Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my distinguished colleague for that clarification and for his continued support on the POW/MIA issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Gary W. Puryear of the 94th Regional Support Command, for his leadership and vision in creating one of the most comprehensive development and land exchange projects in support of the soldiers, sailors, and marines in the United States Armed Services. Mr. Puryear established himself as a leader while developing a state- of-the-art home and training center for twenty-one units of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps Reserve in Manchester. He spearheaded this innovative program, assisting the Department of the Army in saving over $2.5 million dollars in repair and maintenance costs. His efforts also saved the Navy over $350,000 per year in lease costs, and fostered the expansion goals of both the Manchester Airport and Saint Anselm College. Mr. Puryear also actively worked to publicize the Army Reserve's Modular Design System (MDS), highlighting its cost effectiveness and speed, and subsequently reaffirming the importance of pursuing a process of multiple and mutual success. Mr. Puryear's efforts largely contributed to creating this state-of- the-art training center. As a result, 1,091 soldiers now occupy the center as a residence and a training site. The center itself indirectly helped expand the Manchester Airport as a vital shipping and transportation link by freeing up prime development space for airport related activities. Gary Puryear has proven himself an innovative leader who is committed to the United States Armed Forces, and the community as a whole. He has assisted in saving the taxpayers thousands of dollars annually, enhancing the readiness of our armed forces, and solidifying a long- term military presence in Manchester and Londonderry. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mark Aldrich on the occasion of his retirement, on November 30th, from the United States Senate after 20 years of service. For the past nine years, Mark has served as my State Director, confidant and community leader. Mark also served my predecessor, Senator Gordon Humphrey, as a loyal and dedicated staff member for more than a decade. Over the years, I have had the pleasure to travel thousands of miles with Mark, through the Great North Woods, the covered bridges of Orford and Cornish, and the scenic mountains of the Monadnock Region. Mark and I drove in his old Cadillac * * * sharing stories and helping the people of New Hampshire. Together we worked to secure federal funding for the expansion of the Manchester Airport, the newly completed Reserve Center in Londonderry, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the development of the Pease Air Force Base and so many other important projects that have helped to fuel the New Hampshire economy. Mark should take great pride in his many fine accomplishments, especially in promoting economic vitality in the North Country and throughout the state. I know that the many businesses and communities he helped will miss him, as I will. Mark is the kind of leader that we all aspire to become. He mixed humor with guidance, making each of his fellow staff members feel comfortable while sharing his advice and expertise. He energized the office allowing for greater productivity and a fierce sense of loyalty. As Mark embarks on this new journey, I wish he and Connie every happiness life has to offer. I know he will enjoy his leisure time with Jonathan exploring the trails of the White Mountains and I am sure his coaching skills will continue to flourish as he cheers on Molly and her teammates at Concord High. And the engagements with his band ``Souled Out'' will continue to experience success. I hope Mark will enjoy this poem by New Hampshire poet, Robert Frost. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep. And miles to go before I sleep. Mark, it has truly been an honor to call you my friend. It is a pleasure to represent you in the United States Senate. I wish you God speed and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Christine Russell, who last week left my staff after seven years as my legislative assistant and policy advisor on environmental, transportation and energy issues. She married Alex Wells on October 30th in South Carolina. She and her husband will be living in Harrisburg, PA. As my primary staff member responsible for the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I now chair, she was one of my chief staff liaisons with New Hampshire municipalities in need of Federal assistance, and with the Federal and State agencies responsible for these important issues. Chris was always there for me, and for the people of New Hampshire. She will be terribly missed. Christine came to my office from the National Association of Manufacturers a few years after I came to the Senate. She brought with her the skills to balance private sector and public sector concerns regarding environmental, energy and transportation issues. Skills which I found invaluable during her years in my office. In addition to her outstanding policy skills, Chris provided a warm smile and enjoyable attitude to my Senate office. She was professional, intelligent, and articulate--but it was her enthusiasm and energy that was most infectious. Chris was dedicated to her job, the U.S. Senate, and the people of New Hampshire. Alex is a very fortunate man, indeed! Chris, on behalf of the people of New Hampshire and my entire staff, best wishes in all of your future endeavors. You deserve the best that life has to offer.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor three individuals who define heroic action and the selflessness of many of the citizens of the State of New Hampshire. While only teenagers, these three individuals acted with maturity and grace in saving the life of Carol Black of Newton, Massachusetts. Andy French, Eddie Wilson, and Libby O'Flaherty, all of Gilford, New Hampshire, were enjoying a quiet afternoon on the lake when they spotted Carol Black. Upon seeing the body of the unconscious woman in the water of Lake Winnepesaukee, the three youths selflessly came to her aid. They did not hesitate before saving her, a testament to their individual honor. Mr. President, in a society where we too often hear stories of youth violence, it is refreshing to hear of heroic deeds such as this. Too often, the actions of a few that have wandered from the fold overshadow those who have acted with continual kindness. It is one of the deepest pleasures for me to be able to rise today to honor these three individuals from my home area. Their kindness and dedication sets a precedent for other youth to follow. It is an honor to represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding work and accomplishments of Dr. Edwin Strong-Legs Richardson, Penobscot Indian Psychologist and President of Kiyan Indian Consultant Group. He is also known as Song-gan-la Gan-Naw, which is Penobscot for Strong-Legs and Kiyan Nakicinjin, which is Sioux for Flying Defender. Dr. Richardson's admirable work ethic began at the age of thirteen when he started supporting his family as a logger. He has long been a nationally and internationally renowned applied behavioral scientist, consultant, trainer, retired Army Officer, and Spiritual Leader. For over fifty years, Dr. Richardson has been an educator-trainer, including professional ski instructor, mountaineer, and military instructor. He was voted one of the top instructors at four different universities/colleges and number one at two institutions. As a combat Infantryman, Dr. Richardson fought the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese and served as the Commanding Officer of a Psychiatric Detachment in the Koran War. During his service, he was awarded for bravery under fire by his enlisted men and also received a commendation from General Westmoreland for an emergency landing of an airplane. Dr. Richardson earned a B.S. in Pre-Med from the University of New Hampshire and his Masters of Education in Physical and Mental Rehabilitation from Springfield College. He then went on to The Ohio State University to receive his Doctorate in Health Education and Counseling. I commend Dr. Richardson in raising public awareness of cultural diversity through his teaching, television programs, and books he has authored. He is an outstanding model for not only the Native American communities, but for all communities. Please join me in recognizing Dr. Edwin Strong-Legs Richardson.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Major Clinton E. Crosier, an Air Force Fellow on my staff, and commend his superior performance throughout this past year as a key member of my national security team. Major Crosier has been on active duty since 1988. During his 11-year career he has served as an Executive Office and Operations Management Officer, during which time he deployed to Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He has served as a Satellite Operations Flight Commander, overseeing the operations of part of the Air Force's multibillion dollar constellation of military communications satellites; and also as a Missile Operations Crew Commander and Flight Commander, supervising the training and certification of over 200 of the nuclear launch officers serving as the backbone of America's nuclear deterrent. During his career, his outstanding performance and professionalism has been recognized by his selection as the 90th Missile Wing's Staff Officer of the Year; 28th Air Division's Company Grade Officer of the Year and Lance P. Sijan Leadership Award Winner; three-time selection as unit Company Grade Officer of the Year; Unit Evaluator of the Year; and Unit Flight Commander of the Year. Major Crosier is also a Distinguished Graduate of the Air Force's Operations Management Officer school and Squadron Officer School, and graduated first in his class during satellite operations training and missile operations training. Upon arrival at the Pentagon just over a year ago, Major Crosier was tasked with building the Air Force's first ever Air Command and Staff College program for Congressional staff. This program, known as ACSC, is a 44-week graduate level program designed to provide mid-career officers with an in-depth understanding of the principles and application of air and space power. This was the first time in history this program had been offered to Congressional staff. In this capacity, Major Crosier was directly responsible for the graduation of 18 staff members from both the House and Senate in a ceremony last month over which the Secretary of the Air Force presided. During this ceremony, Secretary Peters heralded the Capitol Hill ACSC seminar Major Crosier built as a ``very important tool to cement the important partnership between the Air Force and the Congress . . . that will serve indefinitely as a bridge between our two great institutions.'' Additionally, Secretary Peters praised Major Crosier personally by describing his effort as an ``astronomical benefit'' to the Air Force. Most recently, Major Crosier was one of only 10 officers in the entire Air Force selected for the prestigious Legislative Fellowship program, through which he came to work as a member of my personal staff. The Air Force's Legislative Fellowship program is designed to identify the Air Force's highest caliber performers through an extremely competitive selection process. These individuals are then provided an in-depth education in the legislative processes of Congress through a one-year assignment in a Member's office, to prepare them for future senior leadership positions in the Air Force. Throughout the past year, he has been an invaluable resource to me, and a credit to the United States Air Force. Due to his vast experience in space and missile operations, Clint was able to provide me with expert assistance in my capacity as Chairman of the Strategic Force Subcommittee on Armed Services, providing technical expertise on a myriad of advanced space operations and missile defense programs. He quickly became an expert on dozens of programs critical to national security. Major Crosier also was responsible for performing topical research and preparing me for dozens of Armed Services Committee hearings, and provided a vital role on a number of wide ranging issues from the Department of Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Vieques Weapons Range. Major Crosier has been an outstanding addition to my staff, and has served with the highest degree of integrity and distinction. His performance has earned my highest praise, and he has distinguished himself as one of the top military officers I have had the great privilege to know during 16 years in Congress. Major Crosier has demonstrated himself to be one of the Air Force's brightest future senior leaders. As Major Crosier departs the Senate to serve on the personal staff of the Secretary of the Air Force, I extend my sincerest appreciation for his valuable and professional service. I will not only miss Clint's knowledge and efficiency, I will also miss his enthusiasm. Clint is an honorable and dedicated individual. I wish he, his wife Shelle, and their children, all the best in future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Beyond reprimand, and reserved for only the most serious cases, both the current and the reformed process contemplate that the Committee may make recommendations to the full Senate for Senate discipline. Under the current process, with respect to Members, the Committee has recommended or the full Senate has considered, either alone or in combination: financial restitution, disgorgement of funds, referral to a party conference for attention (regarding seniority or positions of responsibility), denouncement, censure, condemnation, and expulsion. The current system's use of a variety of terms, each of which has been considered by Senate historians to be censure, has resulted in some confusion about the Senate's intent in disciplining its Members. The proposed process would provide the Committee with a uniform set of recommendations for use either alone or in combination: financial restitution, referral to a party conference for attention (regarding seniority or positions of responsibility), censure, and expulsion. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the intent would be to use uniform terminology in recommending discipline to the Senate, although the Committee would retain needed flexibility in this regard. The proposal would also add financial restitution to the possible recommendations respecting a Senate officer or employee; suspension and dismissal are currently included. Finally, Mr. President the Reform Resolution would amend the Ethics Committee's enabling resolution to expressly provide for the Committee's educational function.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I appreciate the Vice Chairman's comments and, more importantly, acknowledge his assistance and support in bringing these Reform measures before the Senate. This Resolution is the product of a mutual and supportive effort on both sides of the aisle to improve the Ethics Committee's procedures. Let us briefly describe the changes included in this Reform. First, as Members may recall, the 1993 Study Commission was charged with studying the Ethics Committee's procedures and recommending needed changes. Such a Commission arose, a large part, out of the universal observation by those who had participated in Ethics Committee proceedings that: (1) the procedures were unnecessarily confusing and complex; and (2) that this created the potential for unfairness to those affected and contributed to a lack of confidence by those observing the process. In its hearings, the 1993 Study Commission heard from three distinguished former chairs of the Ethics Committee, attorneys who have practiced before and with the Ethics Committee, and experts on ethics issues and procedures from academia and public organizations with interests in legislative ethics. The resulting Commission Report, issued in 1994, recommended several changes designed to enhance public confidence in the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duty of self-discipline. The Reform Resolution now before the Senate includes those Commission recommendations specifically designed to simplify and streamline the Senate Ethics process. These reforms are intended to expedite the handling of ethics complaints in a way which should make the process fairer and more understandable. By eliminating the current unnecessary, multi-stage process for fact gathering, and using a single phase ``preliminary inquiry'' for that purpose, the process will make a lot more sense, and should save some time. If, after the facts are in, there is substantial evidence with causes the Ethics Committee to conclude that a violation may have occurred, then changes would be issued, and an ``adjudicative review'' of the evidence would ensue. This simplified process will be the same, whether the complaint is sworn or unsworn, and there will continue to be no procedural formalities surrounding the filing of a complaint with the Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of Vice Chairman Reid and other Members of the Ethics Committee, I am pleased to submit the ``Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999'' for Senate consideration. This Resolution will implement key recommendations of the Senate Ethics Study Commission of 1993, a body which included among its members both the current distinguished Majority Leader and the distinguished Minority Leader.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of Vice Chairman Reid and other members of the Ethics Committee, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record in accordance with Senate Rule XXVI the Ethics Committee's Supplementary Procedural Rules, as amended November 5, 1999, the date of the Senate's adoption of the Senate Ethics Procedure Reform Resolution of 1999. These amended Rules of Procedure will implement the Ethics Committee process changes effectuated by the Reform Resolution, which was designed to simplify, streamline, and improve the Ethics Committee process as recommended by the Senate Ethics Study Commission in its Report (S. Prt. 103-71) to the Senate Leadership ``Recommending Revisions to the Procedures of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.'' Pursuant to Senate Rule XXVI, these amended Supplementary Procedural Rules will be effective as of the date of publication in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent to have these amended rules printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this bill would redesignate the Coastal Barrier Resources System as the ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System.'' As you all know, my friend, the late Senator John Chafee, worked tirelessly to ensure that the natural resources of this nation are protected. I can think of no tribute that is more fitting than to rename the Coastal Resources System after him. Whenever we discussed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act it was not unusual for Senator Chafee to comment that ``There are times around here that we all do things right, and this is one of them.'' Senator Chafee is considered the father of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and it epitomizes the common sense approach he took in protecting our environment. When Senator Chafee introduced this legislation in 1990 he recognized that the federal government didn't have the financial resources to buy this land, as well as recognizing the need for Congress to find a unique and different way to protect our sensitive coastal barriers. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act does just that. The act prohibits the Federal government from subsidizing flood insurance, and restricts other federal expenditures and financial assistance, such as beach replenishment, that encourage the development of our coastal barriers. All to often taxpayers are asked to subsidize the rebuilding of homes in these sensitive storm and flood prone areas not just once, but two, three, even four times. Restricting funding for Federal programs will minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful expenditure of Federal funds, and protect the natural resources associated with coastal barriers. As I said last week on the floor, this act is vintage Chafee: balanced, fiscally prudent, and environmentally protective. The Coastal Barrier Resources System protects approximately 3 million acres and 2,500 shoreline miles from development subsidized by the federal government. Development of coastal barrier land decreases their ability to absorb the force of storms, buffer the mainland, and provide critical habitat to numerous plant and animal species. The devastating floods of Hurricane Floyd are yet another reminder of the susceptibility of coastal development to the power of nature. Senator Chafee was instrumental in reauthorizing the legislation in 1990 and had recently introduced a new reauthorization measure. By renaming the Coastal Barrier Resources Act after Senator Chafee, this legislation honors the invaluable contributions the Senator made to the environment during his tenure in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement in support of this legislation from the Coast Alliance, a network of more than 500 organizations working to protect America's coastal resources, be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In closing I would like to leave you with a quote from President Teddy Roosevelt that Senator Chafee used in 1990 when he introduced the bill: The prosperity of our people depends on the energy and intelligence with which our natural resources are used. It is equally clear that these resources are the final basis of national power and perpetuity. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Exhibit 1 Statement of Jacqueline Savitz, Executive Director, Coast Alliance, on the John Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Act The Coast Alliance leads a network composed of over 500 organizations along America's coasts working to protect our priceless coastal resources. The Alliance worked with Senator John Chafee to help pass the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982 and to expand it in 1990. The Alliance has continuously defended and built support for the Coastal Barrier Resources System since that time. Coast Alliance strongly supports this bill to rename the Coastal Barrier Resource System in Senator Chafee's honor. Senator John Chafee's work to create and protect the CBRS was unequaled, leaving a precious legacy for this and hopefully future generations. The Coast Alliance commends the cosponsors of this bill for recognizing Senator Chafee's work by renaming the Act and the System. The John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resource Act should stand as a testament to the vision and perseverance of Senator Chafee in defense of barrier islands. Prior to his death, Senator Chafee authored a bill to reauthorize the Act and included provisions that would allow for citizens to make voluntary additions to the System. Coast Alliance urges the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate to make quick work of Chafee's bill, passing it as he wrote it, and as soon as is feasible. Finally, Coast Alliance wishes to recognize that Senator Chafee's appreciation of nature extended beyond barrier islands, and his work to protect our National Wildlife Refuges also should be recognized. Coast Alliance urges that the Committee consider adding to its memorial by naming a National Wildlife Refuge in Senator John Chafee's memory. The Board of Directors and staff of the Coast Alliance wish to convey their sympathy to the Chafee family, and to the Senator's colleagues and staff. We thank Chairman Smith and the Environment and Public Work Committee for their leadership on this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, there have been a number of my colleagues who have spoken about a wonderful man and a good friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee. I will take a few moments to talk about John Chafee the friend, John Chafee the legislator, and the man who served as a role model for all in public service, regardless of the partisan affiliation, ideology, or views on any particular issues. I happened to be in New Hampshire yesterday morning--ironically, discussing the possibilities of attending a function in New England honoring Senator Chafee--when I heard the tragic news of his passing. It was, indeed, a shock. I saw John in his wheelchair on the subway after the last vote on Friday. He was engaged in conversation with some constituents, visitors to the Capitol. I didn't interrupt him because I didn't want to interrupt that conversation. I wish I had. That would have been the last opportunity to say goodbye to him. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, with Ginny and the children and the grandchildren, but also with Senator Chafee's very devoted staff, both on the Environment and Public Works Committee and in his personal office. Others on the floor have reviewed Senator Chafee's record of achievements. It is an inspiring record. Others have dwelled on it extensively. It stands in stark contrast to what many Americans today think about politics, politicians, and political leaders. I want to emphasize the qualities of public service and patriotism that motivated John Chafee. In the spirit of Jimmy Stewart, who believed that good leaders should occupy the offices here, John Chafee was in that tradition. As a young man of 20, John left college to enlist in the Marine Corps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He fought at Guadalcanal, and after that he resumed his studies. After the war, he earned an undergraduate degree from Yale and a law degree from Harvard. He again served his country in the Korean conflict where he commanded Dog Company, a 200-man rifle unit in the first marine division. That is not easy duty. After serving his country with honor in the military, he embarked on what would be another honorable career for John Chafee; 6 years in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, including the rise to the post of minority leader. He ran for the Governor of Rhode Island and was elected by a 398-vote margin in 1962. His constituents recognized John Chafee's leadership, integrity, and intelligence by rewarding him with two more terms as Governor--in both cases by the largest margins in the State's history. In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed John Chafee as Secretary of the Navy where he served with and was succeeded by our mutual friend, John Warner. John Chafee was elected to the Senate in the bicentennial year of 1976 as the first Republican to be elected Senator from Rhode Island in 46 years. His work as a Senator was rewarded with reelection in 1982, 1988, 1994, and he would have been reelected again in 2000 had that been in the cards. He was looking forward to spending more time with Ginny and the grandchildren. I think that is the greatest tragedy of all, that they will miss a wonderful husband and a wonderful father and grandfather. I first got to know John Chafee when I was elected to the Senate in 1990. I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee where he was a ranking member and then chairman. We worked together on all of the environmental bills that come down the pike: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and, most importantly, on Superfund, where we shared the frustrations of working and fighting the good fight, where we had differences on the other side of the aisle. But John was a patient legislator in spite of the frustrations, in spite of the times he could have been angry--politically angry--at those on the other side of the aisle. He never was. One couldn't get him to say one cross word about anybody on that committee no matter what. He wouldn't do it. I was taking the subway and saw John talking to a person, perhaps posing for a picture. And sometimes the people were not sure who he was. One time a person asked: Do you know which Senator that was, sir? And I said: I do. That is Senator John Chafee. They said: What do you know about him? I said: He is the nicest man in the Senate, and don't forget it. He was. He looked after his colleagues. In 1996, when I ran for reelection, there were attacks on my environmental record that were not justified. He came to my aid in New Hampshire and spent a day up there with me deflecting those attacks. Although he was criticized for doing it, he did it anyway. He was glad to do it. I will never forget it. Both New Englanders, Chafee and Smith, both veterans, both committed to protecting the environment, John a far greater leader than I in that regard, we did have a lot in common. We disagreed on issues, as well. If there was anyone who ever lived who perfected the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable, it was John Chafee. Many times I marveled at his ability to participate in a heated debate, in close quarters, sometimes without losing his composure and his good humor. One of the qualities I will always remember about John was his demeanor and good humor. When I first came to the Senate--and Senator Warner referred to this yesterday--one of his favorite expressions was, ``Oh, dear.'' Senator Warner spoke eloquently about it yesterday. I had a personal experience with ``Oh, dear'' when I first came to the Senate in 1990 and we reorganized the Senate. I didn't know people that well. I was getting pressure from some Senators on one quarter to vote for one person for leadership and others were suggesting I vote for Senator Chafee. As I went into the last moments before the vote in the Republican conference, I still had not made up my mind. Finally I decided. My decision was to vote against Senator Chafee. So I said: I have to tell him this. My conscience would bother me too much if I didn't walk up and tell him before the vote because it was a secret ballot. I walked up and I said: John, I just want to let you know I decided to vote for the other guy, and he just said, ``Oh, dear.'' And he lost by one vote. It really was the beginning of a long friendship which I will always cherish. There will be a lot of tributes to Senator Chafee over the next several months. None of them will do justice to the memory of his legacy. I would like to propose one myself today, as one small way to deal with that legacy. As we all know, throughout his career John fought for the protection of our natural resources. One initiative many Americans may not appreciate that was sponsored by Senator Chafee in 1982 was the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. I know enacting that into law was one of the proudest moments of Senator Chafee's tenure here. For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with this act, its primarily purpose is to restrict Federal expenditures and financial assistance that encouraged the development of undeveloped coastal barriers. Development in ecologically critical coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts not only damaged fish and other natural resources but often resulted in the loss of human life as well. The act permitted Federal expenditures for energy resource development, military activities, channel improvements, conservation activities, emergencies, navigation aids, and scientific research projects. It permitted, but did not require, interested private landowners to enter the system on a voluntary basis. The Coastal Barrier Resources System comprises approximately 3 million acres and 2,500 shoreline miles. This act was vintage Chafee. It was balanced. It was fiscally prudent. It was environmentally protective. I can think of no more fitting tribute to Senator John Chafee than to name the system created by that legislation the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. I intend to introduce legislation to that effect and look forward to its quick passage with the support of my colleagues. In closing, I say to Ginny and to the children and grandchildren, our thoughts and prayers are with you. All of us are proud to have called your husband, your father, and your grandfather, a friend. He was a decent, wonderful man. I am proud to call him a friend. I would like to close reading Psalm 15, which the Chafee staff read in an effort to comfort one another about their leader. The Psalm is as follows: Lord, who may dwell in your tabernacle? who may abide upon your holy hill? Whoever leads a blameless life and does what is right, who speaks the truth from his heart. There is no guile upon his tongue; he does no evil to his friend; he does not heap contempt upon his neighbor. In his sight the wicked is rejected, but he honors those who fear the Lord. He has sworn to do no wrong and does not take back his word. He does not give his money in hope of gain, nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. Whoever does these things shall never be overthrown. It is a wonderful tribute from the Chafee staff to their friend and their boss. I don't think it could be said any better than that. We will miss you, John, but we are a lot richer because you were here with us.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FITZGERALD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senator Boxer and I made an attempt to come to accommodation on this amendment. We were not able to do that. As you heard from my presentation on the floor, we know that fetal body parts are being sold in violation of law. Abortions may be induced in certain ways, such as possibly partial birth, or perhaps even live births in order to have good fetal body tissue to sell. This is a serious problem. Clearly, it is a big industry. This amendment requires disclosure of certain information prior to the transfer of any of this fetal body tissue or parts in induced abortions. That is what it does. It is against the law to sell fetal tissue for research. It is against Federal law. This amendment allows HHS to track these transfers to enforce current law. You can donate tissue, but you can't sell it. It is being sold. We need the sun to shine in on this industry to find out what is happening. It protects the privacy of all women undergoing abortions and the doctors providing them. But this is something that is occurring within the industry. It is a very elaborate network of abortion providers getting those body parts to a wholesaler who then in turn is selling those body parts to universities and other research institutions. It simply let's the light in. That is all it does.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is my intention at some point later on in the proceedings of the debate on this partial-birth abortion ban bill to offer an amendment that would bring some sunshine and light into the abortion industry in terms of disclosure. As I indicated last night in a rather lengthy presentation on the Senate floor, the sale of fetal body parts is illegal. Ironically, President Clinton himself signed the legislation banning that. Yet it is taking place in America. I think we need to look into this matter in great detail. The purpose of my amendment is to provide that we have disclosure so we know who is selling, who is buying, what is being sold, and whether or not laws are being violated. As many of you know, several years ago, in 1994 and 1995, I took to the floor of the Senate on this legislation. As a matter of fact, I wrote the original partial-birth abortion ban bill. I took a lot of heat for it. I received a lot of attacks from the media, a lot of attacks from some colleagues, and certainly from the abortion industry. President Clinton came to my State and campaigned against me in my reelection efforts, as did Vice President Gore and Mrs. Clinton. They had a regular celebrity group up there making pretty much of a big deal out of the fact that I had been this ``extremist'' who stood on the Senate floor and exposed partial-birth abortion. I didn't even know it existed 6 years ago. The interesting thing to me is, why is it that those of us who are opposed to this barbaric procedure are ``extremists'' and those who perform it are not? They are ``thoughtful liberals,'' I guess. It is amazing what we can do with semantics and, with a little disingenuous discussion, how we can change the debate in this country. Senator Santorum and others have talked extensively on what happens in a partial-birth abortion. I am not going to go into all of that. But I will say this: It is infanticide. It is killing children in some cases outside of the womb. We have a child who is 90-percent born but for the head, and under the so-called Roe v. Wade law, unfortunately, that child, because the head has not come through the birth canal, can be killed by using a barbaric means of needle and sucking the brains from the child. It is a horrible procedure which has been discussed here in great detail. It is amazing to me that we are ``extremists,'' we who are exposing it, and those who do it are not. But that is the way we are with semantics. When I came down to the floor several years ago, I brought a little plastic medical doll. When the press was finished writing about it, it was a ``plastic fetus.'' I was accused of showing aborted children on the floor of the Senate when in fact I showed a picture of premature babies who had been born who had lived. But as many times as I corrected papers such as the New York Times, they still couldn't get it right. This debate has been pretty harsh at times. Frankly, it is very graphic. My goal is not to try to revisit all of that but to try to get into your heart, if I cannot your face, on this issue. We all have very strong feelings about this. But I have to believe most Americans are appalled, sickened, angered, and disgusted that such a brutal act would take place in this country to be carried out against a defenseless child. Yet we condone it. As I said last night on the floor, if every SPCA in America announced tomorrow they were going to kill all of their dogs and cats, unwanted cats and dogs, puppies, kittens, by using this procedure with no anesthetic, putting a needle to the back of the head and sucking the brains from those animals, I guarantee there would be a firestorm. There would be people protesting in front of the SPCA. But we do it to our children. Then we say we are surprised when our children go out and kill other children, when they get into trouble with drugs and all the other things that sometimes happen to our children in society. What are we telling them? What is the message we are giving them? We are telling them: You are worthless. We tell them: You go to school today, Johnny, be a good boy, and we will abort your sister with this horrible procedure while you are in school. That is what we are telling them. I was told from a very early age that when you are around children and talk, they listen. They hear you. A lot of times, you ask a 3-year old. I can discuss this or that, and they don't care what I am saying. They are not paying any attention. They are playing with their toys. You would be surprised at what they hear. I tell you what they are hearing when they hear this debate. They are hearing: We are worthless; nobody cares about us. We can just go ahead and abort you, kill you--you are just to be discarded in a trash can-- and go right on about our business, keep working on our jobs, having a nice vacation and our 401(k)s; everything is fine. We just go ahead and kill babies. The vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy women with healthy babies. Dr. Martin Haskell, who is the leading practitioner of partial-birth abortions, said: I will be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective in that 20- to 24-week range, and, in my particular case, 20 percent are for genetic reasons and 80 percent are purely elective. Mr. President, 24 weeks is 6 months. I received a telephone call in one of my offices several weeks ago. A 9-year-old girl relayed to my staff this message: I want to thank the Senator for being pro-life. I'm 9 years old and I would like him to tell America when he has the chance that my mother gave birth to me prematurely when she was 5 months pregnant. I'm here talking to you now. Please tell your fellow Americans not to kill children like me. That is pretty powerful stuff. When President Clinton held his press conference and said he had five women at the press conference who had all undergone health-saving partial-birth abortions, one of the women later involved in that press conference admitted her abortion was not necessary at all. As far as her health was concerned, it was not medically necessary. She said on a radio show soon after the press conference: This procedure was not performed in order to save my life. This procedure was elective. That is considered an elective procedure, as were the procedures of all the women who were at the White House veto ceremony. The sad truth is we will pass this bill; that is the good news. The bad news is it will be vetoed again for the third time by this President because we need 67 votes to override it and we don't have them. That is sad because thousands more children are going to die in the next few years because President William Jefferson Clinton won't sign this bill--thousands--and they will die brutally. We are responsible for it in this Senate because we can't get 67 men and women with the guts. Does it really take guts to stand up, go down to the well and say, aye, to ban this horrible procedure? We don't have them. And Bill Clinton has the pen. That is the Constitution. I want everybody to know, three votes, maybe four--probably three-- will decide whether thousands of children live or die. Hopefully, we keep that in mind as the debate moves forward. I don't enjoy talking about abortions and about killing children. Why are we on the Senate floor doing this? Let me state why. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 that said anyone can have an abortion any time they want for any reason. Over 4,000 babies, 4,100 to be exact, die every day from legalized abortion; not from partial-birth abortion, to be fair, but from abortions. Many of them are partial-birth abortions. When I first took the floor on this issue several years ago, I was told it might be a dozen or two dozen at the most, in extreme cases-- hydrocephalic babies and other horrible deformities were the only times they were aborting. I was knocked by some, certainly in the media, that I made a mountain out of a molehill, this was not prevalent in our society, and why was I doing all this. Now we find from the admission of their own people who perform the abortions that partial-birth abortions are very frequent. I will point out in a few moments why they are frequent. I will point out some of the dirty little secrets of this industry. It will shock Members. It shocked me. Mr. President, 40 million children have died since 1973, since Roe v. Wade, from abortion--not partial-birth abortion but all abortions. There are 260 million Americans. Roughly one-seventh, about 15 percent, of America's population has been executed through abortion; never to be a mom, never to be a dad, never to be a doctor. Who knows. Maybe one of those kids could have been a scientist who found a cure for cancer-- never have the chance to be happy, never have a chance to fulfill their dreams. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Down the drain. They didn't have a choice. I hear a lot about choice in this debate. What choice do they have? It would be interesting to have in the gallery some of the 40 million. They could be sitting up here today. I wonder how they would vote on this bill if they could vote. I think the vote would be different. I don't think there is any question about it. Sometimes we make judgments about why a woman, mother, should have a right to have an abortion. I am reminded of a story I mentioned last night on the floor. I will mention it again because I know some missed it. I ask this question. Answer silently. If you knew a woman who had three children born blind, then she had two more children born deaf, a sixth child born mentally retarded, and she was pregnant again and she had syphilis, would you recommend she have an abortion? If you said yes, guess who you just killed. Beethoven. He made a pretty fair contribution to the world, as I recall, but we would have killed Beethoven. How many Beethovens have we killed in those 40 million? How many great baseball players such as my colleague presiding, have we killed? How many entertainers? We will never know. But we did it. We did it. One of the things about America, people want to blame somebody else. My kid gets in trouble; it is not my fault; it is somebody else's fault. We are responsible for this. We go to work; everything is fine. But don't worry about those 40 million kids--gone. Mr. President, 95 percent of those abortions are used for birth control. They were totally elective. One to two percent are done because the life of the mother was threatened or she was perhaps raped or some other horrible thing. That means that more than 38 million abortions are performed for reasons that boil down to one word: Convenience. It is convenient, isn't it? How convenient it is. Mom was too old; mom was too young; mom was in high school; mom was in college; mom needed to work. Who knows. I want to speak directly to any woman out there now listening to me who may be pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. There is help out there. One does not need to do this. Do not listen to those who say that is the only alternative. There is another alternative. If anyone wants help, there are professionals to help. Call my office or the office of any other pro-life Senator. We will steer anyone to the right people to get that help. I beg women to do it. They will be glad they did when they look back 10, 15, 20 years from now. They will be glad. I had the privilege of helping to raise funds for a home for unwed mothers, a clinic in Baton Rouge, LA, from a woman who is a saint on Earth. Her name is Dorothy Wallace. She saved 10,000 women since 1973, advising them to choose life. If you want something emotional, attend one of her meetings and see those 10-, 12-, 15-year-old boys and girls sitting there in the audience applauding Dorothy Wallace. You can have that experience too, I would say to any young woman out there; we can help you. There are professionals who will help you get through this. Choose life. Let me say to the three or four Senators we need, who might change their votes--I am always an optimist; you never know--pick up your grandchild, or your child, if you are that young. Most of us are too old to have young children in here--not everybody. But pick up your own children, hold them in your arms, and ask yourself this question: How close is that little child in the birth canal that you are voting to kill, how close is that child to that little grandchild of yours you are now holding? Six months? Six years? I don't know. But look at that little grandchild. He or she has feet, has a face or body. So does that little child being executed in a partial-birth abortion. I am going to talk for a few moments on the subject of my amendment, which is on the marketing and sale of fetal tissue from aborted babies. This is a gruesome story, but I want to tell you, it is happening. I say to my colleagues, this is happening in America, and it is disgusting. It is illegal, it is immoral, and it is unethical. If somebody says, What does that have to do with partial-birth abortion? in my amendment we will find out whether partial-birth abortions are being used, in fact, to sell babies' body parts. Like partial-birth abortion, fetal tissue sales are morally and ethically reprehensible. It is a practice I hadn't heard of until recently. I couldn't believe we did it. But it does show how far this industry has gone beyond the ethical boundaries that even most pro- choice Americans believe is legitimate. Also, like partial-birth abortion, this industry has taken a practice, the selling of fetal body parts, which is illegal under Federal criminal law, and has created a loophole to allow them to do it. There is a loophole in partial-birth abortion, too. I coined the term ``head loophole'' because, you see, if the arms or the toes or the trunk or the leg or anything else exits the birth canal, it is not a baby yet. Somebody created a loophole, legal mumbo-jumbo. It makes lawyers rich and kills children. Ironically, if you turn the baby around--and they have done that; the abortionists do turn the baby around, so it is a breach birth, so the head is last--by doing that, under the law of Roe v. Wade, they can kill the child. If it is the other way around and the head exits first, they cannot. Is the head less baby than the torso and the legs and the toes? You be the judge. Stabbing a baby in the back of the head is murder, infanticide. Call it whatever you want; that is what it is. It is done for convenience. We are going to pay a severe price for this one day. The bottom line is, they call it medicine. Are you kidding me? Let's go back to the sale of body parts and how it relates here. Look at this chart. We see a woman walking into an abortion clinic. She is obviously pregnant. She is in distress. She is emotional. She is mixed up. ``What do I do? I don't want this child. I am in a mess.'' Let me tell you what happens when she comes in there. In a room adjacent to where the abortion is to be performed usually, or someplace on the premises, is a person called the wholesaler or the harvester of the child's organs. This is what is going on in this industry. That person or persons--represented here by two organizations, Opening Lines and Anatomic Gift Foundation--sit there. They have a work order in their hands. Bear in mind the brutality and the gruesomeness of this. Here is this woman obviously pregnant, obviously in distress, sitting there. I don't know whether they have a one-way mirror or a one-way glass or what. Perhaps they just come in, cruise in, take a good look at her to see if she is healthy. But they have a work order. They have already done this. They did prep it up. You now find out this woman has a normal fetus; she is not sick; the baby is fine. That is what they find out. While she is still pregnant with a living child, still going through the turmoil of an abortion decision, they have a work order on her blood type, on how pregnant she is, what body parts they want. I am going to prove all that to you in a moment. That is the brutality of it. Then they make some kind of deal. They say it is fee for service, but it is selling body parts--I will go into that for a moment--the buyer or buyers, universities, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, NIH, private researchers. This is against the law, and I read the law last night. There are four illegal and immoral things that happen with this issue. The first is, the current law prohibits receiving any valuable consideration for the tissue of aborted children, but it is happening. Second, live births are occurring at these clinics. Live births are occurring at these clinics. It is the law of every State, when a live birth occurs, to save the life of that child if possible. But this is not happening either. Our tax dollars are being used to fund Planned Parenthood and NIH. On the one hand, if you are pro-life, you are funding Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars, and on the other hand you are funding the research on aborted children. We will go down and finish this chart. Let's go through the steps. The buyer orders the fetal body parts from the wholesaler; that is, the buyer, the university, and so forth. The clinic provides the space for the wholesaler to procure the body parts. The wholesaler faxes an order to the clinic while the baby is still alive inside the mother. The wholesaler technicians harvest the organs--skin, limbs, et cetera. The clinic donates fetal body parts to the wholesaler who, in turn, pays the clinic a ``site fee'' for access to the babies. Then the wholesaler donates the fetal body parts to the buyer, and then the buyer reimburses the wholesaler for the government retrieving the fetal body parts. That is a bunch of gobbledygook that means nothing but one thing--the sale of little babies chopped into pieces. This whole process is being thought out and carefully calculated while this woman is sitting there in the clinic. Tell me the abortionists care about the welfare of a woman. Some estimates say the market for this is in the $420 million range. Some say it is as high as $1 billion. I know it is difficult for those in the galleries to see it, but on television you will be able to see. This is a price list for body parts. I want you to understand what is happening here. This clinic, where this young woman in trouble goes in an agonizing, gut-wrenching decision as to whether to have an abortion or not, has a price list they are going to provide to the marketer for her baby's body parts even before she gets there. In addition, they have a work order prepared on her as to what it is that is her background, what parts we can provide. Then they tell us this is just fee for services. If it is fee for services, why is it $600 for an intact cadaver and $325 for a spinal cord? I am not a doctor, but I assume it takes a lot more time to extract a spinal cord from a 2- or 3-pound baby than it does to put a cadaver in a box and mail it somewhere. We have a brochure. I will read directly from the brochure. The brochure is the Opening Lines. Those are the sellers. Here is what the brochure says: We have simplified the process for procuring fetal tissue. We do not require a copy of your approval of summary or of your research, and you are not required to cite Opening Lines as the source of tissue when you publish your work. I guess not; it is against the law. If you like our service, you will tell your colleagues, word of mouth. We are very pleased to provide you with our services. Our goal is to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it. We are professionally staffed and directed. We have over 10 years experience in tissue harvesting and preservation. Our full-time medical director is active in all phases, and we look forward to serving you. That is what is given to the wholesaler while this poor woman sits there deciding whether or not to have an abortion. It is a great country, isn't it? Let me explain to you how this all works directly from the horse's mouth. I am going to quote from a woman we will call Kelly. She was a wholesaler. She was a buyer. She said: We were never employees of the abortion clinic. We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in and procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the patient charts. Then we would go and look at the patient charts. Kind of like going out and looking at a steer on the hoof, isn't it? We had to screen out anyone who had . . . fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for. Probably only 10 percent of fetuses were ruled out for anomalies. The rest were healthy donors. That is showing a lot of compassion for the woman, isn't it? Let me talk a little bit more about what other things happen in this clinic. The abortionists are having problems. It is not fun to be an abortionist anymore. The pro-life advertising and, frankly, the wake-up call to doctors and physicians have shown that abortions are declining in this country. This $300 to $1,000 they are going to charge that woman who walks in is not enough. They cannot live on that anymore. They have to make money from the fetus, from the aborted child. What happens? Here is what the abortionists are saying, their own observations: Abortion has failed to escape its back-alley associations . . . [It is the] dark side of medicine . . . Even when abortion became legal, it was still considered dirty. And on and on. One abortionist said: [Abortion is] a nasty, dirty, yukky thing and I always come home angry. Organized medicine has been sympathetic to abortion--not abortionists. What had to happen is they had to come up with another way to make money, and they just did: selling body parts. Warren Hern is the author of the most widely used textbook on abortion procedures. Dr. Hern says: A number of practitioners attempt to ensure live fetuses after late abortions so that genetic tests can be conducted on them. Hello? Are you listening? Live fetuses should be ensured. It is Dr. Hern's position that ``practitioners do this without offering a woman the option of fetal demise before abortion in a morally unacceptable manner since they place research before the good of their patients. That is a dirty little secret you are not hearing about. In talking about live births, I said last night on the Senate floor, I have worked this issue for 15 years. I have witnessed the birth of my three children. It was the most beautiful thing I will ever experience. But this brief paragraph I am going to read you now is the worst that I have encountered in my lifetime of working on this issue. How anybody can sit anywhere watching and hearing what I am going to say to you now and say it is all right to allow this to continue in this country is beyond me. But it happens, and it is going to happen tomorrow and the next day and the day after that until we stop it. Listen to this from a woman who witnessed this: The doctor walked into the lab and set a steel pan on the table. ``Got you some good specimens,'' he said. ``Twins.'' The technician looked down at a pair of perfectly formed 24- week-old fetuses, moving and gasping for air. Except for a few nicks from the surgical tongs that had pulled them out-- That, my colleagues, could very well be a partial-birth abortion-- they seemed uninjured. The technician-- The technician is the buyer of the body parts-- said, ``Wait a minute, there is something wrong here. They are moving. I don't do this. That's not in my contract.'' She watched the doctor take a bottle of sterile water and fill the pan until the water ran up over the babies' mouths and noses. Then she left the room. ``I couldn't watch those fetuses moving, she recalls. That's when I decided it was wrong.'' If that is not murder, can somebody please tell me what it is? What is it? Do you realize what we are doing in this country? We are aborting and murdering our posterity. Here is a headline from a transcript from a TV station in Columbus, OH, April 20, 1999: Partial-birth Abortion Baby Survives 3 Hours. A woman 5 months pregnant comes to Women's Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio, to get a partial-birth abortion. During the 3 days it takes to have the procedure, she began to have stomach pains and was rushed to a nearby hospital. Within minutes, she was giving birth. Nurse Shelly Lowe in an emergency room at the hospital was shocked when the baby took a gasp of air. [Lowe said] ``I just held her and it really got to me that anybody could do that to a baby . . . I rocked her and talked to her because I felt that no one should die alone.'' The little girl survived 3 hours. Mark Lally, Director of Ohio Right to Life believes this is why partial-birth abortions should be banned. We have a chance to do it right now, today, ban it, stop it, and we are not going to do it because we are going to fail to get three or four people to say enough is enough. How much more can we take? Abortion isn't something that just happens early in pregnancy. It happens in all stages of pregnancy. And it is legal under Roe v. Wade. Some States have banned them. Give them credit for that. But we have the chance right here. A vote means something for a change around here. This isn't about a budget. It is not about how much taxes you are going to pay. It is not about whether you are going to get your Social Security check. It is about life. It is about whether or not a baby is going to die tomorrow and another one and another one. We can stop it with three or four votes, if three or four people have the courage to say enough is enough. My God, Jill Stanek, the nurse at Chicago's Christ Hospital, has openly admitted that live births occur at her hospital, live births from abortions. The hospital staff offers comfort care which amounts to holding the child until it dies. There is testimony after testimony of it, live birth after live birth. I am not going to go through it all. It is pretty bad. One little quote here: ``Once a fetus is born, it's no longer a fetus, it's a child,'' said George Annas, a professor of health law at the Boston University School of Public Health. ``And you have to treat it that way.'' Aborting a viable fetus is against the law in most States unless the mother's life or health is in danger. ``If you're not sure, you can't do it,'' Annas said. Nurses at Christ Hospital give ``comfort care'' to the aborted fetuses. ``Their skin is so thin you can see the heart beating through their chest,'' said nurse Jill Stanek. ``It's not like they kick a lot and fight for air. They're weak.'' This is going on in this industry every day. As I speak, children are dying. And we can stop it right here with four of you changing your votes. What is the big deal? You are going to lose a couple of votes from the abortion industry? Hey, those votes are worth the sacrifice for these children. The ``dreaded complication''--that is what they call it. The ``dreaded complication''--oh, my God, we have a live child. What are we going to do? I tell you what they do. They drown them in pans. They leave them in linen closets, gasping for air hours at a time, and sometimes, if there is somebody with some compassion in the place, they will hold them in their arms until they die. This is America--the ``dreaded complication.'' You know what some of the abortionists say? Reporting abortion live births is like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit. What is the gain? You know: Sure. Hey, we had a live birth here. My goodness, that is embarrassing. Now we have come to this; not only do we have a live birth, if we let it die, we can sell its body parts, and we can make a fortune that we could not make off the woman because she could not afford to pay me. That is what we are doing. I am going to expose this filthy, disgusting fraud as many times and as often as I can. I am going to get the sunshine into this industry. I am going to get to the bottom of it; and I am going to stop it, if it is the last thing I do. And it may be, but I am going to do it. You have to have a feticidal dose of saline solution. It is almost a breach of contract not to. Otherwise what are you going to do? Hand her back a baby that's been aborted and has questionable damage? Another one says: If a baby is rejected in abortion and lives, then it's a person under the Constitution. I witnessed it. Gianna Jessen was aborted. She is now 26, 27 years old. I saw her sing ``Amazing Grace'' before 1,000 people 4 or 5 years ago. She said: I forgive my mother. She made a mistake, and I forgive her. But please, help other mothers get through this so what happened to me doesn't have to happen to somebody else. Change your votes, colleagues--four of you. Let's once--just one time--let's beat President Clinton on something. He has gotten away with everything--everything. He always wins. We never win against him. Just one time, let's override his veto. This guy says: I find late abortions pretty heavy weather both for myself and for my patients. I guess it is heavy weather; it is real heavy weather. I want to go back to these charts. This is an emotional experience. Anybody who can't be passionate on this issue when we are talking about the lives of children--and all we need is four or five votes on the floor of this Senate to stop this killing; that is all we need. Look here. These are the charts. What does it say? NIH, that is where this stuff is going. It is illegal, but it is going there anyway; and we are paying for it. Do you know what it says here? Ten minutes from the fetal cadaver, within 10 minutes they want it on ice. Nobody could get a cadaver on ice in 10 minutes--unless it is a live birth or a partial birth. And I will prove it to you. One method of killing children is saline. That has to go into the amniotic sack and poison the baby. Another one is D&E, where you chop the child to pieces with an instrument in the womb so it comes out in so many pieces the nurse has to assemble them all in a towel to be sure all the pieces are there so there is nothing left inside the woman. The third method is one here called digoxin, DIG, where the needle goes into the heart of the baby and dissolves the organs. That is a nice way to die. Let me ask you a question. Those of you, those three or four of you that I pray to God will get on this vote, let me ask you a question: If you are buying body parts, and you need one of those body parts to do research can you take a body part that has been hacked to pieces in the D&E method? No. You know it. Can you take a body part from some baby who has been poisoned with saline or had their tissues dissolved from digoxin? No. There are only two methods left: partial birth and live birth. That is where they are getting the tissue. Wake up, America. That is where they are getting the tissue. And here is the proof right here. Here is the work order: ``Please send list of current frozen tissues.'' ``No digoxin donors.'' They are telling them: Give us a live birth. Give us a partial birth. We don't want any babies like this. We can't use their organs. This is happening in America, and I am sick of it. And I am sick of losing every year. ``Prefer no DIG.'' Over and over again, the requests would mention the tissue must be fresh. It is over and over again. You see it everywhere. Here is another one: Remove specimen and prepare within 15 minutes, 10 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is, you cannot get this kind of tissue the way they want it without a live birth or partial birth. That is a fact: Dirty little secrets, in a dirty, disgusting industry that is profiting at the expense of women who are in a horrible situation, and then selling the body parts--the ultimate humiliation of this poor aborted child--and we cannot get 4 people, we cannot get 67 votes on the floor of the Senate to override this President. What would Daniel Webster, at whose desk I sit, say? What would our founders say? What would Jefferson say, who said life first, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I could go on and on. I am going to stop because I am mentally exhausted, to be candid about it. There is sexual abuse of these women. They are lying there on the table, and people are making mocking remarks about their genitalia. I could go on and on with stories about it. It is disgusting. I am going to shine the light into this industry, and I am going to expose it. I am going to stop it. If I have to do it myself, I am going to stop it. If it is not an amendment, it will be a bill; whatever it takes, it is going to provide for full disclosure. It is going to put the light into those clinics, and we are going to find out about this stuff. We are going to stop it. Everything else is regulated in this country. You can't do anything without the Government being on your back. Then let's put the Government on the backs of the abortion industry, for crying out loud: Any entity that receives human fetal tissue obtained as a result of an induced abortion shall file with the Secretary of HHS a disclosure statement. Let's find out who is buying, who is selling, and what is happening. Oftentimes in these clinics, a young woman comes in; she is pregnant and needs an abortion. She is presented with a form, which she is asked to sign, that says that her baby can be chopped up and sold. We get two stories out of the abortion industry. They say: Now, look, this woman is in a distraught emotional state. We are here for her health and safety and her good emotional state. We are not going to put this form in front of her. We will do it after she has the abortion. I hate to give my colleagues the bad news, those of you who support this god-awful procedure, but they want the baby within 10 minutes. So unless they are going to wake her up out of whatever state she happens to be in, they don't have time to do that then. They do it before. That is what they do. They are going to tell you they don't, but they do. Here is some proof for you. The name is changed to protect the innocent. On July 1, 1993, Christy underwent an abortion by--fictitious name-- John Roe. After the procedure, Roe looked up to find Christy pale with bluish lips and no pulse, no respiration. Christy's heart had stopped. There are no records that her vital signs were monitored during the procedure. Additionally, Roe was not trained in anesthesia and the clinic had no anesthesia emergency equipment or staff trained to handle an anesthesia complication. Paramedics were able to restore Christy's pulse and respiration, but she was left blind and in a permanent vegetative state. Today, she requires 24-hour-a-day care and is fed through a tube in her abdomen. She is not expected to recover and is being cared for by her family. Christy had an abortion on her 18th birthday. Happy birthday, Christy. Any hospital in America would have had licensed anesthesiologists who were capable of stopping that from happening. But it didn't happen. For those of you who say, well, I guess she must have, she could have signed that card--really? In a vegetative state, you think she signed the permission slip? I have her permission slip here. It was signed on June 29, 1993. Does anybody think she signed that in a vegetative state? She was brought in there, and she was told--the language was pretty gruesome in there-- what we can do with your baby after you are finished with the abortion. She signed it. Not only that, she said: I understand I will receive no compensation for consenting to this study. Study? It is a study? It is chopping the baby up into God knows how many parts and sending it off to some research laboratory. She doesn't get a dime out of it, and they make probably $5,000, when added all up. That is what is happening. I say bring a little sunshine in. I have two options on this proposal--one, to offer an amendment to this bill. I want to be honest about it. I don't want to do anything at this point to stop this bill from passing, nothing, not even this amendment, if that is what it takes. So it will either be an amendment, if we gain votes; if we can't gain and we lose votes as a result of it, I will prepare a bill. But I will not stop on this issue. I will not stop until the light shines in on this disgusting industry. It is amazing. We go after the tobacco people. What bad guys they are. Somebody smokes a cigarette, and somehow everybody else is to blame but the guy who smokes it. So we go after the tobacco company, fine them billions. This is a heck of a lot worse than that. If they can go after the tobacco companies, then we can go after these guys. That is exactly what I am going to do. Be prepared out there because I am coming. I am not going to stop until the light shines in on this. I will close with one final plea. Several times on my side of the aisle I have made a personal appeal to the five or six Republicans who refuse to support the ban on partial-birth abortions. I have asked privately, please change your vote, please change your vote and save lives. Two times we voted on this and the President vetoed it, and two times I couldn't switch those votes. I understand vote switching. I don't like it when I am asked to switch mine. But it is not about the budget and taxes and health care or anything else; it is about life. We are going to save lives if four Members change their votes. I make another appeal that I hope, for once, will not fall on deaf ears: Please consider changing your vote on this bill. Let's pass this thing with over 67 votes, so President Clinton can have his little veto ceremony and we will override it. That is the day I am looking forward to in America. And then, whether it is on this bill or some separate bill, we are going to shine the light into these abortion clinics. We are going to find out what is going on, and the American people will know. So be prepared. If you have any documents to hide, you had better hide them. We are coming after you. I have had enough of it. Live births and partial births, killing children coming into the world, drowning babies in a pan--I have had enough of it. You can defend it, if you want to, and go ahead and vote to defend it. Not me. I am coming after you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Senators from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for their kind remarks. It has been a long, long struggle, and we are still not there yet. It is very frustrating to this Senator, who initially came to the floor in the mid-1990s, the early 1990s, in 1994 and 1995, where I found out these kinds of procedures were occurring, the so-called partial-birth abortions. I was shocked and I could not believe that in America we would be doing anything like this. This is America, I thought, we can't be killing children inches from birth. It makes no sense. So I sought answers and talked to a number of people, including a nurse who had witnessed them. After getting all of that information together, I decided to write a bill banning partial- birth abortions. Here we are. Each time we have passed it here, it has been vetoed by the President of the United States, regretfully. I think it has been two or three times now. There will be another veto coming if we pass it again. But initially, when we started, we only had 25 to 35 votes on the floor because we were told it was only four or five times a year. Then we were told it was maybe 15 times a year. As the years progressed, we found out this is on demand and is not strictly for abnormalities at all but, rather, on demand, for any reason, if a woman chooses to have such a procedure. So it has been a long struggle. As I listened to the debate--and I have been on the floor all day listening to my friend, Rick Santorum, the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has done such an outstanding job on this issue. He is very passionate. You need to be passionate on this issue. I don't know how anybody can come down on the floor of the Senate and talk about this issue and not be passionate. We are killing unborn children who are in the process of exiting the birth canal. That is what needs to be understood. I ask my fellow Americans and my colleagues, don't we have better things to do than that here in America? I am proud to say that I, to some extent, exposed this horrible procedure, establishing that it did take place. I am proud to say that I exposed it for what it is--infanticide, or murder. That is what it is. We are killing children as they exit the birth canal, and we are putting all kinds of labels on this process. We are saying all kinds of things to cover up what is happening. I remember--how well I remember-- the incredible amount of flack I got for standing on the Senate floor with a plastic medical doll. The liberal press called it a plastic fetus. There is no such thing. It was a medical doll. And with a pair of scissors, I demonstrated how this process worked because I thought the American people needed to know what was happening. I was terrorized, if you will, by the press, bashed, called a ``right-wing extremist,'' and ``out of the mainstream.'' Of course, those people who commit these acts of violence against these children are not extreme in the eyes of the media, which is fascinating. President Bill Clinton personally came to my State, as did Vice President Gore, as did Mrs. Clinton, and campaigned against my reelection in 1996 on this issue. It was ugly; it was nasty; it was brutal. But, you know, for every one of those arrows that I took, I said to myself, it is all worth it because these children can't speak for themselves. They do not have the opportunity to stand here on the Senate floor. They don't have a representative here unless we do it for them. They don't get a chance to say I would like to be born. They don't have that opportunity. So I am proud to take every arrow they can throw, shoot, or whatever they want to do. I take it as a badge of honor. And I am glad to do it. I got an incredible amount of flak from the media on this to the extent that they have distorted what I said. It is interesting to read ``mainstream'' respectable papers such as the New York Times and find that they cannot get it right. We called a number of times to correct these papers and reporters to tell them that the things they were saying I did I didn't do. For example, they said, as I indicated earlier, that I waved a plastic fetus around on the floor of the Senate when it was a little medical doll. They did get the scissors right. They also then said I showed pictures of aborted children on the floor of the Senate, photographs, which was not true. I showed a photograph of a child who had been born prematurely and had lived. That, I did show. In fact, some of them went so far as to say that I actually showed photographs of an actual abortion, which, again, was not true. They had a heyday at my expense. I lived through it all. I am proud of it. People said, well, you know you made a mistake, Senator, that almost cost you your election last time. You know you did all of this on the Senate floor. I would do it again. I am going to do it again right now for whatever time it takes for me to make the point that I want to make tonight. There are several points that I want to make. One of them that I want to make is that this is a disgusting, dark, horrible game we are in, this abortion industry. And somebody needs to take a flashlight or, bigger than that, a searchlight and shine it into this industry so that we find out exactly what is going on in this abortion industry. It is not just partial-birth abortion. It is abortion in general. It is a dirty business. It is a profitable business. There are people making money out there at the expense of young women, young mothers, who are in a terrible dilemma. They are making money on them. We are going to find out, as I move through my presentation tonight, that we are going to be talking about some things in this industry that aren't too pleasant. It is not just that they are making money on the women. We will get into that a little bit further in a moment. But I think most Americans, if they knew what was going on, would be disgusted, appalled, sickened, and angry that such a brutal act as killing a child with scissors to the back of the head, with no anesthesia, in the act of birth, would go on in this America-- defenseless in America, a defenseless little unborn child. We do it at random. We do it 4,000 times a day, every day--not just partial birth but abortions in general, 4,000 of them every single day. We don't know how many partial births. It doesn't matter; it is still the killing of a child. I ask my colleagues and those who may be watching out across America tonight: If you saw an article in your local paper tomorrow that said that all of the puppies and all of the kittens in your local SPCA that no one adopted were going to be killed tomorrow with no anesthetics, with a needle to the back of the head to suck out the brains of those animals, what would be your reaction? I guarantee you there would be people marching down in front of the SPCA, and it wouldn't happen. But that is what we are doing to our children. I know it is not pleasant to talk about. I don't like to talk about it. I wish I didn't have to stand on the floor of the Senate as some of the great orators and great Senators of all time have stood and debated the issues of the day. Think about it, the issues of the Civil War, the issues of federalism, and civil rights, all of the great issues of the day that have been debated right here with some of the greatest people--John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, at whose desk I sit--the great debates that have taken place in here. Yet because this President refuses to stop this procedure, we are down here now again for the fifth or sixth time debating this again trying to stop this horrible, horrible procedure that kills unborn children. Why are we surprised, my fellow Americans, when we pick up the newspaper and read somewhere that a mother flushes her child down the toilet or that somebody shoots somebody in school? Why should that surprise you? What message are we giving to our children? We are telling them every day: Children, you are expendable. You are not important. Go to school today, Johnny. You be a good boy. While you are in school doing your class work, and then you come home to do your homework, we are going to abort your sister. Kids understand. They know what is going on. They are smarter than you think they are. They know what is going on. They read about this stuff. They hear it. Some of them are listening to this debate right now. They know what is happening. Yet as horrible as this procedure is, and as many times as so many people have