Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator will yield for a question about some of the things that she stated in her testimony?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will respond in one quick way to the comments of the Senator from Virginia. What has been sort of taken as a matter of record is that 80 to 90 percent of the partial-birth abortions performed in this country are on healthy women with healthy babies and that these are done for truly elective reasons. The idea that somehow we are holding on to this myth that we are doing this to save unhealthy women or because a baby is so severely deformed that they cannot live just isn't what the facts dictate. And that is from admissions from folks who perform the procedures, not our side coming up with these numbers. I hope we can stick with the facts as to what we are really talking about. I have no speakers on my side, so I will be happy to yield. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, would the Senator from Illinois yield for a couple of questions?

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois, if you read the definition of partial-birth abortion in the bill, partial-birth abortion is partially vaginally delivering a living fetus. So if the baby in this case had an injection in the heart to stop the heart, the baby would have died at that point, and then the baby would be removed from the uterus, the baby would be dead, and therefore would not fall under the definition. So in the case that you mentioned, she did not have a partial-birth abortion by definition. She couldn't, because the baby was dead at that point.

Mr. SANTORUM. I respond to that by saying I think it points out the cruelty, unnecessary cruelty, of doing the procedure that we are attempting to ban here. What was done by the woman and the doctor in this case, I think, first off, the baby was not delivered, was not outside the mother, and then painfully and brutally killed. The baby was killed in utero by an injection. While I don't like abortion, period, I think that less shocks the conscience of our country than delivering a baby, as in the case of partial birth, most of them being healthy with healthy mothers. In this case, that is not the case. But there is a real distinction here, and what I think your case points out is that there are viable, less-invasive, less-dangerous-to-the-mother alternatives available, even for cases where you have pregnancies that have gone awry, and that are less cruel and barbaric to the baby and less dangerous to the woman. You talked about preserving maternal health. There is nothing more that I want to accomplish with this bill than preserving maternal health. But we have ample evidence, including from the AMA who testified, that this procedure is not healthy for women, and there are other procedures, such as the one the Senator outlined, that are safer for women who may elect to have an abortion--a legal abortion, which we don't outlaw with this bill. We just say that there are alternatives. The letter you read says, in fact, a viable and often-used alternative to a partial-birth abortion that would continue to be available, which is less risky to the mother, and that is less gruesome, barbaric, and horrific to the child.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his leadership and support. He has always come to the floor and spoken in strong support of this, and he has been a great and committed warrior in this cause. I thank him for that. Mr. President, the Senator from California gave her remarks and she talked about women here in town who had horrible things happen to them during pregnancy, and that they were faced with very difficult decisions to make. I understand that those are difficult decisions. She said, in one case, that a baby was well along and was, unfortunately, hydrocephalic, which means water on the brain. They could not do a vaginal, natural delivery. For some reason, she did not want to do a C- section. There were no other options available to save this mother's health. Let me just read to you what a doctor said, a board-certified OB/GYN: Sometimes in the case of hydrocephalus, in order to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head, a special long needle is used to allow a safe vaginal cephalic head-first delivery. In some cases, when the vaginal delivery is not possible, a doctor performs the Cesarean Section. But in no case is it necessary, or medically advisable, to partially deliver an infant through the vagina and then cruelly kill the infant. Another piece of information that the Senator from California and the Senator from Illinois were talking about is that women would have their health and life at risk with having an abortion, going through with the pregnancy later in term. The facts are just the opposite. The Senator from Illinois said, ``Let's not deal with anecdotes, let's deal with facts.'' Here is the statistical evidence: At 21 weeks or more--that is the time in which partial-birth abortions are done because they begin to be done at 20 weeks gestation--the risk of death from abortion is 1 in 6,000 and exceeds the risk of maternal death from childbirth, which is 1 in 13,000. You are twice as likely to die if you have an abortion than if you deliver the baby after 21 weeks. So this whole concept that these procedures are necessary--a procedure that is much more risky than others, much more dangerous than other procedures to the mother--aside from the fact that they are brutal procedures, this is a procedure that is much more risky to the mother; that just the medical evidence shows, the statistics show, that having an abortion--and there are other complications--termination of a pregnancy at more advanced--again, this is from an article, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 26, 1998, current edition, which talks about two obstetricians from Northwestern