[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E202-E204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               LONG TIME DEMOCRAT JOINS REPUBLICAN RANKS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BOB LIVINGSTON

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 11, 1997

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 1996, the mayor of 
Slidell, LA, the Honorable Salvatore A. ``Sam'' Caruso, left the 
Democratic party for the Republican Party. I commend Mayor Caruso on 
his decision and welcome him to the Republican Party.
  Like other conservative Democrats, mayor Caruso found it difficult to 
be a member of a party whose philosophy blatantly contradicted his own 
deeply held beliefs. I recommend that my House colleagues take a moment 
and read Mayor Caruso's remarks.

   Some Reflections Upon the Occasion of Changing My Political Party 
     Affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party

                        (By Salvatore A. Caruso)

       Thank you for coming here today.
       The fact that we have had sleet, and rain and snow here in 
     south Louisiana over the past few days was merely what 
     Congressman Livingston predicted would happen whenever I 
     would change political parties. Except that he predicted both 
     events for July 32nd.
       Bob Livingston has been trying to persuade me to make this 
     change for at least ten (10) years now. In a desperate 
     attempt about a year ago, he added one new reason. Bob told 
     me that I look more like an elephant than a jackass. I was 
     not sure if that was a compliment or an insult. Although he 
     added that if I became a Republican I could ride the elephant 
     into an unlimited political future. I told him that if the 
     elephant could fit on my shoulders I would do it.
       A lot of people have a right to a serious explanation 
     regarding this change in my Party affiliation.
       Because I have been a Democrat for all of my life and 
     because I have been correctly identified as a proponent of a 
     few issues which some people call ``liberal'', there has been 
     an obscuring of the fact that upon several other issues I 
     have always been strongly conservative and correctly 
     identified with what might be called the Republican position.
       Let me give you three examples:
       (1) There is currently a popularly used word to describe 
     the divesting of power by the Federal Government from itself, 
     and the passing of that power on to Stat and Local 
     governments. The word is ``devolution.''
       For me, that is simply a newly popular word to replace the 
     more traditional word ``subsidiarity.'' Subsidiarity is a 
     word and a concept that have been available to us for a very 
     long time. The word has a proper place in philosophy, 
     economics, political science, management and other areas of 
     human endeavor. Put simply, it means this: Nothing should be 
     done at a higher level of organization than is necessary to 
     accomplish the purpose involved. Or, conversely, whatever 
     needs to be done should be done at the lowest level of 
     organization that is possible. In governmental terms: 
     Whatever needs to be done by the government should be done by 
     the government closest to the people.
       (2) I am a fiscal conservative and I always have been. That 
     strong fiscal conservatism has been consistently reflected in 
     my speech, in my actions, and in my decisions as a public 
     official for over eighteen (18) years now. No one turns 
     around a public hospital from a three and one-half million 
     dollar debt to a thriving enterprise by using financially 
     liberal practices. No one leads a city to $55,000,000 worth 
     of capital improvements while finishing eleven (11) years of 
     operations with a financial surplus by being profligate with 
     public money.
       (3) I believe strongly in environmental protection. But, I 
     do not believe that business people ought to be, in effect, 
     deprived of the use of their land because it holds a puddle 
     of water for two weeks out of the year. I believe even less 
     that local governments, struggling to keep their people from 
     flooding, ought to have to obtain permission from the Federal 
     Government to build the necessary structures on land where 
     some exotic grasses are growing. I like plants, but like 
     people more.
       And, it is my love for people that brings me to the central 
     reason for this change in political parties.
       Before I expand upon that, I want to insert here a very 
     personal note. I began this speech with a couple of humorous 
     comments about Congressman Livingston. Now I want to tell you 
     something that is very serious. No one should ever change 
     political parties simply because of a personal friendship. 
     And, over the years, I have resisted any temptation to do 
     that. The issue is simply too important to be decided at that 
     level. But, if there are other matters that are compelling or 
     nearly compelling, then certainly it is honorable to allow 
     personal considerations to top-off the decision-making 
     process.
       And, that is, in fact, happening in this case. As almost 
     everyone knows by now, Bob Livingston and I were classmates 
     at Our Lady of Lourdes Grammar School in New Orleans. He has 
     survived the publication of that fact until now, and I expect 
     that he will continue to manage after this. What yet may be 
     unclear is the extent to which Bob has been a friend to me 
     and to the City which I lead. Over all of these years and 
     throughout all of his success at the national level, he has 
     never been any different in personal attitude than he was 
     when we were both boys. And, during all of that time no one 
     could have been a better friend to a former classmate than 
     Bob Livingston has been to me. No one could have been a 
     better friend to the City I lead than Bob Livingston has been 
     to the City of Slidell. Federal money that is at work right 
     now in the City of Slidell came here largely through Bob 
     Livingston. Federal money to control flooding, and for which 
     we have only recently become eligible, will come to us almost 
     solely because of Bob Livingston, if only we have the sense 
     to take it.
       What all of us owe to my grammar school classmate is more 
     than I can cover in this speech. And, so, for now, in this 
     setting, the only thing more that needs to be said is: Thank 
     you, Bob.
       Now, let me return to my comment about my love for people.
       I come from a family which always struggled for a 
     reasonable level of existence, which was occasionally near 
     the poverty level, and in which both parents died at age 
     fifty-three (53), and died bankrupt for the

