that ``dilatation and extraction'' is his ``method of choice'' for performing abortions from 20 weeks on. ``Dilatation and extraction'' (or ``dilation and extraction'') is a term ``coined'' by Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, for the partial-birth abortion procedure, in which a living baby is partly delivered feet first, after which the skull is punctured and the brain removed by suction. Dr. Grundmann himself described the procedure in a television interview as ``essentially a breech delivery where the fetus is delivered feet first and then when the head of the fetus is brought down into the top of the cervical canal, it is decompressed with a puncturing instrument so that it fits through the cervical opening.'' In his 1994 paper, Dr. Grundmann listed several ``advantages'' of this method, such as that it ``can be performed under local and/or twi-light anesthetic'' with ``no need for narcotic analgesics,'' ``can be performed as an ambulatory out-patient procedure,'' and there is ``no-chance of delivering a live fetus.'' Among the ``disadvantages,'' Dr. Grundmann wrote, is ``the aesthetics of the procedure are difficult for some people, and therefore it may be difficult to get staff.'' Dr. Grundmann wrote that in Australia, late second- trimester abortion is available ``in many major hospitals, in most capital cities and large provincial centres'' in cases of ``lethal fetal abnormalities'' or ``gross fetal abnormalities,'' or ``risk to maternal life,'' including ``psychotic/suicidal behavior.'' However, Dr. Grundmann said, his Planned Parenthood clinic also offers the procedure after 20 weeks for women who fall into five additional ``categories'': ``Minor or doubtful fetal abnormalities.'' ``Extreme material immaturity, i.e., girls in the 11 to 14 year age group.'' Women ``who do not know they are pregnant,'' for example, because of amenorrhea [irregular menstruation] ``in women who are very active such as athletes or those under extreme forms of stress, i.e., exam stress, relationship breakup . . .'' ``Intellectually impaired women, who are unaware of basic biology . . .'' ``Major life crises or major changes in socio-economic circumstances. The most common example of this is a planned or wanted pregnancy followed by the sudden death or desertion of the partner who is in all probability the bread winner.'' ``Abortion beyond 20 weeks is unavailable anywhere in Australia, except at our [Planned Parenthood] clinics for the last 5 categories,'' Dr. Grundmann wrote. Under the heading ``What can be done to improve or expand this service?'' Dr. Grundmann wrote, ``Demystify abortion particularly late abortion by appropriate education of the population.'' Election Issue: Dr. Grundmann's paper has been publicized by the Queensland Right to Life Association, and it has produced considerable controversy over the past two years, Dr. David van Gend said in an interview with NRL News. Dr. van Gend, a Brisbane general practitioner, is the secretary of the Queensland chapter of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life (WFDWRHL). Dr. van Gend took Dr. Grundmann's paper to Michael Horan, a member of the Queensland Parliament, who was the ``shadow health minister'' for the National-Liberal Coalition, which at that time was the opposition to the ruling government, which was headed by Premier Wayne Goss of the Labor Party. Beginning in October 1994, Mr. Horan strongly attacked Dr. Grundmann's abortion practices in speeches on the floor of the Parliament. Mr. Horan demanded that the Goss Government take strong action to stop Dr. Grundmann's late abortions, which, he argued, violate Queensland law. ``What will it mean for the conscience of society and its respect for the law, if people are vividly aware of such brutality, such illegality, and then they see their leaders do nothing about it?'' Mr. Horan said in one speech. ``More importantly, what will it mean for all the defenseless babies who, unlike their peers in the hospital nurseries, will never see a human face, never feel a human touch, except that tight grip on their legs and the stab to the head?'' However, for more than a year, the Goss Government refused to take any meaningful action. Leaders of the Coalition promised to take steps against Dr. Grundmann if they were placed in power, and this became a major issue in the February 1996 elections, in which the Goss Government lost power. ``The late-term abortion issue was the clearest issue distinguishing the parties in the February election,'' Dr. van Gend told NRL News. ``The Labor Government had refused to act against Dr. Grundmann, while the National-Liberal Coalition leaders promised to immediately investigate the matter.'' For example, Liberal Party leader Joan Sheldon said that the partial-birth abortions ``are horrific and should be stopped.'' When the Coalition took over the government, Michael Horan became the Minister of Health. Recently, the government has placed an investigation of Dr. Grundmann in the hands of the state Medical Board, which has quasi-judicial investigative punitive powers, Dr. van Gend said. AMA Rebukes Grundmann: The Queensland Branch of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) formed a ``working party'' on late abortion, which interviewed Dr. Grundmann regarding his abortion practices in September 1995. As quoted by Mr. Horan in his speeches in Parliament, during this interview Dr. Grundmann said he has performed the partial-birth abortion procedure as late as 26\1/2\ weeks (past 6 months). ``There is no stage of pregnancy at which I regard the fetus as my patient,'' Dr. Grundmann told the panel. Dr. Grundmann told the panel that just that month he had aborted a baby at 23 weeks for severe cleft palate. When it was pointed out that this condition can be corrected by surgery, Dr. Grundmann replied that this depends on whether the woman wants to put ``her fetus'' through all that surgery. In April 1996, the AMA Queensland Branch issued a formal policy statement that said,``There is a duty of care to the fetus in the late second trimester of pregnancy.'' Therefore, the organization ``opposes late second trimester termination of pregnancy except in the gravest of circumstances,'' these