Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Arizona that I appreciate he and the ranking member accepting this amendment that Senator Enzi and I have proposed. As a father of six little children who spend some time--not a lot of time--but some time on the Internet, just viewing the amount of spam, the pornographic spam that comes into my 10-year-old's site, in some cases, is just absolutely frightening. Senator Enzi and I had been working on separate tracks, and those tracks came together today in proposing an amendment which would provide a warning label on those kinds of materials that will be in the subject line of the e-mail so young people, as well as old, do not have to subject themselves to this rather disgusting attempt at advertising, if you want to call it that. This is an important piece of legislation. I ask the Senator from Arizona, if I can get his attention for a moment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S. Energy Security: West Africa & Latin America.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a classified operations/intelligence briefing regarding ongoing military operations and areas of key concern around the world.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Tax Shelters: Who's Buying, Who's Selling, and What's the Government Doing About It?''

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 10 a.m., on ``Protecting Our National Security From Terrorist Attacks: a Review of Criminal Terrorism Investigations and Prosecutions,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: The Honorable Christopher Wray, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; The Honorable Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, IL; and The Honorable Paul McNulty United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, VA.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at the 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate on both sides, and I continue to hear a lot of the same things. I just think it is important to set the record straight with respect to what many have heard today. First, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, has objected to my using the term ``killing'' the child when describing the diagrams of the partial-birth abortion. So I wanted to make sure I was not using terms that were inflammatory or inaccurate. She said I was referring to the fetus as a child instead of the fetus. I looked up the definition of fetus: ``An unborn child.'' So I don't think referring to a fetus as a child is incorrect when the definition of a fetus is ``an unborn child, from the third month until birth.'' This child is obviously in excess of 3 months into gestation, so it is obvious I am using a correct term. She objected to me using the term ``killing.'' I will quote some people in the abortion movement to justify my using of this term. This is from Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood: I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say, yes, it kills a fetus, but it is a woman's body and ultimately her choice. So say even those in the abortion movement. Judy Arcana, a pro-choice author and educator, said: Sometimes a woman has to decide to kill her baby. That is what abortion is. I understand how people want to avoid talking about the baby, the child, the fetus, or whatever term you feel most comfortable using. It is what it is. It is a human being. I understand we like to use terms that don't refer to the human being. In fact, in all the debate we have heard today on the other side, we hear this concentration and talk about the woman and the right to choose. We hear very little discussion about what the choice is all about. I know most Americans like choices and they like the right to choose. But I think it is important that people know what the choice is all about, what we are choosing. What we are choosing here is to kill a human being. Yet many on the other side just don't want to consider what is being chosen here. What many on that side like to think is that we are choosing a medical procedure. The Senator from New Jersey earlier referred to it being similar to the removal of a cancerous intestine. Maybe some people look at babies as this sort of cancer or this thing that they don't want anymore, that somehow affects them in some way. But I think it is important for us, if we are going to make decisions that impact millions of lives, to face up to what we are doing and we don't try to couch it in terms that sound nice, that sound American--words such as ``freedom'' and ``choice'' and words such as that. What we are choosing is to take away a fundamental right of every person in America, and that is the right to life. So, yes, I will use the term ``killing'' because that is exactly what it is, the extinguishing of a life. It is a child, it is a baby, an infant, a fetus, a living human being. Second, the Senator from California has suggested that this is not a medical term. Well, I had my staff run and look it up in Webster's Medical Dictionary. In Webster's, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is in fact defined: Abortion in the second or third trimester in which the death of the fetus is induced after it is passed part way through the birth canal. As to this idea that it is not a term used, it is in the dictionary. It is interesting that the Senator from California would say that this is not a medical term, that this doesn't exist. Yet she has repeated many times that this thing that doesn't exist is a great threat to women. If we abolish something that doesn't exist, somehow or another this is a horrible thing we are doing to women. That doesn't necessarily make sense to me. Then she goes on and says this thing that doesn't exist--she claims it doesn't exist--is medically necessary at times. I have a hard time grappling with this argument in the alternative. First you argue it doesn't exist, and then it does exist and it is medically necessary. The Senator from California, last month, put in the Record statements from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and in this letter in the Congressional Record, they say: So-called partial-birth abortion does not exist. There is no mention of the term partial-birth abortion in any medical literature. That is not true. Physicians are never taught a technique called partial- birth abortion; therefore, they are medically unable to define the procedure. We know that there is no such technique as partial-birth abortion. She makes the argument that it doesn't exist, and then she argues that it is necessary. I don't know how you can have it both ways. It either does exist and it is necessary or it doesn't exist and it is not necessary. We find interesting arguments that don't seem to hold up upon closer examination. Another thing that doesn't hold up under examination is the repeated attempts by those who oppose this legislation to misinform the public as to what it does. I am not only going to go through the most recent example of this, but the chronology of events around this legislation, which started with Charles Canady in the House of Representatives and Bob Smith in the Senate, who did an outstanding job. I remember when Bob first came to the Senate floor. He was ridiculed as being this extreme person who would bring this medical procedure to the floor and it was an outrageous thing for a Senator to do. He had the courage to stand up for his convictions and follow through. But I remember at hearings, they were saying this procedure didn't exist, first, and, second, the anesthesia given to the mother would kill the baby, and that this was only done on mothers who were in a position where the baby was badly deformed or the mother's health was in danger, and it was only done a few dozen times a year. Every one of those things I have mentioned has been debunked. They are simply not true. Yet here we are just days away from passing this bill again in the Senate for the third time, but the fourth time we have debated, and we see a statement by Planned Parenthood last month that says: S. 3 is a bill to outlaw the medical procedure used primarily in emergency abortions. ``Primarily in emergency abortions.'' Let me, again, without reading the comment below, state this is a 3-day procedure. This is a procedure where the woman presents herself to the abortionist, and I say abortionist because this procedure is only done in abortion clinics. It is not done in hospitals, as this organization