Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 514, which was received from the House.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 68 submitted earlier today by Senators Specter and Akaka.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, there be 15 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 1122 has arrived from the House, and I would now ask for its first reading.

Mr. SANTORUM. I now ask for its second reading, and I will object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I take some pride in that my brother graduated from the University of Florida. So I will join in those congratulations. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committees have between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Wednesday, April 2, to file legislative or executive reported legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 67 submitted earlier today by Senators Craig and Reid.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 479, the Estate Tax Relief for the American Family Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes following the Easter recess, the Senate will resume the motion to proceed to the consideration of the nuclear waste legislation. On Monday, the Senate will proceed as in morning business from the hour of 12 noon until 1 p.m. with a 5-minute limitation. Senators should be aware that no rollcall votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate. The next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday, April 8, at 2:30 p.m. The Senate could also be asked to turn to other Legislative or Executive Calendar items that may be cleared.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, unless the House fails to agree to the concurrent resolution. If the House fails to agree, the Senate would then stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Friday, March 21. Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:28 p.m., adjourned until Friday, March 21, 1997, at 12 noon.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that was talked about at great length today in the House of Representatives and voted on. That is the issue of partial-birth abortions, or as the Congressman who led the debate on the floor of the House, Congressman Henry Hyde, refers to it as partial-birth infanticide where, in fact, you have a baby that is at or near viability in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy when most of these abortions are performed, delivered completely out of the mother, and all that is left in the mother is the head--what we are talking about here is not an abortion. What we are talking about is killing a child. I think, incredibly, frankly, given the results of the last election where the Republicans lost seats in the House, and getting a sufficient number of House votes to override a--hopefully not, but probably-- Presidential veto of this bill--we needed 290 votes. We thought going in we would be assured of that number. In fact, we thought we would be well assured of that number, given the results of the election and what we thought was the intention of the Members. It turned out that the House passed the partial-birth abortion ban by a vote of 295 to, I believe, 136. That is five votes more than the required constitutional majority of 67 percent of the House. So they do have enough votes in the House of Representatives to override a Presidential veto. The action now shifts here to the U.S. Senate. We are going into recess and will be for the next couple of weeks, but I have had conversations with the majority leader, and we anticipate bringing that bill up sometime shortly after we reconvene here in the Senate in April and hope for a full debate on this issue. As to what happened in the House, when we saw the number of votes change, resulting in a sufficient number to override the President's veto, I hope that same kind of dynamic occurs here in the Senate. Those votes changed because of new information that has been brought to light about what actually is going on out in America on this issue of partial-birth abortions. We were originally told by the advocates of the procedure, the industry and those who support the procedure, the abortion rights groups, that this was ``a rare procedure.'' That phrase was used over and over again, ``A rare procedure.'' The President of the United States used ``a rare procedure, done only in the third trimester, in cases where the mother's life or health was in danger or where there was a severe fetal deformity.'' That was the argument and the reason the President vetoed it, and that is why many Members of the Senate stood here and said they could not find themselves in a position where if someone was in this kind of dire consequence that they would limit a person's option. We had plenty of medical testimony at the time, and even more has come in since, that says that this is never an indicated procedure to protect the life or health of the mother, never an indicated procedure. It is not in any textbook on obstetrics. You will not find it in any of the medical literature. I am quoting lots of obstetricians who have testified before Congress, including an obstetrician in the House of Representatives, Dr. Tom Coburn, a Member of the House, and C. Everett Koop, the former Surgeon General, who worked with small premature babies. So we have overwhelming medical authority that this procedure is never indicated to protect the life and health of the mother. But we also found out new information, that in fact this