Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is prepared to pass the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act of 1999. The year 2009 is the 200th anniversary of President Lincoln's birth, and this measure would establish a commission to study and recommend to the Congress activities that are appropriate to celebrate that anniversary. It is most fitting that we make these arrangements to honor Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation's wisest and most courageous former Presidents, on the bicentennial of his birth. The son of a Kentucky frontiersman, Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809 in a log cabin. From these humble beginnings, he went on to become the sixteenth President of the United States. Today, he is perhaps best remembered for leading the Union through a turbulent Civil War and for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the nation's slaves. Few people have a greater appreciation for President Lincoln than the residents of my home state of Illinois. President Lincoln spent about eight years in the Illinois State Legislature, and he also represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for a term. The only home that Abraham Lincoln owned is located in Springfield, Illinois. Today, people from all parts of the United States travel to Springfield to see Abraham Lincoln's family home, tour the Old State Capital where Mr. Lincoln said ``a house divided cannot stand,'' and visit his final resting place in Springfield's Oak Ridge Cemetery. The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act, which originated in the House of Representatives, provides for the establishment of a national commission to recommend ``fitting and proper'' activities to celebrate the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth. The commission would be composed of fifteen members, including at least one person appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Governor of Illinois. Congress created a similar commission in anticipation of the centennial of Lincoln's birth in 1909. That year, this country celebrated President Lincoln's birthday in a big way: Lincoln's image appeared on a postage stamp, his birthday became a national holiday, Congress passed legislation which led to the Lincoln Memorial's construction, and the White House approved the minting of a Lincoln penny. It is appropriate that we again prepare for the anniversary of his birth by passing this measure to establish the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. I close by noting that the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act of 1999 has tremendous support in both chambers of Congress. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 411 to 2 last month. The Senate version is the product of cooperation among Senators Hatch, Leahy, Durbin and me. I also commend Judiciary Chairman Hatch, ranking member Leahy, and their staffs for their efforts to help pass this important bill.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I submit this statement in opposition to the nomination of former Senator Carol Moseley-Bruan as Ambassador of the United States to the governments of New Zealand and Samoa. The people of Illinois are intimately familiar with Senator Moseley-Braun's public career, as am I. Based on my extensive knowledge of her record, I cannot in good conscience support her nomination. While her tenure involved a significant number of controversies, many of which are troubling, her secret visits to, and relations with, the late General Sani Abacha and his regime are themselves a disqualifier for any kind of position that involves representing the United States in a foreign land. They demonstrate a lack of judgment and discretion that should be required of any ambassadorial nominee. According to her written responses provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 6, 1999, the Senator traveled to Nigeria in December, 1992; July, 1995; and August, 1996. According to the same documents, Senator Moseley-Braun met with Sani Abacha during all three trips. Abacha was one of the world's most brutal and corrupt dictators, an international pariah, widely reviled. After taking power in 1993, he jailed Nigeria's elected president, reportedly imprisoned as many as 7,000 political opponents, hanged environmentalist Ken Saro- Wiwa and eight other activists and allegedly stole more than $1 billion in oil revenues while presiding over the nation's economic collapse. During her appearance before the East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Moseley-Braun likened her meetings with General Abacha to meetings between other Senators and Members of Congress with leaders of countries accused of violating human rights. This analogy is inappropriate; her visits were of a chilling and distinctly different nature. Senator Moseley-Braun's visits with Abacha were secret encounters, condemned by the U.S. State Department, hidden not just from the government but even from her own staff. Moreover, her former fiance, Mr. Kgosie Matthews, was at one time a registered agent for the Nigerian government. Mr. Matthews accompanied her to Nigeria, although it is not clear how many times he did so. In response to written questions, Senator Moseley-Braun stated that she was ``unaware of whether . . . Mr. Matthews `directly or indirectly received any money or anything of monetary value' from the Nigerian government.'' To secretly visit a corrupt despot like Abacha, remaining unaware of whether a fiance, a one-time agent of the regime, is profiting in any way from Abacha