Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this is the third time I have taken the opportunity to talk about partial-birth abortion, and each time I have addressed the Members of the Senate, I have tried to cite some of the medical experts in this field. It has been pointed out that, with the exception of one Member of the Senate, we are not doctors. I certainly am not a doctor, but I have tried to cite the experts and have tried to help build a record for anyone who looks at the proceedings to help them understand what the basis for the Senate's ultimate decision will be. I want to continue that practice tonight. It is certainly true, as has been pointed out on the Senate floor, that we did not hold hearings on this bill, but over the last few years, we have had a series of hearings in both the Senate and the House of Representatives on this very issue. We have heard many witnesses. We not only have had the opportunity to hear the witnesses in the Senate and the House in the Judiciary Committees, but we also, of course, have had the opportunity to read journals, read news articles, and other sources of information. Very briefly, what I would like to do tonight is add to some of the citations I have already made and talk about the question that my colleagues have been talking about, and that is whether or not partial- birth abortion is ever medically indicated. I submit to my colleagues the evidence is very clear that partial-birth abortion is not medically indicated. It is never medically indicated. Therefore, a medical exception is simply not needed. It is important to cite what several OB/GYN doctors have said about this horrific procedure. These medical doctors, these experts, will tell us this abortion procedure is brutal, it threatens the life of the mother, and it is just plain unnecessary and inhumane. I will take a few minutes tonight to read to my colleagues some of the testimony from doctors who, for years, have been saying this procedure is, in fact, wrong. In a House of Representatives hearing on September 27, 1995, these doctors testified that partial-birth abortion is not sound science. I ask my colleagues to listen to what several of them had to say. First, Dr. Donna Harrison, then the chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Lakeland Medical Center in Michigan, stated: There is no data or any proposed reliable data to show that this has a lesser incidence of maternal morbility or mortality than the standard prostaglandin termination. Indeed, any surgeon can tell you that when you put a sharp instrument into a body cavity, there is a always the risk of perforating that organ. As an obstetrician, I can testify that this procedure has no medical indication over standard, recognized and tested procedures for terminating a pregnancy. It is a hideous travesty of medical care and should rightly be banned in this country. Dr. Pamela Smith, former Director of Medical Education, Department of OB/GYN, at Mt. Siani Medical Center in Chicago and a member of the Association of Professors of Obstetrics, had this to say: Partial-birth abortion is not a standard for care for anything. In fact, partial-birth abortion is a perversion of a well-known technique . . . used by obstetricians to deliver that is considered to impose a significant risk to maternal health when it is used to deliver a baby alive, suddenly become the ``safe method of choice'' when the goal is to kill the baby? In short, there are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country, which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother. When I described the procedure of partial-birth abortion to physicians who I know to be pro-choice, many of them were horrified to learn that such procedure was even legal. Dr. Nancy Romer, then a Clinical Associate Professor at Wright State University and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics at Miami Valley Hospital in Ohio, said this: There is simply no data anywhere in the medical literature in regard to the safety of this procedure. There is no peer review or accountability of this procedure. There is no medical evidence that the partial-birth abortion procedure is safer or necessary to provide comprehensive health care for women. To add to this, Dr. Lewis Marola, then Chair of the Department of Obstetrics at St. Clare's Hospital in Schenectady, NY, said the following: The conversion of a fetus presenting a vertex to a breech position, as in the partial-birth abortion, is capable of causing an abrubtion of the placenta and amniotic fluid embolism. This is a dangerous and life-threatening situation. Never, ever, in our 30 years of practice, have my colleagues or I seen a situation which warrants the implementation of partial-birth abortion. Personally, I cannot imagine why a practitioner would want to resort to such barbaric techniques when other, recognized methods are available. Dr. Joseph DeCook, once a Fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the following at a press briefing in 1996: Reaching into the uterus to pull the baby feet first through the cervix--the second step [of the procedure]--``is a very dangerous procedure,'' ``frightening'' because of the chance that it might ``tear the uterus.'' This is the ``reason it was abandoned 30 or more years ago.'' There is also the danger of ``perforating the uterus'' with the instrument used to grab the baby's leg. Such a tear or perforation could result in severe hemorrhage, necessitating immediate hysterectomy to save the life of the mother. Dr. Cutis Cook, from the Michigan State College of Human Medicine, said this: To my knowledge, and in my experience, this particular procedure described as partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve the life or future fertility of the mother and may, in fact, threaten her health or well- being or future fertility. In my opinion--and, I think, in the opinion of the