been down on this floor, as my two colleagues a moment ago did, eloquently discussing this issue and talking about how horrible it is, as I have done, as Senator Santorum has done in great detail over the years, as many times as we talk about it, we still can't get enough votes to override the veto of the President of the United States. It is frustrating. I tried one time to meet with the President of the United States personally on this issue. I asked him for 15 minutes of his time. I said, I will go on the record, off the record, with staff, without staff, personally, with just you and me, whatever you want. Just give me 15 minutes. I couldn't get it. He wouldn't deal with me. He wouldn't talk with me about it. This procedure that kills a child, as you have seen it described--I will not go through the description again--is legal in all 50 States of the United States of America. In addressing the controversy over the partial-birth abortion method, the National Abortion Federation has written to its membership and said don't apologize for this process. Do not be on the defensive for killing children this way because it is a legal procedure. It is legal to do this. So don't apologize for it. When somebody says, oh, you know, you took scissors to the back of a head and you killed a little baby coming out of the birth canal, don't apologize for that, they say. It is right in their literature because it is legal. This is America. America, America, we sure need help. If we ever needed God to shed his grace on this great country, it is now. We are killing the posterity that the Founding Fathers talked about--our posterity, our children. We are killing them every single day--not just with partial-birth abortion but with all abortions--4,000 a day. Think of it: 4,000 abortions a day in this country; 4,000 children--children. Let's use the correct term. Many of my opponents argue that this procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. I am going to dispel that myth in great detail in a little while. I hope you are listening because it is a myth. It is not done for the health of the mother; it is done for the profit of the abortionist. President Clinton twice vetoed this legislation with false and deceptive information and justification. How does partially delivering a living child and then restraining it from exiting the birth canal so that only the head remains in the womb possibly enhance the health of a mother? I have asked that question on the floor 100 times, and I can't get an answer. You have to understand now. The child is exiting the birth canal. The abortionist is holding the child--actually holding that child--in his or her hands and forcefully stopping the head from exiting the birth canal because once the head exits the birth canal, it is a birth. It is a birth. What is he holding? Is that not a child? What is that part of the body? The feet, the legs, the torso, the shoulders, the hands, what is that? That is not supposed to be a child? If the baby turned around and exited headfirst, you couldn't do it because then it is born. That is a pretty fine line. That is a pretty fine line. They do that in the name of the mother's health? You have got to be kidding me. What is wrong with this country? Where are we going? We have to stand down here on the floor of this Senate and protect and fight to protect the lives of children, our children, killed in this way every day in America, every day. We can't win because the President will veto what we pass with about 63 or 64 votes. He will veto it. We need 67 votes. President Clinton's claim that partial-birth abortions are only undertaken to protect the mother from serious injury to her health has been conclusively proven to be false. When he says that--and he will when he vetoes it--he is not telling the truth. In fact, the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women with perfectly healthy babies--that is the truth--80 to 90 percent, perfectly healthy women, mothers and babies. The Nation's leading practitioner of partial-birth abortion, Dr. Martin Haskell of Ohio, has been quoted extensively today. He said in the American Medical Association's American Medical News: I'll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective, in that 20 to 24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons and the other 80 percent are purely elective. That is the abortionist speaking. That is not me. It is not some pro- life organization. That is the abortionist. He said 20 to 24 weeks; 24 weeks is a 6-month fetus. I want to share with my colleagues a phone call I received in my office a few months ago from a 9-year-old girl. She said to me: Senator, I heard you were very much pro-life. I want to give a message that I would like you to share with your colleagues and with the American people as you travel around the country. She said: I want them to know that I'm now 9 years old but my Mommy gave birth to me at 5 months; she was 5 months pregnant, and I lived and am here to tell you and tell America that babies at 5 or 6 months in the womb can survive. I'm glad my Mommy didn't pick that option. When somebody says we are not taking the lives of unborn children, we are not taking the lives of people who have an opportunity to be productive members of our society, they are wrong. At the White House veto ceremony Mr. Clinton hosted the last time he vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban, he presented five women at a press conference whom the President said ``had to make a lifesaving, certainly health saving but still tragic decision, to have the kind of procedure that would be banned by H.R. 1833.'' That is, the ban of partial-birth abortions. The President around this town and around America doesn't have the greatest reputation for telling the truth, and he didn't tell the truth there either. Despite saying those five women had health-saving partial-birth abortions, one of the women involved in the press conference later publicly admitted neither her abortion nor those of any of the other four women was actually medically necessary. Two days after the ceremony, one of the five women, Claudia Ades, appeared by telephone on a radio show in Mobile, AL, and quotations from the interview appear in the May-June 1996 edition of the newspaper Heterodoxy. During the course of the radio show, she told Mr. Malone, the MC: This procedure was not performed in order to save my life. This procedure was not performed in order to save my life. This procedure was elective. That is considered an elective procedure, as were the procedures of all the other women who were at the White House veto ceremony. Here again, President Bill Clinton is using people and not telling the truth. The health-of-the-mother exception is so broadly defined, it would include the mother's emotional health, let alone physical health. I don't enjoy talking about this stuff on the Senate floor. I don't enjoy standing here and talking about the fact we are killing our children. Who does? If we don't, it will keep on happening. Some in politics, some even in the Republican Party, the pro-life party in America supposedly, said we shouldn't talk about this issue; it is too controversial; let's sweep it under the rug and try to be less confrontational, be more together. I don't believe we ever would have ended slavery or segregation or any of the other great issues we resolved in American history if we hadn't talked about it, if we hadn't faced it. Suppose Lincoln had said: I'm totally opposed to slavery, but my neighbor wants to own a couple of slaves; that is OK with me; I will not make a big deal out of it. So we can take that approach on abortion and say, I'm personally opposed to abortion but my neighbor wants to have an abortion; that is OK with me. Somebody has to stand up for 4,000 babies a day who are being killed in this country by all abortions. I don't mind being that person, I will be very honest. If that means I lose an election somewhere, that is fine with me. I am not here to compromise my views to win elections. I am here to lead, to stand up on principle. Otherwise, I don't want to be here. Anybody who stands here and says they are afraid to discuss this issue or won't come down here and discuss this issue because they are afraid they might leave ought to resign because they are not bringing dignity to this body. They should stand up and passionately fight for what they believe. I will review in a few moments some very dirty, disgusting little secrets about the abortion industry in this country. It doesn't apply strictly to any one type of abortion; it applies to abortions in general. It is not pleasant. It is not pretty. It is pretty graphic. But I am going to talk about it because the American people need to understand what is going on. These children don't have a voice. They can't ask for the opportunity to be born. Imagine, since Roe v. Wade passed--and we will have a vote on that very shortly, tomorrow, this infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973--40 million babies have died in this country. I don't want anyone to misunderstand me lest I be accused of misusing facts. All abortions, including partial-birth abortions--40 million babies. Have you ever stopped to think what some of those babies might have grown up to be had they had the chance? I wonder if there is a President in that group. How about a doctor? How about a cure for cancer? Maybe there is a scientist who would cure breast cancer-- wouldn't that be ironic--or cure any type of cancer, or perhaps discover some big secret in the universe, maybe even a Senator. Never to have a chance to live their dream, never to have a chance to grow up, have a family, to pursue their dreams--gone, down the drain. They didn't have a chance to talk about it, didn't have a chance to even ask for mercy; they were just eliminated. Do the math. We have about 260 million Americans. We have killed 40 million of them in the years since Roe v. Wade, and we have people on this floor bragging about Roe v. Wade, what an important decision it is and has been in American history. You bet it is important; they are right about that. We took the lives of 40 million of our fellow citizens, 40 million people who never get a chance to pay Social Security taxes or pay any taxes or build any bridges or buy any products or contribute any money to the U.S. Treasury, if you want to put it in those terms, never, never had a chance. Mr. President, 40 million children, one-seventh of the entire U.S. population, one-seventh, and we are killing them. You do not think we have some cultural problems in America? Unbelievable. I would like to ask all of you listening to answer this question silently to yourself: If you knew a woman who had three children born blind, two children born deaf, and one child born retarded, she was pregnant again and she had syphilis, would you recommend she have an abortion? Answer to yourselves out there. I will give you a second. Guess who you just killed? Beethoven. That was Beethoven's mother, a pretty fair contributor, I would say, to the arts of the world, and this country. Who are we, Roe v. Wade? Who are we to do that to the Beethovens, the potential Beethovens of the world? This is a sick society, for people to stand down here and defend that, and that is what we are doing. Mr. President, 95 percent or more of all abortions are used for birth control, 1 or 2 percent of all abortions performed are done because the life of the mother was threatened or she was raped or sexually abused by a member of her family--a small minority. That means over 38 million abortions occurred for a variety of reasons that boil down to one word--convenience. It is convenient. That is what it is, convenience. The mother was too old, maybe too young, in high school, maybe in college, had to work, didn't have a husband, didn't have a boyfriend; it wasn't in her best interests to have the baby; she had her whole life ahead of her. Pick any excuse, pick any reason. Pick the one you like, but that is the reason--convenience. It is a little inconvenient, isn't it? I have raised three children. Sure, it is inconvenient. But they are beautiful and I am sure glad I have them, and I am sure glad nobody made the decision to end their lives. I know many of these desperate young mothers myself. I serve on the board of a home for unwed mothers. I have raised money for homes for unwed mothers. I have compassion for these mothers and for those who have gone through a horrible experience of having an abortion, or struggling in terms of whether to have the abortion or not, or whether to give the child up for adoption or to keep it. I must say to any woman out there listening to me tonight, any mother, there are people out there who will help you. There are people out there who will help you. You do not have to have an abortion and you don't have to listen to one side of the argument. Ask. If you want help, call my office; I will put you in touch with people who will help you. It would be my honor and privilege to do that. Don't have an abortion; have your child like I did, my wife and I. You will be glad you did when you get down the road. You will be very glad you did. You have other options available, options that will benefit you, that will benefit your child. Choose adoption or choose to keep your child. There are people out there who want to love that child. In either case, adoption or keep your baby, choose life. I beg you to do that, please. Do it for yourself; don't do it for me. Do it for yourself and for your baby. You will be glad you did. I promise you will. It will be tough for awhile but you will. All across the fruited plains of America runs a river of abortion-- blood. School shootings, we blame guns for that. After all, it could not possibly be our fault. Babies born alive left in trash cans: A young woman who goes into a restroom, gives birth to a child and throws it in the trash can can be prosecuted for murder. If she had a partial- birth abortion 5 minutes before that happened, it is all legal. Is there any difference in terms of the result, the child? It is still a child, isn't it? Why are we here today? I just told you a few moments ago. It is to outlaw a cruel, inhuman procedure used for late-term abortions, a process so barbaric and so inhuman we would not even do it to animals. We wouldn't even think of it, I promise you. It is not being done to animals anywhere in the country. We fell three votes short last time to override this President. I would give anything to have this President change his mind and not veto this. Do you realize how many children died since then? We don't really know. We know there are thousands who die from partial-birth abortions every year. If you multiply that by 4 or 5 years, we know it is probably in the vicinity of 15,000. I don't know what the number is. Whatever it is, it is too many. But hundreds, if not thousands, of young children are gone, just because the President of the United States refused to sign that bill; three votes short of an override. You talk about whether one vote means something or two votes mean something? You bet they do. If you are out there somewhere in America and you think I am right, you ought to take a look at who your Senators are and see how they are voting on this because those votes are going to cost lives. We are not talking about budgets. We are not talking about taxes. We are not talking about things such as that. We are not talking about anything other than lives, American lives, little babies. Generically, without singling anybody out, let me speak to those Senators out there who might be wavering. I know some of you have been struggling with this vote for 4 years. You know in your heart it is wrong to kill unborn children this way. You know it, but you have connections to the abortion industry, the National Abortion Rights League, and others. I know they pressure you. I know I get pressured on the other side, too. I know what pressure is. We all do. But in your heart you know it is wrong. You can stop it. Three more votes or four more votes here can stop this. We can save thousands of lives down the road--thousands. Imagine, if you could, all those children who have died from just partial-birth abortion in the last 25 years coming here today. If they had the opportunity to live, what do you think they would say? I don't think they would be with those who say, no, we ought to have this process. I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong. I have been wrong before. Hold your grandchild in your arms, or your child, and ask yourself: How far removed is that grandchild or child from the process that you are voting to allow? A year? A month? Maybe you have a newborn. Think about it. I have. According to the American Medical Association, the partial-birth abortion method is never medically necessary--never medically necessary. According to the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, partial-birth abortion is likened to infanticide and is considered an extremely dangerous procedure. Let me quote from these physicians: The prolonged manipulation of the cervix introduces a serious risk of infection and excessive bleeding. Turning the child inside the womb using forceps risks rupture or puncture of the uterus, infection, and hemorrhage from displacing the placenta. Inserting the scissors--a blind procedure--risks cutting the cervix. That is one doctor. Another one says: Beyond the immediate risks, partial-birth abortion can undermine a woman's future fertility and compromise future pregnancies. Many pro-abortion advocates have publicly stated their opposition to the partial-birth-abortion technique. Warren Hern, the author of the Nation's most widely used textbooks on late-term abortions, said: You really can't defend it. I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. This leads me to another dirty little secret about the industry which is that abortion clinics are losing doctors who are willing to perform abortions. Do you know what happens when you lose the ability to perform abortions? You lose the ability to make money. My colleagues on the left will assert that they are afraid they are going to get killed by a pro-life activist. That has happened seven times, and it is seven times too many, but it has happened. I have statements from the media, the abortion industry, and the doctors themselves that say the reason abortion clinics cannot find doctors is because they are considered losers in the medical field. Those of us who have been pro-life who have been talking about this are making a difference in some of these abortions. Abortionists are losers. They are having such a tough time recruiting abortionists. They are actively lobbying right now to force medical students to perform abortions. What happened to choice? It is very interesting, isn't it? Listen to these quotes from the abortion industry. I am making these points because I want to lead you into the next issue of what is happening in the industry and why these things are occurring and what you will see where I am leading you in terms of another ugly little secret, dirty little secret about what is happening in addition to the abortionists. Here is what Morris Wortman, abortionist, Democrat and Chronicle, 1992, said: Abortion has failed to escape its back-alley associations . . . [it is the] dark side of medicine . . . Even when abortion became legal, it was still considered dirty. That was the abortionist. Joe Thompson, retired abortionist, South Bend Tribune, December 26, 1992: In obstetrics and gynecology, the term abortionist is a dirty word. Jean Hunt, former executive director, Elizabeth Blackwell Center, Philadelphia, PA, Westchester Daily Local News, November 26, 1992: Doctors today see abortion as a mud puddle not worth jumping into. David Zbaraz, abortionist, Washington Post, 1980: [Abortion is] a nasty, dirty, yukky thing and I always come home angry. Another: . . . some residents are concerned about being stigmatized for performing abortions and feel they are likely to perform abortions once in practice. Abortionist Trent MacKay and Andrea Phillips MacKay, Family Planning Perspectives, May and June, 1995. Organized medicine has been sympathetic to abortion--not abortionists. Carol Joffe, pro-abortion author, 1998. A couple more: [Abortion] is