Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, what I was talking about a few minutes ago, Senator DeWine highlighted. I just want to reinforce some of the evidence that has come forward throughout the process of the hearings and the debates in the House and Senate, but also new information that has been made available to us. I want to say again to Members who are thinking about this issue, who have possibly opposed this issue in the past, that there certainly is enough information that has come out since the original passage of this bill that would give any Member who truly does deliberate on this issue the opportunity to take another look and to gather all the facts. I am going to read an article written by four obstetricians, two who the Senator from Ohio just referred to, Nancy Romer and Pamela Smith, but also Curtis Cook and Joseph DeCook. These are all obstetricians. They are members of an organization called PAHCT, which is, Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth. My understanding is that that group is now comprised of over 300 such physicians who share the opinion of this text that was printed on Thursday, September 19, in the Wall Street Journal. The House of Representatives will vote in the next few days on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The debate on the subject has been noisy and rancorous. You've heard from the activists. You've heard from the politicians. Now may we speak? And speaking as obstetricians. We are the physicians who, on a daily basis, treat pregnant women and their babies. And we can no longer remain silent while abortion activists, the media and even the president of the United States continue to repeat false medical claims about partial-birth abortion. The appalling lack of medical credibility on the side of those defending this procedure has forced us--for the first time on our professional careers--to leave the sidelines in order to provide some sorely needed facts in a debate that has been dominated by anecdote, emotion and media stunts. Since the debate on this issue began, those whose real agenda is to keep all types of abortion legal--at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason--have waged what can only be called an orchestrated misinformation campaign. First the National Abortion Federation and other pro- abortion groups claimed the procedure didn't exist. When a paper written by the doctor who invented the procedure was produced, abortion proponents changed their story, claiming the procedure was only done when a women's life was in danger. Then the same doctor, the nation's main practitioner of the technique, was caught-on tape-admitting that 80% of his partial-bath abortions were ``purely elective.'' Then there was the anesthesia myth. The American public was told that it wasn't the abortion that killed the baby, but the anesthesia administered to the mother before the procedure. This claim was immediately and thoroughly denounced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which called the claim ``entirely inaccurate.'' Yet Planned Parenthood and its allies continued to spread the myth, causing needless concern among our pregnant patients who heard the claims and were terrified that epidurals during labor, or anesthesia during needed surgeries, would kill their babies. The lastest baseless statement was made by President Clinton himself when he said that if the mothers who opted for partial-birth abortions had delivered their children naturally, the women's bodies would have been ``eviscerated'' or ``ripped to shreds'' and they ``could never have another baby.'' That claim is totally and completely false. Contrary to what abortion activities would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her fertility. It seems to have escaped anyone's attention that one of the five women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony had five miscarriages after her partial-birth abortion. Consider the dangers inherent in partial-birth abortion, which usually occurs after the fifth month of pregnancy. A woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over several days, which risks creating an ``incompetent cervix,'' the leading cause of premature deliveries. it is also an invitation to infection, a major cause of infertility. The abortionist then reaches into the womb to pull a child feet first out of the mother (internal podalic version), but leaves the head inside. Under normal circumstances, physicians avoid breech births whenever possible; in this case, the doctor intentionally causes one--and risks tearing the uterus in the process. He then forces scissors through the base of the baby's skull--which remains lodged just within the birth canal. This is a partially ``blind'' procedure, done by feel, risking direct scissor injury to the uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower uterine segment, resulting in immediate and massive bleeding and the threat of shock or even death to the mother. None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the U.S. regularly threat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary. Not for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the head), not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid collecting in the women) and not for trisomy (genetic abnormalities characterized by an extra chromosome). Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head. And in some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, a doctor performs a Caesarean section. But in no case is it necessary to partially deliver an infant through the vagina and then kill the infant. How telling it is that although Mr. Clinton met with women who claimed to have needed partial-birth abortions on account of these conditions, he has flat-out refused to meet with women who delivered babies with these same conditions, with no damage whatsoever to their health or future fertility! Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was recently asked whether he'd ever operated on children who had any of the disabilities described in this debate. Indeed he had. In fact, one of his patients--``with a huge omphalocele [a sac containing the baby's organs] much bigger than here head''-- went on to become the head nurse in his intensive care unit many years later. So he delivered this baby that had these organs outside the body. Not only was that repaired, but that woman went on to become the head nurse in his intensive care unit. Mr. Koop's reaction to the president's veto? ``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction'' on the matter, he said. Such a procedure, he added, cannot truthfully be called medically necessary for either the mother or--he scarcely need point out--for the baby. Considering these medical realities, one can only conclude that the women who thought they underwent partial-birth abortions for ``medical'' reasons were tragically misled. And those who purport to speak for women don't seem to care. So whom are you going to believe? The activist-extremists who refuse to allow a little truth to get in the way of their agenda? The politicians who benefit from the activists' political action committees? Or doctors who have the facts? Mr. President, I would like to read from the American Medical News. This was an interview with C. Everett Koop. In fact, I read most of it. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it is important to realize again the new information that has come out. The information provided by these physicians, the information provided by Mr. Cohen. And I have an article here by David Brown, published in the Washington Post, on September 17, just last week. This was the article that Mr. Cohen referred to in his column where he changed his mind. He changed his mind. Someone who is admittedly very pro-choice changed his mind on whether this procedure should be legal or not. One of the reasons he changed his mind--the principal reason was as a result of Dr. Brown's article talking about ``Late Term Abortions, Who Gets Them and Why,'' which is the name of the article by David Brown. He talks about who gets them and why. He talks about Dr. Haskell from Ohio, who says, ``I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent of the abortions are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' Elective means, according to David Brown, that the fetuses were normal, or that the pregnant woman was not seriously ill. I ask unanimous consent this article by David Brown be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Brown talks about the different reasons--and a lot of the reasons given by physicians are reasons that are not medical necessities. Dr. Markman from California, I believe, performed nine abortions on third-trimester abortions on babies. The fetal abnormality? Cleft palate. Dr. Pamela Smith sums it up best in a letter written October 28, last year, to Charles Canady, who carried this bill over in the House. The last paragraph: There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. Partial birth abortion is a technique devised by abortionists for their own convenience, ignoring the health risks of the mother. The health status of women in this country will thereby only be enhanced by the banning of this procedure. I think Mr. Cohen and the doctors I will refer to later have hit the nail on the head on what is going on with this whole debate. I came to the floor last year and spoke on this issue. It is the first time in 6 years as a Senator and Congressman that I had ever taken to the floor of either body and utter the word ``abortion.'' I am pro-life. I feel very strongly about that. But I have never felt moved before to stand up and do something about it until I saw this. I thought eventually in this country if we go out, as I have tried to do and talk to people, and try to change hearts by talking to people, young people, and talk about abortion, talk about how it is a scourge on our country, and that 1.5 million of these are performed every year in this country. It is not a healthy thing for women who have them. It is certainly not a healthy thing for our society that so many are done. I thought if we just kept vigilant we would see what the President said he would like to see--that abortions are safe, legal, and rare. To me, this bill and the President's veto of this bill showed me that the rhetoric--how appealing it is, that abortions be rare--is just rhetoric. You cannot, you cannot, in your heart want abortions to be rare and allow this to happen in this country. What are you saying? What are you saying to those young people who are home from school and maybe made the mistake of plopping on C-SPAN 2 for a few seconds and they hear someone stand up and say you can deliver a baby and you can kill it. What are you saying to people who actually have to deal with this issue, saying we can kill, not as Mr. Cohen says, a few weeks old inch-long embryo, but a fully formed viable baby, viable baby, inches away from that first breath. What kind of a message does that send? What kind of a country are we? If we knew of a procedure that had dogs delivered and then we performed that procedure on puppies, do you know how many letters from animal rights activists we would be getting now--and some of the very same people who would argue to keep this legal would argue to ban the other. What does that say about us? You have the President of the United States who works very hard in the language of his veto message to try to cast the debate in a different light, talking about issues that really are not substantive here. I will read again and again until the cows come home, ``there is absolutely no obstetrical situation encountered in this situation which requires a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother.'' Yet the President vetoed it. Why? To preserve the health of the mother. It does not happen that way. We try to form the debate around things that people can feel comfortable with. This issue is an issue that a lot of people do not feel comfortable with. We do not like to talk about it. But we have to talk about this because we are defined