that Senator Boxer submitted for the Record said. They don't teach this procedure in medical school. It was designed by an abortionist for the convenience of the abortionist. She presents herself to an abortionist who gives her something to help dilate her cervix and tells her to return 2 days later. Can you possibly imagine someone in an emergency situation presenting themselves to a health care professional who is in an emergency situation because of her pregnancy, who is given something to dilate her cervix and sent home for 2 days? On the face of it, it makes no sense. But yet they persist in spite of the fact that Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, is quoted in the New York Times on February 26, 1997--1997, not February 26, 2003, 2002--6\1/2\ years ago: Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on ``Nightline'' on ABC and ``lied through my teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged. ``Lied through my teeth'' in 1995, he said, on ``Nightline.'' But in 1997, he came clean. He said: In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. The abortion rights folks know it, the antiabortion folks know it, and so probably does everyone else, he said in the article in the Medical News, an American Medical Association publication. They knew it. In 1997, they knew this. A month ago they were still saying it. I don't mind having a good honest debate, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, brought up legitimate legal issues, a proper, good debate, but when the organization that is principally behind the stopping of this bill a month before this bill gets presented continues to try to misinform the American public, I think you have to ask yourself a question as to the credibility of that organization and the credibility of their case. There are a couple other comments that were made on which I have to set the record straight. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, said this abortion procedure needs to remain legal out of respect for women and ``because it gives the fetus dignity.'' Anyone who looks at this abortion procedure and suggests that pulling a child feet first through the birth canal at 20 weeks of gestation, who otherwise would have been born alive, and have a pair of scissors thrust in the base of their skull and have their brains suctioned out is an act of dignity I think has to rethink what the word ``dignity'' means. To treat any human being, to treat any living thing in that fashion is insulting to that life. It certainly is not an act that I would call a dignified act or an act that shows respect for that child. A lot has been made by both Senators from California and others about the need for a health exception. This gets in to the meat of this debate with respect to its constitutionality. The Court did state that there were two reasons for the Nebraska law on partial-birth abortion to be overturned. One was that it did not have a health exception that was required by Roe v. Wade. Step back and think about this debate in a larger context. I don't think most Americans, if I can put up the last chart of the diagram of the procedure--I don't think most Americans contemplate that Roe v. Wade covers abortions done late in pregnancy by healthy mothers with healthy babies who would otherwise be born alive being treated in such a brutal and barbaric fashion. I don't think most Americans see the scope of Roe v. Wade as including that type of abortion but it does. That is really the wake-up call for America here: That Roe v. Wade is not what they claim it to be. If it is later in pregnancy, it is mothers who have health issues or the child has health issues. No, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about there needs to be a health exception, according to this court, for a procedure done late in pregnancy on healthy mothers with healthy babies treated in a brutal fashion such as this. I don't think most Americans would have said: Gee, we need a health exception here or Roe v. Wade covers this issue, but that is what they say; that based on the evidence they compiled in the Federal district court in Nebraska, the court examined the evidence and determined that a health exception was necessary, based on the evidence that was submitted at trial. We believe strongly the evidence submitted at trial was incomplete; that there has been a lot of evidence submitted to the Congress and in publications that is counter to what the Nebraska district court found, and that the overwhelming weight, and I would argue the dispositive weight, of evidence presented to this Congress, which is a finder of fact just as the district court is, is that it is never medically necessary. The Senator from California has said the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has written a letter saying that it may be medically--that is the term, ``may be medically necessary.'' Yet in the letter she has entered into the Record, which she has entered many times before, they do not present one example of a case in which it would be medically necessary. For 8 years I have stood on the floor of the Senate and have asked for such a case from the American College. To date, the American College has never replied to my request. They have not sent one case to be submitted into this Record as to where this may be medically necessary actually is medically necessary. One has to wonder the validity of the statement that it may be medically necessary if they can't find a case in fact where it is. Cases have been submitted by both Senators from California where some obstetricians have said this was medically indicated in this case. For every 1 letter that has been submitted, we have had 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 letters from maternal fetal medicine specialists--they are specialists in high-risk pregnancies--perinatologists who say not only aren't those cases good cases but they are contraindicated. It is bad medicine. So we do not really have any uncontrovertible case where it is medically necessary. I think that is important for the Court to consider. I think it is also important for the Court to consider that the Congress, which has had multiple hearings of fact, unlike the Court, was able to make a determination and have a vote overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate that these facts are as we say they are. I believe we have a right as a body to make that determination. We hope, just as we listen to the Court in matters of law because that is their responsibility, that as finders of fact they would listen to what we come up with. I know many on the Court think it is a one-way street. They just tell us what they think and we have to do whatever they tell us and we have no input into what the Court decision is. That is not the way our Framers envisioned it. I found it sort of humorous that the Senator from California said the Framers did not envision the Congress amending the Constitution by legislative findings. I will assure the Senator from California that our Framers did not envision the Supreme Court amending the Constitution by judicial fiat but they do. Roe v. Wade is a case in point. So there are lots of things our Framers did not envision, I say the most grotesque of which is the Court activism that we have seen across the street. With respect to this health exception, it is overwhelmingly clear that it is never medically necessary. Why do we go to such length in saying that a health exception is not medically necessary? Well, because if we had a health exception to this bill--and many have suggested, just put in a health exception. I mean, are you not concerned about women's health? Well, I do not think anyone is not concerned about women's health. In fact, the evidence presented is overwhelming that this procedure is a riskier procedure than other abortion procedures and is never medically indicated. So if one looks at the overwhelming body of evidence and they are concerned about women's health, they would be for banning this procedure because it is never medically indicated. It is done only for the convenience of abortionists and is, in fact, unhealthy. So if one's concern is women's health, then they would be for banning this procedure. The interesting point is, why are they pushing so hard for this health exception and why are we resisting it so much? Well, what does the health exception mean? This is the little secret that to those who have not followed the