[[Page E203]]

     crime of having cancer but no health insurance.
       For the past twenty-four (24) years, as a licensed 
     psychiatric social worker, I have heard more than I ever 
     expected to hear about the endless ways in which human 
     suffering comes to people, about how they cope or do not cope 
     with that suffering, about what kind of help they have needed 
     from me, from others, and sometimes from the whole community.
       No one needs to tell me about such things. I have lived 
     them. I have heard them. I have, hopefully, helped people 
     through them.
       I love people.
       But, within that love for people I have a peculiar feeling 
     and a peculiar notion.
       I also love people who already exist but are not yet born.
       Those people are called by different names: tissue, zygote, 
     embryo, fetus, baby, human, child of God.
       I confess to another strange, peculiar notion. It is this: 
     No one has the right to kill another human being except to 
     save his or her own life or the life of another innocent 
     human being. And, if I have not stretched your patience too 
     far already, please listen to yet one more strange peculiar 
     belief. I also believe that the same nearly universally 
     accepted rule which forbids such killing also applies to our 
     fellow human beings who already exist but are not yet born.
       I think it is unacceptable and barbaric to kill unborn 
     babies. And, in an even more retrogressive concept, I hold 
     that society has something to say about this, that the 
     community has something to say about this. I deny and deny 
     emphatically that this is a purely private matter.
       There are, indeed, issues and behaviors that are or should 
     be beyond the reach of the society, the community, or the 
     State. There are behaviors that are or should be purely 
     personal, private matters. These are behaviors that, for the 
     most part, involve only one person or freely consenting 
     adults. Generally, sexual preferences and practices are or 
     should be covered by a veil which excludes everyone but the 
     consenting adult participants. For example, a decision to use 
     contraception is or should be a purely personal matter in 
     which no outsider has a right to interfere. There are other 
     examples, in other aspects of life, which carry and should 
     carry a sign saying: PRIVATE, NO ENTRY.
       But abortion is not one of them: Abortion is different. 
     Abortion involves two different human beings--one of them is 
     neither an adult nor consenting. Abortion involves the 
     killing of one human being by another with or without 
     accomplices. Where else in this culture do we say that such 
     behavior is a purely private matter? Where else do we say 
     that in such circumstances the society, the community, and 
     the State itself have no rights at all? No where.
       It is obvious, of course, that the circumstances of 
     pregnancy are unique. But in western civilization we purport 
     to value life more than any of the conditions of life. But, 
     not if it is an unborn life. In that circumstance, any 
     condition at all is held to be good enough, heavy enough, to 
     outweigh even the basic right to life itself.
       I suggest to you that this is insane, that we are a nation 
     that has lost our collective mind over this issue.
       And, even some people who are pro-choice seem to know this. 
     There seems to be a psychological need for denial, for 
     euphemism, for semantics, and for general self-deception in 
     order to make the psyche accept that which it could otherwise 
     not accept.
       Listen to a few examples:
       (1) ``The fetus is not human.''
       By now, this is hardly worth the effort to refute it. On 
     the basis of science, not religion, we know that from the 
     moment of conception, the fetus has its own full set of 
     chromosomes, an absolutely unique genetic pattern, and 100% 
     of the material necessary to develop into a fully grown human 
     being. The mother, who has already provided fifty percent 
     (50%) of the building materials, now also provides a site and 
     nourishment for the event. Nothing less but nothing more.
       (2) ``But, this is part of the mother's body.''
       By now, this is almost ludicrous. There is enough 
     biological information available even to the general public 
     to expose the lie in this claim. From the moment of 
     conception, the fetus is immunologically foreign to the 
     mother. It may have a different blood type. And, in about 
     fifty percent (50%) of all cases it has a different gender 
     than the mother.
       How, by any standard, can this be a part of the mother?
       (3) ``But a woman has a right to control her own 
     reproduction.''
       Yes, she does. She has the right to abstain from sexual 
     intercourse. She has the right to engage in sexual 
     intercourse and to use contraception.
       But abortion is not contraception. It has nothing to do 
     with reproductive rights. It has to do with killing that 
     which has already been reproduced.
       No amount of euphemism will change that.
       Do we use the words ``vaccine'' and ``antibiotic'' 
     interchangeably? If so, then let's begin to use the words 
     ``contraception'' and ``abortion'' interchangeably. Until 
     then, I think the clarity of distinction could be helpful.
       (4) ``This is a religious issue and no one has a right to 
     impose his or her religious beliefs on anyone else.''
       Indeed we have no such right! But, at its most common 
     denominator, abortion involves not theology, but humanity. 
     One does not need to believe in God to be opposed to 
     abortion. One needs only to believe in humanity. One needs 
     only to believe that we do not kill each other except to save 