not by what the President of the United States would like us to feel comfortable with, not by the language that we can hide behind and not think about, but by what goes on every day in this country. A lot of folks in Washington would like us to be cast in what we say. What we say is what we really are. I think in our hearts we know what we do is what we really are. I have a lot of faith in the U.S. Senate. I have a lot of faith in the people who sit here and serve here, that they will take that time and will gather that evidence and look at the United States of America and say in the greatest civilization known to man--will we allow this to happen here? I believe, even though all the media reports says we will never override the President's veto here, we are way short--well, we may have been, but I truly believe that my colleagues will study this issue well, will take all the new information that is available and will look at where we are in America and what signal we are going to send to this generation and future generations of Americans about what we will become. If this is not wrong, I do not know what wrong is. This is wrong, and I believe the U.S. Senate will stand up in the next few days and tell the American public, ``We heard you.'' Tell those babies we understand now we are not going to let this happen any more under our watch. I see the Senator from California is here and I asked her a question. I will ask it again because she did not answer it the two times previously when I asked, so I will ask one more time. A partial birth abortion is performed when a baby is delivered feet first, as the Senator from Ohio described, the baby is delivered feet first through the birth canal. Everything is delivered--arms, shoulders, torso, legs, all delivered outside of the womb, outside of the mother completely except for the head. As nurse Brenda Shafer said, ``A pair of curved scissors, surgical scissors, are then inserted into the base of the skull and the brains removed.'' My question to the Senator from California is, what would her position be if, when the shoulders were delivered, that accidentally the head was also delivered; would the woman and her doctor--and I hear so often it is the woman and her doctor's right to choose--would the woman and the doctor in that situation where the head is delivered and the baby is completely outside of the womb, would the doctor be permitted, then, to kill the baby? I will be happy, then, to yield the floor and await her answer.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will withhold we will see what the situation is. We will be happy to accommodate the Senator from Florida if we can.

Mr. SANTORUM. We are scheduled to go to debate on the bill and votes at 5 o'clock. This unanimous consent would push that back, and because Members are scheduled later this evening, they do not want to do that. That is the problem.

Mr. SANTORUM. I object.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes, and I would be happy to share that time, half and half.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from California makes a point--again, it is a good one--that the President will sign the bill with the exception for the life and health of the mother. That is what the President said. I have two amendments. One, the health of the mother exception has been consistently held even though it has been narrowly drawn by many State legislatures, the health of the mother exception has been interpreted by courts unanimously as being anything--financial health is the health of mother; social interaction, health of the mother; her age, health of the mother; maturity; emotional health; mental health; physical health. Yes. It is a limitation without limit. It is no limitation at all. And the Senator from California knows that. More importantly, the President of the United States knows that very well. It is all how to frame the issue. It makes a lot of people feel comfortable that the President really does want to limit these things. It is only these serious health consequences, and that is reasonable until you understand that health consequences is not a limit on the procedure. It is not a limit on the procedure. So to make a limitation that does not have a limit is just what I described before which is someone who wants to be judged by what they say to you that sounds so nice instead of what the reality of what their words would be which means partial-birth abortions would continue to go on in this country without limitation if we passed a bill that had a health limitation. That is not Rick Santorum, the Senator from Pennsylvania speaking. That is court after court after court after court interpreting language that you would believe would be rock solid. But with the judges it is not. So I would just say go ahead and continue to use it, as I am sure you will--that we could agree on this rhetoric. But I can guarantee you we cannot agree on this rhetoric. We cannot agree on a limitation that is a phony limitation; to a procedure that is infanticide and nothing more. The second thing I would say is you have doctor after doctor who has written to us and said that this procedure is never medically necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I was saying, quoting Mr. Cohen: I didn't know at the time-- Mr. Cohen, who, again, previously wrote that he was in favor of allowing this procedure to be legal, says: I didn't know at the time, of course, and maybe the people who supplied my data--the usual pro-choice groups--were giving me what they thought was precise information. And precise I was. I wrote that ``just four one-hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks'' and that ``most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found to be severely damaged or because the life of the mother is clearly in danger.'' It turns out, though, that no one really knows what percentage of abortions are late-term. No one keeps figures. But my Washington Post colleague David Brown looked behind the purported figures and the purported rationale for these