or the Nigerian government, demonstrates a profound lack of judgment. The confirmation hearing briefly touched upon areas of concern other than Senator Moseley-Braun's relations with Abacha. During her tenure, the Internal Revenue Service requested a grand jury investigation of Senator Moseley-Braun, suggesting a number of areas of inquiry. In her written responses to questions posed by the Foreign Relations Committee, the nominee stated that ``I was unaware that I was the subject of any criminal investigation by the Internal Revenue Service prior to the July, 1998 WBBM report.'' The WBBM-TV report, to which Senator Moseley-Braun referred, disclosed that the IRS twice sought to convene a grand jury to explore allegations concerning the personal use of campaign funds as well as allegations relating to ``possible bank fraud, bribery and other federal crimes.'' The committee record established that the Department of Justice rejected the requests for grand juries, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, thus halting the ability of the IRS to proceed with the very subpoena power necessary to acquire sufficient evidence. The circularity of this process--the IRS requests for grand juries and Department of Justice refusals--as well as the inability of these concerns to be probed to conclusion, leaves a host of unanswered questions. These questions should have been resolved prior to a vote on the confirmation. Senator Moseley-Braun refers to an FEC audit report that she believes rebuts the IRS concerns. First, assuming for the sake of argument that the FEC audit refutes the personal use of campaign funds, it nevertheless clearly does not refute the other allegations reportedly raised by the IRS such as ``possible bank fraud, bribery and other federal crimes'' reportedly going back to her tenure as Cook County Recorder of Deeds. Second, it is unclear to what extent the FEC investigated the personal use of campaign funds. There are countless ways a diversion of campaign funds for personal use could occur. Discussion in the confirmation hearing centered around just campaign credit cards. Section I. D. of the FEC audit report does not mention the diversion of campaign funds as being within the scope of the audit, but instead lists, in specific detail, eight other areas of inquiry. On the other hand, the last page of the audit report indicates that the FEC audited the activity of the campaign credit cards. FEC working papers provided to the Senate further indicate that the FEC found that the cards were used to pay $6,258.14 of Mr. Matthews' personal expenses, but that, after deducting sums which the campaign argued it owed him, these personal expenses totaled only $311.28. It is unclear whether the FEC probed the possible diversion of campaign funds by other, less blunt, more oblique means, such as by cash purchases or by cashier's checks purchased with cash, or by other mechanisms. To the best of our knowledge, major allegations of diversion, such as those discussed in the Dateline NBC report, did not arise until after the FEC audit was completed. Third, the FEC itself pointedly said that no inferences should be drawn from its failure to resolve its examination of Senator Moseley-Braun's campaign fund. According to a Chicago Tribune article dated April 8, 1997, FEC spokeswoman Sharon Snyder mentioned ``a lack of manpower, a lack of time'' and cited the impending expiration of the statute of limitations. She went on to say: ``There's no statement here: no exoneration, no Good Housekeeping seal of approval, just no action.'' Thus, with respect to the FEC investigation, as with the IRS requests for grand juries, many questions remain unresolved. However, the visits with General Sani Abacha are undisputed and, in their context, they are so unusual and bizarre as to alone disqualify her as an ambassador. Mr. President, I recognize the Senate must fulfill its constitutional obligation. This body has given Senator Carol Moseley-Braun a select responsibility. While I cannot in good conscience support her nomination, I wish her well in her new post.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge passage of S. 777, the Freedom to E-File Act. I appreciate Agriculture Secretary Glickman, Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and my other Colleagues on the Agriculture Committee for their hard work in helping craft the consensus substitute amendment being offered on the floor today. This legislation will streamline the process our farmers follow when filing paper work with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently, when farmers are required to fill out USDA paper work, they are required to travel to their local USDA county offices, complete the paper work, wait in long lines and file these documents in paper form. This process is very inefficient and time consuming. This bill simply requires USDA to develop a system for farmers to access and file this information over the internet. The ``Freedom to E- file Act'' simply makes good common sense. As our society has become more technologically advanced so have our farmers. In fact, a 1998 Novartis survey found that over 72 percent of all farmers with 500 acres or more had personal computers. Overall, over fifty percent of all farmers surveyed had computers. According to a Farm Journal study entitled, ``AgWeb 1999: Internet and e-Commerce in Production Agriculture,'' farmer internet usage will have more than doubled by the end of 1999 compared to 1997. The author concluded, ``the computer and the internet have become just as important to farmers as the tractor and