Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 474, S. 2193.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I find it quite ironic that I am, at the closing here, passing this bill about which I have strong reservations because I was not able to place an amendment in and have an amendment debated on this bill. But this is the child nutrition bill, and I understand a lot of very important things need to be done. I very much would have liked to have had the opportunity to debate something that all the nutrition groups, all of the public interest groups, as well as a lot of manufacturers who use peanuts, would love to have seen, and that is an opportunity for us not to have the Child Nutrition Program paying an exorbitant amount of money, more than they need to, robbing children of the ability to get food in other places because we pay such high prices for peanuts in this country for food programs. It would be nice if we would have been able to debate that amendment, but we can't.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 2286, be considered read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 480, H.R. 3874, the House-passed companion measure. I further ask consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2286 be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. I finally ask that S. 2286 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 535, H.R. 2281.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. For the information of all Members, the Senate will convene tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. and begin 1 hour of debate on the veto message to accompany the partial-birth abortion ban legislation. Upon the conclusion of debate time the Senate will vote on the question of passing the bill, ``the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.'' Following that vote, the Senate may turn to the consideration of any legislative or executive items cleared for action. As a reminder to all Members, a vote has been scheduled to occur at 2:20 p.m. Tuesday, September 22 in relation to the Kennedy minimum wage amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 8:30 a.m., Friday, September 18. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the journal of proceedings be approved, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be waived, and the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If I can, let us return to the issue that we have spent a great deal of the day debating. I know the hour is late. Let me thank the staff who are here, the pages, and others. The pages are actually very happy I am up here talking, because if I talk for a little while longer they will not have school in the morning. So that will be a good thing for them--as I see the smiles down there and the encouragement to wind it up and get going. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his indulgence in presiding during these remarks. But as I mentioned today, I think this is one of the most important issues we can face here in the U.S. Senate. As the Senator from Ohio eloquently said, it begins the process of defining who we are as a country and what will become of us as a civilization if we do not begin to draw lines where lines need to be drawn. I just find it remarkable that we seem to create these fictions when it comes to life. When it comes to the life of little children, we create this fiction in our mind. And it was a fiction that was created back when Roe v. Wade was decided that these were not really babies. We did not have good ultrasounds then and the kind of technology where we could really see how developed these little babies were in the womb. They were just sort of passed off as these sort of blobs. Yet, we now know, through the miracle of ultrasound, and other techniques, that these are precious little developing babies. It is very difficult as a father who has seen those ultrasounds of our children to dismiss the humanity, that my wife Karen was carrying a blob of tissue or something that was prehuman. But we tell these lies to ourselves in order that we can go on and in order that we can sort of live with our own internal inconsistencies. One lie you cannot tell, one lie that is inescapable--inescapably alive--is the lie of partial-birth abortion being something that is medically necessary or that simply this baby is just sort of this blob of tissue. This baby is outside of the mother. Its arms, its legs, its torso, outside of the mother--just inches away from being born. One of the things I often marvel at--and I just do not understand--is why wouldn't you, if you have gone through the process, as I described earlier today, of dilating the cervex over 3 days, reaching in with forceps and pulling the baby out in a breached position, which is dangerous, again, for the baby and mother, and you deliver that entire baby, why wouldn't you just let the rest of the baby come out? Why is it necessary to protect the health of the mother at that point in time--now that you have gone through all this other procedure--at that very crucial moment when the doctor takes those scissors and begins the process of killing that baby? Why at that moment is the mother's health in less danger if you kill that baby than if you just gave that little, helpless, defenseless and, yes, even at times imperfect life the opportunity for life? Why does that so endanger the mother to do that? Why is it necessary to thrust these Metzenbaum scissors into the base of the baby's skull? Why is it necessary to suction the baby's brains out? So many doctors have described to me in testimony--and today at a press conference--the complications resulting from this blind procedure where the physician has to feel for the base of the neck and could slip and miss. As the Senator from Tennessee testified today, there are large vessels, blood vessels within a centimeter from the point where this procedure is done that a minor miss could lacerate and cause hemorrhaging and severe complications, or by thrusting the scissors in the back of the neck, through a bony part of the brain, you could only imagine what would happen to the skull of that baby and what damage that skull could do to the mother. How can we--how can we--continue to contend or pretend that this is healthy for the mother to end this baby's life when it is this close and a delivery could be performed? Let's get away from that charade because it is a charade. It is not about the health of the mother; it is about killing a baby. It is about making sure, beyond any certainty, beyond any doubt, that the result of this abortion you are going to have is a dead baby. That is what this is about. This is about a lethal form of abortion, not a healthy form for the mother--far from it. Even folks who disagree with this legislation will tell you that this very