a difficult field from an emotional aspect. Some of us, and all of us, I suspect, to some degree or another, have emotional isolation and separation and distance from some of our social friends, certainly from the community and from our professional colleagues. George Tiller, abortionist, St. Louis, MO. On the status of abortionists, Warren Hern says. . . . status of [abortionists] is somewhere well below the average garage mechanic . . . patients do not value what we do. Richard Hausknecht, abortionist, January 1998: It's true that abortion providers are perceived as not very good doctors--that they have no alternative so they do abortions, that they cannot earn a living any other way. Is that the kind of person you want to send a woman to because you want to protect her health? Another one. Merle Hoffman, president, Choices Women's Medical Center, Queens, NY, 1995: The medical establishment has yet to welcome in abortion providers . . . Tom Kring, director, California Planning Clinic: Abortion has a stigma attached to it that is increasingly scaring doctors and clinics. I think, I say to my colleagues, one of the reasons clinics are closing is because of the doctors. You cannot get a good doctor. Eileen Adams, former administrator for Park Medical Center in Illinois which closed after 13 years of operation: You cannot get a good doctor. Then she said: I hate to have that in the paper so the anti-abortionists would say they've won--but they did. That is what Eileen Adams said. A 1993 Boston Globe article had this so say: Opponents of abortion in New England may have lost the battle of public opinion, but they appear to be winning the war . . . there are no longer enough doctors and hospitals in some areas to provide abortions. With all that testimony from within the industry--dirty, yucky, not protecting the health of the mothers--why is it still going on? Because there is another dirty little secret, and it is called fetal tissue marketing. We will take a look at this chart. I want everybody to see what happens in this dirty little secret of the abortion industry. I want my colleagues to know this is the abortion industry in general, but abortion is abortion. There are different types of abortion. Partial-birth abortion is what is on the agenda today. But fetal body parts marketing is what I am talking about. A woman comes into an abortion clinic. It could be Planned Parenthood. She goes into the clinic, and she is talked to, advised to have an abortion. But what she may or may not know is that inside that clinic in a little room somewhere or some office that is not necessarily visible to her, is the harvester, the wholesaler, the person who is going to take her baby, cut it into pieces and sell it. They are going to say: Oh, no, no, no, nobody is selling any babies. Listen to what I have to say, and then you tell me. The wholesaler and the harvester is in the clinic. This poor woman, this mother, this woman who has probably gone through unimaginable trauma, is now faced with this little secret because she has to sign a waiver that allows them to do it. You have the harvester now who is in that building. Anatomic Gift Foundation, Opening Lines--those are the names of a couple of the wholesalers. What happens? We will get into that in a few moments. But here is the buyer over here. If you are pro-life, you will be pleased to know, I am sure, that maybe a university in your State, Government agencies to which you are paying taxes, pharmaceutical companies, private researchers, and research organizations are buying body parts. How does this work? Here is step 1. The buyer orders the fetal body parts from the wholesaler/harvester. The buyer says: We need a couple of eyes, or whatever. The abortion clinic provides space for the wholesaler and harvester in the clinic where that woman goes to procure fetal body parts. The wholesaler/harvester faxes an order to the abortion clinic, faxes an order to the clinic, and says: We need this, and we need this, and we need this. The wholesaler's technician harvests the organs: Skin, limbs, whatever, from aborted babies. Now, bear in mind how gruesome this really is. This is the abortion industry, ladies and gentlemen. Here is a woman coming into that clinic, thinking she needs an abortion. She is advised to have it. And these people are sitting around the room, the harvesters. When they are looking at that woman, there is a living child there that has not been aborted yet, and they are placing orders for body parts--placing orders for body parts--before the child is even dead. The wholesaler's technician harvests the organs. Then the clinic ``donates'' fetal body parts to the wholesaler/harvester, who in turn pays the clinic a ``site fee'' for access to the aborted babies. Then the wholesaler/harvester ``donates'' the fetal body parts to the buyer. The buyer then ``reimburses'' the wholesaler/harvester for the cost of retrieving the fetal body parts. We are going to get into a little more detail on this. You might say: This is a debate about partial-birth abortion. What does the sale of fetal tissue have to do with partial-birth abortion? First, like partial-birth abortions, the selling of fetal tissue is immoral and unethical. It is illegal. And it is a reprehensible, dirty practice that is going on in the shadows of the industry. It is a practice I had never even heard of. Again, I could not believe this was going on. But it is. Second, it is a practice that very graphically shows how this industry has gone far beyond the ethical boundaries that even most pro- choice Americans would find repugnant. Third, like partial-birth abortion, the industry has taken the practice of selling fetal body parts, which is illegal under Federal criminal law, and created a loophole to allow them to do it. In partial-birth abortion, they use the head loophole. In other words, what I mean by that is: Arms, feet, body, neck, heart, toes. That is not birth. That is not the baby--until the head comes into the world. Then it is a baby. Really? It is a legal mumbo jumbo, as Senator Santorum talked about. It is a bunch of garbage. It makes lawyers around the country very rich, and it allows these clinics to kill our children. I am sure the legal team that came up with the head loophole is very proud of themselves, just as we have the fetal harvesting loophole. In a sense, we call it ``donations'' or ``reimbursements'' rather than selling parts. They are both loopholes to hide the facts. Stabbing a baby in the back of the head and sucking its brains out is illegal; it is murder; it is infanticide--whether that child is sitting in a play pen or whether that child is trying to exit the birth canal to become a member of this world. But its head is conveniently, under this stupid legal definition, ``stuck'' in the womb. And it is not stuck; it is held there. And they call it medicine. We have people standing down here saying: This is medicine. We're doing this for the health of the mother. Really? Let's go back to the sale of fetal body parts. I have here the United States Code. Here is what the United States Code says: Prohibitions Regarding Human Fetal Tissue. That is the topic. That is the heading right here in the United States Code. Purchase of tissue. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce. Criminal penalties for such violations. In general, any person who violates subsection-- The one I just referenced-- shall be fined in accordance with title 18, U.S. Code, subject to paragraph 2, or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. The term ``valuable consideration'' does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue. It is against the law, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, and colleagues, it is against the law to do this. And they are doing it every day to our children--every day. So 10 years in jail if you sell human fetal tissue. That was signed into law, ironically, by President William Jefferson Clinton. It took effect on June 3, 1993. But the lawyers went to work, as only lawyers can do. They found a loophole: How can we sell this tissue, make a profit at the expense of this poor woman victim, and get it to research, and hide it all by calling it research? How do we do that without getting caught and getting our tails thrown in jail? That was the question. So they found it in section D(3) which: . . . allows reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue. That is the loophole I just read out of the book. But because there is no documentation, no disclosure, no government oversight, this section has become a gigantic loophole to allow this industry to engage in the illegal trafficking of body parts of fetal tissue without any prosecution. Mr. President, we need a big beam of light to shine into this industry, to get into the darkness and find out what is going on in this for-profit industry. We need some sunshine. We need it so badly. I am not looking to get into the medical records of individuals. That is not what I am about. But I believe if we are going to allow the use of fetal tissue from aborted fetuses --I mean aborted fetuses for research, which I believe we should not--if we are, we need at least a minimum of documentation to ensure this tissue is not being sold in violation of Federal criminal law. Is partial-birth abortion used for this? I don't know. Why not find out? Let's shine the light in. Let's talk about a few things that might make you think, however, that there is a link here. Your call. You listen. You make your own determination. Let us talk about dilation and evacuation, the so-called D&E, for a moment. This method, which is performed during months 4 to 6, 6 months, is particularly gruesome in that the doctor must tear out the baby parts with a pliers-like instrument. Literally disassembles it in the womb. It is horrible. No wonder they are angry when they get home and sick, sick before they start. Then the nurse gruesomely has to take all these body parts of this child who was torn apart in the womb and reassemble them in a pan to be sure they got it all. That is the first method. I will just ask you to think, as we go through this, if you are in the business of selling body parts, how is that going to work with your buyer, if all the body parts are torn apart? I think you would say, well, probably it isn't going to be much good. There might be some tissue, but if you need intact organs, disassembling the organs ought to lead you to believe, reasonably, I think, they are probably not very good. If you need a liver and it is all chopped up in this procedure, it is probably not going to do you much good. So the D&E method is not real good for selling body parts. But that is one type of abortion. The next is the saline abortion. This occurs after the first trimester. The abortionist injects a strong salt solution into the amniotic sac and, over a period of an hour, the baby is basically poisoned and burned to death in her mother's womb. That is the saline solution. So now I ask you again, if you are selling body parts, and the buyers want good body parts, good condition, that is not going to do a lot of good. That is not going to make your product very marketable. That is probably not a good method either. The next one is a little more grotesque, if you can imagine that. This is called the dig method, or digoxin method. It is called harpooning the whale inside the industry. You see, even in the industry they can't even be respectful to the child or even the woman in some cases, the mother. They use terms such as that, ``harpooning the whale.'' The abortionist inserts a needle containing digoxin into the abdomen of the woman. In order to make sure the doctor hits the baby and not the woman, which would be lethal for her as well, he must watch to see the needle begin moving wildly. And when it does move wildly, he knows he has harpooned the whale and can push his needle all the way through and kill the baby. This abortion procedure is probably the least desired method for the body parts people because the baby's organs are, in essence, liquefied by this horrible poison. They are basically worthless to the body parts market. Those are three types of abortions. They have nothing to do with partial-birth abortion. I use these examples of three types of abortions to show you they basically make the sale of body parts worthless for the most part. Some tissue I am sure they can use. So where are they getting these things? Ask yourself, what have we been talking about all day? How can we get a good specimen, a baby whose organs are intact, a good cadaver? You can do it two ways. You could have a live birth and kill it, or you could have a partial-birth abortion, kill it that way, and damage only the brain so the rest of the body is good for research. Now, is this happening? Shine the light in. There are going to be people who say that I have made this link. I will tell you right now, I haven't. I am asking you to shine the light into this industry. Bring in the sunshine. Let's look in the clinics. Let's find out what is going on. Are they being used? We will take a look in a few moments at some of the things going on here. I ask you whether or not you think they might be getting these parts from some other source of abortion other than partial-birth abortions. I don't know. I know one thing. It is a black market. It is illegal. It is unreported, and it is unregulated. If it is the last thing I do before I leave this body, I will change that. I am going to change that. The good news is abortion rates are down. That is good. But the problem is, because they are down and because the doctors aren't doing them, they have to make it up somewhere. The industry has to make up the money. They have to make it up. Where do they do that? By selling body parts. That is where they make it up. It is really the dark side of the industry. This is the testimony of a woman who calls herself Kelly, a fictitious name. Kelly was working and received a service fee from the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which is the wholesaler, the harvester, of these organs. Listen to what Kelly had to say. Kelly fears for her life. That is why Kelly is a fictitious name and why Kelly is not being identified. ``We were never employees of the abortion clinic,'' Kelly explains. That is when they would sit in the clinic, in this room, and the lady comes in pregnant. ``We would have a contract with the clinic . . . .'' Listen very carefully to what I am saying. A woman comes in. I am sorry. I am confusing the stenographer. I will go through the quote first and then explain it. We were never employees of the abortion clinic. We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in to procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular patient charts. We had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for. Probably only 10 percent of fetuses were ruled out for anomalies. The rest were healthy donors. To capsulate, a woman is in the abortion clinic, and basically they are eyeing up the source. It is like a hunter going out and seeing, I guess in this case, a trophy doe rather than a trophy buck, and saying, there is a good specimen there. I hope that baby is fairly normal so I can sell the body parts. And they looked at the patients' charts while this child was alive in the womb. This girl might change her mind on whether to have this abortion, and nobody is helping her change her mind or asking her if she would like to change her mind. Oh, no, we have a contract here. We have a patient chart here. We have somebody looking at her, looking at the trophy and then saying: Hey, this chart looks real good, this gal has what we want; she has a normal baby there. My goodness, a perfect specimen, the most perfect specimen we could find. So give the researchers the best value we could sell for. Her words. Probably only 10 percent of fetuses were ruled out for anomalies; the rest were healthy donors. So said Kelly. Let's look at a work order. This is a work order. Mailing address, shipping address, everything. OK. Tissue, fetal lung; one or both from the same donor, 12 to 16 weeks. Preservation: Fresh. Gestation: 12 to 16. Shipping: Wet ice. Constraints: No known abnormalities. We don't want any babies who have any problems. Obtain tissue under sterile or clean conditions. Let me ask you a question, colleagues. In this filthy, dirty, disgusting business we are talking about, do you really think you can get a perfect lung, with no cuts and no abnormalities, by chopping up the child in the womb or putting all of this poison in the body, in the womb, in the embryonic sack? Or do you think it might be possible that the best way to get a normal lung is to bring a child through the birth canal in perfect condition, damaging only the brain, or perhaps even a live birth? Oh, you think that would not happen? Well, we will talk about that in a little while. Oh, yes, it happens. Look here: ``Normal fetal liver.'' A normal fetal liver is not one filled with poison. It is not a liver that has been chopped up. It is a normal fetal liver. There aren't too many ways you can get a normal fetal liver in an abortion clinic. ``Dissect fetal liver and thymus and occasional lymph node from fetal cadaver within 10 minutes of the time it is extracted, and ship within 12 hours.'' ``No abnormal donors.'' There is a whole lot of money in this business, folks. With abortions down, they will charge a woman anywhere from $300 to $1,000 for an abortion and make several thousand dollars on the parts of her child. But she doesn't get any of that money, you can bet on that. Let's look at another work order. The National Institutes of Health gets the delivery here. If you are pro-life, you will be ``pleased'' to know they are getting some of this stuff. ``I would prefer tissues without identified anomalies; in particular, bone anomalies.'' Let's look at another one. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I could give you hundreds of these work orders. I am picking a few of them. Now, this one is particularly disturbing--as if the others weren't. Here is the donor criterion on this. We are talking about whole eyes. Now, the donor criterion is that the child be ``brain dead.'' Think about that for a minute. Why would you put that on there? Are we to assume this child is going to be delivered to them live? I assume if a child has been aborted and it is being sold, or provided, or donated, or whatever it is, to some research center, we ought to assume it is dead. Well, they are not assuming it. They are not assuming it at all. They are directing it: Make sure it is ``brain dead.'' If anything else is moving, that is OK. Maybe the heart is beating, and that is OK. But make sure it is brain dead, noncadaver, and post 4 to 6 hours, any age. Again, no contagious diseases. ``Remove eye with as much nerve''--they go into that. Federal Express--send it out. That is against the law. So let's say a girl walks into a clinic and sits down to wait. I want to try to paint you a picture of what happens. A girl walks into a clinic and sits down to wait. A fax comes in, and the fax contains a list of what body parts are needed for that day. So here she comes. She still hasn't had the abortion. But they now have this list--the abortionist perhaps, but I don't know; I have not seen this. Perhaps he looks through the glass window, and maybe there is a one-way glass. He looks out into the waiting room and stares at her stomach and knows this is the very same child who is very much alive now, perhaps even moving and kicking; he knows that child will be dead in a few moments, and they already have the work order. They have already checked the charts, already know it is normal; they already know what they need. They are already planning it all. If that is not sick, if that doesn't bother you, then, man, there is something wrong with the people in this country--big-time wrong. After her abortion, in a matter of 10 minutes, if it is done then, that baby can be shipped on wet ice to researchers across the country, just like going into a supermarket and buying a piece of meat. There are four illegal and immoral things happening with this issue. First, as I said before, current law prohibits receiving any consideration, valuable consideration, from the tissue of aborted children for research purposes. This is happening. So that is wrong. Violation No. 1. Secondly, it has been reported that, in fact, live births are occurring at these clinics. Oh, that is a dirty little secret we don't want anybody to talk about. Let's not talk about that. It doesn't happen a lot, but in 100 abortions it could be as few as 5, 6, maybe 7, maybe 10 times--live births. Oh, boy, that is a real problem. What better way to get a good sample than a live birth? It is the law of every State to make every medical effort to save the life of that child. I am going to show you proof that that isn't done. It is not happening in every case. Thirdly, our tax dollars are being used to fund Planned Parenthood on the one end to kill the children, and NIH on the other end to do research on them. If you are pro-life, as I am, you won't like it; I don't like it. I am going to do something about it if it is humanly possible. In 1996, Planned Parenthood received $158 million in taxpayer dollars. Who knows how much in addition is being funneled through the valuable consideration loophole from NIH research labs. The taxpayers and Congress deserve an answer. The chart shows Federal funds supporting Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, in fiscal year 1994, $120 million; in 1995, $120 million; in 1996, $123 million. Add it all together. It is $158 million. The fetal body parts industry is a big business, ladies and gentlemen, and it is not being honest. Mothers are not being given their consent forms sometimes. Sometimes they are. And the wholesalers are not forthright about how they ship the babies, among other things. These people are in the business of selling dead humans, so I guess maybe we should not expect too much in terms of ethics. There are two statutes that govern fetal tissue research, and both statutes were passed as part of S. 1 in 1993, the National Institutes of Health and Revitalization Act of 1993. I was one of four Senators who voted no, as usual, because I don't believe Government should be doing any research on induced abortions, aborted fetuses. Up until 1992, we had a President, George Bush, who agreed. But Bill Clinton changed all of that. But even President Clinton, who signed the fetal tissue research Executive order as one of the first acts of his Presidency, was unwilling to accept the sale of fetal tissues. Prior to 1993, there was a moratorium prohibiting Federal funding of fetal tissue research. That was overturned by President Clinton by Executive order on January 22, 1993. And Senator Kennedy introduced S. 1 to codify Clinton's Executive order. Part of that was because this ``statute permits the National Research Institutes to conduct support research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes.'' The source of the tissue may be from an abortion where the informed consent of the donor is granted. This statute allows for Federal money to be used in fetal tissue research. And you will see that NIH is involved in this. The second statute made it unlawful to transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. I talked about this statute. In other words, it is illegal to give monetary value to the various body parts being sold. And it is illegal to profit from the sale. The guilty receive fines and imprisonment for not more than 10 years. As long as the tissue is donated, it is OK. But large amounts of cash are changing hands. Again, abortion clinics and the wholesalers are making a killing-- that is a sick pun, a killing--literally with the abortion and with the sale of human baby parts. Listen to what one of the leaders of fetal body parts marketing said in an interview with a pro-life publication: ``Nearly 75 percent of the women who chose abortion agree to donate the fetal tissue.'' Granted, this organization claims to only operate out of two abortion clinics. But if you apply their statistic nationwide, for theoretical purposes, you are talking about a lot of aborted babies being sold for cold, hard cash. In addition, the consulting firm of Frost & Sullivan recently reported that the worldwide market for sale in tissue cultures brought in nearly $428 million in 1996, and they predict that market will continue to expand and will grow at an annual rate of 13.5 percent a year, and by 2002 will be worth nearly $1 billion. That is a whole lot of money at the expense of these unfortunate women. In a taped conversation with the wholesaler, she says they do not buy the tissue. That is the way it works. That is really what happens. In a taped conversation with another marketer of fetal body parts, they admit to try to get abortion clinics to alter procedures to get better tissue, which is a violation of Federal law. This person then offers discounts for being a ``high volume'' user, and that the buyer can save money by purchasing their cost-effective, lower-range product. Let's look now at a chart offered by Opening Lines, and you tell me if this isn't a business transaction for profit. Bear in mind the sale of body parts is illegal. You are not supposed to receive any consideration. Well, then maybe you could tell me why--this is one of those wholesalers, Opening Lines. Maybe you could tell me why they have a price list. Has anybody ever done any marketing before? Look. You can get a kidney for $125. You can get a spinal cord for $325. Then down at the bottom, it says prices in effect through December 31, 1999. That is a price list, ladies and gentlemen. I suppose there will be somebody who will come down here and say, ``Well, Senator, that is not a price list. That is fee-for-service.'' That is what it says at the top. What is the service? You say: Well, you know it is expensive. You have to take the brain out, or you have to take the spinal cord out. OK. We take the spinal cord out. I am not a doctor. I am not going to pretend to be. I am not going to make any reference to how difficult that might be. But let's assume to remove a spinal cord from a child is a difficult operation. They are charging $325 for the spinal cord. I would think it would be safe to assume--I am not a doctor, but if you want to send an intact cadaver, that doesn't involve any research at all. Does it? They don't have to cut anything. We will just ship that along. But it cost $600. It doesn't have anything to do with what the service is in terms of finding the spinal cord and getting it out. It has nothing to do with it at all. I will tell you why this is $600--the cadaver. Because when they get the cadaver; they can get the spinal cord; they can get the eyes; they can get the nose; they can get the ears; they can get the liver; they can get the thyroid, whatever they want. That is why it is $600. That is why the price list is there. You can even get a discount if you buy enough. This is a dirty business. It is bad. It stinks. The brochure boasts that it offers researchers ``the highest quality, most affordable and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it.'' Here is the copy of the brochure. I didn't make it up. This is their brochure, Opening Lines. This is what they said. Think about it. ``We are professionally staffed and directed,'' it says. ``We have over 10 years of experience in harvesting tissue and preservation. Our full-time medical director is active in all phases of our operation. We are very pleased to provide you with our services. Our goal is to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications.'' Please tell me how you can do that if it is simply a matter of taking an aborted child and sending it off to a research laboratory somewhere. My colleagues and American people, I don't know what is going to happen to this country. But I just want to recap for you what has happened here. A woman comes into a clinic, an abortion clinic. She is pregnant. She is in trouble. She needs help. They already have somebody who has read her charts. They know her baby is normal. They know it has no abnormal functions. They know they need to get that baby out of there quickly. They know they can't do damage to the cadaver. They cannot do damage to the fetus. They can't poison it. They can't cut it because, to their specifications, they need perfect eyes, or they need perfect skin, or good lungs, even the gonads, the ultimate. The poor little child just has no privacy here. Limbs, brains, spinal, spleen, liver, all of it, price list, all the way down--they have it all figured out. And they have the gall to stand out here and tell you these clinics care for the women. They care for the profit. They cannot make it because abortions are going down. They can't charge these women any more because they are too poor to pay. So they take it from their bodies, from the children. It is a filthy, disgusting, dirty business, and it needs to be exposed and eliminated. How much more should we tolerate in this country? How much more degradation must these children absorb and endure? Look at that list. Look at it and tell me that is fee-for-service--to your specifications, your specifications. You give us the order, and we will make sure you get perfect eyes that weren't hurt by any abortionist's knife, or they weren't poisoned by digoxin, or saline. Oh, we will make sure. We will get you a live birth, if we have to, or a partial birth, if we have to. We will get it for you because there is a lot of money in it. That is why we will get it. This is a filthy, disgusting, dirty business. People say: Oh, you are antiresearch. I am not antiresearch. If a woman has a miscarriage and wishes to donate that miscarried child to research, she has every right to do that. I am proresearch. The Department of Health and Human Services under President Bush determined there was plenty of tissue available through spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies to satisfy research needs--plenty. But oh, no, we have to get into this. We have to make up for the loss of revenue because, thank God, abortions are starting to go down in this country. We have to make it up. Doctors don't want to do them anymore. It is a dirty business, they say. I'm sick when I go home. We are going down a slippery slope, my fellow Americans. I used to teach history. I used to tell my kids in those classes: If you forget everything else I said, I want you to remember you have a responsibility to pass on America to your children, hopefully in better shape than we gave her to you. If you do that, America will always be here; if you fail, we could lose it. What message are we giving to our children when we tolerate this--an order form before the woman even has the abortion. Henry Hyde said: I deplore any medical procedure that treats human beings as chattel, personal property, as a subject fit for harvesting. The humanity of every fetus should be respected and treated with dignity and not like some laboratory animal. Is that dignity? Is that respect? Let me tell a story about a girl name Christy. This is not a pleasant story. These are the abortion clinics, there to protect the mother and make her healthy again. She went in to have her safe, healthy, legal abortion. Something went wrong. On July 1, 1993, Christy--fictitious name--underwent an abortion by John Roe, abortionist. After the procedure, Roe looked up to find Christy pale with bluish lips and no pulse or respiration. Christy's heart had stopped and there were no records that her vital signs were monitored during the procedure. Additionally, Roe was not trained in anesthesia and the clinic had no anesthesia emergency equipment or staff trained to handle a complication. Paramedics were able to restore Christy's pulse and respiration, but she was left blind and in a permanent vegetative state. Today, she requires 24-hour-a-day care and is fed through a tube in her abdomen. She is not expected to recover and is being cared for by her family. Christy had a legal abortion on her 18th birthday. They took good care of her, didn't they? I have in my hand a consent form that Christy signed. Do you know what they tell you in the industry? Ask them; don't believe me. Ask them. They say: We know the woman is in a terrible emotional condition when she comes in, so we don't always ask her to sign these forms. We wait until after the procedure. Is that so? Well, you have to do it within 10 minutes if you want to get some of these buyers for organs because they say they need them in 10 or 15 minutes from the time they exit the birth canal; otherwise, they are no good in some cases. They have to do it quickly. So the poor girl is just coming out of the anesthetic. I know she is not coming out in 10 minutes. ``Here, Christy, want to sign this? We want to send your 6-month old boy to be chopped up for medical research. Would you sign this?'' They say we don't bother the women before. OK, can a woman who is in a 24-hour-a-day coma sign a consent form? Can she? Here is the form. It is signed and she didn't sign it after the procedure. She signed it before the procedure and she signed it because they needed the body parts of her fetus and they wanted to make doggone sure they got them. They didn't want anything to get in the way of that. They didn't want anything to interrupt that little profit they had coming, so they just said we will get this signed by Christy. Maybe they should have taken a little time to counsel her. ``Would you like to have some other discussion perhaps about adoption?" We gave her that. OK, fine. How about the anesthesiologist. Did someone know what in the hell they were doing when they put this poor woman under? Oh, no, we have to get this, because this is money. Here is what Christy signed: I grant permission to one of these agencies and each of its authorized agents and representatives to distribute and dispense tissue from the surgery. I release all my property and financial interests therein and any product or process which may result therefrom. I read and I understand this document and I have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I am aware I may refuse to participate. I understand I will receive no compensation for consenting to this study. As I said, if anybody thinks she signed it after the surgery, I will sell you some ocean-front property in Colorado. They say they don't bother them beforehand because they are too distraught, they are too emotional, or they don't want to bring all this up. That is Christy. I saw a bumper sticker once that said: Abortion: One dead; one wounded. Can't sum it up any better than that. One dead and one wounded. And the people who were in charge of the health and safety of the mother in these cases are more interested in the dead than the wounded because they are going to make a big profit. Let's talk about the dirtiest most disgusting secret of all. This is not pleasant. I had somebody from the National Right to Life tell me today, believe it or not--I won't mention names-- that we don't have any evidence of any link here. Fine. I am not asking anyone to tell me whether they think this is evidence or not. I am asking everyone to make their own decisions. I am not making any links. I am giving facts. Make your own links. There is a little complication called ``live birth.'' Uh-oh. Live birth. It happens. When it does, what happens? I was at an award dinner several years ago when a young woman who is known by many in the right-to-life movement by the name of Gianna Jessen, who then was about 21, so she is probably 25, 26, maybe a little older now. She had been aborted. She was a beautiful girl. She was aborted. There were 1,000 people at this event. She stood up and sang ``Amazing Grace.'' There wasn't a dry eye in the place, including mine. When it was all over she said: I want all of you to know something. My mother made a terrible mistake because I wanted to live. If I had had my choice, if I could have said, spare me, I would have said that. I didn't, but I survived, and I am meaningful. I just sang to you. And she said: I love my mother and I forgive her. There is a lot more power in that than these people that run these clinics that do this. Why can't we bring this debate to that level? There is no way to know how many live births actually occur. It happens in partial-birth abortions because they are alive until they are executed as they come through the birth canal. Feet first, they are executed; headfirst, they are born. Any difference? Maybe somebody can explain it. Many of you may have heard of a gentleman by the name of Eric Harrah. About 10 years ago he left the abortion business. One night Eric and his staff were called to the clinic-- remember, he was an abortionist then--because a pregnant girl had given birth in a motel room. The baby was wrapped in a towel. She had been given medication to begin the process of dilation. So it was wrapped in a towel and they thought it was dead, so she came from the motel room carrying this little child in the towel. Eric, the abortionist, saw the baby's arm fly up and he screamed, ``My God, that baby is alive.'' The doctors sent Rick and the nurse out of the room. When he came back in the baby was dead. A live birth? You might ask yourself, did they take any means to save the child? Or did they kill the child? Who knows? In either case, they let it die. I have been in this business of doing research on this issue since 1984. I have been involved in the pro-life movement. I have read, I don't know how many thousands of pages. What I am going to read to you now is the worst I have ever come across in everything and anything that I have read. I have never seen anything to equal it. I do not understand how we can tolerate this in this country, but it shows you how sick we really are. We are sick. Oh, we are sick, collectively, believe me. This is a story from Kelly. A short paragraph, what she said. It is very difficult for me even to read it, but you need to hear it. The doctor walked into the lab. This is in an abortion clinic. Kelly is the wholesaler for the fetal tissue. She is the person who has to take this fetus and do what has to be done to it to get it to the supplier. The doctor walked into the lab and set a steel pan on the table. ``Got you some good specimens,'' he said. ``Twins.'' The technician looked down at a pair of perfectly formed 24-week-old fetuses, moving and gasping for air. Except for a few nicks from the surgical tongs that had pulled them out, they seemed uninjured. This is pretty difficult. I have witnessed the birth of my three children, so forgive me if I have a little trouble. The wholesaler, Kelly, said, ``There is something wrong here. They are moving. I don't do this. That's not in my contract.'' She watched the doctor take a bottle of sterile water and fill the pan until the water ran up over the babies' mouths and noses. Then she left the room. ``I couldn't watch those fetuses moving. That's when I decided it was wrong.'' So the abortionist, twin live births, 6 months--the little girl I spoke to you about earlier who wrote to me was born prematurely at 5 months. Two little twins drowned in a pan so their body parts could be sold because they had an order for the body parts. America. Many of you may have heard about Jill Stanek, the nurse at Chicago's Christ Hospital who has openly admitted that live births occur at her hospital. We are going to have some testimony from Jill. She will be up here on the Hill very soon so you do not have to believe me; you can listen to her. The hospital staff, when it happens, offer comfort care, which amounts to holding the child until it dies. If they are lucky, they get a little love on the way out. Perhaps it is better than being drowned in a dish. Jill Stanek says: What do you call an abortion procedure in which the fetus is born alive, then is left to die without medical care? Infanticide? Murder? Most people would recoil at just the thought of such a gruesome, uncaring procedure, but it is practiced at least one Chicago suburban hospital. When I called Christ Hospital, the Medical Center at Oak Lawn, I frankly expected a denial that it uses the procedure, but instead the spokeswoman explained it is used for ``a variety of second-trimester'' abortions when the fetus has not yet reached viability. That's up to 23 weeks of life, when a fetus is considered not yet developed enough to survive on its own. Instead of medical care, the child is provided ``comfort care,'' wrapped in a blanket and held when