is not a rare procedure. This is a procedure that is done thousands upon thousands of times. The estimate given by the abortion providers is 3,000 to 5,000 times a year. The only independent evidence we have been able to gather is by a press reporter in Bergen County, NJ, who surveyed a clinic in her community, and in that one clinic in northern New Jersey there were 1,500 partial-birth abortions performed every year. Now, if there are 1,500 in one clinic, and we have another doctor who has testified in Nebraska, Bellevue, NE--no offense to my colleagues from Nebraska, but hardly a large metropolitan area--where this doctor said in the last 2 years he has done 1,000 partial-birth abortions, if you just take those two isolated instances and the fact, as the reporter from Bergen County said, that this procedure, according to the doctors there, is done in other places in the New York metropolitan area, but if you just take those two sites alone, it is very hard to say we only have 3,000 to 5,000 of these being performed nationwide. There is no way to check because the people who provide the statistics are the advocates for the procedure. So, of course, they are not going to give us the real numbers. They know that their Achilles heel in this debate, in the debate not just on partial-birth abortions but, frankly, on all abortions, is late-term abortion. This is not something the American public feels comfortable with, but in fact, something the American public overwhelmingly rejects. They think that goes too far. So there is really no reason for them to give us accurate information. When I say there is no reason for them to give us accurate information, it is because there is no way to check whether that information is accurate. The Government keeps no statistics on the number of partial-birth abortions. So there is no way for anybody to independently verify this. Now, I have asked many reporters who have covered this issue, ``How about doing a little reporting? How about verifying your story instead of taking what the Alan Guttmacher Institute,'' which is an arm of the abortion advocacy group and is always cited in literature and in the press as this ``independent source.'' That is just ludicrous. They are an advocate, a zealous advocate of the absolute right to choose. So using their information is as bad as using the providers themselves who are advocates of the procedure. Now, some reporters have actually gone through the process of calling their clinics. We have gotten a variety of different feedback. I talked to a reporter from the Baltimore Sun who said she called some of the hospitals and clinics in Baltimore that do abortions, and they hung up the phone on her. They didn't want to talk to the press. It is none of their business. Others have said they have called and had nice conversations and were told, ``We don't do that here.'' They very well may not do it, but we have no way of checking. The press has no way of checking because they are not going to make their records available. It is confidentiality, and I understand that. But there is no way for us to know how many abortions are done, partial-birth or late-term abortions. You will have advocates get up for this procedure on the Senate floor and talk about this as being ``very rare,'' or ``only a few thousand.'' Just imagine, put yourself in the context of children-- children are used a lot on this floor as a defense for a lot of Government programs. Imagine if you were talking about 3,000 to 5,000 children who we would let starve to death in this country; what would we do about it here? Would we say it is only 3,000 or 5,000 who we are going to let die because we don't want to take any action? I am not too sure that we would do that. But, in fact, that is what we are doing. We are accepting their numbers, which I don't accept. I don't think, frankly, the press should accept them. I think throwing this number out of 3,000 to 5,000, quoting an advocate of the procedure as the authority for the statistical information as a basis for the debate--I mean, I will throw a number out--let's say 50,000, which is probably as credible as the number you are going to get from the other side. It is probably as credible, and probably even more credible because I am just pulling it out of a hat; they are deliberately throwing a number out that they know is well below what the actual number is. So I hope that when we have this debate, we realize, number one, that it is not a rare procedure. And, frankly, we don't know how rare it is. What we do know is that the numbers given out in the past were lies. Let's call it what they were--lies, a deliberate attempt by the abortion industry and advocates to mislead the Congress. They sent people up here and they testified to that lie. So now we are going to believe them and give them a second chance to lie to us. I am sorry. Fool me twice, shame on me. They are not going to fool me twice. I am not going to accept their number, and I don't think anybody should. They have no credibility because they have lied once and, number two, there is no independent verification of that number, because they will not open up their books. They won't even let reporters talk to them. So I encourage the press covering this debate now, and who covered it in the past, not to use a phony number. As horrible as that number is, my goodness we are talking of an admission of at least 3,000 to 5,000--3,000 to 5,000 innocent children, at least 90 percent of which--according to their industry--are healthy