University. It says: Termination of pregnancy at more advanced gestational ages may predispose to infertility from endometrial scarring or adhesion formation. It is documented in one study that 23.1 percent of patients had induced midtrimester abortions. Nearly a quarter of those. Again, that is all midtrimester abortions. You hear the argument in this paper and by hundreds of physicians that partial-birth abortion is even more damaging to the cervix and to the future ability for a mother to carry a baby to term. It continues on: . . . and from pelvic infections, which occur in 2.8% to 25% of patients following midtrimester terminations. Dilation and evacuation procedures commonly used in induced midtrimester abortion may lead to cervical incompetence, which predisposes to an increased risk of subsequent spontaneous abortion, especially in the midtrimester. Cervical incompetence is more prevalent after midtrimester termination of pregnancy than first trimester termination because the cervix is dilated to a much greater degree. And other physicians have gone on to say that because this is a procedure that takes 3 days to dilate--you hear so much about this may be necessary to save the life or health of the mother because of some emergency. This is a 3-day procedure. The cervix is dilated over a 3- day procedure, which makes the probability of an incompetent cervix, which means the ability to carry a baby in future pregnancies--it inhibits the ability to carry a baby in future pregnancies. It increases the risk of infection, because now for 3 days the cervix is open. And they are not in a hospital setting. They are out, either back at their home, or in a hotel, waiting for the procedure to be done. This is an unhealthy procedure for women. If we are concerned about women's health, let's look at the fact about what this does to women's health. Frankly, it sounds to me, if you look at the evidence, there seems to be a sort of pushing aside of all of the nonanecdotal evidence about women's health and putting forth legal arguments about what the Supreme Court says. They are one of three branches of Government, folks.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, they are focusing on legal arguments. The fact of the matter is we are one of three branches of Government. We can put forward things that we believe are constitutional. We can test what they are. I have seen a lot of decisions at the Supreme Court that have moved all over the place on this issue. It seems very clear to me that we are not providing an undue burden. We are here. We are eliminating one procedure that is not taught in any medical school, that has not been peer-reviewed, that has not been done in a hospital. It is done in clinics, and, in fact, was invented-- created--not by an obstetrician. Someone referred to earlier that Senator Frist and C. Everett Koop are two people who testified against this procedure. They are not obstetricians. That is true. But the person who invented this procedure is not an obstetrician, either. He was a family practitioner who did abortions. So the fact of the matter is that C. Everett Koop was a pediatric surgeon--someone who dealt with these little babies, who understands very well what damage is done to these little babies, and, in fact, what is available to save their lives. He knows very well about what he talks about, as does the Senator from Tennessee who has studied this issue thoroughly, and who has reviewed the literature thoroughly. Let's walk away from the facts for a moment. Let's deal in the realm of what the other side seems to point to--the pictures. The Senator from California suggested that there will be women here who have had this procedure who will be in the Halls looking at Members as they come in to vote tomorrow to insist that they keep this procedure legal. I only wish, I only wish, that the children who have fallen victim to this would have the opportunity to stand in that Hall and look at the Senators and plead with them to ban this procedure. We may have one such person which I will talk about in a moment. But I am going to talk to you first about a little boy--a little boy who was the first child of Whitney Goin. Whitney was 5 months pregnant with her first child. She went in for her first sonogram, and a large abdominal wall defect was detected. She described her condition after learning that there was a problem with the pregnancy: My husband was unreachable so I sat alone, until my mother arrived, as the doctor described my baby as being severely deformed with a gigantic defect and most likely many other defects that he could not detect with their equipment. He went on to explain that babies with this large of a defect are often stillborn, live very shortly or could survive with extensive surgeries and treatments, depending on the presence of additional anomalies and complications after birth. The complications and associated problems that a surgical baby in this condition could suffer include but are not limited to: bladder exstrophy, imperforate anus, collapsed lungs, diseased liver, fatal infections, cardiovascular malformations, ect. A perinatologist suggested she strongly consider having a partial- birth abortion. The doctor told her it may be something she ``needs'' to do. He described the procedure as one where the baby would be partially delivered except for the head, and the pregnancy would be terminated. The Goins made a different choice. If there is one thing that those who are listening to this debate--if there is one thing that I hope for that results from this debate today, it is that people who will be watching this debate understand one thing: Whether we pass this override of the President's veto or not, please understand that there are other choices. There are other options--and to follow your heart, to follow your love for your child, and pursue those options, as Whitney Goin