medical literature and other specialists in my field--the fact remains that there are choices and there are alternatives to the partial-birth abortion procedure that do not require the use of what has now been demonstrated as a potentially dangerous and completely unstudied and unnecessary procedure. I can go on, but the testimony from medical doctors is very clear. They know in their heart and in their minds that this procedure is not appropriate. It is never necessary. I would like to conclude tonight with what Dr. Joseph DeCook once said. He said that the partial-birth abortion procedure ``sounds like science fiction. It ought to be science fiction.'' I think that says it all. The testimony from these medical doctors is very clear. I have cited other doctors the other two times I have been in the Chamber, and when I come back later, I will cite other doctors. But the evidence is abundantly clear that partial-birth abortion, as my colleague from Pennsylvania has pointed out, is never medically indicated. At no time have the proponents of this procedure been able to come to the floor and cite any specific example where anyone has been able to say that it was truly medically indicated. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last week, I joined several of my colleagues in introducing the National Invasive Species Council Act, which addresses how the Federal Government would coordinate itself in combating aquatic and terrestrial and aquatic invasive species. I was also pleased last week to join my colleagues in introducing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 would reauthorize the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, which Congress first passed in 1990 to better deal with the invasion of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are still plagued by invasive species. In fact, over 160 non-indigenous species have been established in the Great Lakes since the 1800s. The economic damage that invasive species, like the zebra mussels, Eurasion Ruffe, purple loosestrife, sea lamprey, and so many more cause to the Great Lakes is quite high. The zebra mussel has raised the cost of doing business for raw water users in the Great Lakes region by $24 million per year, and the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the economic impact to industries nationwide from zebra mussels over the next 10 years will be $5 billion dollars. The Eurasian Ruffe, another invasive species that fortunately has been found in just a couple ports in the Great Lakes, is estimated to cost the Great Lakes fishery $119 million if it spreads throughout the system. Considering that the value of the Great Lakes fishery is approximately $4 billion per year, I believe that Congress needs to take the next important steps to minimize the risk of new invasions into the Great Lakes. NAISA would improve the Great Lakes aquatic invasive species program by authorizing the State Department to pursue a reference to the International Joint Commission, IJC, to analyze the prevention efforts in the Great Lakes. Last fall, the IJC released its 11th biennial Great Lakes Water Quality Report, and in that report, the IJC recommended this reference. Because controlling invasive species in the Great Lakes is an international effort, it is necessary for the IJC to review, research, conduct hearings, and submit to the United States and Canada a report that describes the success of current policies of governments in the United States and Canada having jurisdiction over the Great Lakes. Our bill also would improve and expand upon the dispersal barrier project in the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal. The dispersal barrier was originally authorized in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and the project became operational in 2002. The electric barrier is proving to be effective in preventing the movement of carp up and down the canal, but this barrier is imperfect. This canal supports maritime commerce, and finding a permanent solution to preventing the inter- basin movement of invasive species is important. Therefore, NAISA would authorize the construction of a second barrier in the canal and mandate other improvements to this project so that if an invasive species breeches one barrier, there would be a backup barrier. Additionally, NAISA expands the barrier authority so that the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service would study additional waterways that would be good candidates for a dispersal barrier. To address the largest pathway of invasive species introduction-- ballast water--NAISA would establish a nationwide mandatory ballast water management program that would apply to ships entering the Great Lakes system. Because these ships still contain small amounts of unpumpable water that may contain organisms, ballast water management practices would help address the problem of ``No Ballast On Board'' or ``NOBOB'' vessels, which are ships that enter the Great Lakes reporting no ballast on board. By encouraging the regular flushing of sediments from ballast tanks in Great Lakes ships, management practices can further reduce the likelihood of new invasions. Ships operating exclusively in the upper four Great Lakes, Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie, do not introduce invasive species into the Great Lakes, so it would be unnecessary to expect the lake carriers to comply with the mandatory ballast water management program. However, all ships, including those in the Great Lakes, would be required to have an Invasive Species Management Plan on-board outlining ways to minimize transfers on a ``whole ship'' basis and to abide by best management practices. Also all ships constructed after 2006 must have ballast technology on-board. Finally, NAISA would include new authority to set up procedures for screening importations of live aquatic organisms to ensure that potential