babies and healthy mothers. Frankly, even if it were 300 to 500, or just 30 to 50, it should outrage every Member of the Senate that we allow that to happen in such a barbaric way. But 3,000 to 5,000--maybe it's 30,000 to 50,000; who knows? But it is not a rare procedure, and it is not done just on mothers who have severe health complications or life-threatening ailments. We know that. One reason is obvious that we know it. We know it by understanding what the procedure is. The other reason we know is because we have all the medical experts testifying that this procedure is never indicated to protect the health or the life of the mother. But the other reason we know that this procedure would not be used is just by knowing what the procedure is. Take a case. We have a mother whose life is in danger. Now, I will add that we have a provision in this bill to protect the life of the mother. If this procedure is ever needed to protect the life of the mother, it can be used. But let me suggest that that would never happen. We have it in there, frankly, for cosmetic reasons. It would never happen, because if a mother's life is in imminent danger, would any physician use a procedure that takes 3 days to perform? If the woman presents herself to the hospital in a life-threatening condition, would you say, ``We have this great procedure that takes 3 days to do; we will give you medication, come back in 2 days''? You would if you want to kill the mother, or if you want malpractice, but not if you want to provide competent medical services to a woman in need. So it would not be used in that situation. Let's talk about the health condition. Again, if somebody presents herself with a severe health consequence, they could use their fertility or--to be honest with you, I don't know why someone would suggest that we want to protect ourselves from losing our fertility by killing a healthy baby. I don't understand that. If you want to protect your fertility to have children, why would you kill a healthy baby to do that? This is something that strikes me as an argument that I have not heard a sufficient answer to on the other side. Why would you kill one child so you could have more children? As far as I know, there is no guarantee of being able to get pregnant again. Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of couples who are trying to have children and can't. If you have been blessed with a healthy baby and a healthy pregnancy, I don't know why you would do this procedure. But the point is, you would not go through this 3-day procedure if there was an imminent health risk to the mother. It is just not logical. This procedure was not designed by a physician who was looking out for the health and life of the mother. This was designed by a physician, in his own words, as a more efficient way to do abortions for the abortionist, not for the mother. It is efficient in that the mother can come in and do it on an outpatient basis. Late-term abortions are much more complicated. It is much more involved. This basically prepares the woman for a shorter visit to the clinic and a more convenient way for this abortionist to perform the abortion and to be able to do more of them in one day. That is the reason this procedure was developed. You will hear testimony of people who have written textbooks on abortion, who said they would never use this, and they do late-term abortions. So I just ask my colleagues to listen to all of the facts. We had, I think, last year--and it was unfortunate, and I will not point blame at anybody. I am not too sure there is blame. We had a situation where the vote came up in an election year, in an election climate. Members are people, too. They feel a comfort zone on issues. It is very hard for them to sort of break out of this comfort zone into unknown territories, particularly around a very politically charged environment, even though the facts were there; many of the facts were available for the override vote. Certainly, a lot of them were not given credibility in the mainstream media. Now they have been. So I ask many of my colleagues who have already cast a vote more than once on this issue to have an open mind, to step back and look at the reality of partial-birth infanticide and recognize your obligation to those children, recognize your obligation to your constituents in trying to ascertain the truth, and make a decision that is in the best interest for America and for your State, not for the interest group that supports you in your election, not for the advocates who you may have good relationships with. We are in our comfort zone with people who agree with us. It is very easy for us to sort of hang around those people and sort of feed off each other. I understand that. But sometimes you have to step back from all of that. You have to step out in the cold and look at the cold, hard facts and make a decision using your mind and using your heart on what is right--not what is right politically for me, not what is right for my friend, but what is right for our culture and what is right for our whole existence as a country. I think when we do that, I think when Members take time to do that, we will see something very special happen here, which is what happened in the House today. Members will have stepped out of that comfort zone, which I know is very hard to do, will take an honest look at the facts and make a decision that is right for America. That is my hope. I am going to be working very diligently, and I know other Members are, in making sure