[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12961-S12970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1999--Continued

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I submit for the Record a speech given 
by Mother Teresa. I think it is quite germane to this debate we are 
having on partial-birth abortion. It is piercing in its view of the 
truth. It is piercing in its view of the issue of abortion. It is quite 
clear. I think it is full of great wisdom.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                This Gift of Peace--Smile at Each Other

                           (By Mother Teresa)

       As we have gathered here together to thank God for the 
     Nobel Peace Prize, I think it will be beautiful that we pray 
     the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi which always surprises me 
     very much--we pray this prayer every day after Holy 
     Communion, because it is very fitting for each one of us, and 
     I always wonder that 4-500 years ago as St. Francis of Assisi 
     composed this prayer that they had the same difficulties that 
     we have today, as we compose this prayer that fits very 
     nicely for us also. I think some of you already have got it--
     so we will pray together.
       Let us thank God for the opportunity that we all have 
     together today, for this gift of peace that reminds us that 
     we have been created to live that peace, and Jesus became man 
     to bring that good news to the poor. He being God became man 
     in all things like us except sin, and he proclaimed very 
     clearly that he had come to give the good news. The

[[Page S12962]]

     news was peace to all of good will and this is something that 
     we all want--the peace of heart--and God loved the world so 
     much that he gave his son--it was a giving--it is as much as 
     if to say it hurt God to give, because he loved the world so 
     much that he gave his son, and he gave him to Virgin Mary, 
     and what did she do with him?
       As soon as he came in her life--immediately she went in 
     haste to give that good news, and as she came into the house 
     of her cousin, the child--the unborn child--the child in the 
     womb of Elizabeth, lit with joy. He was that little unborn 
     child, was the first messenger of peace. He recognized the 
     Prince of Peace, he recognized that Christ has come to bring 
     the good news for you and for me. And as if that was not 
     enough--it was not enough to become a man--he died on the 
     cross to show that greater love, and he died for you and for 
     me and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and 
     that naked person lying in the street not only of Calcutta, 
     but of Africa, and New York, and London, and Oslo--and 
     insisted that we love one another as he loves each one of us. 
     And we read that in the Gospel very clearly--love as I have 
     loved you--as I love you--as the Father has loved me, I love 
     you--and the harder the Father loved him, he gave him to us, 
     and how much we love one another, we, too, must give each 
     other until it hurts. It is not enough for us to say: I love 
     God, but I do not love my neighbour. St. John says you are a 
     liar if you say you love God and you don't love your 
     neighbour. How can you love God whom you do not see, if you 
     do not love your neighbour whom you see, whom you touch, with 
     whom you live. And so this is very important for us to 
     realize that love, to be true, has to hurt. It hurt Jesus to 
     love us, it hurt him. And to make sure we remember his great 
     love he made himself bread of life to satisfy our hunger for 
     his love. Our hunger for God, because we have been created 
     for that love. We have been created in his image. We have 
     been created to love and be loved, and then he has become man 
     to make it possible for us to love as he loved us. He makes 
     himself the hungry one--the naked one--the homeless one--the 
     sick one--the one in prison--the lonely one--the unwanted 
     one--and he says: You did it to me. Hungry for our love, and 
     this is the hunger of our poor people. This is the hunger 
     that you and I must find, it may be in our own home.
       I never forget an opportunity I had in visiting a home 
     where they had all these old parents of sons and daughters 
     who had just put them in an institution and forgotten maybe. 
     And I went there, and I saw in that home they had everything, 
     beautiful things, but everybody was looking toward the door. 
     And I did not see a single one with their smile on their 
     face. And I turned to the sister and I asked: How is that? 
     How is it that the people they have everything here, why are 
     they all looking toward the door, why are they not smiling? I 
     am so used to see the smile on our people, even the dying 
     ones smile, and she said: This is nearly every day, they are 
     expecting, they are hoping that a son or daughter will come 
     to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten, and 
     see--this is where love comes. That poverty comes right there 
     in our own home, even neglect to love. Maybe in our own 
     family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling 
     sick, who is feeling worried, and these are difficult days 
     for everybody. Are we there, are we there to receive them, is 
     the mother there to receive the child?
       I was surprised in the waste to see so many young boys and 
     girls given into drugs, and I tried to find out why--why is 
     it like that, and the answer was: Because there is no one in 
     the family to receive them. Father and mother are so busy 
     they have no time. Young parents are in some institution and 
     the child takes back to the street and gets involved in 
     something. We are talking of peace. These are things that 
     break peace, but I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today 
     is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing--
     direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the 
     Scripture, for God says very clearly. Even if a mother could 
     forget her child--I will not forget you--I have curved you in 
     the palm of my hand. We are curved in the palm of His hand so 
     close to Him that unborn child has been curved in the hand of 
     God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that 
     sentence, that even if a mother could forget something 
     impossible--but even if she could forget--I will not forget 
     your. And today the greatest means--the greatest destroyer of 
     peace is abortion. And we who are standing here--our parents 
     wanted us. We would not be here if our parents would do that 
     to us. Our children, we want them, we love them, but what of 
     the millions. Many people are very, very concerned with the 
     children in India, with the children of Africa where quite a 