invasive species are not intentionally introduced into the Great Lakes System. I was very surprised to learn that currently, there are no processes for screening aquatic organisms that are shipped to this country. Our bill would direct the Invasive Species Council to develop a set of screening guidelines for federal agencies to use to determine whether a planned importation of a live organism from outside the country into the United States should proceed, and if so, whether that importation should be conditioned. This is a very good bill with bipartisan, bicameral support. Though it is national in scope, the bill improves upon the existing authorities relating to the Great Lakes, which is vital to my home State of Ohio. Aquatic nuisance species are a threat to biodiversity, an economic burden, and a danger to human health. So I urge my colleagues to support the quick passage of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I had not intended to speak very long. I have about 15 minutes, approximately.

Mr. DeWINE. It might depend on how long my colleague speaks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Ohio is in the Chamber so I will not speak very long. I do want to very briefly respond to my friend and colleague from California, if I may. I know we will have ample time the remainder of the week to debate this issue. She is an excellent debater, and I look forward to the chance of continuing this dialogue and this debate as we go forward. I do want to respond very briefly to a couple of her comments. Quite candidly, listening to my colleague from California, I almost get the impression that partial-birth abortion does not exist in this country or that no one could really define it or even know it when it exists. That is not true. The fact is that people know what it is. They know it takes place. It is counted, at least in one State. There are providers who say: I provide partial-birth abortion. So it is defined, and it is defined very specifically in this bill. Senator Santorum has worked very hard to have a definition that is a precise definition, and I might say that it is a more precise definition, a better definition, a definition that conforms to what the Supreme Court has said, a better definition than the previous bill taken up on the Senate floor. It is taking into consideration what the Supreme Court has said. I will read a portion of that definition to my colleagues. As used in this section, 1, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an abortion in which, A, the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and, B, performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. Then it continues on and defines physician, et cetera. But that is the key part. That is a very precise definition. So I would reject the argument that this is vague. It is not vague. It is very well understood. Turning to another point my colleague from California made, that has to do with the health of the mother, we had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of testimony in the past, and we have also had a lot of people who have talked about this issue. We will have the opportunity to debate this tomorrow and the days after. I am not going to quote a lot of people tonight because of the time, but the testimony has been very clear that this is not ever medically indicated. It is not something that is done in an emergency. One does not perform a procedure that takes 3 days in an emergency; something else is done. An emergency is not a 3-day procedure. Make no mistake about it, all the testimony has been that the partial-birth abortion takes 3 days. That is not an emergency procedure. It simply is not. Let me quote former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop: Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both. Dr. Warren Hern, OB/GYN: I have very serious reservations about this procedure. You really cannot defend it. I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. The physicians Ad Hoc Coalition For Truth said the following: Given the many potential risks the procedure entails the mother, far from being medically indicated, partial-birth abortion is actually contra-indicated. Dr. Pamela Smith, OB/GYN, said the following: Partial birth is, in fact, a public health hazard in regards to women. Medically, I would contend, of all the abortion techniques available to a woman, this is the worst one which could be recommended in the situation of a mother's health. Dr. Dominic Casanova, OB/GYN: This procedure is totally unnecessary and dangerous. If it becomes necessary to evacuate a uterus beyond 20 weeks gestation, there is a recognized standard method taught in all OB/GYN training programs which involves another procedure. It goes on and on. I will not take the Senate's time tonight. We will have an opportunity tomorrow to debate this. This is not medically indicated. The testimony has been abundantly clear. This is not a procedure that is ever used for the health of the mother. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me return now to the debate in regard to the partial-birth abortion ban. Let me thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his unending and unwavering and tireless efforts to put a permanent end to this horrific partial-birth abortion procedure. In the time we have served together in this body, he has never given up hope that Congress and this country would put an end to this barbaric procedure. This Senate, this Congress, and this country must ban a procedure that is inhumane, that has absolutely no medical purpose, and that is, quite simply, morally reprehensible. During the course of the debate on S. 3, the bill to ban partial- birth abortion, we will hear repeated descriptions of the barbaric nature of this procedure. I ask my colleagues, as difficult as it is, to listen to the description. There may be many arguments during this debate, but the description of what this procedure is will not be argued. There is no debate what it is. There is no debate about what takes place during a partial-birth abortion. I submit to my colleagues that the more you know about this procedure, the worse it is. The more you know about it, the easier it will be to vote to ban it. We will hear repeated descriptions of this barbaric procedure. It is a procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet first out of the womb and into the birth canal except for the head which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix. As Senator Santorum explained, the abortionist then punctures the base of the baby's skull with a long scissors-like surgical instrument and then inserts a tube into the wound removing the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now dead baby. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, those are the essential facts. I can think of nothing more inhumane and indifferent to the human condition. Yet every year the tragic effect of this extreme indifference to human life becomes more and more apparent. It troubles me deeply that this is happening across this country and that it is happening in my home State of Ohio. In fact, it happens within 20 miles of my home. I would like to take a few minutes now to talk about two particular partial-birth abortions that occurred in Ohio. They were two typical abortions--typical except for the way they turned out. These two tragedies that I am going to describe illustrate the gruesome facts and the evils of this procedure and show what can happen when it does not go according to the way the abortionist plans. Let me explain. On April 6, 1999, in Dayton, OH, a woman entered the Dayton Medical Center to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This facility was and is operated by one Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the main providers of partial-birth abortion in the Nation. Usually the partial-birth abortion procedure takes place behind closed doors where it can be ignored--its morality left outside. In this particular case, the procedure was different. There was light shed upon it. This is what happened. This is why light was shown upon it. This Dayton abortionist inserted a surgical instrument into the woman to dilate her cervix so the child could eventually be removed and then killed. This whole procedure usually takes 3 days. The woman went home to Cincinnati expecting to return to Dayton for the completion of the procedure in 2 or 3 days. In this case, her cervix dilated too quickly, and as a result shortly after midnight she was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati. The child was born. A medical technician pointed out that the child was alive. But apparently the chances of survival were slim, and after 3 hours and 8 minutes the child died. The baby was named Hope. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, on the death certificate, of course, is a space for cause of death--``Method of Death.'' There it was written in the case of Baby Hope, ``Method of Death: Natural.'' That, of course, is simply not true. There is nothing natural about the events that led to the death of this tiny little child because Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. Baby Hope was the victim of a barbaric procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. In fact, the Gallup poll conducted in January of this year shows that 70 percent of the American people want to see this procedure permanently banned because the American people know it is wrong. They feel strongly about it. And we, as a Senate, and as Members of Congress, I believe, should be listening to the American people. The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of an abortion clinic. That death took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to saving lives, not taking them. This episode reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what partial-birth abortion really is. Because what it really is is the killing--the killing--of a baby, plain and simple. And almost to underscore the inhumanity of this procedure, 4 months later it happened again, again in Ohio, with the same abortionist. This time, though, something quite different occurred. Once again, in Dayton, OH, this time on August 18, 1999, a woman who was 25 weeks pregnant went in to the same Dr. Haskell's office for a partial-birth abortion. As usual, the abortionist performed the preparatory steps for the barbaric procedure by dilating the mother's cervix. The next day, she went into labor, and was rushed to Good Samaritan Hospital--again, not what was expected. Again, the procedure normally takes 3 whole days. But she was rushed into labor. But this time, however, despite the massive trauma to this baby's environment, a miracle occurred. And by the grace of God, this little baby survived. So she now is called ``Baby Grace.'' I am appalled by the fact that both of these heinous partial-birth abortion attempts occurred in this great country of ours, and occurred in my home State of Ohio. When I think about the brutal death of Baby Hope and then ponder the miracle of Baby Grace, I am confronted with the question, Why can't we just allow these babies to live? Opponents of the ban on this procedure argue that this procedure is necessary to protect the health of women. And yet, the American Medical Association has said this procedure is never medically necessary. In fact, many physicians have found the procedure itself can pose immediate and significant risk to a woman's health and future fertility. Clearly, the babies did not have to be killed in the Ohio cases I cited, no. The two babies I cited were both born alive. One was able to live and one tragically died. Why, Mr. President, why, Members of the Senate, does the baby have to be killed? Why? Opponents of this legislation say this procedure is only used in emergency