Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If I may reclaim my time, first of all, the AMA still believes this is bad medicine. They do not support the criminal penalties provisions in this bill, but they still believe--I think you know that to be the case--this procedure is not medically necessary, and they stand by that statement. I ask the Senator from California, again, you believe--you said ``once the baby comes home.'' Obviously, you don't mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree--completely separated from the mother--you would agree that baby is entitled to constitutional protection?

Mr. SANTORUM. But I would like to ask you this question. You agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?

Mr. SANTORUM. Do you agree any child who is born has the right to life, is protected by the Constitution once that child is born?

Mr. SANTORUM. This is not commonly practiced. It is only practiced with a few thousand abortions a year. Given the fact there are 1.4 million abortions, a few thousand abortions, it is not something that is practiced in every abortion clinic. I think a lot of abortion clinics will say this is a rogue practice. That is not to say people do not practice medicine that is somewhat strange. There are a lot of people who do things in medicine that are not considered to be medically sound judgments. That doesn't mean that they aren't done. They are, in fact, done. This is a situation where we believe that is the case. This is a rogue procedure. Someone may be sued. I don't know. Maybe someone has. I am not aware of someone being sued. But, again, the person most likely to sue would be the child that is dead. I am not too sure that in the case of the mother that is necessarily a most common thing you will see. I don't think a lot of abortionists are sued, period. I would like to address a couple of issues that the Senator from California brought up, and then the Senator from Illinois. First, to state very clearly what the Senator from California said, talking about the murder of abortionists and snipers firing at people, I am against murder. I think everybody who supports this legislation-- and, frankly, everybody in this Chamber agrees--believes that acts of violence against anybody on the issue of abortion is counterproductive to an effort that seeks to affirm life. Certainly, taking the law into their own hands is an outrage, is offensive to me, is wrong, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no room in a movement that talks about nonviolence--and violence toward babies in utero--for condoning actions of violence of any sort, whether it is murder or attempted murder or destruction of property, et cetera. I don't stand here condoning that, and I would join with the Senator from California to condemn it and condemn it in the strongest words possible. That is no service to those who are trying to get the country's ear in defense of innocent human life. I want to correct what the Senator from California said also about no court has found our language in this bill constitutional. That is not true. The court in Wisconsin has found this language to be constitutional. It is now being appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The law is enjoined upon appeal. But, again, we have a district court that has found this to be constitutional. I would like to go through again, quoting from the Journal of the American Medical Association, an article printed in 1998, a year ago in August, by two obstetricians from Northwestern University, and go through again why this procedure--it keeps coming back to two issues, as the Senator from Illinois talked about. One, the term is too vague. The definition is too vague. I will be addressing that. Hopefully, in the next couple of days we will work on that, although I think, frankly, the definition is perfectly clear. We are willing to work and to see whether we can make it a little bit more definitive. Second, that this may be necessary to protect the health of the mother, again, that is the discussion in which the Senator from Illinois and I were just engaged. I want to restate again how overwhelming the evidence is of people who can definitively state without question that over 400 obstetricians around the country say it is never medically necessary. C. Everett Koop--as the Senator from Illinois said, is never medically necessary. It is a pretty strong term to say it is never medically necessary. What do we have on the other side? We have some anecdotes about cases where it was used, but in no case do they state that was the only option or that was the best option. On our side we have the abortionist, Dr. Haskell from Ohio, who probably does more of these abortions than any other person. He says it is never--underline never--medically necessary to protect the life of the mother and not medically necessary to protect the health of the mother. The abortionist himself says that. On the other side, we have the statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. That is the argument on the other side. This whole debate on health is centered around an organization that is very pro-abortion that says they put together a select panel that: . . . could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. This is an organization that opposes this bill. This is an organization they rely upon to hold on to the ``health exception.'' That is the cover behind not voting for this bill. There are two arguments: Health of the mother--we need that, otherwise we can't vote for this if we don't have that--and it is too vague, the definition is too vague. The organization they rely upon says they can: . . . identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman and that an intact D&X, however-- This is what they hold on to-- . . . may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision. That is their rationale. It ``may be,'' and we should ``leave it to the doctor and the patient.'' ``May be.'' OK, fine. It may be. We have asked this organization to provide one circumstance--just one. By the way, we have asked them now for 3 years to give one circumstance where we can have peer review by obstetricians, have them look at their circumstance where this ``may be'' the best option. Give a hypothetical; give an example we can actually examine. What is the answer from that organization? Nothing. They say it ``may be.'' We can't say how, we can't give any evidence of it, but ``it may be.'' Because it may be--which is not substantiated--that is the health exception they need. It is pretty lame. If they cannot come forward and give facts, we need a health exception because it ``may be,'' but if we cannot give circumstances where that is the case, where is the health exception? They admit it is not the only way. The AMA has said it is not good medicine; it is a rogue procedure, and the AMA is a pro-choice organization. That is what their board votes. Again, it is hard for me to argue against ``May be's,'' without specifics. That is what we have. Members are hiding behind ``we need a health exception because it may be.'' This is a debate about facts. We have hundreds and hundreds of physicians who say it may be never the best option; it will never be the best option; there are always better alternatives. From the point of view of someone who is on the Senate floor and whose job it is to look at all the information, to be able to make a judgment, don't hide behind a health exception that doesn't exist and is not substantiated. Just because it is substantiated by anecdotes of people who used them because it happened to save them, that doesn't mean there weren't better options at the same time. Just because this worked to save the health of the mother doesn't mean there weren't better options. Mr. President, 400 years ago we used to bleed people, and it probably helped some people, but that doesn't mean there weren't better options. We are saying, what is the best option? Why do we want the best option? This is not removing