Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittees on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security and on Border Security, Immigration and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``Border Technology: Keeping Terrorists out of the United States--2003'' on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary for Border and Transportation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Accompanied by: Robert Mocny, Director of Entry-Exit Program, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC; Woody Hall, Interim Director, Office of Information & Technology, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC. Panel II: Nancy Kingsbury, Managing Director of Applied Research and Methods, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC; Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY.

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 Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Regional Implications of the Changing Nuclear Equation on the Korean Peninsula. Agenda Witnesses Panel 1: The Honorable James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC. Panel 2: The Honorable James Lilley, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC; Dr. Victor D. Cha, Associate Professor, Department of Government and the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Dr. Bates Gill, Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS, Washington, DC.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The hearing will take place in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building at 10:00 a.m.

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 Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 11:30 a.m. to hold a Committee Business Meeting. Agenda The Committee will consider and vote on the following agenda items: Treaties: Treaty Doc. 107-19, Tax Convention with the United Kingdom; Treaty Doc. 107-20, Protocol Amending Tax Convention with Australia; Treaty Doc. 108-3, Protocol Amending Tax Convention with Mexico. FSO appointment/promotion list: 1. Sebranek, Lyle J., et al, dated January 28, 2003.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on Welfare Reform: Building on Success.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 3 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Army Transformation, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004 and the future years defense program.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on national security space programs and management in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Fine.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, just to reiterate, I do not believe we should support the motion to commit. As I stated before, this is a piece of legislation we have had on the Senate floor. This is the fifth debate on the floor of the Senate. The Judiciary Committee has held two hearings and reported the bill out. It is not exactly the same. As I said before, it is not identical. We have addressed issues of health and vagueness, but the substance is the same. We are talking about the same thing. We are talking about changing roughly 20 words in the statute. I think that is a small enough change for Members of the Senate to digest without the Judiciary Committee going through and giving its opinion. The Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, came to the floor and addressed the issues. Other members of the Judiciary Committee have been here and done likewise, many of whom are cosponsors of this ban. I believe this is, frankly, going to delay consideration of this legislation. It will not have any impact or import in the long run to our deliberations. I think Members of the Senate are fully able to make this decision at this time being well versed after this debate. We have had a good debate over the last 3 days. We will continue to do so, prior to passage. I think it is time to move forward. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the motion to commit. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, I appreciate the comments. The Senator from Iowa read the famous clause out of the Casey decision, determining one's own concept of meaning of existence, of the universe, of the meaning of the universe, of the mystery of human life. The Senator from South Carolina hit the nail on the head. If everyone has their own right to decide what life is, what existence is, what the universe means--if we are not bound at all by any kind of societal norms, if we have the right to decide all these things, the kids who rushed into Columbine had it right because they said: I am law. My view of the world is what counts and that is all that counts. That is what this clause says: What I say goes. That is what this clause says. That is where we are. That is where the line of cases have taken us. It is simply about our brute force, our positive rights. Society does not matter; it is what we want. The Congress should not be involved in this. It is what you want. That is not the country that our Founding Fathers put together. That is not the Constitution they drafted. That, by the way, is why the right to abortion is not written in the Constitution. This is a slippery slope we are heading down. In deference to the Senator from Massachusetts who is in the Chamber, I will define that slope momentarily. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his support both here on the floor and things that we have done off the floor to get support for this legislation. He has been one of the champions. I appreciate his support as well as that of the Senator from Minnesota, his very heartfelt support for this legislation and the very touching personal story he related to the Senate. How much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. SANTORUM. Please, let me finish. If a child is not perfect, then that child can be aborted under any circumstances. But if that child is perfect, we are going to protect that child more. I do not think the Americans with Disabilities Act would fit very well into that definition. The Americans with Disabilities Act--of which I know the Senator from Iowa has been a great advocate, and I respect him greatly for it--says we treat all of God's children the same. We look at all-- perfect and imperfect--as creatures of God created in his image. What the Senator from New York is asking me to do is separate those who are somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put them somewhat a peg below legal protection than the perfect child. I hope the Senator is not recommending that because I think that would set a horrible precedent that could be extrapolated, I know probably to the disgust of the Senator from Iowa, certainly to me. No, I do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are perfect, this cannot happen to you; but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The Senator is right, I do not.

Mr. SANTORUM. How much time remains?