that this information is disseminated. I again encourage the press to do your job, fact-check your stories before you write them, and ascertain the truth. Do not just report what people say. I know some people think that is their job. If that is the job of a reporter, then reporting has sunk to a new low in this country if all we do is run around and report what people say. That is not journalism, in my book. At least make an attempt to find out the truth. At least check. This is serious stuff. We are not talking about how the Senate buys paper here. It is important. It takes taxpayer dollars. We have a system. We are talking about very weighty issues. We are talking about the issues of life and death, about a barbaric procedure that just goes beyond any vision that I can imagine that people in this country have of what our civilization and what humanity is. So take that responsibility seriously on your side. We take it seriously here. I think, if you do your job and if Members of the Senate do their job, which is to honestly face the facts, allow those facts to rebound off your sense of judgment, your sense of right and wrong, then I think what will bounce back is a vote to end this barbarism in this country by an overwhelming vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this morning, I attended a press conference with Representative Charles Canady from Florida, as well as Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde, the chairmen of the respective bodies' Judiciary Committees, to introduce the House bill, which is companion to the bill I introduced last month, on the issue of partial- birth abortions. At that press conference, Senator Hatch and Chairman Hyde announced a joint House-Senate Judiciary Committee, calling witnesses before the joint committee hearing to talk about previous testimony given by those organizations to Congress in light of the disclosure of Ron Fitzsimmons, who heads an organization of abortion clinics, that he ``lied through his teeth,'' and others, likewise, I will add--this is me speaking, not him--lied through their teeth in telling Congress and the American public the situations in which the partial-birth abortion procedure was used and the number of times that procedure was used. I said at that press conference, and I will say to my colleagues in the Senate today, as I did last year when we debated this bill, I am hopeful that as a result of the new information having been brought to light, not just with Mr. Fitzsimmons but, frankly, over the past year or so, with this new information that has been brought to light not just by him, but by newspaper reports, magazine reports from the mainstream media, that we will have Members of the Senate on both sides--I ask everyone to relook at this issue and base your decisions on the facts as we now know them, not the misinformation or disinformation given out by organizations like the National Abortion Rights Action League or Planned Parenthood or others who deliberately lied to the American public, misled the American public on a variety of issues. First, they came to the Congress and said--in fact, look at Members of Congress on the House side, going to the well, saying this was true because these organizations said it was true, that the procedure was done under anesthesia and the anesthesia killed the baby. We had an anesthesiologist come forward and say, ``Wait a minute, we have women now who won't get anesthesia to deliver children,'' which is normal in this country, of course, ``because they are afraid they are going to kill their baby,'' and so they had to back off. ``Well, we didn't really mean that.'' Well, of course they meant it. They testified to it. Then the next great lie was that this was a procedure done, you know, with only a few hundred a year, only with women whose health was in danger or whose children were fatally deformed, and, as a result of that, we need to have this option available. ``There's only a few hundred a year.'' In fact, you know, tap into NARAL's home page. You will find the information still there. At least it was a couple days ago until some people found it. Now they may have pulled it. But they still say there are only a couple hundred being performed and only in the third trimester. That was their argument all along. It is a lie. That is what Mr. Fitzsimmons says--he lied through his teeth. How would he know? He is the president of an organization of abortion clinics. He called up the doctors of the clinics, and the doctors said, ``No. We perform this fairly routinely,'' not just on third trimester babies--and some are--but the vast majority--95 percent is my guess, or even more--are on healthy mothers with healthy babies in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Those are the facts. If Members of this body will look at those facts and vote based on the facts as we know them--this procedure, which involves taking a baby, late term, fifth, sixth, in rare cases seventh, eighth, maybe even ninth month, but in rare cases in that situation, taking this baby, delivering the baby feet first, delivering the entire baby except for the head, then taking a pair of scissors and puncturing the base of the skull, sticking a suction tube in there and suctioning the brains out, killing the baby and then delivering this now dead baby. If the Members of the U.S. Senate know, as we do know now, that that happens, not a few hundred times--in my opinion, a few hundred times is pretty horrible--now several thousand times, at least according