abortion debate may say, what is the big deal? Why do you not put in a health exception? That sounds reasonable. The problem with the health exception is that it is so broad an exception it swallows up the bill because a health exception--when Roe v. Wade was decided, there was a companion case decided called Doe v. Bolton, and in that case health was defined as: Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors: physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient. All of these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make the best medical judgment. So over time what this has been interpreted to mean is health means anything: emotional, physical, spiritual, psychological, whatever it is, stress, anxiety. Some have even brought it to economic concerns. Health is an exception that swallows the rule. So as long as the doctor says the woman obviously exhibited anxiety, stress, discomfort, she had a headache or whatever, it does not matter. It does not say severe. It just says anything. So what this provision did, and that is what the Court wanted to do, was to give absolute latitude to the doctor to do whatever the doctor wanted to do in consultation with the patient. So the health exception is no exception at all. It is a barred antiprohibition. So understand that the health exception bars the bill, stops the bill from having any effect. So that is why we resist. In our case, we think we are outside this health exception because it is actually unhealthy for the woman and it is never medically necessary. Before I move on to the next topic, I want to go through some of the health risks as outlined--we have a series of letters which I will submit for the Record--that partial-birth abortion poses serious health risks for women. First, as I mentioned before, the physician has to dilate the cervix a couple of days before the abortion is performed, creating a risk, according to several physicians, to an incompetent cervix, a leading cause of future premature deliveries or infection, and is the main cause of subsequent infertility. As we can see, the baby is brought in feet first through the birth canal. When they reach in to pull the baby out of the uterus--reaching into the uterus to pull the baby's feet through the cervix is a dangerous procedure, risking the tearing of the uterus. It poses an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child into a footling breech position. Grabbing the baby's legs could perforate the uterus, which could result in severe hemorrhage and possibly a hysterectomy. Then the procedure that follows where the Metzenbaum scissors are placed in the base of the baby's skull to kill the baby and puncture the baby's skull, putting the scissors into the baby's brain is a partially blind procedure. As we can see, the physician has no way of seeing where those scissors are entering the baby or if they are even entering the baby. This blind procedure with a sharp instrument may expose the uterus to sharp bone shards, bone shards from the baby's skull upon the puncture. They may lacerate different parts of the woman's body and cause hemorrhaging and could necessitate a hysterectomy to save the mother's life. This is not a riskless procedure. This is a risky procedure. I reiterate, this is not taught in medical schools. There are no peer review journals published that suggest this is a superior way, much less an appropriate way, to deal with an abortion. There are no studies that have been done, that are controlled in nature, to show that this is a proper procedure. This is a rogue procedure. It is medically unhealthy and it is medically unnecessary. Both Senators from California talked about their recollection of the pre-Roe v. Wade days. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, suggested the debate we had a month ago with respect to the number of maternal deaths as a result of abortion prior to Roe v. Wade were women in all States--in some States, abortion was legal, not in all States-- that women as a result of that had higher incidents of maternal death. The Senator from California continued to indicate that there were some 5,000 deaths per year as a result of abortion not being legal everywhere in the United States. I entered information in the Record from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, including more recently the Centers for Disease Control, suggesting at the time of 1972, prior to the decision being made, there were 83 maternal deaths. The Senator from California suggested that is only because the only reported deaths were States in which abortion was legal. That is not the case from the statistics. Had that been the case--it is not, according to the information we have gathered, but had it been the case, then why were there 1,231 reported deaths from abortion in 1942, where abortion was not legal in any State in the country? So if her information was correct, if they were only reporting cases in States in which abortion was legal in 1942, there would have been no deaths because there were no States in which abortion was legal. But in fact they were reporting from States where abortion was legal and illegal. What you saw from 1942 down to 1972 was a decrease, from 1,231, almost straight line down to 83 deaths in 1972. Why? Because medicine improved. Antibiotics, first and foremost, is probably the principal reason, because of infection, but there were a whole variety of reasons. The improvement of medical science is why those numbers continued to decrease. So the idea that somehow or another there were thousands of women dying prior to Roe v. Wade is just not backed up by the facts. We have an obligation; as much as we would like to paint a picture for the eyes particularly of young people who didn't live then, as much as we would like to paint this picture to young people to convince them of the justice or righteousness of the right to abortion, that things were really bad, that women were dying in droves, there was a horrible situation prior to Roe v. Wade, we cannot. You have to deal with the fact that was not the case with respect to the amount of maternal deaths. There may be other factors that you consider and you are welcome to make the arguments about how people felt at the time. That is fine. But you cannot play with the facts to present a case that is not true. I want to quote Bernard Nathanson who was, at the time of 1972, an abortionist. He says: How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L.-- A group he helped found, the National Abortion Rights Action League-- we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ``5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.'' I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too, if they stopped to think about it. But in the ``morality'' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? This is a very serious issue. I would argue it is the greatest moral issue of our time. I think we have an obligation to use honest statistics, at least honest statistics--honest statistics, honest cases. The Senator from California brought up the case of Vicki Wilson, as she has repeatedly throughout this debate over the past several years. She said Vicki Wilson needed a partial-birth abortion because of a medical condition she and the baby had. Let me quote from Vicki Wilson's own testimony to Congress. My daughter died with dignity inside my womb, after which the baby's body was delivered head first. Not feet first. Vicky Wilson did not have a partial-birth abortion. Yet it is a case that is continually used here to justify a partial- birth abortion being kept legal. The case was also made she needed to have one done. Quoting Vicki Wilson: I knew I could go ahead and carry the baby until full term but knowing, you know, that this was futile, you know, that she was going to die, I felt like I needed to be a little bit more in control in terms of her life and my life. Vicki Wilson did not have a medical emergency or a health need, from the standpoint of what most people would consider to be a health need, which is physical health. I caution, when people listen to this debate, that they listen to the debate of what is real, what the facts are, and what the consequences are. There is no question in my mind that the consequences of this debate are the most profound consequences we face as a country and more specifically as a culture as to who we are. Because ultimately what this is about, banning this procedure, is about who we