being ``lethal'' or ``severe'' fetal malformation or ``unequivocal risk to the life of the mother where no other medical procedure would suffice to save the mother.'' This was viewed as a rebuke to Dr. Grundmann. Dr. van Gend said that in an interview with Dr. Grundmann, ``I asked him if there was not something cold and premeditated, even grotesque, about setting out to dilate the birth canal to 75% of the fetal skull diameter, in order to ensure the head will lodge in the cervix [the opening to the womb], in order to have leisure to push a puncturing instrument through that head, in order to ensure `no chance of delivering a live fetus'--when by dilating the canal one more centimetre he would enable the baby to slip out and be given to the care of a pediatrician. His response was to the effect that he was there to terminate that pregnancy, not to put the woman's fetus in an incubator.'' Asked by a radio interviewer, ``At what point do you believe the fetus becomes a sentient being?,'' Dr. Grundmann responded, ``When it is born.'' Dr. van Gend told NRL News,``At no stage during the Australian debate over partial-birth abortions has Dr. Grundmann or anyone else tried to pretend that the baby is already dead before the head is punctured. The Baby is wide awake and fully sensitive.'' Dr. van Gend explained that in Queensland, statutory law generally prohibits abortion, but a 1986 court ruling known as ``the McGuire ruling'' provides for exceptions in cases in which there is a ``serious'' danger to a woman's life or health, including mental health. Dr. Grundmann has asserted that all of his abortions fit under these criteria. However, in a 1995 civil case, a Queensland judge ruled, ``I disbelieve Dr. Grundmann's assertions that he honestly and sincerely applied that test before each and every abortion which he performed.'' ``If Dr. Grundmann is ever prosecuted, a jury would be asked to decide whether these late abortions--for these reasons, by this method-- are justified under our law,'' Dr. van Gend said. Queensland law requires that a death certificate be filed for abortions performed after 20 weeks, which Dr. Grundmann wrote is ``certainly an inconvenience.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Michael Campbell, a shrink-wrap operator at Wichita Industries and Services for the Blind [WISB] in Pittsburg, KS. On Tuesday, October 8, 1996, Mr. Campbell will be honored at the Annual Training Conference of the General Council of Industries for the Blind and National Industries for the Blind, as the 1996 Peter J. Salmon National Blind Employee of the Year. Mr. Campbell was diagnosed with diabetes when he was six and diabetic retinopathy when he was 18. However, a series of laser treatments temporarily preserved some of his vision. He worked at various jobs after graduating from high school but diabetes ended his hopes of entering the military. As his vision loss progressed, it became increasingly difficult for Mr. Campbell to make a living. Then, after he was told that laser treatments could no longer be continued, Mr. Campbell, his wife, and their two daughters moved to Pittsburg, KS, to be near family. Over the next 10 years, Mr. Campbell was out of work and took classes at Pittsburg State University, hoping to earn a business degree. Again, complications from diabetes arose, this time in the form of an infection resulting in the amputation of one of his legs. In 1993 he contacted a rehabilitation center and was told about employment opportunities at a new manufacturing plant, WISB, which was opening in Pittsburg. Mr. Campbell was one of the first people to interview for a position at WISB and is still one of WISB's most dedicated employees. In 1994 his other leg showed signs of infection. Rather than risk getting sick again, doctors decided he should have it removed, but Mr. Campbell continues to succeed with unquenchable determination and dignity. He has worked as a machine operator, a box erector, and now a shrink-wrap operator. Thanks to WISB, Mr. Campbell is once again supporting his family. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Michael Campbell, the 1996 National Blind Employee of the Year, a hard working Kansan, and a distinguished American.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to the inclement weather at the airport earlier today, but had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 402.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained because of surgery on my son. The surgery went very well, but I was not able to be in town; therefore, I missed votes. If I had been here, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 332, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 333, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 334, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 335, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 336 and, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 337.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We cannot allow this automatic pay raise to take effect. I want to recognize and thank all the people that have done so much to work hard to move us towards balancing the budget. But this amendment and this issue is not about pay and it is not about the salary, it is about leadership. We must balance the budget, and we must lead by example. If we accept the pay increase, it will be interpreted that we have given up on balancing the budget or, worse yet, that we can afford and we can cut other things but we cannot cut Congress or we cannot deal with ourselves or our own salary. People are going to follow much more our actions over our words, and they are going to see what our deeds say versus what our words act. We have worked very long and hard in this Congress to balance the budget, and it is important to do that. We stay on the glide path to balance the budget over a period of 7 years. Let us stay on that and show the commitment to the American people that we have by this action of leadership. It is an important action for us as Members at this time when we have crushing debt on our Nation that we say to our future and we say to our children we are going to deal with this and we are going to lead by example.