Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, 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.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, June 13, committees have from the hours of 12 to 3 in order to file legislative or executive reported matters.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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 title amendment be agreed to; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment, under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of Senate business to congratulate a group of middle school students from Philadelphia. On April 29, the Roberts Vaux Middle School Chess Team won first place in their K-8 division at the National Scholastic Chess Championship in Knoxville, TN. Competing against 4,300 students from almost every State in the Union, team members also earned individual awards for the third and sixth best players in the Nation, as well as for the top sixth and eighth graders in their sections. Additionally, Vaux's Salome Thomas-El won a coach's award. Collectively known as the Mighty Bishops, or the ``Bad Bishops,'' Demetrius Carroll, Charles Mabine, Earl Jenkins, Anthony Harper, Anwar Smith, Denise Pickard, Latoria Spann, Alisca Shropshire, Tanisha Edwards, Tyeisha Falligan, Donzell White, Thomas Allen, and Ralph Johnson have worked hard for this victory. For instance, the Mighty Bishops practiced at least 5 days per week for 3 hours each day. They used a library of chess books and some computer programs to learn strategies for all aspects of the game. More importantly, they sharpened their problem solving, critical thinking, and decisionmaking skills--skills that will help them not only in competition, but also in life. Prior to winning the national championship, the team secured significant victories at other competitions. This past January, the Mighty Bishops received first place individual and fourth place team trophies at the Greater New York Junior High Chess Championship. At the U.S. Amateur Team Championship in Parsippany, NJ, Vaux received the top record of any middle school. I would also note that the Mighty Bishops placed second at the Pennsylvania State Championships. Mr. President, I am proud of these students. These bright young people are a credit to themselves, their school, their families, and their community. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Mighty Bishops and in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in 1979, Congress created an award which is specifically designed for young people. This special program, the Congressional Award, recognizes young Americans who make commitments to community service and self-improvement. I would like to take a few moments of Senate business to discuss this program and the important role it plays in promoting volunteerism. The Congressional Award is a non-partisan, public-private partnership which teaches young people that they can make a difference in their communities. The program is noncompetitive. Participants set individual goals based on their own abilities. Once these goals are achieved, they can earn bronze, silver, or gold medals. I would emphasize that each Congressional Award is earned--not won. Any 14- to 23-year-old, regardless of their life circumstances or physical and mental abilities, can earn the award. Mr. President, this program truly promotes community service. Since the first award was presented in 1982, 1.5 million hours have been attributed to volunteerism. In the last 12 months alone, recipients of the Congressional Award throughout the country performed more than 63,000 hours of community service. Some examples of the volunteer projects include assisting elderly shut-ins, distributing food for the needy, producing a handbook of volunteer opportunities at the United Way, and donating a narcotics K-9 to a sheriff's department. Recently, I have chartered the Congressional Award Program in my own State, along with the other members of the Pennsylvania delegation. I encourage each of my colleagues to promote this valuable program. The Congressional Award benefits everyone involved--the participants, their adult sponsors, and the communities at large. I would also note that while this program is a public-private partnership, it does not receive its funding from the Government. It is funded entirely through the private sector. Not long ago, I had the honor of participating in the Volunteer Summit in Philadelphia, PA. The success of this event suggests that Americans are eager to help those in need. They simply need more information about how to do so. Mr. President, I am a strong advocate of volunteerism, and I sincerely believe that this program inspires a sense of civic responsibility in our young people. The Congressional Award is an effort Congress can be proud it initiated on behalf of our next generation. By working together, we can make this volunteer opportunity and learning experience available to all young Americans.