are going to accept in our human family. Do we accept this little baby? You can pull out the photo Senator Brownback showed earlier. If we can accept this little baby at 20 weeks or 21 weeks into our human family, or do we say no, no, you may look like us, you may have hands and feet and you may have a heartbeat, you may be perfectly normal, you may have looked like us when we were that age, but we are not going to include you in the human family. We are not going to call you an American. We are not going to give you the rights provided to you under the Constitution. It really is about who we accept. I would argue it is about who we are going to love, who we are going to nurture, who we are going to support. Today in the Senate we have a chance to say in some very small way-- and I admit, I will agree with the Senators from California and others that this will do very little to limit the number of abortions. I agree with that. But in some small way we are acknowledging this little child, this little child is a member of our family. The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, as well as the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, talked at length about the striking of the Roe v. Wade language from this bill that passed the Senate. The language stated Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and should continue to be the law of the land. It passed by a couple of votes here in the Senate. I think many of us found that to be somewhat in contrast with the underlying purpose of this bill, in the sense that this was a very small tip of the hat, recognition of the humanity of this child, we were not going to treat this child in this grotesque fashion. That is all. It doesn't say that child couldn't be killed in some other fashion that was medically safer for the woman. But it says when it comes to delivering a child and having that child just inches away from being born, we were not going to go that far. This, really, was too close. So we gave a small nod, a small nod to the humanity of that child in the process of being born. So many of us thought, sort of restating this sense of the Senate about the primacy of Roe v. Wade was an insult to even this little nod that I would argue is outside of Roe v. Wade. Unnecessary, is what it is. Roe v. Wade is, according to the Court, how they will decide abortion cases. I vehemently disagree with them and I will continue to fight on this floor and anywhere else I can to make sure that law, that Court decision taking the decision away from the American public--which is where it was prior to Roe v. Wade--taking the decision of great moral import away from the American public, is returned to the people. We just saw an election in California where the people rose up and said they wanted to take back control of their State. We don't have such a process here. The Court is insulated from the public rising up and saying no, we don't like your decision--or even from the Congress. It takes a huge amount of effort. It is a very difficult process to amend the Constitution, pass both Houses of Congress by a constitutional majority, 67 percent; plus get three-quarters of the States to ratify a constitutional amendment. Yet this Court by a whim can amend the Constitution with five votes, and did so. They amended the Constitution like that. I don't think that is the way the Framers wanted it. I think they set forth a constitutional amendment process because that is the way they wanted to create new rights or change the Constitution, not to allow the Court to do it. I have likened the Roe v. Wade decision--I was fortunate enough Sunday to be in St. Louis, MO and had the opportunity to walk by the courthouse, which is right in downtown St. Louis, where the Dred Scott case was initially decided. That is where the district court was. You look back, and people in St. Louis have great pride in the fact that case was there, and many Missourians stood up and fought against what that case was all about. I would argue that Roe v. Wade is exact in kind as the Dred Scott decision. Like the Dred Scott decision, Roe v. Wade--unlike, if you think back, and think of any other major Supreme Court decision, where rights, individual rights were dealt with--almost every other Supreme Court decision in which individual constitutional rights were dealt with, over time the public grew to accept. That is because over time, the public grew to understand the justice of that decision. The most recent one is civil rights decisions. But in Dred Scott the abolitionist and so many others knew of the injustice--yes, it was the law; that is what the court said. They decided the case. There were too many in this country who said, no, I don't believe that is right. It is amazing if you see the polling of young people in America, there is actually a higher pro-life sentiment among young people than older people, but you would think people who grew up, knowing this was the law--because when people hear the law they think, if it is the law, it must be right; it must be just; it must be ethical; it must be moral; otherwise, it would not be the law. The law is a great teacher. It is the greatest teacher to young people as to what is right and what is wrong. Young people, knowing the law, still say there is something inside me that says this is not right. Just like young people in the 1850s and 1860s, who said there is something inside me that tells me this is not right. Abraham Lincoln said a house divided against itself cannot stand. So here we are today, with the American public deeply divided on this issue, deeply divided because so many people for 30 years have only known the law and the popular culture. Does the popular culture depart at all from what the law is? Is there anything you see coming out of Hollywood or New York that at all disagrees with this, the Supreme Court notion of what the law should be? Of course not. Yet this feeling is out there, this sentiment, like the abolitionists of the 1860s who said it may be the law, but in this case that does not make it right. That does not make it just. So while we had a great debate on Roe v. Wade, this will have no impact. It is just a debate that will continue to go on. The final point I make about this is one I have made before. Why are Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade alike? Because the Dred Scott decision put the rights, the property rights, the liberty rights of the slaveholder above the life rights of the slave. In our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Then he listed them: The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. In that order--life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. In Dred Scott, we took the fundamental right, life--for without life you cannot have liberty; without liberty you cannot pursue happiness. So they are put in order for a reason. What Dred Scott did was take the life rights of a slave and put them under the liberty rights of someone else. And Roe v. Wade, the reason I compare it to Dred Scott, does the same thing. It puts the life right of this little human being that we have decided not to accept in our society as a person and subjugates them to the liberty rights, the choice of someone else, in this case the baby's mother. The Senator from California says why don't we trust women more? I do. But you cannot ignore the fact that one-third of all pregnancies in America end in abortion. This is a very small piece of legislation, I will admit that. But it is important just for a brief moment, just for some rather small piece of legislation that affects, if you consider 1.3 million abortions, less than 1 percent of all abortions, far less, .1 of all abortions, but in some small way it begins to recognize the humanity that we have to display toward this child and not treat this child in such a brutal fashion. I conclude by thanking my colleague from California and all those who have been involved in this debate over the years. We have had a vigorous debate. That is important in the Senate that we debate these very important issues. I thank all those on both sides of the aisle who have engaged in that. I thank Senator Smith for his courage in bringing this bill up; Senator DeWine, in particular, who has been a tremendous champion on this issue; along with Senator Brownback, Senator Ensign, Senator Voinovich, and so many others who have come to the Senate and taken on this issue. I thank my staff: Heather MacLean, for the tremendous work she has done in supporting me in every way possible in getting the information I need when I need it, to carry this debate forward; and Michelle Kitchen; prior to her, Wayne Palmer, my legislative director; and all the members of my staff. Finally, I thank all who have been sending your prayers to Washington, DC, through this debate. They have made a difference.