[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11081-S11082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS--VETO OVERRIDE

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to, No. 
1, congratulate the House of Representatives for their strong, 
bipartisan support for the override of the President's veto on the 
issue of partial-birth abortions.
  The House did speak strongly yesterday and did speak in a bipartisan 
fashion. I had the opportunity to look at some of the debate and hear 
some of the debate. I was impressed with the strong bipartisanship. I 
was impressed with how articulate Members were on debating an issue 
which is a very emotional issue, a very difficult issue to talk about. 
This is not a procedure that many people feel very comfortable 
discussing. I think the Members who got up and spoke on behalf of the 
override spoke factually, compassionately, restrained, and, as a 
result, I think that kind of debate is what I hope to emulate here. I 
hope we see it emulated here on the floor of the U.S. Senate next week. 
We will have a vote here next week in the U.S. Senate on whether to 
override the President's veto. We are only halfway home to accomplish 
that.
  Much has been written today about the likelihood of whether the 
Senate will do so and reporting that it appears that the possibility of 
overriding the President's veto of this is dim here in the Senate. I 
remind everyone that in the House, when the original vote was taken, 
there were not sufficient votes to override the President's veto. But 
as a result of educational efforts that had taken place by physicians 
and people who are concerned about this issue with Members of the 
House, a number of Members were persuaded to go along with the 
override.
  I hope that occurs here. I hope Members who voted against the bill to 
outlaw this procedure, who voted to allow this procedure to continue, 
do take the opportunity to gather more information, because since the 
original passage of this bill, additional information has come out, 
even as late as this week.
  We have a story in the Bergen County Record. A health reporter for 
the Bergen County Record did a report on partial-birth abortions in New 
Jersey, where, according to all of the abortion rights advocates, there 
aren't partial-birth abortions being done in New Jersey.
  In fact, they were only done, according to them, by a couple of 
doctors which totaled about 500 a year. We find out from the health 
reporter of the Bergen County Record in her interviews with 
abortionists in New Jersey that they perform roughly 3,000 second- and 
third-trimester abortions, and approximately half of those 3,000 
abortions are done in what is called ``intact D&E''--which is a 
partial-birth abortion.
  So we know that just in the State of New Jersey there are 1,500 such 
abortions--just done in the State of New Jersey. And we are talking 
about abortions that are performed at at least 20 weeks.
  My wife is a neonatal intensive care nurse. She worked as one for 9 
years. We have three children. We are very blessed to have one more on 
the way. She knows a lot about premature babies. She has cared for a 
lot. She has cared for 22-week-old babies. She has cared for 22-week-
old babies that are alive and well today--many of them. She has cared 
for a lot of 24-weekers that are alive and well today. And she 
certainly has cared for a lot of babies that are 24 weeks, 29 weeks, 
and 34 weeks who are alive and well, and very normal and very healthy.
  The question is not whether we should have late- and second-term, or 
third-term abortions. I believe that is a legitimate question to ask in 
this country. But that is not the question that is before us with this 
override. This override deals with a medical procedure which I think is 
one of the most gruesome medical procedures that if it was being done 
in China today human rights activists would be calling on us to 
sanction China. If it was done on a dog, animal rights activists would 
be storming the Capitol saying it is inhumane. But if it is done on a 
30-week-old baby that is fully viable outside the womb it is a choice; 
it is not a baby; it is a choice. It is up to the doctor and the mother 
to determine what happens to that baby. It is a choice; it is not a 
baby.
  I do not think that is what most of America is. When we talk about 
this procedure being done on late second- and third-trimester babies, a 
procedure that delivers the entire baby feet first--delivers the baby 
from the shoulders down completely outside the mother; the arms and 
legs of the baby are moving outside of the mother; the head is held 
inside the birth canal--a pair of scissors is taken and jammed into the 
base of the skull, a suction catheter is placed in the skull and the 
brains are sucked out. As a result of that the head collapses, and then 
they deliver the rest of the baby.
  I was on the Fox Morning News yesterday morning with a woman who 
works for an abortion rights advocacy group. And I asked her a 
question, which I will ask every Member of the Senate who speaks on 
this issue. I hope they have an answer for me, because she didn't. My 
question was very simple. It was a very logical question. ``What would 
your position be if the head of that baby had somehow slipped out; had 
somehow when the shoulders were delivered had been delivered also? 
Would it be the woman's choice and the doctor's choice when the baby is 
completely removed to kill that baby? Is that then murder? Or, if you 
hold the baby's head inside the birth canal, it is not murder? Explain 
for me the difference. Answer the question.''