possible. This is very interesting. The procedure is chosen by parents and doctors instead of another method in which the fetus is terminated within the womb by, for example, injection with a chemical that stops the heart. She says further: One day there was a newborn who survived the abortion with no one around to hold it. It was left to die in a soiled- linen closet. The hospital denies it. She says it happened. Interesting, the hospital says abortions are elective, but they are done only to protect the life or health of the mother or when the fetus is nonviable due to extreme prematurity or lethal abnormalities. The nurse, Jill Stanek, said she has seen some elective abortions done on newborns whose physical or mental defects are deemed incompatible only with the ``quality of life.'' That is pretty heavy stuff. This is going on in America. People come down here on this floor, year after year, and defend it. That is what they are doing, defending it: A woman's right to choose. The bassinet or the hospital sterile bucket, which is it? Right--right to choose. Put the child in the bassinet or throw it in the garbage or send it off to some research lab. Here is a headline, a transcript from the WTVN-TV in Columbus, OH, 20 April, 1999: Partial-Birth Abortion Baby Survives 3 Hours. A woman 5 months pregnant came to Women's Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio, to get a partial-birth abortion. During the 3 days it takes to have the procedure she began to have stomach pains and was rushed to a nearby hospital. Within minutes she was giving birth. Nurse Shelly Lowe in an emergency room at the hospital was shocked when the baby took a gasp of air. [Lowe] ``I just held her and it really got to me that anybody could do that to a baby. . .I rocked her and talked to her because I felt that no one should die alone.'' The little girl survived 3 hours. Mark Lally, Director of Ohio Right to Life, believes this is why partial birth abortions should be banned. [Lally] ``This shows what we've have been trying to make clear to people. Abortion isn't something that happens just early in pregnancy, it happens in all stages of pregnancy. It's legal in this state any time.'' Like it is in any State. Warren Hern is the author of the most widely used textbook on abortion procedures. Dr. Hern says, in this article: A number of practitioners attempt to ensure live fetuses after late abortions so that genetic tests can be conducted on them. There is a link. They say there is no link? There is one. It is his position that practitioners do this without offering a woman the option of fetal demise before abortion in a morally unacceptable manner since they place research before the good of their patients. (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the Chair.) Here is an admission from the industry itself that when they want to--I am not saying all do it, I am saying some do it--when they want to, practitioners can do this. They can ensure a live birth to fall within that 10-minute window, to get that child chopped up quickly and on ice so those limbs are better for the researcher and worth more money. You don't want any abnormalities, don't want any problems. There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer a few years ago called ``Abortion Dreaded Complication.'' The patient had been admitted for an abortion, but instead of a stillborn fetus, a live 2\1/2\-pound baby boy appeared. A dismayed nurse took a squirming infant to the closet where dirty linens are stored. When the head nurse telephoned the patient's physician at home, he said: ``Leave it where it is. He will die in a few minutes.'' I used a term in a speech over the weekend referring to doctors such as that. I said they took a hypocritic oath. Someone corrected me and said: ``Don't you mean Hippocratic oath?'' I said: ``No, hypocritic; they are total hypocrites because they are not protecting the lives of unborn children. They should not even be taking the oath.'' In this article, there are some very interesting headlines in this dreaded complication. Listen to what some of the people in the industry say: Reporting abortion livebirths is like turning yourself into the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? Another article says: How things sometimes go wrong. Another one: You have to have a fetus-- Whatever; I can't pronounce the word-- dose of saline solution. It is almost a breach of contract not to. Otherwise, what are you going to do, hand her back a baby, having done it questionable damage? What a bunch of insensitive, uncaring individuals. Then they say: If a baby has rejected an abortion and lives, then it is a person under the Constitution. . . . I think it is a person under the Constitution before it is born, not under Roe v. Wade but under the Constitution. Roe v. Wade did not let the Constitution get in its way when it made that terrible decision. Then another guy says: I find [late-term abortions] pretty heavy weather, both for myself and for my patients. I stood by and watched that baby die. They are real caring people, aren't they? They are compassionate, caring people. I think I have made my point on that. You will notice from these charts I have been putting up that many of the highlights suggest the baby be put on ice within 10 minutes of exiting the womb. I mentioned that earlier. Stop and think about this. If you do any of the other types of abortions--saline, digoxin, and these other procedures, D&E--what are you going to get? You are going to get something that is going to be an abnormality. No abnormal donors. Within 10 minutes, we want it on ice. The point I am trying to make is, there are only two ways you can get a baby, a fetus, on ice that quickly. One is a live birth; you instantly kill it. Another is partial-birth. If there is another method, I am open-minded. I would like to hear about it. Maybe somebody has it. Let me read a letter I received today. This letter is pretty devastating. I want you to think about this 10 minutes on these charts. Within 10 minutes, we need to be able to ship it to give you no abnormal donors, to make sure the fetus is in good shape: This is from Raymond Bandy, Jr., M.D., Dallas, TX: Dear Senator Smith: As a physician and pastor in the Dallas Texas suburb of Lewisville, I was shocked and outraged several months ago when my friend Mark Crutcher invited me to the offices of Life Dynamics to review for him from a medical perspective of several requisitions for fetal tissue and body parts. There were 2 areas particularly disturbing: No. 1, It was almost unfathomable to be reading requests for arms, legs, brains, etc., from aborted babies. Leading institutions in our country with research scientists requesting in mail-order catalog format, body parts from babies killed in abortion clinics. Leading institutions were requesting these parts. No. 2, My attention was drawn to the fashion in which the requests were made. Over and over again the requests would mention that the tissue must be ``fresh''-- It says ship on wet ice. Another one says fresh, remove specimen and prepare within 15 minutes. This is the process, a doctor talking now: (a) The baby must in some fashion be killed in its mother's womb. (b) The baby must then be extracted from the womb. (c) It must then be delivered in some fashion to a technician who would then proceed to amputate limbs; extract eyes, brains, hearts, and then process them; (d) all within 10 minutes. I am not an abortionist, nor have I performed an abortion, but to require these procedures to be accomplished in 10 minutes, means of necessity that the baby be extracted as close to life as possible, and would lead to in many cases babies. . .being born living, in order to be able to have them on ice, or otherwise processed within this short period of time. As a community physician, I find this barbaric, cruel, evil, and intolerable to the greatest degree. This is a return to the medical practices of the [Nazis] of 1940s. . . . Can anyone with even the most remote conscience, or moral decency, tolerate this practice? He closes with that. Here is a doctor. He is telling us and he is reinforcing everything I have said. Fresh, wet ice, no known abnormalities; get it on the ice. How do you get a fetus that is not chopped up, that is not poisoned? There are only two places. I talked to you about both of them: Live births, partial births. The dirty little secret is that Planned Parenthood takes Federal taxpayers' dollars. American workers, especially pro-life workers, all of us--but those especially who are pro-life, I am sure, would be opposed to it--are having money taken out of their paychecks to pay for the marketing of babies' body parts. I talked about the $158 million grant from the Federal Government for Planned Parenthood, NIH, $17.6 billion in this year's labor bill--not all for that but just in the bill. I am not against the funding of the National Institutes of Health, but I think when research is being conducted by the Government, where taxpayer dollars are involved, there is a much higher ethical standard to meet. In addition, universities receive Federal funding, lots of it. In fact, there are some universities that receive Federal funding specifically for fetal tissue research. I want to point out one chart that I did not highlight before because this really drives the point home in terms of whether or not there is any particular reason to believe that in the industry they are looking for live births or partial births. Look what it says on this memo: ``Please send list of current frozen tissues.'' And they go down the list: Liver and blood and kidney and lung, and all this down here. And then what does it say? No digoxin donors. ``No DIG.'' That is the term for digoxin donors. I want you to understand this and think about this: This is an order form. They are saying here: We don't want any digoxin babies. Well, why don't they want them? Because they cannot sell them. The parts are no good. It is in their own writing. They are incriminating themselves. They are violating the law, and they ought to be prosecuted. Shine in the light. Bring in the sunshine. Live births are a big problem, but DIG is not good for research. Abortion clinics and harvesters are also deliberately hiding the fact that they are shipping these parts all over the United States. They even use vague language to trick and deceive shippers such as Federal Express who will not do it, to their credit. But they are not told. They are hidden. One marketer says: ``We've learned through the years of doing this'' how to avoid problems with shippers like Federal Express. But they have. If you are violating the law, you do everything you can. As I have gone through this now for I don't know how long here on the floor, you probably say to yourself: Could it get any worse? Can it be any more humiliating? We have covered pretty well what is happening to the child. Recapping: A woman, pregnant--abortions are down, the industry is losing money, and they can only charge so much. So they find a buyer of the body parts of the fetus. There it is: ``Fee For Services.'' As I said before, $600 for a cadaver, $125 for this, $75 for that. The lower numbers are probably so common that they are not worth much. So they sell the body parts. Then they do unimaginable things to the emotional life of this unfortunate woman who is in so much need of help and counseling. But there is another dirty little secret, which isn't very well talked about; that is, untold numbers of women in some clinics are being sexually assaulted, harassed, physically harmed, and sometimes killed, as I said before, in these ``safe'' and ``legal'' clinics. I will give you two examples. Two months later, [fictitious Dr.] Roe was performing a first-trimester abortion on 23-year-old ``Lucy'' when she began to hemorrhage from a perforation he had made. Still operating without a back-up supply of blood, Roe gave her a transfusion of his own blood. . . The only problem was, it was not her blood type. He did not bother to check that out. Lucy then went into cardiac arrest. . . . In Texas, private ambulances are limited to transfers of stable patients and are prohibited from responding to emergency calls. Therefore, they do not respond with any sense of urgency. When the ambulance crew finally arrived and discovered the case was a life-and-death emergency, they transported Lucy immediately rather than call for a fire department ambulance. Unfortunately, Lucy was not as lucky as Claudia [another girl] and she bled to death-- She bled to death-- on November 4, 1977. That was a long time ago, so I will probably be criticized for bringing something up that long ago. On June 2, 1989, ``Margaret'' went to [an abortion clinic] to have an abortion performed. . . . After she was dismissed, she started experiencing pain and bleeding, and called the facility about her symptoms. They did not advise her to seek medical care. Two days later, she sought medical treatment on her own and was told that she had a perforated uterus and retained fetal tissue. A D&C was performed to complete the abortion and, due to infection, a hysterectomy was also necessary. Unfortunately, despite all efforts to save her life, Margaret died of the complications of her abortion, leaving behind her husband and one-year-old son. Taking good care of mom, aren't they? They really are. And more recently in 1997, in San Diego: An abortion doctor is being charged with murder by the district attorney of Riverside County, east of Los Angeles. Dr. Bruce Steir faces a February hearing on a murder charge stemming from the December 1996 death of Sharon Hamptlon, 27, following an abortion at A Lady's Choice Clinic in Moreno Valley, near Riverside. Miss Hamptlon died from internal bleeding as the result of a perforated uterus. The pathologist in the case found ``gross negligence'' and recommended that the death be considered a homicide. You see, it is getting more serious because the better trained doctors in all types of abortions are not doing them anymore. So they want to go where the money is: Body parts. I am not going to go into the gory details and some of the sick things that have been done by some in terms of the humiliation of patients, in terms of sexual abuse, and so forth. Tomorrow, at some point, I intend to offer an amendment that shines the light into the industry. I intend to push for a full investigation into this industry. I intend to find out whether live births are, in fact, used for the sale of body parts. I intend to find out whether in fact partial-birth abortions are used for the sale of body parts. I intend to find out whether laws are being violated in this country and, if so, who is violating them. This amendment will provide for the light to shine into these clinics so we can get these answers. We deserve these answers. If you are pro- woman, and you are pro-child, you ought to be for my amendment. If you do not like the fact that women die horrible deaths, that children are being chopped up and sold illegally, I don't care which side of the debate you are on, if you wonder whether or not and you are not sure whether or not partial-birth abortions are used for the sale of body parts in some cases, if you want to know whether they are, then let's find out. Let's look into it. Let's see if we can get the answers. And that is what my amendment does. This has been a long, difficult speech for me to make. But I want my colleagues to know that just about everything in America is regulated-- unfortunately, in some cases. There is no reason why this industry should not be regulated. Let's find out what is going on. Let's shine the light in. Let's bring the sunshine in. And let's get answers. And let's find out about the sale of body parts. Let's find out what the source of those body parts are. Let's shine the light in on the industry. Tomorrow, I will have an amendment on that subject. I truly hope all Americans will be supportive--pro-life, pro-abortion. If you want to see to it that women are not abused, if you want to see to it that women are treated with respect and dignity, if you want to see to it that if an abortion occurs and there is a live birth, that that child should get help, should be allowed to live, if you want all that, and you care, then you should support this amendment because all it does is shine the light in. It is a disclosure amendment. That is all it is. It requires disclosure to shippers for any package containing human fetal tissue. It also contains language to limit the payment of a site fee from the transferee entity to the abortionist to be reasonable in terms of reimbursement for the actual real estate or facilities used by such an entity. We are going to find out whether these people are in the business of selling body parts or abortions or both. What is the percentage? How much are they making on each? Shine in the light. I have been on the floor year after year and in the House before that, for 15 to 16 years, trying to end this horrible industry, this disgusting exploitation of children and women, to no avail. If we just had a President who would pick up his pen and say, ``I don't want to see another few thousand people die in the next 5 years; I am willing to sign the ban on one type of abortion,'' we could get a good start. But he won't do it. We are going to lose again. So let's win with this amendment. Let's try to get an amendment passed that will shine the light in so we can find out what goes on in the industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask the Senator if he is aware, during the time a few years ago when I stood on the floor and debated this issue, as well, that there were a number of people who said this was only happening a few times a year; some said as few as 15 or 20 times a year; some said, well, maybe it happened a couple hundred times a year, that it was the exception rather than the rule; it was usually when there was an anomaly? Is the Senator also aware, we began to receive testimony from inside the abortion industry itself, which indicated--from those who had performed them--that this, indeed, was not the case, that we found that in about 80 percent of the cases, if not more, the child was perfectly healthy? So the idea that these were performed in only a few cases, when the child was in a so-called anomaly, if you will, is clearly untrue. I would also ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, is he aware that there is numerous medical testimony, much medical testimony to the effect of how one partially delivers a child, and then restrains the child from exiting the birth canal? And how does that, in fact, help the safety, the health, or even to promote the life of the mother? Is the Senator also aware that on numerous occasions doctors have said, it doesn't? As a matter of fact, I wondered if the Senator was aware that when President Clinton had several women down at the White House a short time ago after one of these override votes that he is so good at, he also indicated that these were people who had ``needed'' these for their own health. Then we found one particular case of a woman by the name of Claudia Ades, who appeared by telephone on a radio show in which she said during the course of the show: ``This procedure was not performed in order to save my life. This procedure was totally elective. This is considered an elective procedure, as were the procedures of all the other women who were at the White House veto ceremony.'' So I think the Senator would probably agree with me that this was orchestrated and used to promote this terrible procedure which, as the Senator has so eloquently described, is infanticide, is the killing of children. And to think that somehow you are basically coming to the conclusion that this is OK, based on the part of the child that is outside of the birth canal. I did not hear whether the Senator pointed this out, but is the Senator aware that if you were to turn the child around, and the head would exit first, that would be illegal under the law? That child could not be killed in this way. Yet 90 percent of the child is still inside the mother's body. So it is an outrageous procedure. I want to compliment him for his leadership and look forward to joining him a little later on in the debate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.