well may not be the safest form. In fact, that organization has not done any studies to prove it is safe, that is, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. They have done no studies to prove that this procedure is safe, that this procedure is preferable. They say--they say--and I will quote them--they say: [We] could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. That is an admission by the organization that all those in opposition to this bill use as their medical shield. Listen to what they say. They never read this part of the letter. They only read the second part, which I will read to fully disclose. I will read it again, an ACOG policy statement emanating from the review declared that: A select panel [the panel they selected to review this] could identify no circumstances under which this procedure [partial-birth abortion], would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. They went on to say that a partial-birth abortion: . . . however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. They say that: . . . only the doctor, in consultation with the patient based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. That is what you hear from the other side. What you do not hear from the other side is that this report lists no circumstances to support that claim. They can give, and in fact have given--this was written well over a year ago--they have given no medical situation, no scenario, no hypothetical where what they say may happen would, in fact, happen, which is that a partial-birth abortion would be preferable to some other procedure. They just think it might. Now, I might be wrong, but there are probably very few things that are happening in obstetrics today that haven't happened for the past several years. There are not a lot of new things coming up. There are problems that come up routinely. There may be some strange problems; they are probably not new. To make this kind of statement and support it with no evidence is irresponsible. To use this organization and this statement as a shield when they cannot provide one single example where this procedure would be preferable, again, just builds up the record that I have laid out. This entire debate is based upon a series of misleading statements to try to divert attention away from the horrible, barbaric reality and the fact that this is not a medically necessary procedure. I want to get back for 1 minute to the issue of life of the mother which I addressed a few minutes ago. I said I would read the piece of legislation itself to put to bed, if you will, any concern by anyone who might be listening that there isn't a legitimate life-of-the-mother exception. I noted the American Medical Association's letter of endorsement of this bill. They believe there is a legitimate exception if the life of the mother is in danger. Let me read the actual legislation, the paragraph on prohibition of partial-birth abortion: . . . shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Now, I cannot imagine a life-of-the-mother situation this does not cover. In fact, I don't recall any example from the other side of a life-of-the-mother situation that this does not cover. They just say it is different from other life-of-the-mother exceptions that we put forward. But they don't say where the ``hole'' is in the exception. I think it is very clear and very certain that there is an adequate protection in that case. I will say that I cannot imagine--and I have talked to many physicians on this point--I cannot imagine a woman coming into an emergency room where her life is in danger, whether she is hemorrhaging or has preeclampsia--I can't imagine a doctor, being presented with this emergency case where they must act within a short period of time, saying, ``We are going to dilate your cervix over a 3-day period of time and we will perform this procedure.'' That just wouldn't happen. It is almost absurd to suggest that this would actually be used in a situation where the life of the mother was threatened. Yes, there is a life-of-the-mother exception, but there is absolutely no circumstance I could conceive of--and I don't recall any information from any of the medical experts by the other side coming out and saying medical experts believe that there is a case where the life of the mother is in danger in an emergency situation where they may use this. I don't think they even made claims of the woman presenting herself to a hospital or a clinic, where her life is in danger, that any practitioner would use a 3-day procedure. While there is a life-of-the-mother exception in there, and I think it is a solid one, it is certainly not one that I believe will ever be used, because this procedure certainly doesn't comport with a life- threatening situation because of the time it takes. Since I have the AMA letter here, I want to read it. I think it is important for the Record to reflect the support of the American Medical Association, ``physicians dedicated to the health of America.'' That is their saying under their logo. They say: 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. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State medical board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine. Not good medicine. With respect to the points they make, many of the courts--while some have validated the statutes, some of the courts have been concerned about vagueness, of what procedure we are actually defining. We worked with the American Medical Association to come up with a new definition, a tighter definition that put the physician, as they say, on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct, which I think is important to meet constitutional scrutiny. Second, we provide an opportunity for the procedure and the conduct of the physician to be reviewed by the State medical board to see whether, in fact, it was necessary under some circumstance, which was an important peer review element that we think is a safeguard, if you will, for the physician. A couple of other points that I want to make before I go back to talking about what I was talking about when we had to conclude debate earlier today. This is a picture of a young man by the name of Tony Melendez. That is Tony. Tony Melendez will be here in Washington tomorrow up in the Senate gallery watching the vote on partial-birth abortion, because Tony's disability, Tony's handicap, is one of the disabilities that has been mentioned here on the floor as a good reason to perform a partial- birth abortion. Senators come up and say there are children who will be so grossly deformed. They may be blind--I am not making this up; this is what was said--blind, or without arms or without legs, and they went on with other deformities. Well, Tony Melendez is a thalidomide baby. Tony Melendez doesn't have any arms. Tony