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I know I just have a few seconds, but I do want to recognize the tremendous effort and work the majority leader has made over the years on this issue. His presentation, when he first came to the Senate, as the only physician in the Senate, was compelling, persuasive, and I think one of the things that allowed us to get the 60-plus votes we needed to have this bill passed on previous occasions and now gives us the margin we have today. He is to share a significant amount of credit for today's victory. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, while I have the floor, let me ask unanimous consent that the vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany S. 3, the partial-birth abortion ban bill, occur at 5 p.m. today, provided that the time between the expiration of the current time allocation and 5 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Santorum and Boxer or their designees.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. SANTORUM. After conferring with my colleague from California, we set this in place. I will yield to the Senator from Illinois for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following that 10 minutes, the Senator from Ohio be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 10 minutes to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who has done incredible work on this legislation now for a fourth Congress that he has been involved in moving this forward. This moment of accomplishment here would not have happened except for the great work of the Senator from Utah.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Utah, the Senator from California be recognized under Senator Boxer's time for 15 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. To compare the killing of a fetus to the removal of an intestine--a fetus like in this picture, where you can see that little hand, that is a 21-week-old. That is the age at which these children are killed by partial-birth abortion. To compare the killing and extinguishing of life to the removal of an intestine is----

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from New Jersey is equating the removal of tissue that was damaging to the person involved--removing an intestine to preserve that health or life. This little child, in almost every situation--in fact, the industry agrees: healthy mothers, healthy children--that little child is not a threat to this mother. It is not a cancerous lesion. It is not a defective or deformed part of that person's body that is threatening their health. This is a living organism. It happens to be a human being inside of the mother, and it is being killed not for the health of the mother or for the life of the mother but because the mother no longer wants the child. The father of the Senator from New Jersey whose operation was performed was removing something that was damaging his health and potentially threatening his life. That is not the case here. To compare the two shows you the fundamental difference in our view. What are we saying to people when we liken little children to cancerous parts of someone's body? We just see these little children as, what, threats? As something to be excised because they are not wanted? Is that the way we look at children? Is that how we see them-- as cancerous lesions? Then we wonder why we have so much child abuse in this country, why one-third of the pregnancies end in abortion, why our culture is degraded, because we compare them to cancerous intestines on the floor of the Senate. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is very clear to me that the Senator from New Jersey and I have a fundamental difference on how we view this issue. For the Senator from New Jersey to liken this procedure to the removal of an intestine, to compare the killing of a fetus----

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I would like to enter into a time agreement for the first portion of the time allotted in this debate. I ask unanimous consent I be given the first 20 minutes until 11 o'clock; following that, the Senator from California be recognized for 20 minutes; following the Senator from California, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, be recognized for 10 minutes; following the Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be recognized for 20 minutes; following Senator Brownback, the Senator from California would then be recognized for 30 minutes. We will stop there and go from that point.

Mr. SANTORUM. To 11:50, and the Senator from California would have until 12:20.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, we are here today on the verge of something the United States has done on two previous occasions; that is, pass a conference report to ban a partial-birth abortion procedure to be done in the United States of America. The only difference this time is we have a President who has said he is willing to sign this legislation. This is a very important day for this country and for those babies who would be the object of this brutal procedure. Having it banned in the United States of America is a historic event and a step forward in human rights for this country. We have overcome two Presidential vetoes but now have a President who will sign this legislation. The other thing that stopped this legislation from moving forward and becoming law was the United States Supreme Court decision in the Nebraska partial-birth abortion case. We have addressed those issues. There were two issues the court cited as its reason--in a 5-to-4 decision--for finding the Nebraska partial-birth abortion statute unconstitutional. Those two reasons were, No. 1, that the statute was vague. We have amended the language of this statute to make sure that the description of a partial-birth abortion is clear to include only those types of abortions and not other late-term abortion procedures, which was the concern of the court. We did so by a couple of things, but the most essential part was that the court found that the prior description could have included other forms of abortion because during other types of late-term abortion procedures there may be a portion of the baby's body that at some point during the abortion procedure may come outside of the mother. As a result of that, this could have been broadly construed to abolish those procedures, also. In our language we are very clear. We say that the term ``partial- birth abortion'' means an abortion which the person performing the abortion: (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, [all new language] the entire fetal head is outside of the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, [that is, feet first] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside of the body of the mother . . . Now, that specificity of talking about the way in which the child is delivered and then killed is fundamentally different than anything we had before. All we said before was that some portion of a living, intact fetus must be outside of the mother. That, the court found, was a little too vague for them. It could have included other types of abortions. So we are being very clear. There is no other abortion procedure which the entire fetal head would be presented with the child still being alive out of the mother, or the child would be delivered all but the head at this point and then be killed. There can be no confusion as to what procedure we are talking about in this case. We believe with the language we have put in this bill we have now solved the constitutional problem of vagueness. The second issue is the issue of women's health. We have a substantial section of findings in this legislation. Much of those findings occurred since the case was tried at the district court level of Nebraska, which was the record upon which the Supreme Court made its decision. There has been a substantial amount of evidence that has been printed in the record in Congress at congressional hearings that show not only the overwhelming weight of evidence but the dispositive weight of