abortions and found something other than medical crises of one sort or another. After interviewing doctors who performed late-term abortions and surveying the literature, Brown--a physician himself--wrote: ``These doctors say that while a significant number of their patients have late-term abortions for medical reasons, many others--perhaps the majority--do not. Brown's findings brought me up short. If, in fact, most women seeking late-term abortions have just come to grips a little bit late with their pregnancy, then the word ``choice'' has been stretched past a reasonable point. I realize that many of these women are dazed teenagers or rape victims and that their anguish is real and their decision probably not capricious. But I know, too, that the fetus being destroyed fits my personal definition of life. A 3-inch embryo (under 12 weeks) is one thing; but a nearly fully formed infant is something else. He goes on to say: A woman really ought to have the right to choose. But society has certain rights, too, and one of them is to insist that late-term abortions--[which] seems pretty close to infanticide--are severely restricted, limited to women whose health is on the line or who are carrying severely deformed fetuses. In the latter stages of pregnancy, the word abortion does not quite suffice; we are talking about the killing of the fetus--and, too often, not for any urgent medical reason. President Clinton, apparently as misinformed as I was about late-term abortions, now ought to look at the new data. So should the Senate, which has been expected to sustain the president's veto. Late-term abortions once seemed to be the choice of women who, really, had no other choice. The facts now are different. If that's the case, then so should be the law. Mr. President, what Mr. Cohen talks about is the fact that late-term abortions are not as rare as some would suggest, and that partial-birth abortions are not as rare. The Senator from California said that we should not get involved in the emergency room. The Senator from California knows that the partial- birth abortion procedure is not an emergency procedure. It is a 3-day procedure. It takes 3 days from the time the woman presents herself to the abortionist to the time that the abortion is completed. So it can never be used in an emergency. She also said, well, if we only had an exception for the health of the mother. The Senator from California, who debates this issue on the floor a lot, knows fully well, that health of the mother has been interpreted by courts over and over and over again to include virtually everything. When I say that, what do I mean? Yes, it includes physical health, but it includes mental health, financial health, social health, any kind of health impact. That is a limitation without limit. There is no limitation when we put in there health of the mother. And that is exactly what she wants to accomplish. That is exactly what she wants to accomplish. She does not want to limit this procedure, or any other abortion procedure, at any time during the pregnancy for any reason. I respect her opinion. I just do not agree with it. I do not think the Members of the Senate agree with that. There is new evidence out. I hope that my colleagues--and the Senator from California made it sound like this was a pro-life/pro-choice issue. I can give her a laundry list. She knows them well, and that many people who are pro- choice here in the Senate and in the House voted for this bill to outlaw this procedure. Why? Because this crosses the line. This goes too far. You have a person here who, in very strong terms in this article, talks about how adamantly pro-choice he is; and he in fact writes the reason we should draw the line here is because if you do not draw the line, you endanger a woman's right to choose generally because of the extremism of this position. I do not think the Senate should go down in history as that body that allowed infanticide to continue, as so described, not only by Mr. Cohen, but by the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop and the Pope, and many others. Senator Moynihan, others--Senator Moynihan, I say to Senator Boxer, is not adamantly pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, and has said this looks perilously close to infanticide. How often does this procedure take place? Again, let us look at all the information that we have gathered since the original vote in the Senate. This is The Sunday Record in Bergen County, NJ, September 15, 1996, just a few days ago, an article, ``The facts on partial-birth abortion.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me, if I can, just quote from some of the article as to the facts that were uncovered. You heard Mr. Cohen reference Dr. Brown in his work with the Washington Post finding out about more of these procedures being performed in more late-term abortion procedures being done in this country. Let me share with you this analysis done by a Ruth Padawer, who is the health reporter for the newspaper. She talks about how the prochoice people say that this is a very rare procedure. I quote: But interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year--three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a ``minuscule amount'' are for medical reasons. What are we talking about here? We are talking about abortions performed--I know this is an uncomfortable topic for many people to listen to, and I am sure some people are tuning out and turning off. But this is going on in this country. We have an obligation to face up to who we are and what we are doing here, and not turn our backs because it is just not proper dinner conversation. We are performing abortions in this country on babies, fully formed babies in their third trimester, and viable babies who are in the late second. I am talking about 22, 23, 24 weeks, the second trimester. As I said on Friday, my wife is a neonatal intensive care nurse. She took care of 22-week-olds and 21-week-olds and 24-week-olds in Pittsburgh at Magee Woman's Hospital. She has told me story after