Melendez was born in Rivas, Nicaragua. His father was a graduate of the International Academy of Agriculture in this town and had a good job in the sugar refinery. Sara, his mother, was an elementary school teacher. They had their first child, named Jose. In the summer of 1961, she had a second pregnancy. She was given thalidomide to treat her morning sicknesses because it was hailed as a safer alternative to other sedatives to deal with morning sickness. On January 9, 1962, Sara gave birth to Tony. He had no arms, 11 toes, and a severe club foot that would require surgical repair if he were ever to have a chance to walk. He was typical of babies who were exposed to thalidomide at the early stages of pregnancy. Well, his family was very concerned about showing the baby to the mother because of the fear of her reaction. When they did give little Tony to his mother, she embraced her child with the confidence that he would live a full and meaningful life, regardless of his flaws. Still there was question of how he could live a normal life with no arms. Young Tony answered the question one day when he was in his crib. His mother had put away the toys that he had been given as gifts because she assumed he would be unable to enjoy them. However, Tony showed he could play just like any other child when a red balloon landed in his crib. He began bouncing it up and down with his feet, laughing and giggling. She placed the toys in the crib and vowed that day that she would never assume Tony could not do anything because of his disability. She would let him try. Tony needed corrective surgery for his club foot. Since Nicaragua did not have adequate facilities, or the level of care he needed, they went to Los Angeles. Due to the nature and length of time involved in Tony's corrective surgery, the family decided to stay in the United States and become citizens. Tony spent most of his childhood in Southeastern California. Tony enjoyed sports, particularly volley ball--volley ball?--where he would hit the ball with his head back over the net. And, of course, he liked soccer. As a sixth grader, Tony wanted to play a game that the neighbor kids were playing, in which his brother Jose excelled-- basketball. He tried, with great difficulty, with his feet to do what his peers did so easily with their hands. After being told by his brother that he could not do it, he was determined to do it, and despite blistering and even bleeding toes, one day he eventually succeeded. The one thing Tony hated more than anything else was growing up and not being treated as an equal. When once asked whether he preferred to be called handicapped or disabled, Tony responded that he would like to be called ``human.'' At the age of 14, in high school, he demanded to be transferred out of a handicapped class to the regular classroom with students. He was allowed to go to a normal gym class. In his first gym class, he was watched intensely by the others when class started. Jumping jacks? How would a kid with no arms do jumping jacks? The other kids tried to determine that, and they watched and tried to be subtle in looking. And Tony jumped and shouted and counted in unison with the others. The rest of the class accepted him readily. In his teenage years, Tony showed a talent for music. He learned to play the guitar with his feet. At first, he played at various events, such as weddings, funerals, and special events at his church. Eventually, he turned his guitar talent into a full-time vocation. Here is a picture of Tony Melendez today. In connection with his church, he would also talk to groups of kids about his story and how one can overcome difficulty. Tony's life was such an inspirational story, and he was selected to be a ``gift'' to the Pope by a Catholic youth group during a papal visit to California in 1987. Tony gave a performance to a live audience of 6,000 at the Universal Amphitheater in Hollywood. He performed at World Youth Day in 1991 and World Youth Day in Denver 1993. He also has appeared on numerous television shows and performed at major sporting events, recently singing the National Anthem at Yankee Stadium, I believe. Tony now resides in Dallas, Texas. Why do I talk about Tony Melendez? Today on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from California referred to some people up in the galleries as women who needed to have partial-birth abortions, and that they would be here tomorrow standing in the Halls staring at Senators as they walked in here to make sure they knew--that we knew they were there to keep this procedure legal. Tony Melendez, and so many like Tony who are not perfect in the eyes of our society--but, of course, are perfect in the eyes of God--will be there also to represent the millions of little babies who could not be there themselves, to remind every Member that walks on this floor that there is a severe cost, a human cost to what we will be voting on tomorrow. And the ones who have the arrow or the bull's-eye on their back, who are the target of partial-birth abortion--at least if you believe the arguments on the other side--are people like Tony Melendez who, because they are not perfect, don't deserve to live. I have always found it ironic, and I will never forget the last time we brought this bill up on the floor of the Senate. I remember standing here waiting for the debate to begin and working on some remarks, and the debate that was going on around us. The vote that was finally taken was on a bill to provide individuals with disabilities the right to an education in a classroom. I will never forget the Members, many of which oppose banning partial-birth abortions; I will never forget those Members coming to the floor and standing up with passion, which I respect, admire, and support, about how children with disabilities should have the right to live a fulfilling, complete life, and should be given rights to education. Or as they did under the Americans With Disability Act, where they should have the right to public transportation, the right to have access to buildings, to cut the curbs at the corners so they can have access to sidewalks--rights, rights, rights--with the passion that was the hallmark of liberalism in this country--until this issue, because with the very next vote they cast they made this statement: If you can survive the womb, we will defend your rights. But we will not defend your right to be born in the first place. In fact, you are the very reason this procedure needs to continue, because we don't want you. You are not what we are looking for in people. What a loss this country would have without Tony Melendez. But had partial-birth abortions been around when Tony was in his mother's womb, many on this floor would stand up and argue that he is just the kind of baby that we need to get rid of with this procedure. The