to Mr. Fitzsimmons, 3,000 to 5,000--given the industry track record on what they report, probably multiples of that, but at least that many-- whether we are going to condone healthy moms, healthy babies, some of them viable, being allowed to have this abortion done in this just most gruesome manner. So I ask the Members of the Senate to not just fall into your camp that you are comfortable with, you know, if you are pro-choice, ``I've got to be pro-choice.'' This is not pro-life, not pro-choice, certainly not Democrat or Republican. There were Democrats at the press conference. Democrats have been some of the most vocal supporters of this bill. This is an issue of who we are as a country and who this body is as a Senate. We have a life-of-the-mother exception. I know Members continue to get up and say, ``Well, we need to do this to protect the life of the mother.'' There is a life-of-the-mother exception. It is clear. It is solid. No one who reads it would say it is anything but a life-of-the- mother exception. So, if this procedure needs to be done to save the life of the mother, which I have not found anybody who says it is necessary, but if it is, you can do it. But after that, this procedure must be made illegal, given the facts as we now know them. So I am asking Members, new Members who have not voted on this issue, and Members who have voted the other way in particular, to take a look at this information. Let me challenge folks here in the other gallery, in the news media, to start doing your homework. This information was readily available. All you had to do was report it. All you had to do was look. All you had to do is ask. I know you folks love to believe people who agree with you, and you take that as gospel. Well, do your work. Investigate. Find out the truth. The American public just does not want to hear what your friends in these organizations say is the truth. They want to know the real truth. It is your job to tell them. We tried to tell them. We were here giving you the facts. You just decided not to report them. Tell the truth. Let the American public know what is really going on out there. When they continue, as they will, to lie on television, these organizations, to try to hide their dirty secrets, call them on it. Quit pandering to the other side. You owe it to the country. We are talking about lives of innocent babies here. You owe it to your profession. We owe it to the country. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to make a couple of comments about the action that just took place here on the Senate floor with respect to the balanced budget amendment and to express, obviously, my disappointment as someone who supported the balanced budget amendment, my disappointment that we did not succeed in passing what I believe is a vitally important measure for this country's future. We will have another day where we will be back here and try again, whether it is this year or next year or in the next session of Congress, to fight that fight again. In a sense, the battle is not lost; it only continues. I am a little more concerned about another battle which I fear has at least as lasting consequences as not passing this constitutional amendment, and that is something that is important to all of us here and to all Americans. As important as our Constitution is the public's faith in our institutions, our governmental institutions and the people who serve in them. One of the real concerns I have--in fact, I have been traveling around my State of Pennsylvania talking at a lot of high schools and expressing there my concerns that a lot of young people choose not to vote. In fact, in the last election, of 18 to 24-year-olds, I believe only a third even bothered to turn out to vote. That is a low since 18- year-olds were given a right to vote. Not only that, but the last election was the low point in turnout for the general electorate. I think it was under 50 percent in the last Presidential election. A lot of people have postulated as to what is going on with the American public, that we seem to become either disinterested or cynical about the electoral process and our Government in general. I think, unfortunately, what has happened in this debate over the last 2 weeks has added to that cynicism, has added to the mistrust that many Americans feel toward their institutions and toward the people who serve in those institutions. I speak, of course, about the people who campaigned promising the electors of their State that they would vote a certain way on what many people consider the most important issue we will vote on here in this Congress. It is a seminal issue. It sort of divides you between the politics of the old and the politics of the new, in my opinion. You had at least 12 Members in this most recent election who campaigned, and campaigned vigorously, stating that they were going to support the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in the same form they had supported it in the House of Representatives. And yet not more than 3 or 4 months after their election, they have changed their minds. Yes, the Constitution is important. Yes, amending the Constitution, in my opinion, is important. But public confidence in us is as important, for if the public does not see us as legitimate, if the public does not see its institutions and the people who run them as trustworthy, then the Constitution is not nearly as strong a document-- in fact, some would suggest it is even a worthless document--because democracy cannot exist without