     ourselves or another one of us. A creed is not needed to 
     abhor abortion for convenience.
       I never want to live in a community where a majority of 
     Catholics can forbid the sale of contraceptives, or where a 
     majority of Baptists can forbid the sale of liquor, or where 
     a majority of Jews can forbid the sale of pork. But, it is a 
     source of horror to live in a country where any number of 
     people can forbid protection to a group of innocent human 
     beings targeted for killing.
       In addition to the horrors generally associated with 
     abortion, there has now been added to the lexicon a phrase 
     that should go down in history along side the terms ``The 
     Inquisition'', ``The Witch Burnings'', ``The Camps'', ``The 
     Ovens'', ``The Holocaust'', and ``The Final Solution.'' That 
     phrase is ``Partial Birth Abortion.''
       This phrase refers to an absolutely barbaric act in which 
     an abortion is performed late in the second trimester and 
     through the entire third trimester of a woman's pregnancy.
       In September, 1993, a pro-choice nurse, Brenda Pratt 
     Shafer, witnessed her first partial birth abortion.
       Here is her description of what she saw:
       ``I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a 
     partial birth abortion on a woman who was six months 
     pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the 
     ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and 
     arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was 
     moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was 
     kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and 
     inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the 
     baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like 
     a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened 
     the scissors up. Then he stuck the high powered suction tube 
     into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby 
     was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But, I 
     am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the 
     most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.''
       Doctor Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education, 
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at Mount Sinai 
     Hospital in Chicago testified to a committee of the United 
     States Congress:
       ``There are absolutely no obstetrical situations 
     encountered in this country which require a partially 
     delivered human fetus to be dstroyed to preserve the life or 
     health of the mother.''
       Doctor Harlan R. Giles, a ``high-risk'' obstetrician, 
     gynecologist, and perinatologist at the Medical College of 
     Pennsylvania agreed with her. So did Doctor C. Everett Koop.
       Now, on the other side, President Clinton says that even 
     partial birth abortion acceptable. By now he has given at 
     least three different reasons for his veto of the bill passed 
     by Congress to outlaw partial birth abortion. I will not give 
     you those reasons because by tomorrow they may be obsolete.
       Upon an attempt to override the President's veto, the 
     necessary majority of the Congress voted to sustain the veto. 
     Most of the votes to sustain were democratic votes.
       I can no longer belong to a party which says that this sort 
     of absolutely needless barbarism is acceptable national 
     policy.
       I read the newspapers, and late at night, I watch CNN. I 
     have read and heard the rumors that the Republican Party is 
     not perfect. I even suspect that those rumors might be true. 
     But, I will tell you this: The Republican Party has 
     consistently stood up and said that, except to save the life 
     of the mother, it is not O.K. to have a national policy of 
     killing our urborn babies. Most recently, as a Party, the 
     Republicans have stood up and said that, ``Well excuse us, 
     but we do not agree that it is alright to stab a baby in the 
     back of her head, open a hole there, insert a vacuum cleaner, 
     and suck out her brains.''
       It is without hesitation and without personal regret that 
     today I leave the Democratic Party and join the Republican 
     Party.
       I know there are other important issues. I have alluded to 
     them in the beginning of this speech. On some of those issues 
     I may disagree with my new Republican colleagues.
       But, let me tell you this: Over my 18 years as a public 
     official I have had far more success in sensitizing 
     Republican leaders to various human needs than I have had in 
     sensitizing Democratic leaders to the moral outrage of 
     abortion.
       Let me tell you something else. This issue of abortion is 
     no ordinary issue. It cannot be put into line with any number 
     of issues on one side and weighed against all of the issues 
     on the other side. No. This issue is different in kind. This 
     issue is the slavery issue of the Twentieth Century. No moral 
     person could have decided for or against the Civil War on the 
     basis of the exportation of cotton, or upon the cultural 
     differences between the North and the South. No. All that 
     mattered. But there was one issue that riveted the attention 
     of the nation, one issue that screamed for moral judgment, 
     one issue that finally called for the ``terrible swift 
     sword.'' That issue was human slavery. Today that issue is 
     human life itself.
       Although it would be untrue, accuse me if you will of 
     deciding this on the basis of one issue. I stand then with 
     Abraham Lincoln. I stand with William Lloyd Garrison. I stand 
     with all of the abolitionists from both centuries, and on 
     both issues.
       I want to close this speech with a different kind of 
     thought. For years now I have said