a tumor. This is killing a baby that is outside the mother. That is why we don't like this procedure. This is not practicing medicine and telling doctors how to do their business. If this were about an ingrown toenail, we wouldn't care. This is about killing a living human being--about killing a living human being. I don't think anybody on the floor will argue with that. We are talking about killing a living human being. That is this far away from the Constitution saying ``no.'' This far. I will read from this article the rationale given by these physicians as to why they believe this is not the best procedure for mothers from a health perspective. There exist no credible studies on intact D&X-- This is a rogue procedure-- . . . that evaluate or attest to its safety. The procedure is not recognized in medical textbooks nor is it taught in medical schools or in obstetrics and gynecology residencies. Intact D&X poses serious medical risks to the mother. Patients who undergo an intact D&X-- Intact D&X is a partial-birth abortion as defined in the bill-- are at risk for the potential complications with any surgical midtrimester termination, including hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation. However, intact D&X places these patients at increased risk of two additional complications. So a traditional late-term abortion has certain risks associated with it, according to these doctors from Northwestern University. But this procedure has two other complications in addition to the ones already inherent in a late-term abortion: First, the risk of uterine rupture may be increased. An integral part of the D&X procedure is an internal podalic version, during which the physician instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix, thus converting the lie to a footling breach. The internal version carries risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus. The second potential complication of intact D&X is the risk of iatrogenic laceration and secondary hemorrhage. Following internal version and partial breech extraction, scissors are forced into the base of the fetal skull while it is lodged in the birth canal. This blind procedure risks maternal injury from laceration of the uterus or cervix by the scissors and could result in severe bleeding and the threat of shock or even maternal death. These risks have not been adequately quantified. None of these risks are medically necessary because other procedures are available to physicians who deem it necessary to perform an abortion late in pregnancy. As ACOG policy clearly states, intact D&X is never the only procedure available. Some clinicians have considered intact D&X necessary when hydrocephalus is present. Water on the brain. However, a hydrocephalic fetus could be aborted by first draining the excess fluid from the fetal skull through ultrasound-guided. . .[procedures.] Some physicians who perform abortions have been concerned that a ban on late term abortions would affect their ability to provide other abortion services. Because of the proposed changes in federal legislation, it is clear that only intact D&X would be banned. I can and I will, throughout the course of the next couple of days, provide letter after letter signed by hundreds and hundreds of obstetricians, the best in their field, perinatologists, people who deal with maternal and fetal medicine, who say this procedure is dangerous, more dangerous to a woman. So the issue of health is a bogus one. It is a bogus issue. Again I go back to Warren Hern, the author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the author who does more third-trimester abortions, I am told, than anybody else in America. He says: I have very serious reservations about this procedure. You really can't defend it. I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. This is not a fan of this bill. So, again, all these comments and concerns about ``we have to protect health, we have to protect health''--if we outlawed this procedure, we would be protecting health. We would be protecting the health of women where doctors who do it do it for the convenience of the abortionist. Do you want to know why it is done? It is done for the convenience of the abortionist, because they can do more in 1 day. That is why this procedure was developed. That is what they will tell you. That is, the doctor who invented this procedure, he will tell you that is why he did it. On the other issue--and we will get to this a little later in the debate--the issue of vagueness, the Senator from California said every court in the country that has ruled on this has ruled it is vague or ruled it is unconstitutional. First off, that is not true. Wisconsin ruled in fact it is constitutional. But I am willing to work with those who have genuine concerns about the issue of vagueness, to get a definition that makes people perfectly comfortable that we are not talking about any other form of abortion because it is not my intent, as has been ascribed to me, that what I am trying to do is eliminate all second- and third- trimester abortions. What is clear about this debate and the debate that has been going on now for three Congresses is that we are not trying to do that. I think we have stood on the floor and said that is not our intent. Our intent is to get rid of a dangerous procedure. Yes, it is painful to the baby. Yes, it is dangerous to the mother. But it is also dangerous to our society, to be able to kill a baby that is this close to being born. I think it is something we have to stand up and draw the line on clearly, and that is what we are asking to do. So to me it is pretty simple. We have no evidence this jeopardizes the health of the mother--none. We have speculation, no facts. We have the vagueness concern. Again, I am willing to work on that issue. If that is a genuine concern that people have, I am willing to work on it to make sure we can make people comfortable that what we are talking about is only this procedure. But once you get past those two concerns, I do not know what is left. I do not know why you defend this. I do not know why you defend killing a baby this far away from being born who would otherwise be born alive. I do not know how you defend it. So I look forward to this debate over the next couple of days. I know the Senator from California feels very passionately about this, but I think the issue of where we draw the line constitutionally is very important. I am sure the Senator from California agrees with me. I think the Senator from California would say that she and I, the Senator from Illinois, the Senators from Arkansas and Kansas, we are all protected by the Constitution with the right to life. Would you agree with that, Senator from California? Do you answer that question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Because there are safer alternatives available according to all of the medical literature, and we have definitive statements from obstetricians, hundreds of them, as well as people from Northwestern--I will be happy to share the article with the Senator-- from a fairly reputable medical school; I am sure the Senator would say one of the best medical schools. But we have overwhelming evidence that there are safer procedures to use, that this is a rogue practice. It is not used much. And, again, according to Warren Hern, he can't defend this procedure. It is something that should not be used. It is not safe. I will show you arguments. I don't have it handy, but we will enter into the Record an analysis of the cases that you have made by obstetricians who will say under these circumstances there would have been a safer course, a better course than what was done by the physicians in this case. What we are saying is it is not the best medicine, period. It is not medically necessary, period. And it is a barbaric infringement on the rights of an almost born child. I agree. This is a very narrow bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. But they do not identify any.