good weather.'' The bill we pass today clearly recognizes this reality. The study also notes that over two-thirds of all commercial farmers own at least one computer and these farmers spend at least two hours per week on average utilizing the internet for agricultural purposes. Our agriculturists use computers not only for financial management and market information but for sophisticated precision agriculture management systems. These sophisticated small business owners could easily file necessary farm program paperwork from their homes and offices if only this option was available. Farmers are often frustrated with the long lines at county USDA offices, especially during their most hectic times such as harvest season. Our nation's farmers are clearly overburdened by government- mandated paperwork. This bill is the first step in the right direction toward regulatory reform for our U.S. food producers. The Freedom to E-File Act has been popular among agricultural groups and within the United States Senate. The American Farm Bureau Federation, our nation's largest farm organization, stated that while S. 777 is a simple bill, ``the impact it will have on farmers and ranchers should be immense.'' The bill has approximately twenty bipartisan co-sponsors, including Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and Minority Leader Daschle. The Secretary of Agriculture also supports the Freedom to E-File Act. I commend my colleague, Congressman Ray LaHood, for championing the companion to this bill in the House of Representatives. I hope that the House will pass this important legislation prior to the end of this session, and look forward to the President's signature. I thank the presiding officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sadness at the news of the death of one of football's greatest stars ever, Chicago's own Walter Payton. Walter Payton was a hero, a leader, and a role model both on and off the field. For 13 years, he thrilled Chicago Bears' fans as the NFL's all-time leading rusher--perhaps one of the greatest running backs ever to play the game of football. After retiring from professional football in 1987, Payton continued to touch the lives of Chicagoans as an entrepreneur and a community leader. Walter Payton's historic career began at Jackson State University, where he set a college football record for points scored. The first choice in the 1975 NFL draft, Payton--or ``Sweetness'' as he was known to Chicago Bears fans--became the NFL's all-time leader in running and in combined net yards and scored 110 touchdowns during his career with the Bears. He made the Pro Bowl nine times and was named the league's Most Valuable Player twice, in 1977 and 1985. In 1977, Payton rushed for a career-high 1,852 yards and carried the Bears to the playoffs for the first time since 1963. He broke Jim Brown's long-standing record in 1984 to become the league's all-time leading rusher, and finished his career with a record 16,726 total rushing yards. In 1985-86, Walter Payton led the Bears to an unforgettable 15-1 season and Super Bowl victory--the first and only Super Bowl win in Bears' history. Walter Payton was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1993, and was selected this year as the Greatest All-Time NFL Player by more than 200 players from the NFL Draft Class of 1999. More important, Walter Payton matched his accomplishments on the football field with his selfless actions off the field on behalf of those in need. He earned a degree in special education from Jackson State University and worked throughout his adult life to improve the lives of children. In 1988, he established the Halas/Payton Foundation to help educate Chicago's youth. Walter Payton was truly an American hero in every sense of the term. He died tragically at age 45, but his legacy will live in our hearts and minds forever. Today, Mr. President, Illinois mourns. Sweetness, we will miss you.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FITZGERALD

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

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 213, submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the time controlled by the Democratic leader on the D.C./ Labor appropriations conference report, the 15 minutes be allocated as follows: 5 minutes each for Senators Durbin, Harkin, and Lautenberg.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. For the information of all Senators, at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, the Senate will immediately begin 30 minutes of debate on the conference report to accompany the D.C./Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Following the debate, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the conference report which will be followed by possibly two cloture votes in relation to the African trade bill. Therefore, Senators can anticipate up to three stacked votes at approximately 10 a.m. It is expected cloture will be invoked and the Senate will begin the 30-hours of postcloture debate on the CBI/African trade bill. The leader has indicated he hopes to complete action on the trade bill this week.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I further ask consent that with respect to the African trade/CBI bill, Senators have until 10 a.m. to file second- degree amendments.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Further, I ask consent the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 2. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the conference report to accompany the D.C./Labor-HHS appropriations bill under the previous time agreement.