  I know that question has been asked a lot in the last few months. 
And, to my knowledge, no one has answered the question. But I think you 
have to answer that question, don't you? Don't you have to answer a 
question that, if just an inch more, maybe 2 inches more, it is murder? 
Most Americans would consider it as murder without question. But as 
long as that doctor is holding the baby in, it is not murder. We are 
blurring the line in this country a lot. It is more than blurring. It 
is more of a sign of a culture that has lost its way, that does not 
understand what its underpinnings are any more; what its vision is; 
what its purpose is; what it stands for; who it cares about.

  This issue is not about abortion. This is about a procedure that is 
so horrendous and that is so disgusting that everyone in America should 
say, ``No. That is not who we are.'' For we in this country are not 
what we say we are. It is not what we would like to tell the American 
public we are. We are in this country what we do. And when we do 
something like this to children who doctors who perform this procedure 
say are healthy, elective abortions--these are elective abortions; 
there is no medical necessity; there is no fetal abnormality but simply 
healthy children--when the vast majority of these abortions are done at 
that time and in this way we have to say no.
  I am hopeful, I am prayerful that the Members of the U.S. Senate, the 
greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, will live up to 
that, live up to that title, and will truly deliberate--not react to 
the special interests, or to the emotion of the moment, or to some 
political posture that you feel locked into because, you know, ``I am 
for choice''--but deliberately, thoughtfully, prayerfully about who we 
are, about what we stand for as a country. I think if we do that--and 
if all of you who care about who we are, about what is to become of us, 
will write and call and pray for Members of the Senate over this next 
week--then truly remarkable things can still happen in this country and 
in this body, and we will surprise a lot of people next week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S11082]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks concerning 
the Senator from Iowa's comments and his three amendment. First, I 
oppose his VISA program amendment. The amendment would require Maritime 
Security Fleet Program [MSFP] contractors to participate in Voluntary 
Intermodal Sealift Agreements [VISA]. This change is unnecessary. The 
bill already requires MSFP participants to enter into Emergency 
Preparedness Agreements [EPA]. EPA is the same as the VISA program, 
with several improvements suggested and supported by the Defense 
Department. The Senator's amendment would limit the Department of 
Defense's ability to access all of a contractor's assets. This would 
handcuff DOD's ability to tailor commercial sealift assets to meet 
DOD's sealift needs. The DOD helped write this bill. The bill provides 
the flexibility DOD wants. Further, it would impose additional 
restrictions that are not found in the bill or even in the existing 
VISA program that is voluntary today. This amendment simply does not 
make sense--it would impose additional costs on moving government 
goods. It would cost taxpayers more, not less. I hope my colleagues 
will join me in opposing this amendment.
  Second, I oppose his lobbying and campaign contribution amendment. 
The amendment would prohibit the use of funds provided to Maritime 
Security Fleet Program [MSFP] contractors from being used to fund 
lobbying or public education efforts or campaign contributions. This 
amendment is unnecessary and unfairly singles out one industry with 
which the Government enters contracts.
  Current Government contracting and Federal election campaign laws 
prohibit the use of Government funds for these purposes. The Byrd 
amendment, 31 U.S.C. 1352, generally prohibits recipients of Federal 
contracts, grants, loans, and cooperative agreements from using 
appropriated funds for lobbying the executive or legislative branches 
of the Federal Government in connection with a specific contract, 
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. There is absolutely no legal 
basis for restricting the lawful activities of the employees of the 
recipients, as suggested by the Senator from Iowa. A logical extension 
of this suggestion would be to restrict the lawful activities of the 
contractor's fuel supplier or ice cream vendor. Any attempt to change 
current lobbying and campaign contribution restrictions should be 
broader in scope so as to treat all such recipients of Federal funds in 
a similar and fair manner. I intend to move to table this amendment.
  Finally, Mr. President, as I said earlier, I am opposed to the 
Senator from Iowa's amendment on rates. All of these amendments are 
designed to kill the bill. They are killer amendments. I intend to move 
to table the Senator's amendment on rates. The managers of the bill 
will also move to table the second degree amendment to that amendment 
that has been proposed by the other Senator from Iowa. The second 
degree amendment is just as objectionable as the underlying one.
  Mr. INOUYE. There is no further business?
  Mr. STEVENS. Have we had an adjournment order yet?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not been informed of that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I will take care of 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________