Mr. SANTORUM. We are very clear. I don't think this is a problem under Roe v. Wade. I think we are very clear, and are, frankly, working on making it clearer in the definition dealing with the issue of vagueness because that has been raised, as the Senator mentioned, in the court cases across the country. Even though one case held it to be constitutional, we are looking into ways in which we can tighten that definition. To make sure, what we are saying is, look, if an abortion is what the mother chooses, or a family chooses, it is legal under certain circumstances in the second- and third-trimester, in almost all circumstances. But we are saying this procedure, because of the very difficult slippery slope of having an almost born child being killed, should not be allowed.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand that very well. I just say this. What we have been told by the overwhelming amount of medical evidence--and, again, it gets back to the discussion we had earlier about whether this procedure is the only appropriate procedure--what we have been told over and over again is that this is never medically necessary. In this circumstance, this is not the only procedure that could be used, No. 1. Again, we have overwhelming medical evidence saying that this is, in fact, not the safest--in fact, is the most dangerous. Even the person who wrote the textbook on second- and third-trimester abortions, a guy by the name of Warren Hern, who talks about this procedure--he does more second- and third-trimester abortions than any other abortionist in the country--says, ``I have serious reservations about this procedure. You really can't defend it. I would dispute any statement that says this is the safest procedure to use.'' This is an abortionist from Colorado who does more third-trimester abortions than anybody in the country. My point is not that we should say you can't have an abortion if that is what the person wants at that point. But there are other options other than an intact D&E. There are other abortion options, as the Senator explored in his statement. There is the caesarean section, depending on what the problem is. You have the Alan Guttmacher Institute which looked at statistics on abortion. They say that abortion is twice as risky to the life of the mother as is delivery in the second- and third-trimester.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes against the Durbin amendment and the Senator from Illinois be given 5 minutes for the Durbin amendment. It will be 5 minutes. I was not aware the Senator was using our time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator, and I appreciate his good faith in offering this amendment. I am not going to discuss that amendment specifically right now, although I certainly will. I have a couple of comments. First off, it has to be noted here that partial-birth abortions are performed--this is according to the people who perform them--well over 90 percent of the partial-birth abortions that are performed--and some have suggested much higher than 90 percent--on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Healthy babies, healthy mothers. A very small percentage are the cases that you have heard brought up here today. The question is then posed: Well, who are we to make the decision about these tough cases? I think even the Senator from Illinois would say, if it is a healthy mother and baby and this procedure isn't necessary, I have some problems. I think a lot of Members who have voted against this bill have said, if it is that case--but there are these cases. I am happy to address those cases, but let me do it in a broader context. The reason we inject ourselves is the same reason the Supreme Court has injected itself into the debate on second- and third-trimester abortions. It is because we are not talking about removing a tumor. It is not where we are going to say you should not remove this cancerous tumor this way or that way or that appendix that way. What we are talking about here is killing a baby--from my perspective, particularly killing a baby in such a barbaric fashion-- which is almost born and is almost protected by the Constitution. So I understand the concern that we should not be practicing medicine. No one is practicing medicine here. What we are doing here is drawing a very important line about what we will allow in our society when it comes to killing a living human being. I don't think anybody is going to question that the baby is living and it is a human being. So what we are talking about here is how can you kill a living human being? What we are saying is you should not be able to kill a living human being that is almost born, especially in a brutal fashion. The reason is because of how horrendous this is. It creates some real slippery slopes when the Senator from California gets up and says, ``I want every child to be wanted.'' So now if you are not wanted, you are not protected by the Constitution and that is the way it works? If you are not wanted as a child, you don't get protection. What if you're not wanted as a Senator. Do you not get protection? I don't think we want to go down that road. I am concerned, particularly as we talk about this procedure, where the baby is three inches away from protection from the Constitution, and when you get into this area and say, people have to have all the rights to do whatever they want. That is not what the Constitution says. That is not what we have said here. We have drawn a line because we think it is important for society to draw lines about what is, in fact, legal and what is not.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator very much for yielding. The reason I am going to ask the question is an article written by two Northwestern health care physicians from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, who cited the same statement out of the select panel. They went on to say, after they quoted what you quoted in your letter: However, no specific examples of circumstances under which intact D&X will be the appropriate. In fact, in subsequent communications with ACOG and others, we have asked, give us one set of medical--any set of medical circumstances where you believe that this ``may be--whatever.'' Never have we gotten any circumstance where that was the case. So they say it may be, but no one to date has provided any circumstance, as hypothetical as you want, where, in fact, it would be. Just to say it may be without giving evidence of what it was, I think my question is--I think the next question to which you hopefully can get an answer, I can't--you say it may be. Give me a for instance. So far, we have not been able to get any for instance.