Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 69 which was introduced earlier today.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 68 which was introduced earlier today by Senators Voinovich and DeWine.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 10 which was introduced today by Senators Gregg and Kennedy.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 534 is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 on Monday, March 3, the Senate proceed to a vote on the nomination of Marian Horn to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; provided further that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. I am joined in introducing this bill by 38 of my colleagues, over a third of the Senate. This bill is written to prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Partial birth abortion is a procedure that is performed over a 3-day period in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. In this particular abortion technique, the physician delivers all but the head of a living baby through the birth canal, stab the baby in the base of the skull with curved scissors, and the uses a suction catheter to remove the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After collapsing the skull, the doctor completes the procedure. According to Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, this procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in the vast majority of cases. The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 70 percent of Americans favored laws making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. This procedure is also unrecognized by the mainstream medical community as a valid abortion procedure. The American Medical Association has said this procedure is ``not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong,'' and ``not an accepted `medical practice'.'' As far back as the 104th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives both acted to ban this procedure. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that bill. The House voted to override that veto, but the Senate fell short. Likewise, during the 105th Congress, the House and Senate acted to pass a bill banning this procedure. Again, President Clinton vetoed that bill banning an abortion procedure that occurs as the child is inches from being completely outside the mother. The House subsequently overrode his veto. The Senate failed to override by just three votes. In the 106th Congress as well, the Senate and the House both acted to overwhelmingly pass legislation banning this procedure. A little over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Stenberg versus Carhart decision, struck down a similar, but not identical, law in the state of Nebraska that banned partial birth abortions. The Stenberg majority opinion voiced concern that the description of the abortion procedure as described in the Nebraska law was vague and might apply to other types of late-term abortions. A second concern was that the law did not provide an exception for those instances when the banned procedure was judged necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Last year, during the 107th Congress, Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio introduced a bill responding to those concerns. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 274-151. Unfortunately, the Senate was kept from considering this bill. Today, I introduced a similar bill banning the horrific procedure of partial birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother. To respond to the Supreme Court's concerns in Stenberg, this bill provides a very precise definition of the partial birth abortion procedure to make it very clear what procedure is meant. Second, the Court based its decision in Stenberg on the federal district court's factual findings regarding the safety of the partial birth abortion procedure. These findings were highly disputed and inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority on the issue-- including evidence presented at the Stenberg trial, other trials challenging partial birth abortion bans, and at the extensive Congressional hearings that have been held over the years. Despite the lack of evidence supporting the district court's findings, the Supreme Court was required to accept them because of the ``clearly erroneous'' standard that is applied to lower court factual findings. However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Congress is not required to accept these ``factual findings,'' but is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and may enact legislation based on these findings. The bill I introduce today includes a series of findings from congressional hearings held over the years and from expert testimony that demonstrates that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother, poses significant health risks to the woman, and is outside the standard of medical care. Over the years, during the consideration of this ban, proponents of partial birth abortion have supported their arguments for this procedure with myth and misinformation. When the time comes for the full Senate to consider this bill, I look forward to again countering those untruths with the truth, and I ask my colleagues to vote to ban partial birth abortion. It is long past time for the U.S. Senate to again pass a bill banning partial birth abortion. I am pleased that the Senate leadership has seen this as a legislative priority for the 108th Congress. The House and Senate have overwhelming supported such a ban time and time again. President Bush has asked us to send him a bill to end the practice of partial birth abortion. The American people clearly believe this is a procedure that should be prohibited. I appreciate the support of so many of my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bill. And I am hopeful--very hopeful--that the 108th Congress will not end before this bill becomes law, before children in the very process of being born are protected by the laws of this great nation of ours.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. I am joined in introducing this bill by 38 of my colleagues, over a third of the Senate. This bill is written to prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Partial birth abortion is a procedure that is performed over a 3-day period in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. In this particular abortion technique, the physician delivers all but the head of a living baby through the birth canal, stab the baby in the base of the skull with curved scissors, and the uses a suction catheter to remove the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After collapsing the skull, the doctor completes the procedure. According to Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, this procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in the vast majority of cases. The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 70 percent of Americans favored laws making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. This procedure is also unrecognized by the mainstream medical community as a valid abortion procedure. The American Medical Association has said this procedure is ``not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong,'' and ``not an accepted `medical practice'.'' As far back as the 104th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives both acted to ban this procedure. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that bill. The House voted to override that veto, but the Senate fell short. Likewise, during the 105th Congress, the House and Senate acted to pass a bill banning this procedure. Again, President Clinton vetoed that bill banning an abortion procedure that occurs as the child is inches from being completely outside the mother. The House subsequently overrode his veto. The Senate failed to override by just three votes. In the 106th Congress as well, the Senate and the House both acted to overwhelmingly pass legislation banning this procedure. A little over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Stenberg versus Carhart decision, struck down a similar, but not identical, law in the state of Nebraska that banned partial birth abortions. The Stenberg majority opinion voiced concern that the description of the abortion procedure as described in the Nebraska law was vague and might apply to other types of late-term abortions. A second concern was that the law did not provide an exception for those instances when the banned procedure was judged necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Last year, during the 107th Congress, Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio introduced a bill responding to those concerns. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 274-151. Unfortunately, the Senate was kept from considering this bill. Today, I introduced a similar bill banning the horrific procedure of partial birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother. To respond to the Supreme Court's concerns in Stenberg, this bill provides a very precise definition of the partial birth abortion procedure to make it very clear what procedure is meant. Second, the Court based its decision in Stenberg on the federal district court's factual findings regarding the safety of the partial birth abortion procedure. These findings were highly disputed and inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority on the issue-- including evidence presented at the Stenberg trial, other trials challenging partial birth abortion bans, and at the extensive Congressional hearings that have been held over the years. Despite the lack of evidence supporting the district court's findings, the Supreme Court was required to accept them because of the ``clearly erroneous'' standard that is applied to lower court factual findings. However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Congress is not required to accept these ``factual findings,'' but is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and may enact legislation based on these findings. The bill I introduce today includes a series of findings from congressional hearings held over the years and from expert testimony that demonstrates that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother, poses significant health risks to the woman, and is outside the standard of medical care. Over the years, during the consideration of this ban, proponents of partial birth abortion have supported their arguments for this procedure with myth and misinformation. When the time comes for the full Senate to consider this bill, I look forward to again countering those untruths with the truth, and I ask my colleagues to vote to ban partial birth abortion. It is long past time for the U.S. Senate to again pass a bill banning partial birth abortion. I am pleased that the Senate leadership has seen this as a legislative priority for the 108th Congress. The House and Senate have overwhelming supported such a ban time and time again. President Bush has asked us to send him a bill to end the practice of partial birth abortion. The American people clearly believe this is a procedure that should be prohibited. I appreciate the support of so many of my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bill. And I am hopeful--very hopeful--that the 108th Congress will not end before this bill becomes law, before children in the very process of being born are protected by the laws of this great nation of ours.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I further ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup past the hour of 1 o'clock.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Minnesota to yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an additional question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Further, I guess the question I have is, other than Mr. Bender's comment, which came well after the fact and does not comport with his contemporaneous reports--other than that one particular statement--of all the qualifications that are traditionally used by Members of the Senate to evaluate nominees for judicial positions, circuit court positions, has any Member of the Senate questioned any of those qualities?

Mr. SANTORUM. So, Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just a clarifying question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Is there anything in Mr. Estrada's background that would give you the opinion he would be a judicial activist on the court?

Mr. SANTORUM. What I understand the Senator from Utah is saying is that on every quality by which judicial nominees are judged traditionally here in the Senate, on every single one of those qualities, he has either had no argument from the other side that he does not meet those standards or, in many cases, he has exceeded those standards, except in one case with respect to judicial temperament. In that case, we have the person who makes those claims having written contemporaneous reports that rebut his own later testimony, and the supervisor rebutting that testimony. So other than that one case, on all of the other qualities by which we are to judge a candidate here, there is no argument about his qualifications?

Mr. SANTORUM. Given that he is qualified on all of those grounds, one is left with the possibility that he may be objected to because of his ideological position. Has any comment been made or any evidence been produced by any Senator that his ideology is out of the mainstream of traditional jurisprudence in any of the activities in which he has been involved?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for an additional question, I would just ask that to be clarified. Has the other side produced any evidence that, in the history of this nominee as a lawyer, he has produced any information or any information has been produced that shows that his principles or ideology are outside of the mainstream? Has any evidence been produced to that effect?

Mr. SANTORUM. Regular order.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, has any Member of the Senate questioned the nominee's intelligence?