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to. It is imperative upon us to present the standard, the predominant case in which partial-birth abortions are done, and that is what we are doing. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, to address a few issues the Senator from California spoke about, I made a comment about her calling this bill identical, and she said she did not call it identical, that she called it legally identical. I quote from the unofficial record from 6:51 p.m. Monday on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from California: The Supreme Court said in an identical bill, it is far broader than just one procedure--identical bill. The Senator from Illinois just repeatedly said this is the exact same bill, exactly the same language--``identical bill.'' The Senator from California said that is correct. So she is saying this is an identical bill, and then she suggested we need to send it back to committee because we need hearings because it is a changed bill. Which is it? Is is a changed bill or an identical bill? It is not an identical bill, I concede that point to her. It is different. The language is substantially different. The Senator from California said: We meant to cover more than one procedure with this language. Why would we want to do that? The Supreme Court said: The reason we are striking down your language is that we believe it covers more than one procedure. So we are going to craft language so the Supreme Court can come back and say, well, it covers more than one procedure? Maybe my colleagues think we are not serious about banning this procedure. Let me assure them, I am serious as a heart attack about banning this procedure, and we have crafted language to do just that, and only that. The language is different. It is not identical to the Nebraska statute. The Nebraska statute said, as the previous bill we considered on the floor, that a partial-birth abortion is performed in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally: delivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother. The new language says: deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk-- That means the arms, legs, trunk-- past the navel is outside the body of the mother. Now, that is substantially different. It is not an identical bill. It is much more specific, to address the very issue the Court wanted us to address in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. So we are very clear. This is not vague, and this is an honest and sincere attempt to meet the constitutional strictures of the Supreme Court decision. I will address Senator Durbin's and Senator Boxer's point on some of the special cases, but the Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber and I yield 10 minutes to him.

Mr. SANTORUM. No, if----

Mr. SANTORUM. I certainly respect the difference of opinion the Senator and I have on the underlying issue of abortion. Again, I think people can disagree on that. I, frankly, do not agree there should be a difference between children who are ``normal,'' in society's eyes--I do not know what that means anymore, what a society sees as normal--and those who happen to have birth defects, severe or not. I do not believe we should draw distinctions.

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand the Senator's point. I guess my point in rebuttal is that if you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not----

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield to the Senator from Illinois 7 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the partial-birth abortion bill. We had a good and vigorous debate last night and all day yesterday and made substantial progress on the bill. I appreciate Senators' willingness to come forward and debate this measure. In fact, I encourage Members who have not made opening statements and want to speak on this legislation to come to the floor today. We are moving expeditiously. We got a good unanimous consent agreement yesterday that calls for votes later this morning, perhaps at the latest early this afternoon. My understanding is we have, beyond the two amendments that are locked in right now, two additional amendments that could be offered this afternoon. There may not be any other amendments. I want to make sure Members know there is a chance we could end up even finishing today. If Members are waiting, thinking they have plenty of time to come down and speak on the underlying bill, I encourage them to come down. We will be debating two amendments this morning. Senator Boxer's amendment will be up first. Actually, it is not an amendment but a motion to commit the bill to the Judiciary Committee. There will be 2 hours of debate, equally divided, on that motion, which we will proceed to momentarily, and subsequent to that debate we will have an hour debate on the Durbin amendment. All of that time is equally divided. Then we will proceed to votes on both of those amendments. If all time is used, we will have votes at roughly 12:30 this afternoon, if not earlier. As I said, there are two other amendments of which we are aware that could be offered this afternoon. I encourage Members who wish to participate in this debate to please come to the floor and do so this morning or this afternoon. I remind my colleagues that a cloture motion was filed on the Estrada nomination yesterday by our leader, and that motion will ripen tomorrow morning.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I do not want to go without praising my own majority leader also. He obviously set the tone for this debate not only by structuring the way by which this debate proceeded, but very importantly in coming to the floor and laying out, in very strong arguments, the case against this procedure from a perspective that is unique in the Senate, which is the perspective of a physician. I am going to have a few more things to say in a few minutes, but before I do that, I thank my incredible staff for helping me through this process, Heather MacLean and Wayne Palmer. Heather and Wayne were terrific in preparing for this debate. There was an obvious range on a wide variety of things, things, frankly, we did not even anticipate. They did an outstanding job in preparation, and an outstanding job in getting information to make me look good, which, I am sure many Senators will confirm, is not the easiest thing in the world to do. I thank them both very much for their excellent assistance. I am not surprised, by any stretch of the imagination, regarding their incredible work, but I am very grateful. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 70, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 24, National Correctional Officers and Employees Week, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.