did. The Goins chose to carry the baby to term. But complications related to a drop in the amniotic fluid created some concerns. Doctors voiced to the Goins that the baby's chances for survival would be greater outside the womb. So on October 26, 1995, Andrew Hewitt Goin was delivered by C-section. He was born with a condition in which the abdominal organs--stomach, liver, spleen, and small and large intestines--were outside the baby's body. Here is the picture. In the incubator there is little Andrew Hewitt Goin. Andrew had his first of several major operations 2 hours after he was born. Andrew's first months were not easy. He suffered from excruciating pain. He was on a respirator for 6 weeks. He needed tubes in his nose and throat. They continually suctioned his stomach and lungs. He needed eight blood transfusions. His mother recalled, ``The enormous pressure of the organs being slowly placed into his body caused chronic lung disease for which he received extensive oxygen and steroid treatments.'' It broke his parents' hearts to see him suffering so badly. Remember how we heard about someone who said that it would just break your heart to see your child suffer so badly. And I understand what she feels. But it breaks the hearts of thousands of parents every day to see their children suffer. But that is no reason, that is no reason, to kill your child. It is all the more reason to love that child, to draw that child near to you, and to accept that child as part of your family. Andrew fought hard to live. And he did. This is Andrew Hewitt Goin at 3 years of age. I would also note that Andrew will not be the only child for much longer. Next March, the Goins will welcome their second child into the family. Contrary to the misinformation about partial-birth abortion that has been so recklessly repeated, carrying Andrew to term did not affect Whitney's ability to have future children. I think if you asked Andrew a few years from now whether he would prefer to have suffered that pain or be listening to music, or not be listening to that music, or not be alive today, the answer would be pretty clear. Not all the stories turn out as happily as Andrew's. Not all of them do. But what does turn out happily in so many more instances is for parents to have the recognition that they have the capacity to love their children even when it is so hard to do that. Whether we override the President's veto is less important than that simple fact that I hope the people listening here will understand. The next case I want to talk about is Christian Matthew McNaughton. For 4 years, Christian Matthew McNaughton fought the odds. An ultrasound revealed that he had hydrocephalus 30 weeks into pregnancy-- again, the condition that has been described as one that is necessary to kill the child and perform a partial-birth abortion, the very case just cited in this Chamber as the reason for keeping this procedure legal. After Dianne McNaughton learned of their son's dim prospects because of hydrocephaly, which can cause a variety of problems including, because of the water on the brain, the lack of brain development, Dianne asked for information on hydrocephaly. The counselor called doctors on staff and explained the request, and imagine Mrs. McNaughton's surprise when the counselor told her the hospital felt ``it was better if she didn't know anything.'' Still, Dianne and her husband, Mark, determined to educate themselves on what to expect from now and how to care for a child who had hydrocephaly. They continued to persevere. Life was very stressful for the McNaughtons after the diagnosis. Dianne suffered from nightmares. She never considered aborting the baby, but she worried about how her other two children would be affected by having a disabled child in the home. With the help of Dianne's brother, who happened to be a doctor, the McNaughtons found a specialist in Philadelphia to deliver their baby. As we learned last year with the case of Donna Joy Watts, another child with hydrocephaly, the Watts family had to go to three hospitals in Maryland before they could find a physician team and a hospital that would deliver their child, because children with hydrocephaly are thought not to have the ability to live and are simply seen as abortion clients; they are seen as disposable. They were advised again to end their pregnancy. They were warned that hydrocephaly is associated with spina bifida, Down's syndrome, and cerebral palsy. The baby might never achieve bowel or bladder control; he might not be able to move his arms or legs; he might be born blind; he might not even be able to swallow. The McNaughtons were offered a partial-birth abortion. As a doctor explained it, the baby would be partially delivered, a sharp surgical instrument would be inserted into the base of the skull, and the brains would be extracted--of course, the doctor noted, ``what there was of the brain.'' The rest of the body would then be delivered. This option was rejected. As if the shock of being advised to undergo a gruesome partial-birth abortion was not enough, one doctor said the shunt surgery to relieve the pressure and the fluid in the baby's brain would not be performed if the child's ``quality of life'' prospects did not warrant it. I again go back to the case of Donna Joy Watts just so you don't think this is one isolated case. For 3 days, Lori Watts had to plead with the doctors at the hospital to do a shunt operation to relieve the fluid pressure on the brain, and the doctors refused to because the doctors didn't think she had any chance of a quality life. Donna Joy Watts is here in Washington today. She is 5, almost 6, years of age. Christian was born June 20, 1993. He was a beautiful, 8-pound baby boy. He did require a lot of medical care. A CAT scan revealed that he suffered a stroke in utero which caused excess fluid to build up in his brain. It also showed that the lower