Bible says, and Abraham Lincoln quoted, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' You cannot stand up and passionately argue for the rights of the disabled, and with the same breath not give them the right to exist in the first place. It doesn't make sense. It isn't logical or rational. Oh, it may be political; it may make sense because little babies in the womb don't vote, but it makes no logical sense, and it makes no moral sense to draw that line where it doesn't exist. The Senator from Illinois said today that we should not have this debate with anecdotes. Yet, this debate has been all anecdotes on the other side because the facts are not in their favor. So I thought it was important to present some anecdotes on the other side, to lay out what we are missing. Tony's is a happy story, but earlier today I talked about some stories that were not so happy. The endings were so fairy tale-like. Let me talk about another one of those stories--a little girl named Mary Bernadette French. In 1993, Jeannie French was overjoyed to learn she was pregnant with twins. Four months into her pregnancy, tragedy struck and Jeannie learned her daughter Mary was not developing normally. Specialists identified an opening at the base of the baby's neck. Mary was diagnosed with occipital encephalocele, a condition in which the majority of the brain develops outside the skull. Prospects for a normal life for the child were very dim. Jeannie's doctors advised her to abort Mary due to the severity of the disability and in order to reduce the complications of the twin birth. What a horrible thing she must have had to deal with--two lives within her, one, according to the doctor, potentially threatening the other. Because Mary could not have survived normal labor, Jeannie and her husband opted for a cesarean section. In December of 1993, Mary was born 1 minute after her twin brother, Will. Hospital staff promptly moved Will to the nursery. Mary stayed with her parents, was welcomed into the world by her parents, grandparents, and close friends of the family. Mary was held, loved, and serenaded for 6 hours. She quietly passed away that afternoon. That is little Mary in the arms, I believe, of her grandmother. In memory of her daughter, Jeannie French testified in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She explained that Mary's life was short but meaningful. She entreated the committee: ``Some children by nature cannot live. If we are to call ourselves a civilized culture, we must allow that their death be natural, peaceful, and painless. And if other pre-born children face a life of disability, let us welcome them into society with our arms open in love.'' For the Record, Jeannie French requested meetings with the President, pleading with him on more than one occasion to listen to a fellow Democrat, she said, who is on the other side of the debate. She explained in the letter: We simply want the truth to be heard regarding the risks of carrying disabled children to term. You say that partial- birth abortion has to be legal, for cases like ours, because women's bodies would be ``ripped to shreds'' by carrying their very sick children to term. By your repeated statements, you imply that partial-birth abortion is the only or most desirable response to children suffering severe disabilities like our children. What she showed is that instead of giving her child a death sentence, she found it within herself to love that child. She found it within herself to name that child, to welcome that child into the family, to commit to that child as a child who will always be part of the family, who will always be in her memory and in the memory of her twin brother--not a bag of tissue discarded and executed, ignored, and put behind them, but loved, accepted, welcomed, and committed to memory; with pain, yes, but with the knowledge that in the 6 hours that little Mary Bernadette French lived, she knew love. She was loved by her mother and father. What greater gift can a parent give? What a life, as short as it was, to know only love and her parents. Jeannie continues her efforts today to educate the public about partial-birth abortion. She also works to ensure that people know that the lives of disabled children, while short, are sometimes painful and not in vain because they teach us so much about us. Finally, a case--I hate to say ``case''; a little girl--a little girl who I talked about a lot last year, a little girl by the name of Donna Joy Watts who, with Tony Melendez tomorrow, will be here as another example--in this case, a real life example--of how a mother, who was not only asked and encouraged but almost forced to abort her child, could not find a hospital to deliver her child. The Watts family, Donny and Lori Watts, had to go to three hospitals in Maryland to find a hospital that would deliver their child. We hear so much talk on the floor about, ``We need to make sure that women have access to abortion.'' What we are finding out and what I have found out through this debate is that we actually need to make sure that women who want to deliver their baby have access to a hospital to deliver their baby and have access to care once that baby is delivered. The Wattses ended up at a hospital in Baltimore. Their daughter was diagnosed with multiple problems. Hydrocephalus was the principal one. Again, hydrocephalus is water on the brain. She had so much cerebral fluid that it impeded the normal development of the brain. In her case, they believed that she had little to no brain. But the Watts family said they were going to move forward, that they were going to accept and love their child, and they wanted to deliver their child and give it every opportunity for life. At every step of the process, even the last step, the OB/GYNs recommended abortion, because not only did she have hydrocephalus but part of her brain was developing outside of her skull, and that this baby had no chance of survival. She was born on November 26, 1991, through cesarean section. Again, an option available for hydrocephalus, because the baby's head is too big to go through the birth canal, is to do a cesarean section. There are other methods: Draining the fluid from the head and then delivering through the vagina. In this case, they chose cesarean section. She was born with very serious health problems. The most remarkable thing after the birth was that the hospital staff made no attempt to feed her in the traditional sense. The doctors at the University of Maryland where she was delivered believed that Donna Joy's deformities would prevent her from suckling, eating, or swallowing. Because a neural tube defect made her feeding difficult, Donna received only IV fluids for the first days of her life. But Lori refused to give up. Initially, she fed breast milk to Donna Joy with a sterilized