that evidence in this procedure is never--I underscore never--necessary to protect the health of the mother. So the court found there needed to be a health exception because there may have been, according to the record they looked at in the Nebraska case, there may have been an instance in which this could have been necessary. We have, without question, clarified that record to make sure that the court knows that there is no medical evidence out there that this procedure is ever necessary to protect the health of a mother, and therefore falls outside of Roe v. Wade where a health exception is necessary. In fact, the overwhelming weight of medical evidence suggests this is a dangerous procedure, a much more dangerous procedure for a woman than the other abortion procedures that are used at this time in pregnancy. We believe this bill is constitutionally sound and obviously very necessary from the standpoint of who we are as a society and, I argue, for just basic human rights. The question is, Why are we doing this? Let me describe the procedure. I did not do that when we had the conference report being moved to conference, but I think it is important for people who may not be familiar with this procedure to see this procedure. I hope sensibilities are shaken to the point where I do not have to explain why we want to ban this procedure; that by going through this procedure and showing what happens to a baby who is at least 20 weeks of gestation--in other words, at least halfway through the pregnancy; with 40 weeks gestation, this is at least 20 weeks, and in many cases, 21, 22, 23, 24 weeks, and in rarer cases, beyond that--but these are babies who would otherwise, had they been delivered, be born alive. Now, in the case of 20 and 21 weeks, the chance of them surviving are not particularly high, although there are cases in which babies at 21 weeks have survived. But the point is these are children who would otherwise be born alive, and the people who perform these abortions, the abortion provider organizations, have testified that these abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy children. These are healthy children who otherwise would be born alive had this procedure not been performed on them. I put that in the context of this is what we are doing to healthy children, with healthy mothers who otherwise would be born alive. These are children who, again, the medical evidence has been presented, that experience and feel pain. The partial-birth abortion takes 3 days. That is the normal time. What the doctor does when the mother presents to the abortionist--and I say the ``abortionist'' because these are only done--again, this is clear from the record--these are only done in abortion clinics. The person who designed this procedure did so, and he testified to this, for his convenience because he can do more of them quicker. He can do more abortions more often. He is in business. These late-term abortions are more complicated than earlier term abortions, and they take more time using other methods, so he designed a method that would take less time. So this method was designed not to protect the health of the mother. In fact, it is less healthy; it is not to protect the mother's life. It is never done in the case of an emergency. You would not do this in the case of an emergency because it takes 3 days to do this. It is done for the convenience of the abortionist, for them to make more money. So this procedure was designed for the mother to be presented, to be given something to help dilate the cervix. So when the mother re- presents in a couple of days, her cervix is dilated, the doctor has access to the baby at this point. What happens is, the doctor then takes the baby--because usually at that gestational age the baby is in a breach position--and goes into the uterus and grabs the child by one of the limbs, usually the leg or the foot, and then--if the next chart will come up--pulls out the baby through the birth canal, feet first. Now, I have been blessed to have my wife deliver seven children. One of the fears of any pregnancy is having the child being in a breach position. Every obstetrician knows, everybody who has ever gone through a pregnancy knows, that a breach position is a dangerous position for the baby to be in; it is not the natural position to deliver a child. So what we are doing here is performing a procedure that is inherently dangerous; that is, delivering in a breach position. So you are pulling the baby through the birth canal. Again, this baby is alive. If the baby is not alive, it is not a partial-birth abortion under the definition of the statute. The baby has to be alive and intact. So the baby is being pulled by these forceps from the mother. Again, it is being pulled out completely--and, again, the definition that is in the statute--until the trunk is exposed, at least past the navel. So at least the lower extremities of the baby are exposed outside of the mother. As such, the term ``partial birth'' comes from the fact that the baby is partially born, is in the process of being delivered. The physician--as you can see--is holding the baby in his or her hand. This child weighs about 1 pound. This is a fully formed baby. It is not completely formed, obviously, because it is of only 20 weeks gestation, but hands, arms--everything--legs, toes, ears, et cetera, all these things you see here, that is what a baby at that gestational age looks like. And the relative size, vis-a-vis the size of the hand, is a pretty accurate depiction. This is not a cartoon. This is an accurate scale medical drawing. As you can see from the next depiction, the baby is born, really, with the exception of the head. The thing that grabs at me is, here is this child who is literally inches away from being born, who would otherwise be born alive, and in almost all cases is a healthy child--it is not being done for any health reason of the mother or life reason of the mother; it is simply being done because the mother wants to terminate her pregnancy very late in the pregnancy--and the doctor has to hold this living child in his or her hand, with the heart beating, with the baby, who is probably in shock at this point, but moving and alive. Then what the procedure calls for is these scissors, called Metzenbaum scissors. The doctor feels up the baby's back. The doctor finds the base of the skull and then takes these sharp scissors and probes in to find the point right at the base of the skull--and, as you know, a baby's skull is soft. So they take these scissors and they thrust them into the baby's skull. Now, Nurse Brenda Shafer, who has testified before Congress, said that when that thrusting action took place, she saw the baby's arms and legs spasm out like this--like a baby you would hold, and if you pretended you were going to drop the baby, how the baby sometimes would spasm their arms and legs out like that. That is what she said happened. Then, as you see from this picture, the baby's arms and legs go limp, because when you thrust a pair of scissors in the back of baby's skull, you kill the baby. But that is not enough. Now we have to remove the rest of the baby. So what the abortionist does is take a suction catheter, a vacuum hose, and, in the hole created by these scissors, they place a vacuum hose, and they suck the baby's brains out to collapse the skull. It is a soft skull. At that point, the rest of the baby can then be removed from the mother's womb. This goes on in America virtually every day, maybe more than once or twice a day, depending on whom you believe, anywhere from a few hundred times a year to a few thousand times a year. We never have very good information because the very people who collect that information are the people who oppose this procedure being banned, so they try not to publicize too much about what they do. But the fact is, if it occurred once in America a year, this kind of treatment to an innocent child, who would otherwise be born alive--was healthy, with a healthy mother--there is no excuse for it. So when people ask the question, ``Senator, why do you keep bringing this procedure back up to the Senate floor; it only stops one procedure; you are not banning other procedures that are used,'' my answer is, ``Because this is horrendous.'' In America, whether we like it or not, we are the beacon of freedom, but in many cases we are also the model of what is right and just. The world looks to us as Americans, as free people, as people