left quadrant of his brain was missing. Within a week of delivery, Christian had his first shunt surgery to drain the fluid. He had a follow-up procedure in 3 months. As he grew, Christian exceeded everyone's expectations. A baby that doctors initially believed would be blind or could do virtually nothing was a little boy who walked, ran, talked, and sang. He played baseball and basketball. He attended preschool. His heroes were Cal Ripken, Jr, Batman, Spiderman, and the Backstreet Boys. He loved whales and dolphins. His favorite movie was ``Angels in the Outfield.'' And he especially loved his baby sister who was 2 years younger than he. Christian McNaughton brought joy to all who were fortunate enough to know him. In August of 1997, Christian began experiencing severe head pains. His shunt was malfunctioning. It had to be replaced. He went into surgery and experienced cardiac and respiratory distress in surgery, and he slipped into a coma. Christian fought hard to live but he never recovered. He died on August 8, 1997, at the age of 4. But if you talked to his parents and you talked to those who knew him and you asked them whether they would have traded those 4 years for denying Christian's humanity by aborting him in such a brutal and inhumane way, they would have said no. On the anniversary of his death, they entered these memorials to Christian in the Harrisburg Patriot News: Christian, we love you. We miss you. We wish we could kiss you just one more time. Until we meet again. Your loving sisters, Meghan and Kelly. The McNaughtons were worried about whether their children would accept a disabled child in the home. I think it is pretty clear that they accepted him very well, and he added to their lives, and he affirmed their lives. A letter from the brother: Dear Christian. I have a poem for you. Blue jays are blue and I love you. Robins are red and I miss you in bed. Sparrows are black and I wish you were back. I am sorry for the bad things I did to you. You are the best and only brother I ever had. Please watch over us and take care of us. We wonder whether those children accepted this child. This is a sad story, but it is a joyous story. It is a story of acceptance and love. One of the things that often confounds me about how people deal with this issue is that people who are in the tradition of the Democratic Party, who have sought for the past 100 years to be inclusive in our society, to welcome those who are on the outside of society, to fight for civil rights, to fight for rights for the disabled, are always fighting to include those who are most vulnerable, now turn their backs to the most vulnerable of all. How does that speak to a country where Hubert Humphrey once said: ``We are judged by how we treat the least of us.'' Can you think of anything less in our human family than a little baby outside of the mother's womb, 3 inches from life, asking only to be given a chance; prone, with its back to the abortionist, helpless from what might happen next? Just like baby Phoenix, helpless. But, thank God, a moment, finally a moment of conscience hit him and he decided, no, I can't thrust those scissors into this child. And now this temporarily unwanted baby is so loved and wanted somewhere in Texas, by parents who cherish that little girl every day. The question is, in this debate--you can talk about legal axioms, you can talk about medical theories, you can talk about ethics, you can talk about all sorts of things. The question here is how inclusive are we going to be in our family? As I see the empty seats on this side of the aisle, and I look for the men and women who have given great talks on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the need for rights for the downtrodden: Find me a more helpless creature in our human family, a more downtrodden, helpless, beautiful creation of God than a little baby, his back to the doctor who is going to kill him or her, waiting for the pain to stop. Mr. President, do we have any time?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Kansas be recognized for 4 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New York for their overly gracious comments. They have been in this Chamber a lot longer than I and have been fighting many noble causes, including the cause of life. They have served as tremendous models for me in this effort. I thank them for their terrific heartfelt support on this issue and other issues pertaining to life.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes. I know the Senator from Ohio, the Presiding Officer, will be coming down and speaking. I want to point out one thing. Several comments have been made on the other side about the life-of-the-mother exception in the bill. I just want to read it. There is some concern that there is no life-of-the- mother exception in the bill. Let me assure everyone in this Chamber and everyone within the sound of my voice that there is a clear life- of-the-mother exception that gives physicians the right to make those critical medical decisions that unfortunately may occur that would necessitate the killing of a baby in a crisis situation that is in the process of being delivered. If you do not believe me, let me read from a letter that was written during the debate last year by the American Medical Association that endorsed this bill. I will read the pertinent language with respect to the life-of-the-mother exception. Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. This is a group of physicians who in the previous paragraph said: Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. So while they have reticence, and had reticence, about supporting any kind of a ban on the procedure, one of the things that made them comfortable about supporting this particular piece of legislation was the language having to do with the life-of-the-mother exception. They felt it gave physicians sufficient room to be able to make that call if in fact someone was in a life-threatening situation and a baby would have to be killed in the process of saving the mother's life, if so determined by the doctor. We have provided that. I think it is very unfortunate that Members on the other side have raised this red herring that has no basis in fact--no basis in the legal language. I don't want to go any further. I will come back and read the exact language in the bill for anyone who has a question. It is a very clear life-of-the-mother exception that gives plenty of leeway for the physician to be able to take whatever action is necessary to save the mother. And to perpetrate that hoax on Members of Congress and those who might be listening who might not have the bill in front of them is really, I should add, another lie to the lies that I enumerated earlier, the six lies. Now I have to add a seventh--that there is somehow no life-of-the-mother exception in the bill when the very organization whose physicians are going to be practicing says there is a legitimate exception, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. I don't know how more clear you can be. I will have more to say. I will yield the floor so the Senator from Ohio, who is one of the great champions of pro-life in this country, someone who is outspoken not just here on the Senate floor but around the country, and he has lived by example as well as by his speeches. I yield to the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first, again, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his excellent comments and particularly his latter focus on the legal issues that were not brought up earlier. I had not had the opportunity, and neither did anybody else, to focus attention on why this particular legislation is, in fact, constitutional and that should not be a reason to not vote for this legislation. An excellent job done.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Gregory H. Friedman to be Inspector General of the Department of Energy; Charles G. Groat to be Director of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, and to consider any other pending nominations which are ready for consideration before the Committee.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing on the General Services Administration FY99 Capital Investment and Leasing Program, on the FY99 courthouse construction requests of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and proposed legislation dealing with public buildings reform Thursday, September 17, 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

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 Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, September 17, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., for a hearing on the nominations of Kenneth Prewitt, to be Director of the Bureau of the Census, and Robert ``Mike'' Walker, to be Deputy Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD226, of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2385, a bill to establish the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area and the San Rafael National Conservation Area in the State of Utah.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1175, a bill to reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission for 10 additional years; S. 1641, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives for establishing a national historic trail to commemorate and interpret the history of women's rights in the United States; S. 1960, a bill to allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition to the Wilderness Battlefield, as previously authorized by law, by purchase or exchange as well as by donation; S. 2086, a bill to revise the boundaries of the George Washington birthplace National Monument; S. 2133, a bill to designate former United States Route 66 as ``America's Main Street'' and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance; S. 2239, a bill to revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes; S. 2240, a bill to establish the Adams National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes; S. 2241, a bill to provide for the acquisition of lands formerly occupied by the Franklin D. Roosevelt family at Hyde Park, New York, and for other purposes; S. 2246, a bill to amend the Act which established the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by modifying the boundary, and for other purposes; S. 2247, a bill to permit the payment of medical expenses incurred by the United States Park Police in the performance of duty to be made directly by the National Park Service, and for other purposes; S. 2248, a bill to allow for waiver and indemnification in mutual law enforcement agreements between the National Park Service and a State or political subdivision, when required by State law, and for other purposes, S. 2285, the Women's Progress Commemoration Act; S. 2297, a bill to provide for the distribution of certain publication in units of the National Park System under a sales agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a private contractor; S. 2309, the Gateway Visitor Center Authorization Act of 1998; S. 2401, a bill to authorize the addition of the Paoli Battlefield site in Malvern, Pennsylvania, to Valley Forge National Historical Park, and H.R. 2411, a bill to provide for a land exchange involving the Cape Cod National Seashore and to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 560, S. 1770.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be agreed to; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the amendment to the title be agreed to; that the amended title be agreed to; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 9:30 a.m. vote on Friday, the Senate proceed to S. 1645.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 563, S. 1998.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.