     number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but 
     millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. 
     And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. 
     Because if a mother can kill her own child--what is left for 
     me to kill you and you to kill me--there is nothing between. 
     And this I appeal in India, I appeal everywhere: Let us bring 
     the child back, and this year being the child's year: What 
     have we done for the child? At the beginning of the year I 
     told, I spoke everywhere and I said: Let us make this year 
     that we make every single child born, and unborn, wanted. And 
     today is the end of the year, have we really made the 
     children wanted? I will give you something terrifying. We 
     are fighting abortion by adoption, we have saved thousands 
     of lives, we have sent words to all the clinics, to the 
     hospitals, police stations--please don't destroy the 
     child, we will take the child. So every hour of the day 
     and night it is always somebody, we have quite a number of 
     unwedded mothers--tell them come, we will take care of 
     you, we will take the child from you, and we will get a 
     home for the child. And we have a tremendous demand for 
     families who have no children, that is the blessing of God 
     for us. And also, we are doing another thing which is very 
     beautiful--we are teaching our beggars, our leprosy 
     patients, our slum dwellers, our people of the street, 
     natural family planning.
       And in Calcutta alone in six years--it is all in Calcutta--
     we have had 61,273 babies less from the families who would 
     have had, but because they practice this natural way of 
     abstaining, of self-control, out of love for each other. We 
     teach them the temperature meter which is very beautiful, 
     very simple, and our poor people understand. And you know 
     what they have told me? Our family is healthy, our family is 
     united, and we can have a baby whenever we want. So clear--
     these people in the street, those beggars--and I think that 
     if our people can do like that how much more you and all the 
     others who can know the ways and means without destroying the 
     life that God has created in us. The poor people are very 
     great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. The 
     other day one of them came to thank and said: You people who 
     have evolved chastity you are the best people to teach us 
     family planning. Because it is nothing more than self-control 
     out of love for each other. And I think they said a beautiful 
     sentence. And these are people who maybe have nothing to eat, 
     maybe they have not a home where to live, but they are great 
     people. The poor are very wonderful people. One evening we 
     went out and we picked up four people from the street. And 
     one of them was in a most terrible condition--and I told the 
     sisters: You take care of the other three, I take of this one 
     that looked worse. So I did for her all that my love can do. 
     I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her 
     face. She took hold of my hand, as she said one word only: 
     Thank you--and she died.
       I could not help but examine my conscience before her, and 
     I asked what would I say if I was in her place. And my answer 
     was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little 
     attention to myself, I would have said I am hungry, that I am 
     dying, I am cold, I am in pain, or something, but she gave me 
     much more--she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a 
     smile on her face. As that man whom we picked up from the 
     drain, half eaten with worms, and we brought him to the home. 
     I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to 
     die like an angel, loved and cared for. And it was so 
     wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak 
     like that, who could die like that without blaming anybody, 
     without cursing anybody, without comparing anything. Like an 
     angel--this is the greatness of our people. And that is why 
     we believe what Jesus has said: I was hungry--I was naked--I 
     was homeless--I was unwanted, unloved, uncared for--and you 
     did it to me. I believe that we are not real social workers. 
     We may be doing social work in the eyes of the people, but we 
     are really contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we 
     are touching the body of Christ 24 hours. We have 24 hours in 
     this presence, and so you and I. You too try to bring that 
     presence of God in your family, for the family that prays 
     together stays together. And I think that we in our family 
     we don't need bombs and guns, to destroy to bring peace--
     just get together, love one another, bring that peace, 
     that joy, that strength of presence of each other in the 
     home. And we will be able to overcome all the evil that is 
     in the world. There is so much suffering, so much hatred, 
     so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice 
     are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not 
     how much we do, but how much love we put in the action 
     that we do. It is to God Almighty--how much we do it does 
     not matter, because He is infinite, but how much love we 
     put in that action. How much we do to Him in the person 
     that we are serving. Some time ago in Calcutta we had 
     great difficulty in getting sugar, and I don't know how 
     the word got around to the children, and a little boy of 
     four years old, Hindu boy, went home and told his parents: 
     I will not eat sugar for three days, I will give my sugar 
     to Mother Teresa for her children. After three days his 
     father and mother brought him to our house. I had never 
     met them before, and this little one could scarcely 
     pronounce my name, but he knew exactly what he had come to 
     do. He knew that he wanted to share his love. And this is 
     why I have received such a lot of love from you all. From 
     the time that I have come here I have simply been 
     surrounded with love, and with real, real understanding 
     love. It could feel as if everyone in India, everyone in 
     Africa is somebody very special to you. And I felt quite 
     at home I was telling Sister today. I feel in the Convent 
     with the Sisters as if I am in Calcutta with my own 
     Sisters. So completely at home here, right here. And so 
     here I am talking with you--I want you to find the poor 
     here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. 
     Be that good news to your own people. And find out about 
     your next-door neighbor--do you know who they are? I had 
     the most extraordinary experience with a Hindu family who 
     had eight children. A gentleman came to our house and 
     said: Mother Teresa, there is a family with eight 
     children, they had not eaten for so