situations--you will hear those words used time and time again: emergency situations--when women's lives are in danger. And yet it seems very strange that in an emergency, a 3-day procedure would be used and the mother would be sent home. If it was truly an emergency, why would the doctor pick a procedure that would take 3 days? Why would the woman consent to a 3-day procedure if it was truly an emergency? It is not an emergency. And the testimony we have heard, the testimony that has been taken in our committee in the past, has clearly indicated this procedure is never medically indicated--never medically indicated. Nevertheless, even abortionists say the vast majority of partial- birth abortions are elective. Dr. Haskell, the Ohio abortionist, said this: And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. This is Dr. Haskell. Let me quote him again: And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. ``Elective.'' Opponents of this bill say this procedure is necessary when a fetus is abnormal. I do not believe the condition of a fetus ever warrants killing it. I do not believe that. But even abortionists and some opponents of this ban agree that most partial-birth abortions involve healthy fetuses. And that is what the statistics clearly show. The inventor of this procedure himself, the late Dr. James McMahon, said: Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted. Opponents of this bill contend that the partial birth procedure is rare, yet a report released just this past January suggests the number of partial-birth abortions has, in fact, tripled, accounting for an estimated 2,200 abortions in the year 2000. I have heard it stated on the floor that is just a small fraction of the number of abortions that are performed in this country every year. That may very well be true. Still, statistics would indicate, if we believe the previous statistics, that is a significant increase in the number of partial-birth abortions. And still, whatever the total number of abortions is in this country, that is still 2,200 abortions that occurred in this very barbaric manner in 1 year. I would again call my colleagues' attention to the description of this procedure. And again, I remind my colleagues that no one--no one-- will come to this floor and deny what a partial-birth abortion is. No one will come here and say what Senator Santorum has said, what I have said, what Senator Brownback will say, what any of us are saying about what this procedure is really like, is a lie or is not true. It is what it is, and no one can deny it. And so 2,200 of these children had to suffer that agony of a partial- birth abortion. That is what the facts are. And there are many people who believe it is underreported. But we know of at least that many. Opponents say a ban on partial-birth abortion violates Roe v. Wade, and they conclude it must be unconstitutional. But, as anyone who has read that case knows, Roe declined to consider the constitutionality of the part of the Texas statute banning the killing of a child in the process of delivery. Moreover, the Supreme Court again declined to decide this issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Again, I ask, why does the baby have to be killed? Why? Opponents say this bill is unconstitutional because it does not have a health exception. But the American Medical Association itself has stated: There is no health reason for this procedure. ``There is no health reason for this procedure.'' In fact, there is ample testimony to show that all of the health consequences are more severe for this procedure than any other procedure used. The AMA has also said: The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. I ask my colleagues who wish to continue to allow this heinous act, again, why does the baby have to be killed? Why? Mr. President and Members of the Senate, why do babies, 3 inches away from their first breath, have to die? Something is terribly wrong. With the advent of modern technology, we can sustain young life in ways we could not just a few short years ago. We sustain children much younger than the children who are being killed in partial-birth abortions, and they are in hospitals throughout this country. Most of us on the Senate floor have seen these children. And we have seen people, very gallantly, in hospitals fighting to save their lives every day. Unfortunately, we have created more and more savage methods of killing our young at the same time we are creating wonderful ways to try to continue to keep children alive and save lives. I think we are really destroying ourselves by not admitting as a society that partial-birth abortion is an evil against humanity. I believe there will be more and more horrible consequences for our Nation if we do not ban this cruel procedure. As Frederick Douglass stated more than 100 years ago: Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted. . . . Mr. President, we must stop and ask: To what depths has the American conscience sunk? When it comes to abortion, is there nothing to which we will say: Enough, enough, no, stop; we will not tolerate this. At this point, we will draw the line. At this point, we will go no further. Partial-birth abortion is a very clear matter of right and wrong, good versus evil. It is my prayer that there will come a day when my colleagues, such as Senator Santorum and the rest of us who have fought this battle, won't have to come to the floor and talk about partial- birth abortion. Nobody wants to talk about this. But until that day comes, when this procedure has been outlawed in our country once and for all, we will have to continue to come to the floor and talk about it. Now is the time to ban this very evil procedure. It is the right thing to do. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Does the Senator from California dispute Dr. Haskell's statement that the vast majority of these abortions are elective?