[[Page E204]]

     that opposition to abortion should not be based primarily 
     upon religious beliefs. But certainly once we have 
     established our opposition upon broader grounds, we need not 
     be embarrassed to add to those grounds our own religious 
     considerations.
       All of us in this room, Christian and non-Christian, all of 
     us who believe in God at all, have got to also believe that 
     that God is still howling across the centuries: ``Where is 
     your brother...? What have you done? Listen! Your brother's 
     blood is crying out to me from the ground.'' Genesis 4:10-11
       Where are our brothers? Where are our sisters? Gone into 
     the bucket. Gone into the ground. Victims of the idolatry of 
     absolute free choice. Victims of the idolatry of unlimited 
     ambition for public office.
       Allow me, please, to reflect my own Catholic Christianity. 
     The Second Vatican Council closed on December 8, 1965. That 
     was 8 years before Roe v. Wade in this country. Even without 
     that stimulus, the Council Fathers addressed abortion 
     directly. They said:
       ``From the moment of conception, life must be guarded with 
     the greatest of care, while abortion and infanticide are 
     unspeakable crimes.''
       On March 25, 1995, in his Encyclical, ``Evangelium Vitae,'' 
     (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II said:
       ``I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed 
     as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral 
     disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent 
     human being.''
       And now in closing I want to return to our common Christian 
     heritage. By happy coincidence or by the grace of God, this 
     event is occurring just five days before Christmas.
       My own favorite Christmas story is one that is, 
     comparatively, unfamiliar.
       It begins in the mind of God before all of the millennia. 
     St. John the Evangelist brings it to us in some of the most 
     majestic language in the history of Christianity. I first 
     came to love it when our Church recited it in Latin at the 
     end of every Mass. And, if you will indulge my love for the 
     sheer beauty of the language, I will repeat a part of it here 
     for you, first in those sounds that I once so loved to hear.
       St. John closes the Prologue in this Gospel with these 
     words:

     And the Word was made flesh
     and dwelt among us;
     and we saw His glory,
     the glory of the only begotten of the Father
     full of grace and of truth.
                                                    --John 1:1-14.

       Maranatha. And Merry Christmas.

                          ____________________