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Northeast Peanut League [NEPL] will celebrate its annual All-Star Day on June 8. I would like to take a few moments of Senate business to recognize the NEPL and to discuss the opportunities it offers to more than 7,000 boys and girls between the ages of 5 and 16 in the Philadelphia area. Founded in 1981, the NEPL provides recreational activities for children who are not as advanced in their athletic abilities. This organization is based on the concept of simply having fun. The league makes sports a positive learning experience by enhancing the emotional, physical, social, and educational well-being of children. These teams allow children to realize their potential in elaborate all-star events, playoff games, and league awards. In short, the NEPL provides a nurturing environment where all children--regardless of their physical or mental abilities--can play, develop a sense of pride, and receive the fanfare previously reserved for the ``A'' leagues. Another important service the NEPL provides is substance abuse education. Each year, the league distributes thousands of drug prevention brochures to the children and their parents. Moreover, the league sponsors essay contests which encourage children to express their concerns about the drug epidemic. Winners of this essay contest and the Youth Work Award receive their prizes on the annual All-Star Day. Mr. President, I commend the Northeast Peanut League for the athletic and educational opportunities it offers to the children of Philadelphia. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to the children, coaches, parents, officials, staff, and sponsors of the Northeast Peanut League.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm my support for the tireless effort of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of Lehigh Valley to fight chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome [CFIDS], or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [CFS]. For five years, the CFS Association of Lehigh Valley has been dedicated to finding a cure for CFIDS, increasing public awareness, and supporting victims of this disease. The Lehigh Valley organization is actively involved in CFS-related research. In addition, they regularly participate in seminars to train health care professionals. Public education is an essential aspect of the association's mission. For instance, they arranged the broadcast of a video documentary about CFIDS on public television. Likewise, the Lehigh Valley organization raises public awareness through the International CFIDS Awareness Day, which is held on May 12 each year. I would also note that the CFS Association of Lehigh Valley received the CFIDS Support Network Action Award in both 1995 and 1996 for their initiatives in public advocacy. Although researchers have made some advances in the study of this condition, CFIDS remains a mysterious illness. Presently, there is no known cause or cure. Victims experience a wide range of symptoms including extreme fatigue, fever, muscle and joint pain, cognitive and neurological problems, tender lymph nodes, nausea, and vertigo. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control gave CFIDS ``Priority 1'' status in the new infectious disease category, which also includes cholera, malaria, hepatitis C and tuberculosis. Until this disease is obliterated, the CFS Association of Lehigh Valley will continue its research and education campaigns. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the Lehigh Valley organization and in supporting the following proclamation, which I ask be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: Proclamation Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Association of the Lehigh Valley joined the Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS) Association of America, the world's largest organization dedicated to conquering CFIDS, in observing May 12, 1997 as International Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Awareness Day; and Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley, a member of the Support Network of the CFIDS Association of America, is celebrating their fifth year of service to the community; and Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley recently received the CFIDS Support Network Action Award for Excellence in Service in the Area of CFIDS Awareness Day 1996 and for Excellence in Commitment and Service to the CFIDS Community in the Area of Public Policy; and Whereas, CFIDS is a complex illness which is characterized by neurological, rheumatological and immunological problems, incapacitating fatigue, and numerous other symptoms that can persist for months or years and can be severely debilitating; and Whereas, estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of American adults already have CFIDS; and Whereas, the medical community and the general public should receive more information and develop a greater awareness of the problems associated with CFIDS. While much has been done at the national, state, and local levels, more must be done to support patients and their families; and Whereas, research has been strengthened by the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and other private institutions, the CFS Association of the Lehigh Valley recognizes that much more must be done to encourage further research so that the mission of conquering CFIDS and related disorders can be achieved. Therefore, the United States Senate commends the designation of May 12, 1997 as CFIDS Awareness Day and applauds the efforts of those battling the illness.

Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate the Senate's consideration of this issue, and I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, our nation's children are turning to crime and violence at alarming rates. Perhaps more than ever before, young people need direction from good men and women in their communities who are willing to get involved. They need role models to help them understand that an honest life is not an easy life, but it is a better life. Fortunately, there are people and groups who are reaching out to at-risk youth. Today, I rise to commend the efforts of one such organization. The Philadelphia Martin Luther King, Jr. Association for Nonviolence is making a difference, one child at a time. On April 4, the anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, the Association for Nonviolence sponsored a ``Youth and the Culture of Violence'' town meeting. This event brought a cross-section of the community together to discuss violence prevention programs, current statistics on youth violence, and new ideas for training young people to solve their problems peacefully. Teenagers from the Philadelphia area joined community leaders, educators, juvenile justice officers, psychologists, and other concerned citizens in this important outreach effort. Almost 30 years ago, Dr. King gave his life for his dream of a non- violent world. Through peaceful protest, he changed the heart of a nation. Dr. King's dream of a just, peaceful society lives on through the work of those who continue to teach his principle of non-violence. It is fitting that the organization which bears his name is reaching out and offering hope to a new generation. Mr. President, I commend the Philadelphia Martin Luther King, Jr. Association for Nonviolence for addressing the issue of youth violence. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the important work this organization has done and in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to preventing youth violence.

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, this is an amendment that I took the floor yesterday to talk about. It is an amendment that I worked out, along with Senator Frist and Representative Canady in the House, and with the American Medical Association to tighten up some of the language to address some of the concerns that the physician community had about the definition of what is partial-birth abortion. I believe it is a good amendment, whether it would have gotten the AMA endorsement or not. I think it is a good amendment because I think it is language that is much tighter, and puts in the requisite mens rea, or thought processes that the physician must have been going through at the time of doing the procedure. I think that is important for a criminal statute. I think it would be a sad state if, in fact, we passed this legislation and overrode the President's veto, or if the President would see otherwise and decide to sign the bill, that, in fact, this bill would be thrown out for vagueness of criminality, the criminal statute itself would be considered too vague, and it would be OK on the abortion ground but not OK on the criminal statute ground. But I think what we have done is tighten up the language and have taken care of the concerns mentioned here, both on the House and Senate floors, about the vagueness of the statute. I don't think anyone will now look at this as a vague statute. It is a very precise statute. It is a complete criminal statute now. I am very happy that we were able to work it out, and in working with the AMA I believe we have improved the bill and improved its chances when we reach the stage of the courts which I am very hopeful that we will do because that means that we will have passed the bill and it would have been signed into law, and the President's veto would have been overridden. Of the other two provisions in the bill, one clarifies the life of the mother exception and takes out some surplus language which we agreed to which didn't add anything, and we agreed that it was, in fact, surplus language. The third element of the amendment deals with the issue of a medical review panel; if a medical review panel was asked by the AMA for the reason of an intermediary step between the indictment of the physician under the statute and a trial. This would be an opportunity for State medical boards to put together a panel of physicians to look at what happened in the case, to do a peer review determination of the procedures that was done by the physician being charged, and to come up with findings. Those findings would then be admissible in court. I think that is an appropriate step. It gives the professionals in the field who license, in fact, the physician, an opportunity to make a review of what happened in the context of that as well as add medical expertise to be considered at trial. I think that is only helpful. The fact of the matter is that we are all aware that, if someone is charged under this statute, they are going to have their medical experts testify as to one set of circumstances and the prosecution will have their medical experts. So, with having some neutral party, if you will, come up with a more objective standard of review I think helps and provides a professional review of what took place in a case. So I think we are making a step forward. I am not aware of any objections to this amendment. Whether you are for, or against this amendment, it is a technical amendment in most respects. It is one that hopefully will be supported by everyone. I yield the floor at this point to determine whether anyone wants to speak against the amendment. I understand now there is no one to speak against the amendment. So I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I now understand that we are commencing the final 3 hours of debate, that the time is going to be equally divided between the Members who are for the bill and Members who are against. Is that correct?