eye dropper to provide sustenance, because they wouldn't feed her. Then, at 2 weeks of age, the shunt that was placed in Donna Joy's head--by the way, the shunt. It took 3 days for Lori and Donny to convince the doctors to do an operation on her brain to relieve the pressure from the fluid. The doctors thought she was just going to die, so they didn't want to treat her. But finally after 3 days of pounding away at the doctors they did the procedure. Two weeks later, the shunt, which allows the fluid to drain from the brain, failed, and she was readmitted to the hospital for corrective surgery. When the tray of food was delivered to their hospital room by mistake, Lori had a brainstorm. She mashed the contents together, created her own food for the newborn with rice, bananas and baby formula, and she fed the mixture to the baby one drop at a time with a feeding syringe. Unfortunately, Donna Joy's fight for life became even more complicated. After 2 months, she underwent an operation to correct occipital--I won't get into the terms but another problem. After 4 months, a CT scan revealed that she also suffered from another condition which results from an incomplete cleavage of the brain. She also suffered from epilepsy, sleep disorder, and continued digestive complications. In fact, the baby's neurologist said, ``We may have to consider placement of a gastronomy tube in order to maintain her nutrition and physical growth.'' She still had hydrocephaly, or water on the brain, and she couldn't hold her head up because it was so heavy. She suffered from apnea--in other words, a condition where breathing spontaneously stops. She had several brushes with death. She had undergone eight brain operations. Finally, through all of that trauma and all of the problems, she survived and she will be here tomorrow. Donna Joy continues to be, at 6 years of age, an inspiration. She continues to battle holoprosencephaly, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, tunnel vision, and Arnold-Chiari Type II malformation that prevents formation of her medulla oblongata. Despite these hardships, having only a small fraction of her brain, she runs, walks, plays, has a healthy appetite and even likes Big Mac's, and she is taking karate lessons now. She has earned her white belt and performed in karate demonstrations. Before Donna Joy moved to Pennsylvania, Greencastle, PA, Franklin County, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening honored her with a certificate of courage commemorating her fifth birthday. Mayor Steve Sager, of Hagerstown, MD, proclaimed her birthday Donna Joy Watts Day. Members of the Scott Bakula Fan Club, who is someone who helped Donna Joy get through some very difficult times with his songs, have sent donations and Christmas presents to the Watts family. People from around the world have learned about Donna Joy on the Internet and write, e-mail her, and send her gifts. But perhaps the most important thing was because of Donna Joy's determination, it inspired a Denver couple to fight for their little boy under similar circumstances. This is Donna Joy's story, this little girl who was considered by the medical world as somebody who was not worthy to live, someone on repeated occasions who would have been aborted using partial-birth abortion, who I have had the time to spend time with, and my children have, too. She is not a burden, although I understand from Lori she can be a handful like any other 6-year old. She is not a heartache or a sorrow, as some would describe children with disabilities who need to be aborted. She is a beautiful, marvelous, wonderfully made gift from God, who has inspired so many to understand just that fact. She will be here tomorrow, possibly standing next to the women who want to keep this procedure legal, so we can kill people like Donna Joy Watts in a brutal fashion, in an inhumane fashion, in a painful fashion, in a fashion, as I quoted today from the AMA Journal, that would violate Federal regulations on the treatment of animals used in research. We could not do to animals used in research legally in this country, we could not do what we do every day in this country to little babies because they are not wanted, in some cases not wanted because of their deformity but in the vast majority of cases they are just simply not wanted. What a high price to pay for one person not wanting you to be around, the ultimate price to pay. Tomorrow, we are going to have the opportunity to show the world the direction the United States of America is taking. We are involved right now in a moral crisis in this country, on the front page of the paper every day. It is no wonder that we are in a moral crisis. Back in 1972, 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, many people said that this was going to be a breakthrough for women and for children, that all these wonderful things would happen to our society as a result, to children and to women, as a result of the legalization of abortion. We would eliminate unwanted pregnancies, and the result of that would be less child abuse because we wouldn't have all these children nobody wanted, illegitimacy would go down, child poverty would go down because we wouldn't have all of these poor kids around that we don't want. Spousal abuse would go down, divorce would go down, less complications in marriages and relationships. It is a cruel joke. It almost seems laughable to think back 25 years and look at what has happened on every single count. All of the culture indicators that I mentioned go down worse and worse and worse. Those who feared Roe v. Wade back in 1973 were very much on target. The fear was that we would lose respect for life and that we would become so insensitive to life that abortion would be just the beginning of the end of our selectivity of who we include in our society. And so it has gone, to the point where now we can't even save a little baby almost born. I wish that were the worst. We now have State- assisted suicide laws. We now have debates, active debates on euthanasia. We even have an article from a professor at MIT who argues, or at least makes the case for infanticide--not infanticide on partial- birth abortion but actual infanticide. And then we have the cases of prom mom and the Delaware couple and so many others where we hear around the country of babies being born and then murdered shortly after birth. The initial reaction, while horror, at the same time is sympathy--sympathy for this difficult situation in which these children or kids were put. We somehow see little children, little babies, different than older children. Older children--if you have killed your older children, that is really bad. We have no sympathy for you. But somehow, if you killed a baby just born we try to figure out a way to get around it. We try to figure