story of how many of them have survived and how the percentages are increasing. We are talking about delivering these babies, for no medical reason, feet first through the birth canal, and then kill, by taking a pair of metzenbaum scissors and shoving them into the base of the skull, inserting the catheter into the brain and sucking the brains out to kill the baby, and then deliver the head. And 1,500 times, according to this article, it happens in New Jersey alone every year. The facts, as presented by those who argued against the bill, the facts they quoted from reputable sources, were only a few hundred in the country done every year. The article goes on: But those estimates are belied by reports from abortion providers who use the method. Doctors at Metropolitan Medical Center in Englewood estimate that their clinic alone performs 3,000 abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which at least half are by partial-birth abortions. ``I always try an intact D&E (which is the medical term for partial-birth abortion) first,'' said a Metropolitan Medical gynecologist, who, like every other provider interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity. Another metropolitan area doctor who works outside New Jersey said he does about 260 post 20-week abortions a year, of which half are partial-birth abortions.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. The doctor, who is also a professor at two prestigious teaching hospitals, said he has been teaching intact D&E partial-birth abortions since 1981, and he said he knows of two former students on Long Island and two in New York City who use the procedure. In fact, he says, ``I do an intact D&E whenever I can * * *'' This is not a rare procedure. This is a procedure that is done all too frequently in this country. Those were not presented to this Senate when it deliberated on this bill the first time. Those facts were somehow not researched well by the prochoice groups, like the Guttmacher Institute that provided us the statistics we were using in the first place, because there is no, as Mr. Cohen said, national record keeping of this. There is no agency in Government that keeps track of this. We only have to go by the people who provide the abortions to tell us what they do. And of course--I shouldn't say ``of course''--but what has happened, in fact, is that they provided us a number that is not anywhere close to the numbers that really go on in this country. I would suggest that if they were so cavalier with their numbers as to how many, how cavalier are they with other facts associated with this issue? The fact of the matter is, this is not a prolife/prochoice issue. This is an issue about how far we will go as a country, how far we have gone in blurring the lines. I asked the question to a person the other day on the Fox Morning News when I was on last week--I will ask it to the Senator from California, if she would answer--and that is, if we had a 24-week baby or 25-week or 26-week baby delivered, normal baby, healthy fetus, that someone just decided, as these articles indicate, they wanted to have a late-term abortion because they just did not get around to it sooner, or they had a change of heart, if that baby were pulled through the birth canal, feet first, and delivered, everything except for the head, and by some mistake of the doctor, the baby's head also was delivered, instead of the doctor, as has been testified before having to hold the baby's head in so he can puncture the skull and suction the brains, if the doctor let the baby's head slip out, I ask the Senator from California, if that baby's head slipped out and that baby was born, would the doctor and the mother have a right to choose whether that baby should live? Would the doctor be able to kill the baby at that point? I am happy to yield time to the Senator from California if the Senator would like to answer that question. Would the doctor be permitted at that point to kill the baby?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate, as a result of the comments of the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Missouri, to talk about another issue that deals with the issue of life, an issue that will be before us in a very short few days. That is the issue of partial-birth abortions. I took to the floor on Friday afternoon when this place was pretty empty to talk about the issue of partial-birth abortions. I said at that time that while the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is used, this is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue. This is not whether you are for or against abortion. This debate should be limited, must be limited to the procedure that we are discussing, and that is the procedure called partial-birth abortions. I said at that time that I thought we should have a good debate, that the Senate, being the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, should live up to its moniker, that we should have a deliberate, thoughtful debate on facts. I felt if we did have such a debate here, if we had such a deliberate, thoughtful debate, that, in fact, people who may have voted one way the last time, when presented with all the facts, in reexamining all the information that has come to light since the original vote in the Senate, might feel compelled to vote for this bill and override the President's veto. I read an article today in the Washington Post that gave me some hope that people who consider themselves to be pro-choice can take a good look at the facts and change their mind on this procedure, this gruesome procedure. What gave me heart was an article published today in the Washington Post by Richard Cohen. Richard Cohen is a columnist who proclaims himself to be, and has consistently been, pro-choice. He believes in the woman's right to choose--in fact, in this article so states again. Mr. Cohen, back in June of last year, wrote an article that condemned the bill. In fact, it says, ``In Defense of Late-Term Abortions,'' Tuesday, June 20, 1995, the Washington Post. He goes on to give his reasons why he believes that partial-birth abortions should continue to be legal in this country. Fast forward to today an article by Richard Cohen: ``A New Look at Late-Term Abortion'': A rigid refusal even to consider society's interest in the matter endangers abortion rights. He writes this article from the perspective of someone who is a defender of abortion rights, someone who still believes in a woman's right to choose, using his terms. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California speak for 5 minutes, and I will just continue from there.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to, No. 1, congratulate the House of Representatives for their strong, bipartisan support for the override of the President's veto on the issue of partial-birth abortions. The House did speak strongly yesterday and did speak in a bipartisan fashion. I had the opportunity to look at some of the debate and hear some of the debate. I was impressed with the strong bipartisanship. I was impressed with how articulate Members were on debating an issue which is a very emotional issue, a very difficult issue to talk about. This is not a procedure that many people feel very comfortable discussing. I think the Members who got up and spoke on behalf of the override spoke factually, compassionately, restrained, and, as a result, I think that kind of debate is what I hope to emulate here. I hope we see it emulated here on the floor of the U.S. Senate next week. We will have a vote here next week in the U.S. Senate on whether to override the President's veto. We are only halfway home to accomplish that. Much has been written today about the likelihood of whether the Senate will do so and reporting that it appears that the possibility of overriding the President's veto of this is dim here in the Senate. I remind everyone that in the House, when the original vote was taken, there were not sufficient votes to override the President's veto. But as a result of educational efforts that had taken place by physicians and people who are concerned about this issue with Members of the House, a number of Members were persuaded to go along with the override. I hope that occurs here. I hope Members who voted against the bill to outlaw this procedure, who voted to allow this procedure to continue, do take the opportunity to gather more information, because since the original passage of this bill, additional information has come out, even as late as this week. We have a story in the Bergen County Record. A health reporter for the Bergen County Record did a report on partial-birth abortions in New Jersey, where, according to all of the abortion rights advocates, there aren't partial-birth abortions being done in New Jersey. In fact, they were only done, according to them, by a couple of doctors which totaled about 500 a year. We find out from the health reporter of the Bergen County Record in her interviews with abortionists in New Jersey that they perform roughly 3,000 second- and third-trimester abortions, and approximately half of those 3,000 abortions are done in what is called ``intact D&E''--which is a partial-birth abortion. So we know that just in the State of New Jersey there are 1,500 such abortions--just done in the State of New Jersey. And we are talking about abortions that are performed at at least 20 weeks. My wife is a neonatal intensive care nurse. She worked as one for 9 years. We have three children. We are very blessed to have one more on the way. She knows a lot about premature babies. She has cared for a lot. She has cared for 22-week-old babies. She has cared for 22-week- old babies that are alive and well today--many of them. She has cared for a lot of 24-weekers that are alive and well today. And she certainly has cared for a lot of babies that are 24 weeks, 29 weeks, and 34 weeks who are alive and well, and very normal and very healthy. The question is not whether we should have late- and second-term, or third-term abortions. I believe that is a legitimate question to ask in this country. But that is not the question that is before us with this override. This override deals with a medical procedure which I think is one of the most gruesome medical procedures that if it was being done in China today human rights activists would be calling on us to sanction China. If it was done on a dog, animal rights activists would be storming the Capitol saying it is inhumane. But if it is done on a 30-week-old baby that is fully viable outside the womb it is a choice; it is not a baby; it is a choice. It is up to the doctor and the mother to determine what happens to that baby. It is a choice; it is not a baby. I do not think that is what most of America is. When we talk about this procedure being done on late second- and third-trimester babies, a procedure that delivers the entire baby feet first--delivers the baby from the shoulders down completely outside the mother; the arms and legs of the baby are moving outside of the mother; the head is held inside the birth canal--a pair of scissors is taken and jammed into the base of the skull, a suction catheter is placed in the skull and the brains are sucked out. As a result of that the head collapses, and then they deliver the rest of the baby. I was on the Fox Morning News yesterday morning with a woman who works for an abortion rights advocacy group. And I asked her a question, which I will ask every Member of the Senate who speaks on this issue. I hope they have an answer for me, because she didn't. My question was very simple. It was a very logical question. ``What would your position be if the head of that baby had somehow slipped out; had somehow when the shoulders were delivered had been delivered also? Would it be the woman's choice and the doctor's choice when the baby is completely removed to kill that baby? Is that then murder? Or, if you hold the baby's head inside the birth canal, it is not murder? Explain for me the difference. Answer the question.'' I know that question has been asked a lot in the last few months. And, to my knowledge, no