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we now, somewhat belatedly, begin the debate on partial-birth abortion. To review the actions of this body on this issue and the actions of the Congress, this is the third time this bill or some form of this bill has been voted on to pass the Senate. We passed this bill in 1995 and in 1997. Here we are again in 1999. We had two override attempts of the President's veto in 1996 and 1998, and I am fairly sure we will probably have another attempt on a Presidential veto override next year, in the year 2000. Each time this bill has been voted on, succeeding Congresses picked up votes. In other words, we have gotten closer to the two-thirds necessary, 67 Senators, to override an anticipated Presidential veto. I am hopeful we will continue that trend. We started in 1995 with a vote of 55 or 56 Senators supporting banning this procedure. As of the vote last year, we were up to 64 Senators in this body agreeing this procedure is not necessary. It is, in fact, unhealthy and it is a threat to the health and life of the mother, as well as being a brutal and barbaric procedure. I am hopeful through the course of this debate we can have a fair debate about this issue. Some have tried to turn this into a broader debate about abortions and view this as just the first shot at Roe v. Wade, an attempt to put a chink in the armor, intimating there is a grand agenda to try to chip away abortion rights that were given by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Let me assure my colleagues that is not my intention. This bill is a straightforward piece of legislation that deals with a specific procedure. In fact, I am hopeful we will be able, through an amendment process, to make it even more clear we are referring simply to the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. I will describe what that procedure is in a moment. But there is no such intent here. In fact, one of the reasons we are offering this amendment is because we believe this comports with Roe v. Wade; that this is a constitutional restriction and, in fact, it falls outside the concerns of Roe v. Wade because the baby is outside of the mother. The baby is no longer in the mother's womb. So decisions have been made in the courts across the country. There have been several State bans that have been held unconstitutional, one that was held constitutional. So my guess is we will continue to see States deal with this issue, courts continue to be all over the map, some saying it is unconstitutional, some saying it is constitutional, until we get, finally, to the Supreme Court and they can look at it. I am confident it is constitutional. Having said that, we just finished a debate on campaign finance reform where the very Members who stand before the body to say we cannot pass this because it is unconstitutional voted for campaign finance reform bills that are clearly unconstitutional, clearly in violation of the Supreme Court's edict on allowing unlimited soft money. But they come here and say: We think the Court is wrong and we are going to ban it anyway. This is directly on point with a Supreme Court decision. In our case, with partial-birth abortion, where the baby is killed in the process of being born, the baby is outside the mother, under Roe v. Wade they let stand a Texas statute that was under appeal under Roe v. Wade prohibiting the killing of a child in the process of being born. So in a sense we have a case on point in Roe v. Wade that says this kind of thing is, in fact, constitutional. Yet you will hear the arguments, I am sure, at length in the next day or two that we cannot pass this because some courts have said this is unconstitutional. I think at best that is an unclear argument. At worst, I would argue it is clearly constitutional because of the Roe v. Wade decision. To make that argument the very day--or the day after, now--many of the Members making this argument vote for something that is clearly unconstitutional because they want to send it to the Court and have the Court take another look at it strikes me as a little disingenuous; that you would make one argument one day and do a 180 degree turn and say we cannot pass it because it is unconstitutional when the day before you pass what you know is unconstitutional and you hope the Court will change its mind. I think now what I want to do is go through briefly what a partial- birth abortion is, how it is performed, when it is performed, who performs it, where it is performed, and why. If I could first start out with a chart that describes the procedure, you can see this is a baby. By the way, that is at least 20 weeks of gestation. During a 40-week gestational period, partial-birth abortions are performed on babies who are at least 20 weeks. So this is a late-term abortion. This is a second- and in some cases a third-trimester abortion. Let me start with how it starts. First, the mother presents herself to the abortion clinic. The abortionist decides what procedure he or she wants to use to kill the baby. In a small percentage of second- and third-trimester abortions, a partial-birth abortion is used. It is not the most common method of abortion in late trimester. In fact, it is relatively rare. We are not sure of the numbers. The reason we are not sure of the numbers is we have to rely on the abortion industry--which, by the way, opposes this bill--to give us their numbers on how many they say they do. The Federal Government does not keep track of the method of abortion used in the second and third trimester. In fact, they don't keep track of the method of abortion period. So we do not know from any Government statistics or any independent source how many of these abortions are performed. We only can go by what the opponents of this bill tell us is the number. They originally told us there were just a few hundred. Then a report came out in a paper in northern New Jersey, the Bergen County Record, and they just happened to have a good reporter who thought maybe he would ask his local abortion clinic how many of these abortions were performed. He took the time, as reporters I think would want to do, to find out the accuracy of the story he was reporting. He contacted an abortion clinic in northern New Jersey and the abortion clinic there said they did 1,500 a year at that clinic. Where the national organization said they did 500 nationally, there were 1,500 done at that clinic. The person at the clinic who said they did 1,500 there said they had trained a couple of other abortionists who perform them in New York, in addition to the 1,500 that were done there. So when I say a small percentage, that is what has been reported to us, again, by the people who oppose this and who realize the more they report the harder it is for them to defend. Because, again, what you hear the President and other advocates of this procedure talk about is this is a rare case--just to protect the mother's health or life, in the case of a severely deformed baby, so it is very rarely done. What we found is that is not the case. I think it is clear and many have admitted since within the abortion industry, that is just not true. So what we have is a case where we do not know how many are performed but we believe, according to them, it is around 5,000 or more a year. I want to stop right there and pause for a minute. I want everybody to think if