out a way that that does not quite meet the threshold of murder. If you look at the punishments meted out--substantially lower. They are substantially lower than other murder cases. We just do not value those little babies as much. Why? Why? Is it any mystery why? If we start, as we have, down the path of not valuing those little babies because we do not value them in the womb, or four-fifths outside the womb, or just newly outside the womb, who is next? Look around. Who is going to be next? Who is going to be the next group of people who we are not going to value, who does not have the might to force down what they believe is right? I made it. I am here in this body. I am whole. I am healthy. If you have not made it yet, watch it, because it then depends on whether you are on the committee that decides, or you are on the court that decides who lives and who dies. Because there is no line anymore. There is no truth on which we are basing this. There is no ``life or nonlife.'' There is might. There is political power and that is what determines who lives and dies, who is valuable and who is not. Tomorrow, 34 Senators can exercise their might on who lives and dies. They can decide for a country that a group of people, a group of little helpless babies, do not belong. I am hopeful that when tomorrow comes, after much prayer tonight by so many people all over the country, and the world, that three more Members will open their eyes when they wake up in the morning and realize that but for the grace of God, there go I, and that we have to open our hearts more and include the least among us, the little children. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania or any person he should yield to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes of Senate business to recognize National Payroll Week 1998, which has been designated as September 14-18. National Payroll Week was founded by the American Payroll Association in 1996 to honor the men and women whose tax contributions support the American Dream and the payroll professionals who are dedicated to processing those contributions. In particular, the Susquehanna Valley Chapter of the American Payroll Association represents 186,000 residents in Pennsylvania who are employed by 21 businesses. These taxpayers and businesses contribute millions of dollars to the federal treasury through payroll taxes each year. These taxes go toward important civic projects including roads, schools and crime prevention. In addition, taxpayers and payroll professionals are partners in upholding the Social Security and Medicare systems. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in commending the taxpayers and payroll professionals who, through the collection, reporting and payment of payroll taxes, have set a national precedent of what works in America.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Benny Golson for his extraordinary career as a musician and a composer. I am proud to say that Mr. Golson began his professional career in Philadelphia. He went on to compose music for many household names such as Diana Ross, Sammy Davis, Jr., Mickey Rooney and Dizzy Gillespie. He then began writing for the hit TV shows ``M*A*S*H'' and ``The Partridge Family'' as well as pilots for CBS, ABC and NBC and the Academy Awards. During a two year residency at William Paterson College, Mr. Golson wrote a symphony and a piece for violin virtuoso Itzhak Perlman. He also lectured to students and received an honorary doctorate degree. In 1994, Mr. Golson was awarded the Guggeneim Fellowship and, in 1996, a Jazz Masters Award from the N.E.A. On Sunday, September 27, the Big Jazz Band ``Impro-Vista'' will perform a tribute to Benny Golson to benefit Philadelphia youth involved in jazz. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Benny Golson for his remarkable professional achievements and his extraordinary contributions to society.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Now that the Senator from Vermont has agreed to support the motion to proceed--that is heartening--we can now get to this. I came here to plead that we at least be given the opportunity to discuss this issue. On this bill, while it is obviously important to the entire country, the case which has been highlighted, which is the one that is the most disturbing, is the case from Pennsylvania of a horrible situation where a young girl 12 years old was raped by a boy 18, was given alcohol, and was impregnated while she was unconscious. The stepmother of the boy, without the knowledge of the little girl's mother, took her across the State line to have an abortion. In fact, there are a series of false pretenses, which I will outline in the debate that we hope now to have on the full bill. It shows how this law is necessary to protect the rights of parents, and the State of Pennsylvania wants to protect them. The State of Pennsylvania has a law in place that says you need parental consent. Parents in the State believe they should be able to rely upon the law, that they should be able to have that right that the State of Pennsylvania suggested that we have, that the people of Pennsylvania should have their laws honored, and that people, by crossing State lines, should not be able to evade what is the law within Pennsylvania. This is less an abortion issue than it is a State rights issue. As Senator DeWine mentioned in his debate, we have done things just recently with child support to get better enforcement of State decisions across State lines to protect children and to protect families. This is just another instance where we should do that-- protect the rights of parents and protect the rights of children within the borders of the State, as the State legislatures and Governors have enacted laws to do so. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his work to fight through the Judiciary Committee and to get this bill to the floor, and to now get it to a point where hopefully we can begin the debate and we can begin to move forward with the debate of these amendments. I understand States rights and enforcing State laws is an important issue that we debate here often in the Congress. But there is none more important, as far as I am concerned, than to protect the lives and health of children and the rights of parents. That is exactly at the heart of this legislation. I congratulate the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask consent to be yielded the 10 minutes remaining under the time of Senator Thomas.