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first start out by indicating how important I believe the endorsement of the AMA is here as we approach final passage of this legislation. We have heard over and over and over again that the principal reason this procedure needs to be made legal is to protect the health of the mother. We have in the case of the AMA an organization that is on record as being for abortion rights. This is not the Christian Coalition. This is not the Catholic Conference of Bishops. This is an organization of physicians that is on record as being for a woman's right to choose, if you will, that has come out and said this procedure is not good medicine, this procedure is not necessary to protect the life or health of a mother. So for all of the arguments that we have heard that there is a split of opinion out there as to whether this is an appropriate procedure, I have put forward letter after letter after letter from obstetricians, from perinatologists, experts in maternal fetal medicine who have said that this procedure is never medically indicated, that in fact this procedure is more dangerous to the mother. I will discuss those things today. Now I believe the charade is over. We have the preeminent medical authority, organization in the country saying that this procedure should be outlawed; there is no medical reason to keep this procedure legal. That is a very powerful statement which debunks all of the arguments people might want to hide behind in saying that, yes, they agree this procedure is brutal; yes, they agree this is barbaric and should never be used, but we want to leave open the possibility that in the case of, and then they go on with the health concerns. What we know for a fact is that 90 percent of partial-birth abortions are not done for any health-related reasons. Let me clarify that. Ron Fitzsimmons, who heads up an abortion provider organization of some 200 abortion clinics, said that 90 percent of partial-birth abortions occur in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy on healthy mothers with healthy babies. They are for birth control purposes. This is fifth- and sixth-month abortions for birth control purposes where you take a baby out, deliver it all but the head and then take a pair of scissors and stab the baby in the base of the skull, suction its brains out and kill it for birth control purposes, not for health reasons. Those are what we know as the facts, that information provided to us by people who oppose the bill. These are not facts people who oppose abortion are putting forward. These are people who are adamantly pro- choice who run the clinics where some of these abortions take place, providing us with the information contrary to what you have heard, statements in the Chamber that these are done for the health of the mother, that 90 percent of them are done for birth control purposes, late in pregnancy. The other percentage is done later in pregnancy, and they argue, most of the reasons you hear, because of a fetal abnormality. All of the cases that you hear described with the pictures of the family are the baby was going to die anyway or the baby had a severe defect and that we should allow abortions in those situations, this kind of brutal abortion in those situations because the baby is not perfect or may not live long. That takes us off into another area that I think has very, very severe consequences for this country, when we start to say that we should be able to kill children because they are not perfect or that abortions should be legal up until the time of delivery; that we should be able to do this brutal procedure because the little baby may not live long or may have medical complications. I found it absolutely ironic that the day the partial-birth abortion ban came to the floor of the Senate, minutes before we passed the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. What is that? That is an act to guarantee civil rights, the right for disabled children to be educated so they can maximize their human potential. The very same day 30-some Senators who voted for that legislation and advocated giving rights to the disabled, those same 30-some Senators who are against the partial-birth abortion ban said we are willing to give you rights if you survive the womb, but we are not going to give you any rights as a disabled child up until the time you are born. You are eligible to be killed just because of your disability. You are different than any other child. If you are a child that is normal, then they do not believe you have a right to be killed. In fact, that is what these amendments are that we heard about. Well, if the baby is healthy and the mother is healthy, we need a health exception. If the baby is fine and the mom is fine, then we do not believe the baby should be killed. If the baby is abnormal, we can kill it. These are the same people who believe in special civil rights for the disabled. I do not know how you legitimately can stand and argue those two points. I do not know how you draw the line there with any sense of consistency of care for the disabled. I support IDEA. I support civil rights for the disabled because I know that there are challenges out there, but there is no greater challenge to the disabled in this country today than the challenge of getting born in the first place. And I will discuss, as I have before, Donna Joy Watts and her family and how they had to overcome incredible odds and adversity beyond what you would imagine in this country just to have this little girl born and be treated because she was seen as disabled, not viable, not important to our society. I want to talk in specific about the health issue because I think it is important, it is the remaining barrier that many Members hide behind in not supporting the partial-birth abortion