we heard about the murder of 5,000 children a year through a procedure or some act of violence--if we heard about 5,000 a year, people would be marching on Congress and saying: How can you let 5, much less 5,000, babies be killed in such a horrific way? But because we put it under the rubric of abortion, it is OK. What I want to show today, looking at this procedure, is this is not like abortion. This is like infanticide. This is a baby who is all but born and then killed. So I think we need to look at it and have this debate focus on not the issue of abortion because there are plenty, as is evidenced by the numbers, of other procedures available to perform abortions. This is a rogue procedure that is infanticide. That is why Members on both sides of the aisle who are supporters of abortion rights have joined with us because they believe this is a step too far. We have drawn the line in the wrong place. Once the baby is in the process of being born, we have to say: Wait a minute; this baby is now outside of the mother, almost outside of the mother. This is not abortion anymore. What happens is the mother presents herself to the abortionist and the abortionist decides they would like to do an intact D&E, or a partial-birth abortion. What happens is the abortionist will give the mother pills to dilate the mother's cervix so the abortionist can then perform the abortion. Not immediately; this is a 3-day procedure. The mother comes back in 2 days. On the third day, after she has taken the pills the first day and the second day, she presents herself back to the abortionist with the cervix dilated. I can get into all the health reasons why this is dangerous and could lead to infections and problems, and what we have seen, not just infections but it can lead to and, in fact, has led to babies being born as a result of the dilation of the cervix. The mothers go into labor and babies are born and born alive. In fact, we have cases in the last few weeks where a baby who was to have been aborted through a partial-birth abortion was born alive and is alive today. By the way, this is a perfectly healthy little girl. So when the argument is these babies wouldn't live or these babies are deformed or it is for the health of the mother, none of this is true. None of this is true. Now we have cases--in fact, just in the last few weeks, a case where this baby is alive today. Another baby was born alive but not attended to by the abortionist, not attended to. They let the baby die. Again, the point I am trying to make is, the line is a very important one. You can see from the case where the baby was allowed to die that once we begin to think of this little baby outside the mother as just a disposable item, then we have lost something. We have blurred the line, which I do not think we as a society want to allow to be blurred, about who is protected by our Constitution and our right to life. Clearly, I hope we all believe that once a baby is born, that baby is entitled to life. Where we draw the line as to when that occurs is significant. That is why many people who are, again, for abortion rights say: Once the baby is outside, I am a little uncomfortable saying you can kill the baby, as well they should. The mother presents herself, on the third day of the cervix being dilated, to the abortionist. The abortionist uses an ultrasound to examine the mother and guide the abortionist to insert forceps in through the cervix, up into the uterus. Those of you who have been involved in the birth of children know--we have six children--babies are usually at that age in a head-down position. They move around, but as they go further in pregnancy, the baby usually has its head in the down position. They reach up with the forceps and grab the baby by the foot or the leg. Again, this is a 20-week-plus baby. We have plenty of documentation that this has gone on at 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and even older--but rare as it gets older, I admit that. This is a fully developed baby that would otherwise, if delivered at this week of gestation, be born alive. They take the baby and grab the leg with the forceps. Then they turn the baby around in the uterus. Many of you are familiar with the term ``breech birth.'' When you present yourself for delivery of a baby and you are told your baby is in a breech position, bells and whistles go off. Obstetricians get very nervous because there are a lot of difficulties with delivering a baby in a breech position. There are a lot of complications, obviously for the baby, but also for the mother. To deliberately turn a baby into a breech position, by common sense, endangers the mother. Obviously, in abortion it dramatically endangers the baby. They take the leg, and they pull the baby feet first out of the uterus through the birth canal. All of the baby is delivered except for the head. The entire baby is outside the mother with the exception of the baby's head. Again, we get back to the question, Is this an abortion or is this infanticide? The reason this debate is so crucial is that it is where worlds intersect. It is the line we are going to draw. There are a lot of people who are for abortion rights who say: Look, the line is, the baby is inside the mother; the mother can abort the baby, period. And they say: But yes, obviously, when the baby is outside the mother, you cannot kill the baby. This is where the worlds intersect because we have a situation where the baby is almost outside the mother. This baby would be born alive because this procedure occurs after 20 weeks. What the abortionist does is deliver the baby, all but the head. Why? Because the head is the largest part of the body at that age, so the most difficult to deliver. There is also some question that if the baby comes out head first and once the head is delivered, will the Constitution treat it differently, if the head comes out first as opposed to the feet coming out first? Some have argued that once the baby's head is through the cervix, that is birth, so maybe they are under constitutional rights. Do you see how fuzzy this line is, and do you see why some on both sides of this issue believe it is important to draw the line so we do not get into this rather difficult situation? The baby is delivered, all but the head. The abortionist then does a barbaric thing. I even think those who support this procedure would argue and would agree with me that this is barbaric. This is a living baby, a human being. It is delivered outside of the mother. Its arms, its legs, its torso are outside the mother. The doctor, because they cannot see; it is a blind procedure--the baby is face down--feels up the spine to the base of the neck, base of the skull, top of the neck, finds the point at the bottom of the base of the skull, takes a pair of scissors, and jams it into the base of the baby's skull. I do not have to tell you, a baby at 20-plus weeks has a fully developed--I should not say fully--has a developed nervous system and feels pain, acutely some have suggested, more than you would