one has answered the question. But I think you have to answer that question, don't you? Don't you have to answer a question that, if just an inch more, maybe 2 inches more, it is murder? Most Americans would consider it as murder without question. But as long as that doctor is holding the baby in, it is not murder. We are blurring the line in this country a lot. It is more than blurring. It is more of a sign of a culture that has lost its way, that does not understand what its underpinnings are any more; what its vision is; what its purpose is; what it stands for; who it cares about. This issue is not about abortion. This is about a procedure that is so horrendous and that is so disgusting that everyone in America should say, ``No. That is not who we are.'' For we in this country are not what we say we are. It is not what we would like to tell the American public we are. We are in this country what we do. And when we do something like this to children who doctors who perform this procedure say are healthy, elective abortions--these are elective abortions; there is no medical necessity; there is no fetal abnormality but simply healthy children--when the vast majority of these abortions are done at that time and in this way we have to say no. I am hopeful, I am prayerful that the Members of the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, will live up to that, live up to that title, and will truly deliberate--not react to the special interests, or to the emotion of the moment, or to some political posture that you feel locked into because, you know, ``I am for choice''--but deliberately, thoughtfully, prayerfully about who we are, about what we stand for as a country. I think if we do that--and if all of you who care about who we are, about what is to become of us, will write and call and pray for Members of the Senate over this next week--then truly remarkable things can still happen in this country and in this body, and we will surprise a lot of people next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, H.R. 2428. This important measure will encourage the charitable distribution of food by establishing a single national liability standard for the good-faith donation of food and grocery products. It has been named in honor of my good friend, the late Bill Emerson, who staunchly advocated this measure as well as other nutrition programs during his service in the House of Representatives, and I believe it is a fine tribute to his interest and commitment to ensuring that hungry Americans are properly fed. I would also like to commend Senator Bond and Senator Leahy for their efforts in seeing this bill brought to the floor as quickly as possible. Liability concerns are the overriding reason why unsalable, but otherwise wholesome, food is destroyed rather than donated to charity. In 1990, Congress attempted to address these concerns with enactment of the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which gave States a model statute to enact in order to provide some measure of protection from liability. All 50 States and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of legislation aimed at extending liability protections to donors and distributors of donated food. Unfortunately, States have taken a wide variety of approaches to this issue, leaving donors and distributors of food with a confusing patchwork of laws with which to contend. It is my understanding that none of the various State laws have been tested in the courts. Nevertheless, the fear of potential liability continues to discourage potential donors 6 years after passage of the model statute. When Second Harvest, the Nation's largest network of food banks, commissioned a survey last year to examine the factors affecting food donations, the fear of liability remained the single most important reason why food is destroyed rather than donated. Computerization and new inventory practices by some of the Nation's largest food retailers and distributors have meant less food is wasted in this country. For food banks, this new efficiency has made it more difficult to obtain food donations. Fear of liability only makes their essential work harder. By enacting this measure, Congress will be helping to ensure that food banks can respond to the needs of the hungry in our communities. This modest bill should be just the first step in a sustained effort to see that other obstacles to charitable activities are removed as well. Amendments Nos. 5148 and 5149

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand there are two amendments at the desk, one by Senator Leahy and one by Senator Kennedy. I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution with my colleague Senator Feinstein and to give a few remarks on the Holocaust. Mr. President, many Americans probably have the opinion that we have closed the door on the Holocaust. In fact, we have a museum here in Washington that stands as a reminder of this black mark in our history. Unfortunately, the very submission of this concurrent resolution tells us that this chapter has not yet been closed. By way of background, my father- and mother-in-law, Dr. Ken and Betty Lee Garver, have done extensive research on the medical history of Nazi war time. In their continued work within the medical community, they have come in contact with Dr. Michael Franzblau from California. It is Dr. Franzblau who brought to our attention the background and history of a German doctor who was a member of the Nazi party and referred many of Germany's disabled and afflicted to ``healing centers'' or death camps during the 1940's. Of the millions of victims of World War II, it is the faces of the children we remember most, like the face of Babette Frowis. Babette Frowis was a 14-year-old child who suffered from epilepsy. She was sent to the Schoenbrunn Sanitarium in 1943 when Adolf Hitler began ``cleansing'' the German race. The Medical Director of the Sanitarium, Dr. Hans Joachim Sewering, then transferred her to the Healing Center at Eglfing-Haar on October 26, 1943. Twenty-one days later, on