who, probably uniquely in the world, get a chance to determine what our law should be, what our collective morality should be, what our culture looks like because of the enormous freedom we have. The heart and soul of America is reflected through our laws, unlike other countries that do not allow that democratic process to work so effectively. So when America passes laws, or when America allows certain behavior to occur, the world looks at that law or that behavior as supported by the collective consciousness and morality of the American public. When they see this, what do they think of us? What do they think of us? What kind of culture do you think the rest of the world thinks America is all about? What kind of morality or ethics do you think the world thinks America is all about when they look at us and see that we allow this to be done to innocent little children? So I think it is important for us to have laws that proscribe things that we would not want our children to see, that I know a lot of people do not want their children to see. My goodness, this goes on and you want little children to see this? We don't want the rest of the world to see that we allow this kind of brutality to occur to innocent little children. So the answer is, we need to do this for ourselves. We need to police ourselves in what we are going to allow in our culture. We cannot allow this kind of brutality to corrupt us, to corrupt our soul. And that is what it does. It makes us a much more brutal and harsh country if we stand here and say, yes, for whatever reason, we are going to allow this to occur. It coarsens us, it dulls our senses, and that dulling of the senses has a corrupting effect on not just how we treat little ones here but how we treat each other in every aspect of our lives. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what the Senator from Nevada has suggested is instead of taking the normal course, which is the House has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a bill, and for us to go to conference to negotiate the differences, the Senator from Nevada is suggesting we take our bill and send it back to the House where the House would simply take it and put a bill there and send it back here, which would be fully amendable again, and it would go back to the House and it could go back to the Senate and we never reach a conclusion. I suggest the way to solve this problem is to go to conference. I hope we can do so.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senators from Nevada and Vermont for their indulgence. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7 Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, which is the charitable choice bill. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the Snowe amendment, which is the amendment on the child tax credit, and the Grassley-Baucus amendment, which is an amendment for the tax extenders, which are at the desk, be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 476, the Senate-passed version of the charitable choice bill, which has the Charitable Giving Act as well as the military fairness provisions, as amended by the Snowe-Grassley-Baucus amendment, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the House; and, lastly, that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees of a ratio of 3 to 2 and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding the time, and I compliment Members on both sides of this issue for the excellent debate, the tone of this debate. It is a very important debate we are engaged in right now. This is probably the most important decision we will make because it is going to shape the postwar policy of a reconstruction that will have a dramatic impact on the national security of this country. So I think people are taking this vote very seriously and I think they should take it seriously because it has incredible ramifications. This is a vote I believe we will look back on as one of the most significant votes we will cast in the area of foreign policy, certainly in the time I have been in the Senate, in Congress. So I am pleased to see there is a good, active debate. The words being exchanged I think have been helpful. A lot of the comments I heard from some of my colleagues who support the Bayh amendment, which I do not, have been reassuring to me. The intent of this amendment is not to show a lack of resolve on the part of any Member of the Senate that the policy of this administration in Iraq is being supported by those who may differ with the way the package is put together. Those words are important. Those words matter. My concern with those words is those words do matter, those words are important, but what matters more and what is more important are actions. There are too many people around this world who are not going to hear these words, but they are going to see the action. There are too many people in this world who will ignore the words and focus and take advantage of them to portray America really differently and portray this Senate differently than what the words in support of the Bayh amendment articulate. Yes, words matter. Intent of the offerors of this amendment, supporters of this amendment, matters. But the problem is the action of what is going to occur matters most. The action here is clear. We are saying to a country that is flat on its back economically, that has just gone through a 25-year-plus horrific regime, has just been through a war, we are saying to them: We came there to liberate you, to create freedom and rebuild your society into one that is peaceful and democratic, and, oh, by the way--and it is the ``oh, by the way'' this amendment is all about. The ``oh, by the way'' is we want some of that money back. Of course, the only way they can pay it back, and this is what the world community will see, this is what the people in the Arab world will see, is through oil revenues. That ``oh, by the way'' action trumps all of the words we heard here tonight which are no, we are not after oil, we are not after this. But it really doesn't matter what we say because what will be interpreted is what we do. The impact of that in this very fragile postwar period is profound, the impact on the donors conference which is coming up, where we are asking those around the world to contribute money, not to loan the money but to give the money. These are people who did not participate, in many cases, in supporting the United States action. So we are asking them, for humanitarian purposes, for purposes of promoting stability in the world, to support reconstruction in some cases where they didn't support the action in the first place. To go there with less than generous support--although I agree with many of my colleagues, we have been generous. The American public has been incredibly generous. But to have those strings attached is going to send a message that is not going to be positive in getting additional contributions from the donor nations. That will have a serious impact on the buy-in we need to make postwar Iraq successful. It was said by someone in the administration yesterday at our luncheon that there are now elections being held in Saudi Arabia, local elections for the first time as a result of the model that is being set in Iraq. The impact of a successful Iraq, a democratic Iraq, on that region of the world is like the MasterCard commercial--it is priceless. It is priceless. Why we, in any small way, would put that in jeopardy or give those who would like to see it not succeed an opportunity to use this vote and this action by the Senate to undermine that objective is to me something that does not make sense. So I hope my colleagues understand, this is an important vote, one we will look back on throughout history, like I believe those in 1948 look back on their vote on the Marshall plan. I hope we will get a vote to defeat this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to welcome to the Senate Dr. Guy Bluford and his wife Linda who are here today. This year marks the 20th anniversary of Dr. Bluford's first flight into space, the first African American in space. He is a native Philadelphian, of which I am very proud. I am equally as proud that he is also a fellow Penn State graduate. He has distinguished this country in his 29 years of service in the U.S. Air Force. I will enter into the Record his long list of accomplishments in the Air Force, and I ask unanimous consent to have this printed following my remarks.