bill because it does not have a ``health exception.'' Let me explain, No. 1, we have the American Medical Association on record now supporting this bill, saying there need not be a health exception to this bill, this bill takes care of all the problems that we as physicians see and that there is no health reason to do this procedure. Let me share with you a statement from Dr. Camilla C. Hersh, who is a member of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. She says, and I quote from her statement: I think it is obvious that for the baby this is a horrible way to die, brutally and painfully killed by having one's head stabbed open and one's brains suctioned out. But for the woman, this is a mortally dangerous and life threatening act. Partial-birth abortion is a partially blind procedure, done by feel, thereby risking direct scissor injury to the mother's uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower uterine segment. Either the scissors or the bony shards or spickules of the baby's perforated and disrupted skull bones can roughly rip into the large blood vessels which supply the lower part of the lush pregnant uterus, resulting in immediate and massive bleeding and the threat of shock, immediate hysterectomy, blood transfusion and even death to the mother. Portions of the baby's sharp bony skull pieces can remain embedded in the mother's cervix, setting up a complicated infection as the bony fragments decompose. Think of the emotional agony for the woman, both immediately and for years afterward, who endures this process over a period of several days. None of this nauseating risk is ever necessary for any reason. Obstetrician-gynecologists like myself across the U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the proponents of the procedure. Never-- I underline the word-- is the partial-birth abortion procedure necessary: Not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid collecting around the baby), . . . Not for anencephaly (an abnormality characterized by the absence of the top portion of the baby's brain and skull), Not for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the head). In the case of Donna Joy Watts, I would parenthetically say she had hydrocephaly. Her parents were counseled to have an abortion. They chose not to. They had the baby delivered and she is now 5\1/2\ years old. Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head with a special long needle, to allow safe vaginal delivery. In some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, a doctor performs a Cesarean section. But in no case is it necessary or medically advisable to partially deliver an infant through the vagina and then to cruelly kill the infant. The legislation proposed clearly distinguishes the procedure being banned from recognized standard obstetric techniques. I must point out, even for those who support abortion for elective or medical reasons at any point in pregnancy, current recognized abortion techniques would be unaffected by the proposed ban. Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at the least seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst so consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any-cost'' activism to be criminally negligent. This procedure is blatant and cruel infanticide and must be against the law. Again, this is a statement by Camilla C. Hersh, an obstetrician- gynecologist practicing here in northern Virginia. And other statements by other medical doctors in cases that were mentioned here on this floor as reasons that partial-birth abortion must continue to be legal. And I have this as a note. Senator Feinstein brought up the case of preeclampsia, and I have a letter here from Dr. Steve Calvin, MD, who is a specialist in maternal fetal medicine. What does that mean? A specialist in high-risk pregnancies. These are people who deal with the very difficult cases that come up in pregnancy where the mother's life and health and the baby's life and health are in jeopardy during pregnancy. Dr. Calvin responds to Senator Feinstein's claim that preeclampsia is a reason to do a partial-birth abortion. Preeclampsia (with any number of its complications, including renal failure), cardiomyopathy, breast cancer, and lymphoma are all potential maternal medical disorders that may complicate pregnancy. In some situations the pregnancy must be ended to save the life of the mother. The proposed ban on this destructive procedure already includes an exemption for the so far theoretical instance when it may be necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. The opponents of the ban realize that they cannot prevail on the merits of their arguments and are therefore resorting to blowing a virtual blizzard of medical terms during the debate. They hope to overwhelm the media and the public so that the fundamental points are missed. I will not try to answer them point by point on each medical condition. The importance of protecting nearly born fetal life is crucial. Especially in light of Lori Watts' and Donna Joy Watts' story. The fact of the matter is that it is never medically necessary, under any of these conditions, according to Dr. Calvin and dozens of others who are specialists in maternal fetal medicine. As Dr. Calvin said in another letter, none of these procedures are done by groups that specialize in high-risk pregnancies. They are not done in universities. They are not done in hospitals that specialize in these kinds of problems. They are done in abortion clinics. They are not done by experts in maternal fetal medicine, perinatologists; they