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in conversations with the leader over the last couple of days, we have set a date for the Senate vote on the override of the President's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. It is going to be September 18, which is just a couple of weeks from now. I am hopeful, even though the numbers do not look good right now, that we will be able to muster sufficient support to do what the House did, which is to override the President's veto. The House voted, with I believe six or seven votes more than necessary, to override his veto. Here in the Senate we are three votes short of overriding the President's veto, of getting the 67 votes. We had 64 Senators vote in favor of the ban. We will need three more Senators to change their vote and support this act and override the President's veto. I want to pick up on what Senator Thomas was talking about and what is being talked about around the country, which is the President and his unwillingness to come forward with the truth, and his propensity to look at a factual situation and skew it some. Some would say lie; I would just say maybe skew it some, to put a different spin or color on what the real facts are. I think we have maybe the first opportunity here in the Senate, since the President's admission a couple of weeks ago, to really pass judgment on the President's ability to be truthful with the American public. How many people in this Chamber are going to stand by this President when he has blatantly not told the truth about the issue of partial-birth abortion and the need for it to remain legal? He has stood behind this notion that this procedure needs to remain legal because of the potential impact on the health of women who have abortions and that this needs to be an option available to them because there may be circumstances in which women need this procedure to avoid serious health consequences. That was potentially a legitimate argument, even though I could give, and I will when the bill comes up, lots of reasons why from a medical perspective that makes no sense. We have made those arguments time and time again, and others have made those arguments, including Dr. Bill Frist. But, just prior to the vote last year here in the Senate, the American Medical Association came out with a letter that said that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the life or health of a woman. And this is an organization, by the way, that supports abortion rights. This is not a right-wing, radical, pro-life organization--take your pick, right-wing, radical, or pro-life, or all of the above. It is none of those. It is an organization that in principle supports abortion rights, but came out and said that there is no medical necessity here. It is not necessary. Yet the President, just weeks after this letter was released--and by the way, there are hundreds if not thousands of obstetricians who have come forward and said the same thing--the President stood up and said I need to veto this bill because--I think it was on a Friday night he vetoed it, so not too many people were around to watch the veto--this is medically necessary to protect the health of women, when we have experts upon experts and the definitive body representing physicians in this country saying that it is not necessary and that, in fact, the President is not telling the truth to the American public or to Members of Congress. So we are hiding behind a lie. I guess the question I have is how many Senators are going to continue to hide behind Bill Clinton's lie on the issue of partial-birth abortion? Many Senators--many Members of his Cabinet, many people--were apologists for Bill Clinton for the past several months because he told them one thing and we found out later that it was not true. And a lot of people were hurt by that, burned by that, the fact that the President wasn't coming clean with the American public. We have another instance right here where the President has not come clean with the American public on this issue. How many people are going to continue to go out and defend this President and his veto on a bill where his rationale for vetoing it is not true? Hopefully: Fool me once, shame on you. If Senators allow this President to fool them twice, shame on them. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I today introduce legislation pertaining to the federal excise tax on beer. The federal excise tax on beer was doubled as part of the 1991 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Today, it remain as the only ``luxury tax'' enacted as part of OBRA '91. While taxes on furs, jewelry, and yachts were repealed through subsequent legislation, the federal beer tax remains in place with continued and far reaching negative effects. The excise tax on beer is among the more regressive federal taxes. Since the 100 percent tax was levied in 1991, it has cost the industry as many as 50,000 jobs. Beer in particular continues to suffer under a disproportionate burden of taxation. Forty-three percent of the cost of beer is comprised of both state and federal taxes. This legislation seeks to correct this inequity and will restore the level of federal excise tax to the pre-1991 tax rate. Mr. President, this bill represents companion legislation to H.R. 158, introduced by Representative Phil English. The House bill currently carries 95 cosponsors. I commend this Senate legislation to my colleagues for their consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that will offer protection from government discrimination to health care providers who have religious or moral objections to performing abortions. As HCFA prepares to implement the Medicare+Choice program, the need for this bill has become evident. Congress created Medicare+Choice to give beneficiaries more options in their health plans. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) requires all health care providers who participate in the program to provide all services covered under Medicare Parts A and B, except hospice care. HCFA is interpreting this mandate to require coverage for abortion, consistent with the Hyde restrictions. The problem is that many religious health care systems-- and even some secular providers--have strong misgivings about performing, providing coverage for, or paying for any elective abortions. Absent specific legislative clarification, these providers will be shut out of the Medicare+Choice program. HCFA's interpretation of the BBA has come as a surprise to many health systems wishing to participate in the Medicare+Choice program. The issue of whether providers would have to cover abortion services was never addressed during last summer's extensive debate. Instead, this Congress focused on designing a program which would give seniors the broadest possible range of health care choices, so they could choose a provider based on their own individual needs. In 1996, Congress prohibited government discrimination against health care providers who choose not to teach abortion procedures in their graduate medical programs. The Senate approved this legislation as an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act by a vote of 63-37. The Health Care Entity Protection Act merely clarifies that these protections extend to all providers who have religious or moral objections to performing, providing coverage of, or paying for induced abortions. I would emphasise that nothing in this bill prevents providers from voluntarily offering abortion services; it simply gives them a right to choose whether they will so do. I believe that my colleagues on both sides of the abortion debate can support the Health Care Entity Protection Act. I would like to reiterate that this bill simply clarifies protections that already exist under current law. I hope the Senate will recognize the moral gravity of the abortion issue and forge a consensus across party and ideological lines to protect institutions, doctors, and health systems who, as a matter of conscience, cannot perform or provide for abortions.