November 16, 1943, she was pronounced dead. Babette Frowis was not the only one. It is estimated that between 1942 and 1945, 909 patients, the overwhelming majority of whom were children, were transferred to the ``Healing Center'' for extermination, under Dr. Sewerings' command. At Eglfing-Haar, the children were subjected to a mixture of starvation and an overdose of a sleeping drug, Luminal. Authorities at the center saw this method as a low cost way of disposing of disabled children. Dr. Sewering was a member of the Nazi party, as well as the Medical Director of the Sanitarium. When the war ended, Dr. Sewering went on to enjoy a full and rewarding medical career in Bavaria. In 1993 he became the president-elect of the World Medical Association, but after protest he resigned. Shortly after this, the Department of Justice placed Dr. Sewering on the ``watch list'' thereby preventing his entry into the United States. Dr. Sewering, at the age of 78, still practices medicine in Bavaria. I have been in contact with the German Ambassador on this matter requesting an explanation and information on behalf of the German Government as to why Dr. Sewering has not been investigated and why the documents regarding the transfer of patients have not been made public. This concurrent resolution expresses the Sense of Congress that the German Government should investigate and prosecute Dr. Sewering for his war crimes of active euthanasia and crimes against humanity committed during World War II. I appreciate the interest and joint sponsorship of Senator Feinstein, and look forward to working with her as we continue to draw the attention of Congress to this situation and ultimately action by the German Government.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of Senate business today to introduce legislation of importance to the Pennsylvania state system of higher education and to the students enrolled and working at our state-related universities. The bill is a companion measure to legislation in the House of Representatives. The House proposal was introduced by my friend and distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Bill Clinger. Mr. President, this legislation will affect students and graduate assistants employed by Pennsylvania's public universities and will allow them to keep more of their pay from campus employment. Currently, student employees of Pennsylvania's State system of higher education are covered under FICA and pay taxes unlike working students at schools in most other states. Only a change in the law would enable Pennsylvania's colleges and universities to exempt their student employees from FICA coverage. This legislation would make Pennsylvania schools more attractive and competitive with the other states who have opted out of Social Security coverage. Graduate students are often called upon to perform paid assistant teaching duties. The current system and application of FICA coverage does not make Pennsylvania institutions as competitive with other out of state graduate programs. If a student or graduate student compares their employment earning possibilities with other states, Pennsylvania students are at a distinct disadvantage. At a time in young adults' lives when resources are usually limited, it makes practical sense to free up more funds for student employees who are working hard toward their educational goals. Today, colleges and universities are being called upon to downsize and make better use of dollars. This legislation is an easy way to support individuals who are attaining goals while attending Pennsylvania state-related universities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of Senate business today to introduce legislation of importance to the Pennsylvania state system of higher education and to the students enrolled and working at our state-related universities. The bill is a companion measure to legislation in the House of Representatives. The House proposal was introduced by my friend and distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Bill Clinger. Mr. President, this legislation will affect students and graduate assistants employed by Pennsylvania's public universities and will allow them to keep more of their pay from campus employment. Currently, student employees of Pennsylvania's State system of higher education are covered under FICA and pay taxes unlike working students at schools in most other states. Only a change in the law would enable Pennsylvania's colleges and universities to exempt their student employees from FICA coverage. This legislation would make Pennsylvania schools more attractive and competitive with the other states who have opted out of Social Security coverage. Graduate students are often called upon to perform paid assistant teaching duties. The current system and application of FICA coverage does not make Pennsylvania institutions as competitive with other out of state graduate programs. If a student or graduate student compares their employment earning possibilities with other states, Pennsylvania students are at a distinct disadvantage. At a time in young adults' lives when resources are usually limited, it makes practical sense to free up more funds for student employees who are working hard toward their educational goals. Today, colleges and universities are being called upon to downsize and make better use of dollars. This legislation is an easy way to support individuals who are attaining goals while attending Pennsylvania state-related universities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I also want to add to that laundry list of support that the House passed this bill with a vetoproof majority. This has overwhelming support in the House of Representatives. As the Senator mentioned, the President would like this bill. I am anxious for the Senator to propound his unanimous consent to see why we cannot move forward with this very vital piece of legislation for our national security.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that all but two Democrats signed this conference report.