feel pain. A medical doctor takes a pair of scissors and jabs the baby in the skull. Nurse Brenda Shafer, who testified before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, described the reaction of one of the babies when this occurred. The baby threw out its arms and legs. If you ever held a little baby and you gently bounced them in your arms, they stick out their arms because they are not sure, they lose their equilibrium. She said it was just like that. The little baby lost its equilibrium and then fell down. The baby is dead now. The abortionist has killed the baby that was 3 inches from being protected by the Constitution. Three inches more and everybody in America would say--everybody but a couple of people in Princeton--that baby should no longer be able to be killed. But for those 3 inches, that little baby is allowed to be executed in the most painful, brutal, insensitive, barbaric fashion of which I think any of us have heard. To add insult to injury--let me put it a different way. To add insult to execution, they take the suction catheter, insert it in the hole made by the scissors, and they suction out the baby's brains. And a baby's skull is soft. It has those plates that move, grow, allow the baby's head to expand. The baby's head just collapses as a result of the suction. And then this otherwise beautiful, healthy, normal baby-- that would otherwise be born alive and, in a vast majority of the numbers, particularly after 22 weeks, would not only be born alive but would be viable outside the mother--is then extracted completely from the womb. If you described what I just described as a procedure done on any human being in some foreign country as a way of torture, the American public would be aghast, they would be outraged, outraged that such barbarism could occur in a civilized country. But this barbarism occurs every single day in America. Thousands of times a year, little babies are killed in this brutal fashion. Why? I will get to that in a minute. Who performs this? And where, by the way? Is this performed in hospitals? The answer to that is no. No hospital would do an abortion such as this. Is this in the medical literature? The answer is no. It is not taught in any medical school. It is not taught anywhere except by the developer and another person from Ohio who developed this procedure. Is the person who developed this abortion technique a well-known obstetrician, someone who is board certified, someone who is an expert in internal fetal medicine? No. No. Not only is this person not board certified, not only is this person not an expert in internal fetal medicine, this person is not even an obstetrician. The person who developed this procedure was a family practice doctor who, I guess, could not make it saving children so went into the abortion business and developed this procedure, not because this was a procedure that was in the best interest of anybody concerned, except the abortionist, but because this is a much simpler procedure in the sense it takes less time, so you can do more abortions during a day. It takes less time than other late-term abortions, so you can do more of them. And, of course, when you get paid for these, the more you can do, the more money you make. Why is this procedure done? You will hear arguments today that this procedure is done to protect the life and health of the mother--that is what you will hear: life and health--and another thing which is health related: the future fertility of the mother. We will have a long debate about that. I am not going to take a lot of time in my opening statement about that, but I do want to address it briefly. No. 1, life. There is a clear life-of-the-mother exception in this bill. If this procedure needs to be used to protect the life of the mother, it can be used. Having said that, the person who developed this procedure, the person who does, from what we know--again, we do not have good information--most of these kinds of procedures, a guy named Dr. Haskell from Ohio, has said under oath in a court of law--in a court of law, under oath--that this procedure is never used to protect the life of the mother. Under oath, in a court of law, what would seemingly be an admission against his own interest, in one of these suits that challenges the constitutionality of this, he admitted, as, frankly, has everybody else--except a few folks on the other side of the aisle who have it in their mind that somehow this is needed to save the life of the mother-- it is never used. Do you know what we say? Fine. It is never used? We will still put it in the bill. If there is some strange occurrence that no obstetrician I have heard of has come forward with to say needs to be used to protect the life of the mother, it is covered. Think about this intuitively. This is why the doctor arrived and why everybody who has looked at this issue has arrived at the conclusion that this is never used to protect the life of the mother. If you had a mother who presents herself in a life-threatening situation, would you give her two pills and say come back in 3 days? You do not have to be an obstetrician to figure this one out, folks. If someone is in a life-threatening situation, you do not give them two pills and say go home and come back in 3 days, and dilate their cervix during that 3-day period. So the argument that this is somehow used to protect the life of the mother is as bogus as a number of other lies I will go through here in a minute that have been put forward by the other side to stop this procedure from being banned. Second, health. Again, same doctor, same case. Different question: Is this procedure ever necessary to protect the health of the mother? Again, the abortionist who helped develop the procedure, who uses it more than anybody else, testifying in court, under oath: Is this necessary to protect the health of the mother? Answer: No. No. But you will see people come to the floor and talk about, oh, how this is absolutely necessary, how this is an important health issue for women. We have over 400 obstetricians, most of them board certified, many of them specialists in maternal-fetal medicine, who have written letters, who have signed documents, including the AMA--which is not a pro-life organization, I might add--who have signed letters saying this is bad medicine; it is never necessary to protect the health of the mother to do this procedure. Yet people will come down to this floor and say: Well, I can't be for this because I need a health-of-the-mother exception and put up ``cases'' where this was done and, as a result of this, the mother was able to have more children, was able to do other things; and if this procedure were not done, then they would not have this opportunity. I would not argue that this procedure could result in a positive outcome for the mother's health. Certainly it could. But that is not the question. The question here is, Is it necessary--the answer is, no--to protect the health of the mother or the life of the mother. And second, is it the best