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment to S. 2132, the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act, seeks to add $8.2 million for the procurement of M888, 60-millimeter, high-explosive munitions for the Marine Corps. The additional funds would help alleviate training constraints for Marine Corps units due to shortages in this term, and will help reduce the coming ``bow-wave'' of procurement requirements we may not have the resources to fund in future years. The Marine Corps has stated that procurement at this level would be consistent with its acquisition strategy regarding ammunition. I would like to clarify that funds for this procurement have been identified. In order to fund this important acquisition I have identified the Air Force war reserve materials account.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the youth group from Devonshire Memorial Church in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On Sunday, July 26 ten students from the church traveled to Manning, South Carolina to assist in the rebuilding of the Macedonian Baptist Church which the Ku Klux Klan destroyed by fire in 1996. The young people worked to renovate homes of church members that suffered damage due to the fire. The teenagers, who raised their own support for the trip through things such as church-wide dinners and fundraising letters, joined approximately 250 other young people from across the nation to work on painting, hanging drywall, repairing roofs and caulking windows. Church burnings are a violent act of hatred against the free exercise of religious faith. Arson, which has destroyed many southern African American churches, has also destroyed our dignity and our humanity. By dedicating their time and effort to rebuilding the walls of a church burned by hatred and bigotry, these young men and women are tearing down the walls of violence and racism and restoring faith to the Christian community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the young men and women of Devonshire Memorial Church for their dedication to restoring a church and a community, as well as the ideals of freedom in this country.

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 rise today to recognize and mourn the passing of two cherished members of our Capitol Hill community, Officer J.J. Chestnut and Officer John Gibson, slain Friday in the line of duty. As we mourn their deaths and pay tribute to them, perhaps we should recall the particular, even paradoxical, quality of who they were and what they did: They stood among us, as members of this community, but they also stood apart. As many have noted since their deaths, both officers were familiar to those of us who work in the Capitol. They stood guard in these halls-- and so they stood, literally, among us. And their lives resembled many of our own lives; they were husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers. They took pleasure from their families and pride in their work. If but for the sad events on Friday, they might have continued to live as so many of us do: simply but decently, content to be known and loved mostly by those closest to them. But they stood guard in these halls--and so they also stood apart. They belong to that small but remarkable group of people whose profession requires the willing forfeiture not just of their time and talent but, if necessary, of their very lives. Unlike most of us, their daily work was to offer their life in the place of another's. More dramatically and compellingly than most of us, they embodied the qualities that sustain our democracy: selflessness and courage. In this, they stood guard over our democratic tradition. As individuals and citizens, we are defined not only by who we stand with, but by when we choose to stand apart. I am honored that these men stood among us everyday and grateful that, when the critical moment came, they also freely chose to stand apart. In tribute, in these halls they guarded, we stand as one and grieve their deaths.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Earl V. Jones, Sr., from Pittsburgh, PA, on his efforts to promote world peace. Mr. Jones started his grassroots movement, Peace on Earth, to teach children about peace and understanding. The project has since expanded to include a sister city in Russia, the Siberian industrial town of Novokuznetak. Children in each of these cities write essays answering the question ``What Can Each of Us Do for Peace on Earth?'' Essay winners receive medals fashioned from metal produced in Pittsburgh and from Novokuznetak. Among the honorary medal recipients are President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Mr. Jones believes children will have an added incentive to compete in the contest when they know that two Presidents have the same medals that they can win. Furthermore, Mr. Jones included a third set of medals in his gift to the presidents which he hopes will be carried into outer space. He explains, ``If you're going to have peace on Earth, you better start up above and come down.'' Mr. President, I commend Earl Jones for his tireless work on the Peace on Earth campaign. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to Mr. Jones and his worthwhile project.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I also wish to express my support for this provision. One of the key industry members of the Transportation Safety Alliance, Union Switch and Signal, is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They manufacture signaling automation and control systems for railroads, and are at the cutting edge of an industry which can help our country achieve greater rail safety in the 21st century. Senator LAUTENBERG. The issue of rail safety in this country is of great importance to me. I appreciate your comments, and will work to keep this provision in the Conference Report. advanced civil speed enforcement systems upgrade