the public faith in what we are about and the legitimacy of our Government. So I think this debate is sad for, yes, the reason we did not pass the balanced budget amendment. That is very sad. But I think the greater long-term threat to our country is public cynicism over this institution and all of our democratic institutions. That was harmed and, in some places, it was devastated in the past few weeks. That is something we will have a hard time with when fighting the battle again. It makes the battle to come back much harder. It is not as if we can bring this up again as we can a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It now is something young and old people will be looking at, what happened here, and saying, does politics really matter? Why bother to vote; they do not mean what they say anyway. I commend the Members; some of them had very tough votes in bucking their President and their leaders, for standing up and doing the right thing, doing what they said they would do. When it comes down to it, in this institution--and I suspect in every workplace in America--the bottom line comes down to you have nothing here except your word. You have nothing except your word. With respect to me and my relationship to my constituents in Pennsylvania, I find that to be a solemn vow. My word means something. And if my word is no good, then they have every right to question me and question the institution in which I serve. So I think we did have a defeat today. We had a defeat not for the constitutional amendment. Yes, we had that defeat. We had a defeat for our institution. We had a defeat for our democracy. We had a defeat for the process that legitimizes everything we do here. And that truly is a sad thing. It is a sad day for the Senate. It is even a sadder day for this country. I would just suggest as some anecdote to the people who feel disenfranchised as a result of what happened here that most of the people in this Senate did do what they said they were going to do, on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Members of this Senate stood up and told the public the truth when it, frankly, may have not been easy to tell the truth. And from that, I think, we should take some solace, that, in fact, most Members do stand up and say what they mean. And I hope that we can learn from this lesson, all of us learn from this lesson, the importance of having the public's faith in who we are, what we say and what we do. It matters. We have a lot of people in this town now who seem to be pushing the edge on a lot of activities. And you see the public just does not seem--I get this question all the time--to care about all these shenanigans that go on around here. I agree. I think there are so many shenanigans going on around here they discount them at the time. They think they are all bad, and why is he any different than anyone else. Wow, that is a dangerous sentiment in this country. That is a sentiment that gets you in trouble. We should be outraged when people do things that are illegal, when people do things that are unethical. We should be outraged when our public officials, whom we hold up to represent us, do not meet the standards that we ourselves meet, and we should think differently about them because they do not meet those standards. It is a sad day, but I hope that we again have learned the lesson that it is important for us to be men and women of our word. And that goes beyond any bill, any amendment, any issue that we deal with in this body. Once we understand that lesson, I think we will be a greater body and a greater country as a result. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I join you in welcoming a constituent of mine and a great minister to the people of Pennsylvania in Sellersville and throughout the Philadelphia diocese, Monsignor Long. I welcome him here today to the U.S. Senate and thank him for his outstanding service, now 43 years, to the diocese of Philadelphia and 14 years at St. Agnes Parish in Sellersville. I appreciate, also, your moving and wonderful prayer. Thank you, and enjoy the day here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a Pennsylvania constituent and a very dedicated public servant from Philadelphia, PA. On January 11, George Robinson was honored upon his retirement from the Philadelphia Fire Department. After graduating from the Philadelphia Public School System, Mr. Robinson joined the department on August 3, 1959. Since then, he has served the city of Philadelphia with distinction for 37 years. Mr. Robinson rose through the department to the position of battalion chief, and he also served as acting deputy chief. During his career, Mr. Robinson successfully completed ``Career Development Three'' at the National Fire Academy, as well as related courses at the Philadelphia Fire Academy. He has also received various certificates of training from the city of Philadelphia Training Center. As a battalion commander, Chief Robinson coordinated all aspects of fire alarm response. In addition to conducting preliminary investigations of fire causes, he inspected company personnel, fire stations, apparatus, equipment, records, reports, and safety hazards. In 1992, Chief Robinson became the department's executive officer. During this time, he also served as the integrity officer, chaired the critical incident debriefing team, and served on a steering committee to streamline the office of the inspector general. Moreover, Chief Robinson coordinated all transfer requests, assignments, and officer rotations. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring George Robinson for his distinguished service to the city of Philadelphia Fire Department with the following proclamation:

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Philadelphia Martin Luther King, Jr. Association for Nonviolence held its 15th Annual King Day Luncheon on January 20. I wanted to take a few minutes of Senate business today and share this very moving experience with my colleagues. Mr. President, I had the honor and privilege of participating in the King Day celebration. The annual program in Philadelphia is a very moving tribute to Dr. King and is the largest national celebration of this great civil rights leader. Additionally, the program serves as the most ecumenical and multicultural annual gathering for the city of Philadelphia. In recent years, this program has featured such special guests as Gen. Colin Powell and Vice President Al Gore. The King Association has also honored such dignitaries as Rosa Parks, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Judge Leon Higginbotham, Attorney Bernard Segal, and one of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Under the leadership of the Honorable C. DeLores Tucker, the King Association has the unique mission of promoting and implementing the principle of nonviolence throughout the Northeast. The fact that the association serves as the only affiliate of the King Center in Atlanta, commissioned by Coretta Scott King, reflects the importance of the King Association's mission and services. For allowing me to be a part of this year's King Day Luncheon, I would like to again express my very sincere and genuine gratitude to the King Association president, the Honorable C. DeLores Tucker, and the executive director, Dr. Teta V. Banks. As we honor and recognize Dr. King, there is no greater living tribute than the thousands upon thousands of national community leaders of all ethnic backgrounds who continue working to make Dr. King's dream a reality. Mr. President, the work done by the King Association in Philadelphia and the Annual King Day Luncheon certainly embody the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the agenda for the 105th Congress reflects a continuance of the very significant debate that occurred in the 104th Congress on the issue of partial birth abortion. Four months ago, we debated and considered a presidential veto override on a bill to ban the partial birth abortion procedure. On a final vote, we came very close to banning this very gruesome procedure, and the number of colleagues who supported the override set the stage for consideration again this year. A wide spectrum of individuals have coalesced around the effort to ban partial birth abortions. These varied individuals and groups have raised their voices in support of a ban both because of the brutality of partial birth abortions and because they recognize that this debate is not about Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. It is not about when a fetus becomes a baby. And it is certainly not about women's health. It is about infanticide, it is about killing a child as he or she is being born, an issue that neither Roe vs. Wade nor the subsequent Doe vs. Bolton decision addressed. During the Senate debate last year, various traditionally pro-choice legislators voted in support of legislation to ban this particular procedure. Among them was a colleague who stated on the floor of the Senate, ``In my legal judgement, the issue is not over a woman's right to choose within the constitutional context of Roe versus Wade. * * * The line of the law is drawn, in my legal judgement, when the child is partially out of the womb of the mother. It is no longer abortion; it is infanticide.'' He was joined in these sentiments by other like minded Senators. This perspective is significant in that it suggests the scope of the tragedy that this procedure represents. And for those who may still be unclear what a partial birth abortion procedure is, it is this: a fully formed baby--in most cases a viable fetus of 23-26 weeks--is pulled from its mother until all but the head is delivered. Then, scissors are plunged into the base of the skull, a tube is inserted and the child's brains are suctioned out so that the head of the now-dead infant collapses and is delivered. Partial birth abortion is tragic for the infant who loses his or her life in this brutal procedure. It is also a personal tragedy for the families who choose the procedure, as it is for those who perform it-- even if they aren't aware of it. But partial birth abortion is also a profound social tragedy. It rips through the moral cohesion of our public life. It cuts into our most deeply held beliefs about the importance of protecting and cherishing vulnerable human life. It fractures our sense that the laws of our country should reflect long- held, commonly accepted moral norms. Yet this kind of tragedy--even as it calls forth and exposes our outrage--can be an unexpected catalyst for consensus, for new coalitions and configurations in our public life. The partial birth abortion debate moves us beyond the traditional lines of confrontation to hollow out a place in the public square where disparate individuals and groups can come together and draw a line that they know should not be crossed. The stark tragedy of partial birth abortion can be the beginning of a significant public discussion where we define--or re-define--our first principles. Why is such a discussion important? Precisely