method? Clearly, given what we know about this procedure and its profound implications on who we are as a society, the answer has to be emphatically--I hope from this body, which is so concerned about the consuming problem of violence in our society--I think a group of people who stand up and complain about shootings at Columbine will look at this and say: Wait a minute. If we're saying this kind of brutality is OK, if the Senate and the President of the United States say this kind of brutality of our children is OK, then how in the world can we be aghast when other violence is done to our children? If we can stand here, with straight faces, and with passion in some cases, and argue that this kind of execution is not only legitimate but preferable, proper, constitutional, necessary, how can we be even the least surprised that young people, looking at what goes on in the world around them--obviously, they get a lot of bad messages from Hollywood and from the media, but they only need to look to the Senate and to this President to get their cue. The cue is violence is OK, as long as there is some purpose to be served. And the purpose is to make sure we don't have a chink in the armor of abortion rights. That is the purpose. The question is, Why are they fighting this so hard? What is really the problem? Why are they fighting what is an abomination? It is uncomfortable to talk about it. I am sure for those listening it is very difficult to listen. This is not a pleasant subject. Why would you want to get up year after year and fight this issue? What is the great cause at stake that we have to draw the line in the sand? They will argue it is the health of the mother. It is not true. That has never stopped them from arguing that. But when you have the people who perform the abortions saying under oath that it is not true, it is darn hard to come here and say this is why we want to do it, and for those of us who have to listen to it, to say: Is this really what is at stake? Is this really the issue? Or is there something else going on? Is there an agenda? I can tell you what the agenda is on our side. The agenda is very simple. At a time when we are faced with senseless, irrational violence, with a culture that is insensitive to life and promotes death through our music, through videos, just a little beacon of hope, a little grain of sand of affirmation that life is, in fact, something to be cherished, not to be brutalized; that there are lines in our society that we can't blur, that we shouldn't cross, because when we do that, we throw in doubt, for millions of children and adults, the issue of, well, maybe this isn't so wrong. We cloud the issue, the issue of life for children that are 3 inches away from constitutional protection. Don't you think that is a good place to draw the line? Don't you think that is a reasonable place to say, OK, enough is enough? No one is standing here arguing overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, I will make the argument, this is legitimate under Roe v. Wade. There is nothing here that will, even if it goes to the Court, overturn Roe v. Wade. It is not our intention with this act. This act is an attempt, and I would argue a feeble attempt--many of you listening were around 30, 40 years ago. Could you imagine walking onto the Senate floor 40 years ago, turning on the television and seeing Walter Cronkite report on the debate on the Senate floor about whether this should be legal in America? Can you imagine 40 years ago that we would even have a debate in the Senate about whether this would be allowed in America? There isn't a person in the Senate who, 40 years ago, would have said this is OK. They would have been appalled. Well, maybe in Nazi Germany or maybe in the Soviet Union, but in America, this? No. But how far we have come. How much more civilized we have become. How culturated we have become that now 40 years hence we can have these kinds of rational debates and people can come to the floor of the Senate and say that thrusting a pair of scissors in the base of the skull of a little baby is OK. How far we have come. How humanity has grown and developed. How sophisticated we are that we can find precise legal arguments that will weave us through this web of destruction and say, but it is OK. Americans go to sleep at night knowing that thousands of children, almost born, inches from reaching toward that constitutional protection, can be executed. We are all better for it. We are better as a society for this. They will not say that, but underneath the argument is this: This being legal is better for America. When people come and cast their votes, you will have to cast the vote saying that allowing this to occur in America is better for us. It is preferable in the United States of America that this occurs. We want this to continue. We believe this is right. We believe this is just. We believe this is humane. We believe this is in the best spirit of America, liberty, and freedom. How twisted, how twisted we have become. How we contort ourselves to find that path through rights to allow this to be the best that we are in America. We are better than that. This country stands for higher ideals and principles than that. A majority of the Senate will agree with me. A majority of the House will agree with me, a majority of Americans. But that is not enough. So this contorted construction of freedom will continue to be legal. Can you envision our Founding Fathers with these charts in front of them saying: This is the product of liberty? This is the product of the high ideals that we suffered through in revolutionary, civil, and major world wars to preserve? This is what it has come to? This is the personification of liberty in America today? It is no wonder we are concerned when we tuck our children into bed at night and we see what kind of world is ahead of them. How much more will we be able to twist freedom and liberty to destroy their true freedoms? I tuck five little ones in bed every night. I wonder, I wonder what is in store for them, if we continue as the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, to allow this wanton destruction of the most vulnerable in our society. Where are we headed? Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. It does say ``on or in relation to'' the amendment, so that means on the amendment or in relation, which is a tabling motion. It is clear under the UC.