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I say to my friend from Nevada, I wonder if there are any Senate rules that have changed from the time the Democrats were in the majority and now when the Republicans are in the majority that the Senator could identify that he thinks have unfairly cut off the rights of the minority. Have any rules changed?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment or two to respond to some of the charges that have been leveled on the floor. After listening to the colloquy that has gone on for some time, the only thing I think is accurate out of it is that I would agree that my friend from South Carolina has fought for years to ban Congress from plundering the Social Security trust fund. He has been a leader in that fight. But the one thing I would point out is that the whole other side of the aisle has been voting time and time again this year against doing just that--locking up the Social Security trust fund so it can't be spent on other programs. Ever since the Social Security program was created, all the money that has been poured into it that is over and above that necessary to pay current Social Security benefits has been taken out and spent on other programs. That is not right. I and my friend from South Carolina agree with that. I know Senator Hollings, as he has said before--if somebody in the private sector were to reach into an employee's pension fund and take that money out and spend it for some other purpose than the employee's pension, they would go to jail under laws that we in Congress have passed. My understanding is as well that a few years back Congress made it illegal for anybody in State or local governments to raid one of their pension funds. It is important that Congress move forward now to once and for all ban the plundering of the Social Security trust fund so we are setting aside money and are in a better financial position come the year 2015 to pay the Social Security benefits of the baby boomers as they retire. I have to say that if, indeed, my friends on the other side of the aisle are in favor of banning Congress and the Government in Washington from spending Social Security trust funds on other programs, why has it been that they have voted against cloture on our Social Security lockbox proposal time and time again this year? It is for that reason I disagree with my friend from California, who said she thought the criticism was unfair in some of those television ads she was talking about. I don't think it is unfair. How can you vote against a Social Security lockbox but then say you really want to protect Social Security? I think it is a very fair point that Republicans have been making. It is a fair criticism of the other side of the aisle. Furthermore, I point out that the other side of the aisle has proposed one new spending bill after the other, and we have no surplus other than the Social Security trust fund. If we want to have more money for spending, where are we going to get that money? The only place to take it, unless you are proposing a tax increase, is to take it out of the Social Security trust fund. Isn't it intellectually dishonest to stand here and say we support protecting Social Security but at the same time get up and propose a whole bunch of new spending bills that there is absolutely no way to pay for without either a tax increase or another raid on Social Security? To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have to say I think the criticism has been fair. The Senator from South Carolina has said, as my friends from California and Nevada have said, that Republicans have put some of your proposals in what you call the ``legislative graveyard.'' But don't forget those times this summer and before this summer when, time and time again, my Democratic friends put the Social Security lockbox program in the graveyard, from which it still has not emerged. It has only been with repeated pressure that this side of the aisle, on the administration and on the appropriators, has largely been able to set aside the money that is in surplus in Social Security so it will not be spent on other programs. I am hopeful that someday I can work with Senator Hollings to get the strongest possible protection for those Social Security trust funds. Right now, when we are talking about a lockbox, we are really just talking about using that money to pay down the Government debt--the debt that is now in the hands of people who own Government bonds. We are really still not at the point where we can talk about creating a real trust fund that has real money in it that is available to pay benefits. I think someday we need to make that trust fund a real trust fund. But the problem with that is, in order to cross that line, we have to have the great national debate as to where we are going to invest that money because if we are going to make the Social Security trust fund a real fund--I favor doing that--we are going to have to cross a threshold on this issue of what we want that real money to be invested in. Until we have had that debate and reached consensus on that issue, it is appropriate that we take that $3.5 trillion in debt we now owe to people who own Government bonds in this country and all around the world and use the Social Security excess to pay down that debt. That is absolutely the best use of the money. It is far superior to taking it and frittering it away on other programs and leaving our external debt at such high levels. I, again, compliment my friend from South Carolina. He has been the one person I have found in this Senate who agrees with me on this issue that it is wrong for Washington to be telling the American people we have a budget surplus when, in fact, the national debt is still going up. It will go up almost $100 billion. The biggest adjustment I have had coming to Washington, as a first- year freshman coming from a private sector background in banking, is getting used to the Washington math. When I looked at the first budget proposal that said we will have trillions of dollars' worth of surpluses between now and 2015, and I looked at the back of the budget and it had a schedule of the national debt which is going up every year, I asked, how can the national debt be rising if we are running surpluses? Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. That is an accounting trick. If anybody in the private sector used that kind of accounting, they would be in jail. They would have ankle bracelets on. That is a disgrace. It is misleading. I thought the President's address, when he told the country we were going to pay off the national debt by 2015, was very reckless. It was reckless of him to so mislead people. He was talking about one of only two components of our national debt. There are two components of the national debt: debt we owe to people who own government bonds and debt we owe to pension and trust funds, such as the Social Security trust fund and the Federal employees pension fund. We have a President who has a well-deserved reputation for choosing his words carefully. I looked at his statement and couldn't find anything he said that was inaccurate. He said we were going to pay down the debt owed to the public by 2015. What he did not tell the American people, and what Congress has not told the American people, is that the other portion of the national debt, that portion owed to government pension and trust funds, is going to quadruple between now and 2015. Senator Hollings has used the analogy of a family who has a Visa and a MasterCard. In our own families, we would not go home and uncork the champagne when paying down the Visa by putting more debt on the MasterCard. Such dubious refinancing is no cause for celebration. Yet all over Washington they are uncorking the champagne because they are paying down one portion of the national debt; they are not telling anybody the other portion is continuing to skyrocket. I yield for a question.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I have no problem with offering an amendment. I am happy to vote on it.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I want to follow up on that. I said earlier I think the ads are fair in light of the fact that Democrats have voted against the lockbox several times this year. Certainly the Senator would agree the Senator's party has run ads. I was the recipient of $3 million worth of soft money ads that accused me of wanting to do everything except take away Christmas from the people in this country. What has mainly come out in this colloquy on your side of the aisle is that the Senator has stated a good case why it is better to be in the majority than in the minority.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think we have already, to some extent. We have had one or two votes that I can recall earlier this year. But the question is, How many times will Members keep bringing up the same issues?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Absolutely, and I am sure we will at some point. I do know we had some votes, whether they were procedural or actually substantive, on minimum wage because I talked to Senator Kennedy about it. He was very pleased with my vote earlier this year on that. We have had some votes that touched on that area. I was not in the Senate before this year, so I can't comment on how it was run when the other side was in the majority. My impressions from speaking to some of my senior colleagues on this side of the aisle is that they felt it was always very difficult for them to be in the minority. I think they probably often felt the frustrations that the Senator is feeling now. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I take this opportunity to express my great sense of personal loss on the passing of our colleague from the great State of Rhode Island, John Chafee. I have only been in the Senate for under a year now. I got to know Senator Chafee while I was running for the Senate about a year ago. Even in that short period of time, I came to have great admiration and respect for Senator Chafee. I can only imagine the great sense of grief my colleagues and others who have known him several decades feel at his passing. Of all the people I have known in my lifetime, I have to say that Senator Chafee had more of an aura of goodness, kindness, gentleness, and of fineness than just about anybody I had ever encountered in my life. In many ways, he was a quintessential New Englander. He was modest; he was often taciturn. He did not complain about the health problems he had in the last few months. In fact, he didn't wish to talk about that. He was very hard-working. Others have spoken about his distinguished career in the Senate, as Governor of Rhode Island, and as our Secretary of the Navy. But for all of us who knew him personally, he was a great and fine gentleman. He embodied the best of his State, of his region, of our country, and certainly of this institution. I just wanted to say now how much I appreciated John Chafee for the warm welcome he gave me as a freshman Senator. I regret that I did not have the chance to thank him while he was still with us. We used to share the elevator rides after