Mr. DeWINE. Can my colleague answer that question?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just briefly respond on my own time now and maybe lay a little foundation.

Mr. DeWINE. You will not yield for another question. I understand.

Mr. DeWINE. Let me lay a little foundation for my previous question that I asked my colleague from California. I will send over to her the quote from Dr. Haskell. But to explain to her who Dr. Haskell is, Dr. Haskell is probably the foremost--I would say notorious--partial-birth abortion provider in this country. He operates in my home State, near my hometown. He operates in Dayton, OH. He performs many partial-birth abortions. The quote I have is as follows. I will read the quote that I have. Dr. Martin Haskell indicates he: . . . routinely does this procedure on all patients, 20 to 24 weeks pregnant, except on women-- He gives some exceptions. He further states: And I'll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective in that 20 to 24-week range. My only point to my colleague was that most partial-birth abortions are elective. I think that has been, frankly, the testimony of most of the witnesses we had. I don't think it is really a disputed issue. That was the only point of my question. I want to return briefly to the issue of medical necessity. I would like to maybe quote a couple more experts who have testified in front of Congress in the past. Dr. Pamela Smith, Medical Education Director of Mount Sinai Medical Center in Chicago, has testified in front of Congress. Here is what she has said. So, for someone to choose a procedure that takes 3 days, if they are really interested in the life of the mother, that puts the mother's life in further jeopardy. Members of the Senate, those are not my words. Those are the words of Dr. Pamela Smith. Dr. Nancy Romer, Chairman of OB/GYN and professor at Wright State University Medical School in Ohio, had this to say: There is simply no data anywhere in medical literature in regard to the safety of this procedure. Again she was talking about the partial-birth abortion. I continue to quote Dr. Romer. There is no peer review or accountability of this procedure. There is no medical evidence that a partial-birth abortion procedure is safer, or necessary to provide comprehensive health care to women. Finally, Dr. Donna Harrison, a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it most simply: This is medical nonsense. It is a hideous travesty of medical care and should be rightly banned in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in a moment we will be voting on the nomination of Judge Gregory Frost to be a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. I have had the opportunity of knowing Judge Frost for many years. He is a man of great honor and integrity, and I ask my colleagues to vote for this very fine man. Judge Frost has been on the Licking County bench for 19 years, 7 as municipal court judge and 12 as common pleas court judge. Judge Frost will make an excellent district court judge. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Objection.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Collins, Reed, Voinovich, and Stabenow, to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the National Invasive Species Council. The National Invasive Species Council was established by an Executive order so that the Federal Government can better coordinate to combat the economic, ecologic, and health threat of invasive species. Invasive species are a national threat. Estimates of the annual economic damages caused by invasive species in this Nation are as high as $137 billion. To combat the serious threats posed by invasive species, we need Federal coordination and planning. Our bill would provide just that--on a permanent basis. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Health & Human Services, Interior, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Administrators of EPA and USAID, would continue to work together through the Council to develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan. Though the Council can continue to operate and develop invasive species management plans as they currently do, the GAO reported last year that implementing the national invasive species management plan is difficult because the Council does not have a congressional mandate to act. GAO also reported that most of the agencies that have responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Management Plan have been slow to complete activities by the due date established under the plan and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner. As my colleagues who are cosponsoring this bill know, invasive species are too great of a problem to be left unmanaged. The duties of the Council are generally to coordinate Federal activities in an effective, complementary, cost-efficient manner; update the National Invasive Species Management Plan; ensure that Federal agencies implement the management plan; and develop recommendations for international cooperation. Agencies that do not implement the recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plan must report to Congress as to why the recommendations were not implemented. The Council is directed to develop guidance for Federal agencies on prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species so that Federal programs and actions do not increase the risk of invasion or spread nonindigenous species. And finally, the bill also establishes an Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Council. Ultimately, with a congressional mandate, the Council can enhance its effectiveness and better protect our environment from invasive species. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure so that the Federal Government can improve its response to invasive species threat.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Collins, Reed, Voinovich, and Stabenow, to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the National Invasive Species Council. The National Invasive Species Council was established by an Executive order so that the Federal Government can better coordinate to combat the economic, ecologic, and health threat of invasive species. Invasive species are a national threat. Estimates of the annual economic damages caused by invasive species in this Nation are as high as $137 billion. To combat the serious threats posed by invasive species, we need Federal coordination and planning. Our bill would provide just that--on a permanent basis. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Health & Human Services, Interior, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Administrators of EPA and USAID, would continue to work together through the Council to develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan. Though the Council can continue to operate and develop invasive species management plans as they currently do, the GAO reported last year that implementing the national invasive species management plan is difficult because the Council does not have a congressional mandate to act. GAO also reported that most of the agencies that have responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Management Plan have been slow to complete activities by the due date established under the plan and the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner. As my colleagues who are cosponsoring this bill know, invasive species are too great of a problem to be left unmanaged. The duties of the Council are generally to coordinate Federal activities in an effective, complementary, cost-efficient manner; update the National Invasive Species Management Plan; ensure that Federal agencies implement the management plan; and develop recommendations for international cooperation. Agencies that do not implement the recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plan must report to Congress as to why the recommendations were not implemented. The Council is directed to develop guidance for Federal agencies on prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species so that Federal programs and actions do not increase the risk of invasion or spread nonindigenous species. And finally, the bill also establishes an Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Council. Ultimately, with a congressional mandate, the Council can enhance its effectiveness and better protect our environment from invasive species. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure so that the Federal Government can improve its response to invasive species threat.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I returned this week from my 12th trip to Haiti. As my colleagues are aware, I have many long-standing concerns about the dire political, economic, and humanitarian situation in Haiti. In a nation just over an hour's flight from Miami, there is abject poverty, suffering, and disease. We absolutely must pay closer attention to what is happening to our neighbors in our hemisphere. We must be engaged. That is why I am so pleased to be joining several of my Senate and House colleagues in introducing the ``Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2003.'' I'd like to thank our Senate Co-sponsors, who include Senators Graham of Florida, Lugar, Durbin, Nelson of Florida, and Representatives Congressmen Shaw and Conyers for their leadership in getting support for this bill, as well as our other House Co-sponsors, Representatives Crane, Rangel, Watson, Lee of California, Lee of Texas, Meek, Goss, Foley, Waters, and Delegate Christensen of the Virgin Islands. Our bill would take a major step in improving the economic and political situation in Haiti through an important tool of our foreign policy--and that is trade. As my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Nelson, and Chafee, and Representative Meek--all of whom traveled with me to Haiti over the course of this last month--the situation in Haiti is bleak. Haiti is the poorest country in our Hemisphere, with approximately 70 percent of its population out of work and 80 percent living in abject poverty. Less than one-half of Haiti's 7 million people can read or write. Haiti's infant mortality rate is the highest in our hemisphere. And one in four children under the age of five are malnourished. roughly one in 12 Haitians has HIV/AIDS and, according to the Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will experience up to 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year--that's 4,000 more than the number expected here in the United States, where our population is 35 times that of Haiti's. AIDS already has orphaned over 200,000 children, and this number is expected to skyrocket to between 323,000 and 393,000 over the next ten years. The violence, corruption, and instability caused by the flow of drugs through Haiti cannot be overstated. An estimated 15 percent of