are done by abortionists at abortion clinics who are not experts in high-risk pregnancies. In fact, this procedure was developed not by an obstetrician/ gynecologist, not by someone who is an expert in maternal fetal medicine who is concerned about the life and health of the mother; this was developed by a family practitioner who does abortions at an abortion clinic for the convenience of the abortionist. So all of these claims about health are just simply a smokescreen. There is no health reason to do this procedure. In fact, as Dr. Hersh says, and hundreds of other physicians have said, obstetricians and gynecologists, including--he is not an obstetrician; that is, C. Everett Koop, the former Surgeon General of the United States, is not an obstetrician. But what is he? A pediatric surgeon who has done surgery on all these little babies who have had these disabilities and saw high-risk pregnancies firsthand, dealt with the consequences of these pregnancies, so he knows the issue well. He said, as well as hundreds of other doctors, that it is never medically necessary. I would like to read the entire quote signed by, I believe, at least a dozen experts in maternal fetal medicine, a group of almost 500 physicians, including Dr. Koop, and obstetricians who oppose partial- birth abortion: While it may become necessary, in the second or third trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the mother's life or health, abortion is never required--i.e., it is never medically necessary, in order to preserve a women's life, health or future fertility, to deliberately kill an unborn child in the second and third trimester, and certainly not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to death. What is required in the circumstances specified by-- Senator Daschle, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein and others-- is separation of the child from the mother, not the death of the child. Let me just put it simply, for purposes of this particular debate, while a mother may present herself in a condition that may require separation of the child from the mother, it is not necessary to kill the child in that process, to use partial-birth abortion. I don't know why any doctor who is practicing good, solid medicine would deliberately reach in and pull the baby out in the breech position to deliver the child while the mother's life is in danger, while you go through a 3-day process of dilating the cervix over 2 days, risking infection because the cervix is now dilated and the womb is exposed to infection, risking infection, No. 1; No. 2, risking an incompetent cervix, which means the inability to carry future children. Unfortunately, one of the reasons cited by President Clinton as needing this procedure to save her health and future fertility was a woman who has had five miscarriages since that procedure was done to her. To make the argument this is necessary for that is just not true. But a woman presents herself with a health problem, and for 2 days, to say, ``Here are some pills, we're going to dilate your cervix, go home, present yourself back after 2 days,'' where you risk increased infection and increased complications, ``come back to the abortion clinic''--not a hospital, because these are not done at hospitals-- ``come back to the abortion clinic to have this procedure done.'' And then what happens? The baby is pulled out feet first, delivered all but the head. Why would you, even if you decided to go through that procedure for the health of the mother, why would you, as Dr. Hersh suggests, why would you take a blunt instrument in a blind procedure and stab the baby blindly in the base of the skull, causing all of the damage that could occur, as Dr. Hersh has set forth? Why would you do that? Why wouldn't you just deliver the head and give the baby a chance to live? It may not live. But at least give it the dignity of being born and accepted into our human community without this brutality, this unwarranted, unnecessary, unhealthful, dangerous, brutal stabbing and killing of a baby who is this far away, 3 inches away, from its first breath. Yes, its first breath. Even at 20 weeks, babies live. It is considered a live birth even at 20 weeks. Babies will not be able to survive long because they don't have sufficient lung development, but that baby will be alive when it is born unless you kill it. Why kill the baby when it is more dangerous to the mother to do that, when it presents more complications to do it? Why does that option have to be necessary that is more dangerous to her health? Why would we want to keep a procedure legal that threatens a woman's health, that is an absolutely rogue procedure, not done by specialists, not done in hospitals, developed by a nonobstetrician? Why do we want to keep this legal? What possible reason do we want to say that we need to endanger a woman's health to allow this procedure to be legal? The only reason I can think of is what Dr. Hersh said, and I will quote from her again because I think she said it very, very well: Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at the least seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst-- And I daresay that we may be looking, certainly in the case of the abortion rights advocates, we are looking at our ``at worst'' here-- at worst, so consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any- cost'' activism, to be criminally negligent. There is no health reason to do this. Anybody who stands up on the floor in the face of now the AMA, hundreds of obstetricians and gynecologists, specialists in maternal fetal