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, again I ask my colleagues to join with me in voting to move to proceed to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It is a bill that is important business. It is something that has overwhelming support in the Senate. I hope we can move to this issue. If there is a need to debate campaign finance reform in the future, then that is a matter for the leaders to work out, whether we want to come back to that issue. I think we have spent enough time on this bill. It is very clear where this issue is going. At least the issues of McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan do not have the necessary votes to pass in this Senate. Maybe there are other kinds of campaign finance that could, and maybe we could use this time over the next several months to find some middle ground to get a compromise. We are not there right now. It is time to move on with the business of the Senate and the American people. I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we will be voting on a motion to proceed to a bill that we have brought up in the Senate now for the third session of the Senate, third Congress in a row. I do not believe there is much controversy with respect to considering this bill. Obviously, this bill is going to pass, and it is going to pass by an overwhelming vote. The concern that was voiced last night, and I think will be voiced today, is that we are moving off campaign finance reform to the partial-birth abortion bill. I am hopeful we can recognize that we had a good debate on campaign finance reform; amendments were offered; there were several days for those amendments to be offered; and it is apparent there is not enough votes to overcome cloture, to break a filibuster, if in fact that was going to be called for, and that it is time to move on to other business, whether it is partial birth or bankruptcy or appropriations bills and the like, and that a week, almost a week-long debate on the issue of campaign finance reform was, in fact, sufficient. We know where the votes are going to come out. I don't think anyone is going to be changed by further debate and further amendments. It is time to move on to the other business at hand. I hope we can have some sort of comity here that would allow the business to continue. I think that would be good for all of us, particularly those of us who would not like to be here through the holidays for a long period of time, who would like to get back home after we finish our business to spend some time with our constituents in our States. So, again, I think a fair debate was had, the votes are clear, and further debate will do nothing other than take up the time of the Senate and delay action on important matters that we have to get to before we adjourn for the end of the year. So with that, I am hopeful my colleagues, frankly, on both sides of the aisle will support moving off campaign finance reform. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume debate on the motion to proceed to the partial-birth abortion bill. There will be 20 minutes of debate with a vote to occur at approximately 9:50 a.m. It is anticipated the motion will be adopted, and therefore debate on the bill will continue throughout the day. It is the hope of the majority leader that an agreement can be reached with regard to amendments so the bill can be completed by the close of business tomorrow. The Senate may consider any conference reports available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I would like to call to your attention a very special anniversary which is taking place in my home state. Ten years ago, a group of emerging leaders from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, hosted by the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to launch an exciting experiment in international cooperation. The Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships is a private, non-profit, non- partisan organization created in 1953 by a group of prominent American citizens to honor then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower for his contribution to humanity as a soldier, statesman and world leader. Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships seeks to foster international understanding and productivity through the exchange of information, ideas and perspectives among emerging leaders throughout the world. The Eisenhower network numbers 1300 Fellows from 100 countries. Currently two Eisenhower Fellows are heads of government; over 90 Fellows have served at the cabinet level or above. More than 220 have become CEOs. The Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships brought this group of fourteen Irish Fellows, consisting of seven Fellows from the North and seven from the South, to the United States for a two-month program. They came from all types of professional backgrounds, working in business, government, religion and law. They came from many perspectives and diverse political and personal beliefs. Through the auspices of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, they met on common ground in Philadelphia in 1989, and they've been meeting and working together ever since. They decided to commemorate the tenth anniversary of their Single Area program by returning to Philadelphia. There they will gather to look back on the last ten years and look forward to the next millennium. These Irish Eisenhower Fellows are to be commended for the contributions they have made to their region and to greater international understanding in the past decade--and they think of Philadelphia as their second home. In the spirit of Dwight D. Eisenhower, in whose honor the organization was founded, the Irish Fellows work together in a pragmatic way to ensure understanding, respect, and reconciliation. Building bridges across cultural and political divides, they have played and continue to play important roles in the peace negotiations. They have made important contributions to economic growth, to the social welfare of their communities, and to more effective and efficient public administration. They have worked effectively towards a more dynamic economy, seeing the importance for their region to play a role in an evolving Europe and in the world. By continuing to find outstanding new Eisenhower Fellows from a number of professional fields, they help to promote awareness and the exchange of ideas between Irish emerging leaders and their American counterparts. By sponsoring USA Eisenhower Fellows and bringing them to Ireland, they expand the horizons of emerging young U.S. leaders. In both these activities, they strengthen the bonds between our countries. In the spirit of fellowship and unflagging curiosity about the world, they come together every nine months to confer on topical issues, to plan for future Eisenhower Fellowships, and to renew and strengthen their friendships, which cross national borders and historical differences. They serve, in effect, as a model alumni organization, which constantly renews its parent body through its energy and innovation. I would like to commend their reunion weekend in Philadelphia, October 14-17, and wish them the best of luck in their continuing mission to establish friendships and improve understanding on a personal, local, national, and international level.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the following bills on the calendar: Calendar No. 134, S. 548; Calendar No. 174, S. 938; Calendar No. 173, S. 762.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 659 be discharged from the Energy Committee, and further, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record.