Mr. SANTORUM. He has won numerous medals and commendations. His first flight in space was on August 30, 1983. He became the first African American to fly in space. Subsequent to that, he went on three missions in space in the shuttle and logged over 688 hours in space. In 1997, he was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame. Since his retirement, he has continued to excel in private enterprise since 1997 and is now president of the Aerospace Technology Group. As I mentioned, one of his greatest accomplishments is graduating from Penn State University, my alma mater. He has an aerospace engineering degree from Penn State. He has a master's degree of science, Ph.D. degree in aerospace engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and an MBA degree from the University of Houston. His education is phenomenal. His accomplishments in the military and space and now in the private sector are something of which to take note. We recognize today his great contribution to this country. The example he sets is as a terrific role model for young people of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. He is a man who has accomplished a tremendous amount in his life and obviously has a lot more to contribute. He and his wife Linda are here today, and we will have a reception for them starting at 10 a.m. in one of the reception rooms behind me. I invite my colleagues to stop by and meet Dr. Bluford and his wife Linda. I thank him for his tremendous service. I know my colleagues join me in recognizing his great accomplishments and great service to this country. Exhibit No. 1 Guion S. Bluford, Jr. Ph.D Dr. Guion S. Bluford, Jr., President, The Aerospace Technology Group (ATG), an aerospace technology and business consulting organization specializing in aviation and space related technology development, analysis, and marketing related activities. Prior to joining ATG, Dr. Bluford was Vice President of Microgravity R&D and Operations for the Northrop Grumman Corporation and was responsible for all corporate microgravity research and technical development activities in support of NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS) Enterprise. He also served as the Program Manager of the NASA Glenn Research Center's Microgravity Research, Development, and Operations Contract (MRDOC). Headquartered in Cleveland Ohio, Dr. Bluford was responsible for the design, development, integration, and operational support of the NASA Fluids and Combustion Facility and associated space flight experiment hardware for the International Space Station. Prior to joining Northrop Grumman, he was Vice President of the Aerospace Sector of Federal Data Corporation (FDC) and was responsible for all NASA business. He has also been the Vice President of the Engineering Services Division of NYMA Inc and Program Manager of the NASA Lewis Research Center's Scientific Engineering, Technical and Administrative Related Services (SETAR) contract. Prior to his service with Northrop Grumman, FDC, and NYMA, Inc., Dr. Bluford was a NASA mission specialist and payload commander astronaut on four Space Shuttle missions. He was selected in the first class of space shuttle astronauts in 1978 and was the first African American to fly in space in 1983 aboard Space Shuttle Challenger. In addition, he flew on a Spacelab flight as payload commander in 1985, a Department of Defense Strategic Defense Initiative Office flight in 1991, and a classified Department of Defense flight in 1992. He has logged over 688 hours in space. Dr. Bluford served 29 years in the United States Air Force as an Air Force tactical fighter pilot in Vietnam, instructor pilot, staff development engineer, Branch Chief of the Aerodynamics and Airframe Branch of the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory and NASA Astronaut. He has over 5200 hours of jet flight time in ten different aircraft. Dr. Bluford received a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from Penn State University and Masters of Science and Ph.D degrees in Aerospace Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Houston, Clear Lake, Texas. Dr. Bluford serves on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Space Foundation, ENSCO Inc, and the Board of Trustees of The Aerospace Corporation. He has been a member of the National Research Council's Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). He is currently serving on the Board of Directors of the NASA Alumni League, Western Reserve Historical Society of Cleveland, the Great Lakes Science Center, and the National Inventors Hall of Fame Foundation. He has been awarded the Department of Defense's Superior Service and three Meritorious Service Medals; the Air Force's Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service, Commendation, and ten Air Medals; NASA's Distinguished Service, Exceptional Service and four Space Flight Medals: the State of Pennsylvania's Distinguished Service Medal and thirteen honorary doctorate degrees. An AIAA Fellow, he was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1997.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Texas noted the irony of our standing on the floor of the Senate at the very moment the President is speaking to the United Nations. He is speaking before the United Nations to rally the world for our efforts in Iraq. As we stand on the floor of the Senate, some Members are calling into question the President's actions and calling into question the President's motives. It is one thing to call into question his action. It is one thing to call into question his plan. But to call into question his motives is one of the things that I think disturbs many people on this side of the aisle, and, frankly, many members of the American public. The Senator from Nevada said that some Members here have been using the baseball analogy of throwing a high hard one at Senator Kennedy's head to back him off the plate. Having reviewed what was said here this morning, I think the best thing we can throw is a change-up on the outside corner. Hopefully, we have gotten a strike since we have been accurate in what we are saying. But it was not put to anybody's head and it was not thrown hard. These were principled statements about the accuracy of the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts. We did not comment on his motives. We did not comment on his patriotism. We commented on the accuracy of his statement, which is a legitimate discussion here in the Senate. I hope we keep to that. We have had a debate on the floor of the Senate. Senator Daschle again questions the planning and actually questioned whether there was a plan. He used terms which were used back in 1948. A Senator Revercomb said, ``I charge tonight that there are no restraints placed upon those who administer this act''--similar to what Senator Daschle and Senator Byrd said. In fact, the statement has been made describing it as a ``blank check.'' Senator Byrd from West Virginia has used that term repeatedly on the Senate floor--only this comment is not about, obviously, the Bush plan in Iraq; it was about the Marshall plan of the Truman administration. It is remarkable as I have gone through the Congressional Record of the House and the Senate about the debate and the way it happened 3 years after V-E Day. Not 3 months was the plan put into place, not 3 weeks was this plan put into place--it took 3 years for the Truman administration to put a recovery plan into place in Europe and for Congress to act on it. Back then Members of Congress talked about how this was a blank check which was going to be a failure and it was unwise policy. Of course, it is now seen as one of the greatest foreign policy accomplishments of this country's history. Why? Because we had a President at the time-- and who at the time was not popular among the American people for what he was doing--who was seen as someone who was not providing a great plan or strong leadership but he stuck to his guns. He went to the American people at election time, and the American people sustained him in office because he provided leadership at a time when leadership was needed; when Members of Congress were looking at their own parochial interests instead of the interests of the country and of the world such as, again, is the case here today.