medicine, who stand up in the face of overwhelming evidence that this procedure is necessary, given the characteristics of the procedure, a rogue procedure, not done in hospitals, not done by specialists, done by family practitioners or people who have no speciality at all in delivering children, just doing abortions, you are defending not the health of the mother when you argue that, you are not defending the life of the mother, you are defending, as Dr. Hersh says, abortion at any cost, any time, anywhere for any reason; that the child, no matter how late, no matter how healthy, is not to be considered. That is not where America is. I know where the majority of the Senate is. We will find out today whether it is where 67 Senators are, because that is the magic number, 67. We need 67 votes to override the President's veto. I want to have additional items printed in the Record. I know this has been printed in the Record before, but I want to put it in. This is a letter from C. Everett Koop to Bill Frist, May 13, 1997-- Bill Frist, the only doctor in the U.S. Senate, who has spoken eloquently, and will again today, on this issue. Dear Bill: It is never necessary to destroy a viable fetus in order to preserve the health of the mother. Although I can't think of an example, if it were deemed beneficial for the mother to be without the fetus, it would be delivered by induction-- Vaginal delivery-- or C-section. Abortion is truly more traumatic than either and exposes the mother to future problems with an incompetent cervix, miscarriage and infertility. Let me get away from the specifics of the partial-birth issue and give you another reason why this is not healthy, and I want to share with you some statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. What is that organization? This is an organization that signed letters last year with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and a whole lot of other groups--NOW, National Organization for Women--in opposition to partial- birth abortion legislation for allowing this procedure to be legal. They are an abortion advocacy group. I guess they are considered a think tank or some short of data collection folks, but they are advocates for abortion. Here is what they say, again, to the extent I can--I am using the other side's information, taking what those who oppose the bill say as fact, and even with their information, you can't defend this procedure. This is what the Guttmacher Institute says: The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from 1 death in every 600,000 abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 17,000 at 16-20 weeks, and 1 per 6,000 at 21 weeks or more. When, I might add, partial-birth abortions occur. They occur after 20 weeks, sometimes at 20 weeks. So you are 10 times more likely, according to their numbers, to die as a result of an abortion than in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. You say, ``Well, OK, that's interesting, a 1-in-6,000 chance of a mother dying as the result of an abortion. But what are the chances of her dying as a result of delivering the baby by inducing or cesarean section, which would be a `normal' delivery?'' We happen to have those numbers: It should be noted that at 21 weeks and after, abortion is twice as risky for the woman as childbirth: The risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000-- As you saw before-- for abortion and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth. So let me lay it out again. Set the arguments aside for partial-birth abortion as to why that is more dangerous, and it is. Abortion, period, is more dangerous to a mother. Abortion, period, is more dangerous to a mother than delivery by inducement or by cesarean section. Now why would you get up here on the floor and say we need to keep the more dangerous option generally available, compound that with a procedure that is even more dangerous than other abortion techniques, that we need to keep that legal also? If you are truly concerned about the life and the health of the mother, you don't come to the Senate floor and argue for dangerous procedures to continue to be used that threaten health, future fertility, life and, at the same time, kill a baby that would otherwise be born alive. There is no argument here. You will hear and see pictures of people: ``Oh, well, they needed this.'' As Dr. Hersh said and said eloquently, these people were misinformed. Look, not every doctor is a great doctor. Not every doctor knows everything, but you don't see those doctors on the record here. Where are the doctors who did all the procedures in all these cases, where have they testified that that was the only thing they could have done. They couldn't stand the light of day here. They couldn't stand the cross-examination here. They would never, never come up here and try to defend that position. It is a sad fact that in thousands of instances every year, women are counseled, encouraged, told they have no choice but to have an abortion and do so only to find out later that some doctor either misinformed them or, frankly, was so afraid of malpractice that the doctor took the easy way out. That should never be a reason. Using bad medicine should never be a reason to keep the procedure legal. The fact that there are some doctors out there who practice bad medicine should not be a reason to keep this procedure legal. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not want to use up all my time. I do not see anyone from the other side. I ask unanimous consent that when I ask to go into a quorum call the time be deducted from the other side's time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his terrific statement, as always. He has been on the floor for the past several days debating this issue from a position of authority, I might add, as the only physician in the Senate. But I also thank him for his tremendous work in working with me and Representative Canady and the AMA to come up with the language changes that were necessary to secure this very important endorsement of the medical community. He was right on the front-lines working to make sure that happened, and he made a great contribution to the debate on this whole issue, whether or not we get enough votes in the Senate today, of consciousness of the American public, and I thank him for that. Mr. President, I do not have a speaker here at this point, so I ask unanimous consent again that when I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time be deducted from the Democratic side.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we are now down to 36 minutes of debate on both sides. And I agreed with the other side that I would take up some of the time to bring down some of our time. I want to bring up a point, discuss a point that I believe is very important for two reasons: No. 1, I think it is important that Members understand the issues of constitutionality that have been raised by some about this legislation and whether it is constitutional in light of Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton and other decisions on the subject of abortion; and, No. 2, I want to put down a marker for this piece of legislation when it does, if it does, any time in the near future go before the courts. I hope that by the actions of the Senate today, and hopefully the actions of the President later on, that he will now decide to sign this legislation in light of all the new evidence that has been presented since his initial veto. I wanted to discuss some of the elements of constitutionality, and in so discussing, I would like to read a letter that was sent to Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, by 62 law professors from universities all over the country, to state to Senator Hatch their opinion on the constitutionality of the statute. I will remark that this letter was written May 8, prior to the amendment that we adopted here on the bill today which I believe tightens the language up even more and makes it more impregnable to constitutional overruling by the courts. I will read the letter sent to Senator Hatch: Dear Senator: We write to you as law professors in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. S 6. We do not write as partisans. We are both Democrats and Republicans, and we are of different minds of various aspects of the abortion issue. We are concerned, however, that baseless legal arguments are being offered to oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions, and we are unanimous in concluding that such a ban is constitutional. We have learned that some Senators are concerned about claims that a ban on second trimester partial-birth abortions, or a ban on third trimester procedures without a ``health'' exception, would be unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and later abortion decisions. The destruction of human beings who are partially born is, in our judgment, entirely, outside the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. No Supreme Court decision, including these, ever addressed the constitutionally of forbidding the killing of partially born children. In fact. Roe noted explicitly that it did not decide the constitutionality of that part of the Texas law which forbade--and still forbids--killing a child in the process of delivery. Continuing on. Even should a court in the future decide that a law banning the partial-birth procedure is to be evaluated within the Roe Casey ``abortion'' framework, we believe such a ban would survive legal scrutiny thereunder. The partial-birth procedure entails mechanical cervical dilation, forcing a breech delivery, and exposing a mother to severe bleeding from exposure to shards of her child's crushed skill. Before viability, an abortion restriction is unconstitutional only if it creates a ``undue burden'' on the judicially established right to have an abortion. A targeted ban of a single, maternal-health-endangering procedure cannot constitute such a burden. To the extent of its constitutionally delegated authority, Congress may also ban all forms of abortion after viability, subject to the health and life interests of the mother. Under the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there is no reason to assume that the Supreme Court would interpret a post-viability health exception to require the government to tolerate a procedure which gives zero weight to the life of a partially- born child an which itself poses severe maternal health risks. Furthermore, according to published medical testimony, including that of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future fertility.'' Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--which opposes the bill--acknolwedges that partial-birth abortion is never the ``only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.'' Banning this procedure does not compromise a mother's health interests. It protects those interests. In short, while individuals may have ideological or political reasons to oppose banning the partial-birth procedure, those objections should not, in good conscience, be disguised as legal or constitutional in nature. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.