all cocaine entering the United States passes through Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or both. All of this creates an environment where the logical course of action for many Haitians is simply to flee. We have seen this in the past, and we may see it again. So far this fiscal year, the Coast Guard has interdicted and rescued over 813 Haitian migrants at sea--compared to 1,113 during the entire fiscal year 2000. And, according to the State Department, migrants recently interdicted and repatriated to Haiti have cited economic conditions as their reason for attempting to migrate by sea. I do not think that a mass exodus is imminent, but we cannot ignore any increase in migrant departures from Haiti. In addition to being an immigration issue for the United States, these migrant departures frequently result in the loss of life at sea. When I visited Haiti last month, we toured a textile assembly factor. What we saw was that this operation was providing about 800 Haitian laborers with jobs and giving them an income to help support their families. This is in a country that went from having 100,000 assembly jobs to only 30,000 today. There is no reason we can't reverse that trend. The bill we are introducing today attempts to change the economic situation by granting limited duty-free treatment on certain Haitian apparel articles if--and only if--the President is able to certify that the Haitian government is making serious market, political, and social reforms. The bill would correct a glitch or oversight in U.S. trade law that recognized the special economic needs of least developed countries in Africa, but did not recognize those needs for the least developed country in the Western Hemisphere--Haiti. Specifically, the bill would allow duty-free entry of Haitian apparel articles assembled from fabrics from countries with which the U.S. has a free trade or a regional trade agreement. It also would grant duty- free status on articles, regardless of the origin of the fabrics and yarns, if the fabrics and yarns were not commercially available in the United States. The bill would cap duty-free apparel imports made of fabrics and yarns from the designated countries at 1.5 percent of total U.S. apparel imports. This limit grows modestly over time to 3.5 percent. The enactment of this legislation would promote employment in Haitian industry by allowing the country to become a garment production center. While the benefits of bill would be modest by U.S. standards, in Haiti they are substantial. It is estimated that the bill could create thousands of jobs, thereby reducing the unemployment rate and breaking the shackles of poverty. Before the 1991 coup, Haiti was one of the largest apparel suppliers in the Caribbean. Today, Haitian apparel accounts for less than one percent of all apparel imports into the United States. The type of assembly carried out in Haiti would have minimal impact on employment in the United States. Actually, it would encourage the emigration of jobs from the Far East back to our hemisphere, including the United States, because most Haitian foreign exchange earnings, unlike in the Far East, are utilized to purchase American products. And, the ``Trade and Development Act'' already includes strong safeguards against transshipment. In order for Haiti to be eligible for the trade benefits under the bill, the President must certify that Haiti is making progress on matters like the rule of law. This will not be an easy task for the Haitian government. However, I believe that because of the incentives provided in the bill, it would be more and more apparent to them that it is in their interest to reform. Adopting the Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2002 would be a powerful demonstration of our commitment to helping reverse the downward spiral in Haiti. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for one additional question.

Mr. DeWINE. I have really tried to understand where some of our colleagues are coming from with their adamant opposition to this extraordinarily well-qualified nominee. The most common criticism has been that there is some concern about whether they know what his personal views are. I wonder if the Senator from Utah could address that and perhaps remind us again of what Mr. Estrada's supervisors at the U.S. Solicitor General's Office have said about Mr. Estrada's ability to separate his personal views from his analysis of the law.

Mr. DeWINE. Now, the ABA has expressly stated it does not evaluate a nominee's ideology because it ``restricts its evaluation to issues bearing on professional qualifications.'' But the ABA does investigate a nominee's openmindedness and freedom from bias. Could the Senator from Utah tell me whether it seems unreasonable to believe that the ABA would have unanimously given Mr. Estrada its highest rating if it thought he would use his judicial role to advance his personal ideology?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wonder if my distinguished colleague will yield for an additional question.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for an additional question.

Mr. DeWINE. Can the Senator from Utah tell me whether I am correct in understanding that, despite the assurances of those who have worked with Mr. Estrada, and the unanimous affirmation of the ABA, some of our colleagues continue to be unconvinced that Mr. Estrada would be an unbiased interpreter of the law?