we voted. We were on the fifth floor of the Dirksen Building, and we would be riding up to that top floor together after practically every rollcall vote in the Senate. I got to know Senator Chafee quite well in the last few months. He was always very kind and interested in me as a freshman. He was always offering to help. When I took a trip earlier this year to give a speech in Rhode Island, he wanted to know beforehand exactly where I was going and my itinerary in his State, and he quizzed me about it afterward. He was a Theodore Roosevelt Republican who was concerned about the preservation of our environment, enhancing it for future generations, and he did a marvelous job as chairman of the Environment Committee. I express my condolences to his wife Virginia, his five children, and most especially to his staff. Senator Chafee's office is right next door to my office in the Dirksen Building. I know that he had a very loyal staff who loved him dearly. Many of his legislative assistants had been with him for 10 years or more, which bespeaks the sense of loyalty and affection they had for him. I know they have suffered a great loss, and we extend our condolences to them. John Chafee will be missed by me and by all of us in the Senate and by the great State of Rhode Island and by our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to have unanimous consent to speak for a couple of minutes on our departed colleague, John Chafee, after which I have to preside. I will just take a couple minutes.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to be heard. Mr. President, listening to my distinguished colleague from California, Senator Boxer, I thought back to earlier this year. We had an issue on which we agreed; in fact, we have had a few this year. This isn't one of them, however. But earlier this year, Senator Boxer was very concerned about the inhumane treatment of dolphins who are getting caught in tuna fishing nets. In fact, she spoke so eloquently on the cruel and inhumane treatment of dolphins that I distinctly remember during that debate, I called home to see how my family was doing, and my 7-year-old boy answered the phone, and he said to me: Daddy, I hope you're going to vote tonight to protect the dolphins. And boy, when I heard that, I really took a careful look at Senator Boxer's bill. I was inclined to support her already, but when I heard that from my son, and I started to focus on that debate, and the eloquence with which she spoke, I wound up voting with her to support and protect those dolphins.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I would like to encourage the Senator from California, and others in the Senate, to maybe think about the humanity issue here as we focus on the debate on partial-birth abortion. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Santorum for sponsoring it again and for his forceful and eloquent arguments on behalf of the innocent unborn. Every time I think about partial-birth abortion, I think of the observations which, I believe, capture the essence of this debate. My esteemed colleague from Illinois, Representative Henry Hyde, asked: What kind of people have we become that this procedure is even a matter of debate? He went on to say: You wouldn't even treat an animal, a mangy raccoon like this. What is a partial-birth abortion? As it has been described so thoroughly by my colleague from Pennsylvania, and many others, it is a truly gruesome procedure. It is barbaric. It is chilling. It is cruel. More than anything else, what I would like to emphasize here is that it is inhumane. The medical term for this procedure is ``intact dilation and extraction,'' or ``intact D&E,'' for short. I have also heard it referred to as ``intrauterine cranial decompression.'' What do these medical terms mean? Briefly, what happens is this: The abortionist turns the baby around in the womb so it is in the breech position--feet first. The abortionist then pulls the baby out of the womb and into the birth canal so all but its head is outside the mother; thus, the term ``partial birth.'' At this point, the abortionist takes out a sharp surgical instrument, often a pair of scissors, and stabs the baby in the back of its head to create a hole. The abortionist then inserts a type of suction tube into the hole and sucks out the baby's brain. Sucking out the baby's brain causes the skull to collapse, or implode, and the delivery can then be completed. I will read an excerpt from testimony given to Congress by Mrs. Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse. While working for a temporary placement agency in 1993, Mrs. Shafer was assigned to an Ohio abortion clinic, where she was asked to assist with a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was just over 6 months pregnant. Here is some of what Mrs. Shafer testified to Congress that she observed that day: He delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The baby was hanging there, and the doctor was holding his neck to keep his head from slipping out. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. Then the doctor opened up the scissors, stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole [in the head] and sucked the baby's brains out. The baby went completely limp. Then, the doctor pulled the head out, and threw the baby into a pan. This is inhumane. You wouldn't treat an animal, a mangy raccoon like that. In an attempt to somehow justify the humaneness of this procedure, opponents of a ban have cited the statements of a handful of medical professionals who contend that the unborn baby is actually killed, or rendered brain dead, prior to being extracted from the womb by the anesthesia given to the mother. Mr. President, and my colleagues, consider this: Professor Robert White, director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, testified before a House committee several years ago that: The fetus within this timeframe of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. He stated, regarding partial-birth abortions: Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure. Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 34,000-member American Society of Anesthesiologists, testified before Congress: I think the suggestion that the anesthesia given to the mother, be it regional or general, is going to cause the brain death of the fetus is without basis of fact. And finally, Dr. Martin Haskell, who has been called a ``pioneer'' in the use of the partial-birth abortion procedure, in 1993, stated: . . . the majority of fetuses aborted this way are alive until the end of the procedure. He went on to say: . . . probably about a third of those are definitely dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not. What kind of a people have we become that this procedure is even a matter of debate in the Senate? You wouldn't treat an animal, a mangy raccoon like that. To my colleagues today who are still seriously considering this debate, this is an issue of basic humaneness, and humaneness is an issue that many of us, on both sides, have often found quite troubling. In my short time in the Senate, I have joined a number of my colleagues on several occasions to speak against the inhumane treatment of animals. In fact, it wasn't very long ago, during the debate on the Interior appropriations bill that I voted in support of an amendment offered by Senator Torricelli that would have prohibited the use of funds in the Interior budget to facilitate the use of steel-jawed traps and neck snares for commerce or recreation in national wildlife refuges. During the debate on this amendment, my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, described the amendment as a ``no-brainer.'' My colleague went on to say that ``these traps are inhumane. They are designed to slam closed. The result is lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations, and gangrene.'' In conclusion, Senator Reid stated that ``in this day and age, there is no need to resort to inhumane methods of trapping. . . .'' And many of us were persuaded. And why were we persuaded? Why are we troubled by steel-jawed traps? Isn't it, Mr. President, because there's something in our gut that twists and turns over the unnecessary suffering and pain of creatures with whom we share this Earth? The majestic animals that are as much a part of God's wonderful creation as we are. Wonderful animals who add richness and texture to our own experience of the planet. Animals whom we thank God for allowing us to appreciate and admire. The suffering of a bear or a deer can lead many of us to say no to a steel-jawed trap and a neck snare. But what about a scissor through the head and neck of a child? What about sucking out a baby's brain. Mr. President, You wouldn't treat an animal, a mangy raccoon like this. The Senate also acted this year to do more to fight the inhumane treatment of dolphins. On July 22, I supported an amendment offered by Senator Boxer to the fiscal year 2000 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill to force countries to pay their fair share of the expenses of the Tuna Commission and delay the importation of tuna caught using fishing methods that unnecessarily harm and kill dolphin. During debate on this amendment, Senator Boxer spoke eloquently of the thousands of dolphin killed each year by fishing methods that cruelly and unnecessarily harass, chase, encircle, maim, and kill dolphin that happen to be swimming over schools of tuna. I appreciated hers and others' efforts in the name of humaneness. God has given us dominion over a wondrous planet, a beautiful blue sphere that takes our breath away when we see it silhouetted against the dark of the universe. And with that dominion we know comes a stewardship, a responsibility to appreciate, care, and speak for God's creation who cannot speak for themselves. I believe our Maker has touched our human conscience with something that makes us almost instinctively recoil from causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. I know there's a tender spot in the hearts of some who now oppose a ban on this procedure. I know it's there because I've seen it in debates on the floor of this body. But I don't understand how those who can hear the howl of a wolf or the squeal of a dolphin, can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child. Mr. President, if people were sticking scissors in the heads of puppies, we would not abide it. In the name of common decency and humanity, I implore my colleagues not to let this happen to our own young. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today with my Colleagues to introduce the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 1999. This legislation addresses the problem of food stamp beneficiaries being unable to redeem their benefits in authorized stores that may be located outside their state of residence. As you may know, Congress passed legislation in 1996 that required the federal government to deliver food stamp benefits electronically, rather than using the paper coupons. Most states have started the process of issuing plastic cards, very similar to ATM cards to access these benefits. The federal government termed this new process, electronic benefits transfer (EBT). You may have noticed a separate button on the payment terminal in your local supermarket with the designation ``EBT'' or a separate stand-alone payment terminal to handle these new transactions. More than half of the country has already switched from the paper coupons to this new EBT card. However, one significant issue is causing problems in the program for retailers, states and recipients. That issue is the inability for recipients to use their state-issued cards across state lines. This is especially true in communities that are near a state border. Under the old paper system, recipients could use the coupons in any state in the country. Under the new electronic system, that is currently not the case. Customers go into a food store expecting to use their federal benefits to purchase food and when they cannot use their EBT cards, they become frustrated and dissatisfied with the food stamp program. For example, under the old system, a food stamp recipient living in Palmyra, MO could use their food stamp coupons in their favorite grocery store in Quincy, IL just over the Illinois border. Similarly, a recipient living in Illinois could visit family in Tennessee and still purchase food for their children. Food stamp beneficiaries are not unlike the average shopper. Cross border shopping occurs for a variety of reasons. One reason is convenience; another equally important one is the cost of groceries. The supermarket industry is very competitive. Customers paying with every type of tender except EBT have the ability to shop around for the best prices. Shouldn't recipients of our nation's federal food assistance benefits be able to stretch their dollars without regard to state borders? Another reason is convenience. While one of my constituents may live in the metro east area, they might work in St. Louis. Under the current situation, if the only grocery store between their work and their home is in Missouri, the recipient cannot purchase food without traveling out of their way. The legislation I am introducing today would once again, provide for the portability of food assistance benefits and allow food stamp recipients the flexibility of shopping at locations that they choose. Interoperability works well today with ATM/Debit cards, the type of cards that EBT was modeled after. Consumers and merchants are confident that when a MAC card issued by a bank in Pittsburgh is presented, authorization and settlement of that transaction will work the same as when a Star card, issued by Bank of America in California is presented. This occurs regardless of where the merchant is located. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case with EBT cards. If every state operated their EBT program under a standard set of operating rules as this legislation requires, companies operating in multiple states could be more efficient, resolve any discrepancies in customer accounts more quickly and ultimately hold down the price of groceries for all consumers. This legislation I am introducing is very straightforward. Specifically, the legislation: Requires interoperability by October 1, 2002, with a few exceptions needing a waiver; Requires USDA to ``adopt'' the national standard used by the majority of the States; Requires USDA to pay for all interoperability costs (currently estimated by Benton International to be no more than a maximum of $500,000 annually when all states are on EBT systems or $160,000 for the current year), significantly less than the $20 million USDA pays annually to the Federal Reserve to redeem coupons; Requires contracts entered into after the date when the national standard is adopted to use the standard, and for USDA to pay the interoperability costs; Includes transitional funding for states currently using a national standard. Upon enactment, FNS will pay 100 percent of the costs of interoperability fees for current states using a national standard (While the interoperability pilot sponsored by NACHA is due to expire in September, this would allow those states and beneficiaries in states participating in the pilot to continue to have interoperable transactions beyond the pilot period without interruption.); Requires current contracts that are not using the national standard to convert at the point of a new contract; Includes a waiver process for current states with significant technological challenges to provide time to convert to the national standard (This is intended to cover current smart card states). This legislation is more about good government than it is about food stamps. Since 1996, the transition from paper coupons to electronic benefit transfer has saved the federal government a significant amount of money. For example, while the food stamp caseload decreased 24 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 1998, food stamp production and redemption costs dropped by an impressive 39 percent. While it is estimated that the bill's implementation will cost the federal government no more than $500,000 annually, it will save at least $20 million per year when paper coupons are a thing of the past. This legislation is sound public policy that enjoys bipartisan support. I thank my Colleagues, Senators Leahy, Lugar, Harkin and Craig, for joining me as co-sponsors of this bill. I would stress to my fellow Senators that this legislation is vitally important to every food stamp recipient, every state food stamp program administrator and every grocery store nationwide. I ask each of you to join me as co- sponsors of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.