because it throws into relief the fundamental truths around which a moral consensus is formed in this country. And, as John Courtney Murray reminds us in ``We Hold These Truths, Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition'', a public consensus which finds its expression in the law should be ``an ensemble of substantive truths, a structure of basic knowledge, an order of elementary affirmations* * *''. If we do not have fundamental agreement about first principles, we simply cannot engage one another in civil debate. All we have is the confusion of different factions locked in their own moral universe. If we could agree publicly on just this one point--that partial birth abortion is not something our laws should sanction, and if we could then reveal the consensus--a consensus that I know exists--against killing an almost-born infant, we would have significantly advanced the discussion about what moral status and dignity we give to life in all its stages. Public agreement, codified by law, on this one prohibition gives us a common point of departure. It give us a common language even, because we agree, albeit in a narrow sense, on the meaning of fundamental terms such as life and death. And it is with this common point of departure and discourse--however narrow--that we gain a degree of coherence and unity in our public life and dialogue. I truly believe that out of the horror and tragedy of partial birth abortions, we can find points of agreement across ideological, political and religious lines which enable us to work toward a life- sustaining culture. So, as hundreds of thousands of faithful and steadfast citizens come together to participate in this year's March for Life, let us remember that such a culture, the culture for which we hope and pray daily, might very well be achieved one argument at a time. Mr. President, I am proud to have the opportunity to sponsor this legislation and to continue the very significant achievements of my colleague, Senator Bob Smith. I look forward to continuing that effort in cooperation with Representative Charles Canady, and I thank my colleagues for making this initiative a priority in our legislative agenda.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have been made aware of plans to honor Mr. William Dante Bucci next month and I would like to take the opportunity to share with my colleagues the outstanding achievement and distinguished service he has displayed. Not only has Mr. Bucci displayed a high level of professional achievement and concern for his community, but he has also celebrated his family's heritage. Mr. Bucci was born in Philadelphia, PA, and has been a member of the Order Sons of Italy in America, Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, since 1 year of age. In fact, Bill is the longest continuously active member of the Ivy Ridge Lodge 251. William Bucci is a 1974 cum laude graduate of Roman Catholic High School of Philadelphia, where he earned the Thomas E. Cahill Merit Award for outstanding achievement as a senior. Bill then earned a congressional appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy receiving a bachelor of science degree in 1982. Following his graduation from the Naval Academy and his naval service, Bill then demonstrated a high level of achievement in the world of business. After being Market Executive of the Year with the Xerox Corp. in Philadelphia, Bill was named a full partner and first vice president at age 29 in the brokerage firm Smith, Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc. William is a three-time winner of Smith, Barney's Broker of the Year Award and is a life member of their President's Club. In 1992, William joined Shearson Lehman Bros. as a senior vice president. Following the purchase of Shearson Lehman Bros. by Smith, Barney, Bill was recruited by Prudential Securities Inc. in Bala Cynwyd, PA, where he is now a senior vice president. William Bucci's commitment to serving his community is well known to those that have had the opportunity to interact with him. Bill has served as junior varsity basketball coach for the Cardinals of Dougherty High School in the Philadelphia Catholic League. In addition, he was a head coach for 10 years in the Philadelphia Archdiocese CYO program. Not surprisingly, Bill has been recognized by his coaching peers as the league's all-star coach on three different occasions. William Bucci's connection to the Order Sons of Italy in America is well cemented. He is the grandson of Francesco Bucci, past president of the Giulio Caesar Lodge 612 O.S.I.A., and Giuseppe Mercurio, a founder and charter member of the Ivy Ridge Lodge 251, O.S.I.A. His list of credentials in the Order Sons of Italy in America is truly impressive. For instance, Bill has served or currently does serve in the following capacities: third vice president for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; a trustee, O.S.I.A. Charitable and Education Trust; member, Pennsylvania State Finance Committee; served as chairman for the Purple Aster Awards Ball souvenir program book for 1995; member, national membership committee; member, national fund raiser committee; ex-officio delegate to the national convention; three-term past president, Ivy Lodge 251, of which he has served as vice president and as trustee. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to say that William Dante Bucci is a constituent of mine. Mr. Bucci has been, and will continue to be, a community leader and standard bearer for Italian Americans.