[[Page S12963]]

     long--do something. So I took some rice and I went there 
     immediately. And I saw the children--their eyes shining 
     with hunger--I don't know if you have ever seen hunger. 
     But I have seen it very often. And she took the rice, and 
     divided the rice, and she went out. When she came back I 
     asked her--where did you go, what did you do? And she gave 
     me a very simple answer: They are hungry also. What struck 
     me most was that she knew--and who are they, a Muslim 
     family--and she knew. I didn't bring more rice that 
     evening because I wanted them to enjoy the joy of sharing. 
     But there was those children, radiating joy, sharing the 
     joy with their mother because she had the love to give. 
     And you see this is where love begins--at home. And I want 
     you--and I am very grateful for what I have received. It 
     has been a tremendous experience and I go back to India--I 
     will be back by next week, the 15th I hope--and I will be 
     able to bring your love.
       And I know well that you have not given from your 
     abundance, but you have given until it hurts you. Today the 
     little children they gave--I was so surprised--there is so 
     much joy for the children that are hungry. That the children 
     like themselves will need love and care and tenderness, like 
     they get so much from their parents. So let us thank God that 
     we have had this opportunity to come to know each other, and 
     this knowledge of each other has brought us very close. And 
     we will be able to help not only the children of India and 
     Africa, but will be able to help the children of the whole 
     world, because as you know our Sisters are all over the 
     world. And with this Prize that I have received as a Prize 
     of Peace, I am going to try to make the home for many 
     people that have no home. Because I believe that love 
     begins at home, and if we can create a home for the poor--
     I think that more and more love will spread. And we will 
     be able through this understanding love to bring peace, be 
     the good news to the poor. The poor in our own family 
     first, in our country and in the world. To be able to do 
     this, our Sisters, our lives have to be woven with prayer. 
     They have to be woven with Christ to be able to 
     understand, to be able to share. Because today there is so 
     much suffering--and I feel that the passion of Christ is 
     being relived all over again--are we there to share that 
     passion, to share that suffering of people. Around the 
     world, not only in the poor countries, but I found the 
     poverty of the West so much more difficult to remove. When 
     I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a 
     plate of rice, a piece of bread, I have satisfied. I have 
     removed that hunger. But a person that is shut out, that 
     feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has 
     been thrown out from society--that poverty is so hurtable 
     and so much, and I find that very difficult. Our Sisters 
     are working amongst that kind of people in the West. So 
     you must pray for us that we may be able to be that good 
     news, but we cannot do that without you, you have to do 
     that here in your country. You must come to know the poor, 
     maybe our people here have material things, everything, 
     but I think that if we all look into our own homes, how 
     difficult we find it sometimes to smile at each other, and 
     that the smile is the beginning of love. And so let us 
     always meet each other with a smile, for the smile is the 
     beginning of love, and once we begin to love each other 
     naturally we want to do something. So you pray for our 
     Sisters and for me and for our Brothers, and for our co-
     workers that are around the world. That we may remain 
     faithful to the gift of God, to love Him and serve Him in 
     the poor together with you. What we have done we would not 
     have been able to do if you did not share with your 
     prayers, with your gifts, this continual giving. But I 
     don't want you to give me from your abundance, I want that 
     you give me until it hurts. The other day I received 15 
     dollars from a man who has been on his back for twenty 
     years, and the only part that he can move is his right 
     hand. And the only companion that he enjoys is smoking. 
     And he said to me: I do not smoke for one week, and I send 
     you this money. It must have been a terrible sacrifice for 
     him, but see how beautiful, how he shared, and with that 
     money I bought bread and I gave to those who are hungry 
     with a joy on both sides, he was giving and the poor were 
     receiving. This is something that you and I--it is a gift 
     of God to us to be able to share our love with others. And 
     let it be as it was for Jesus. Let us love one another as 
     he loved us. Let us love Him with undivided love. And the 
     joy of loving Him and each other--let us give now--that 
     Christmas is coming so close. Let us keep that joy of 
     loving Jesus in our hearts. And share that joy with all 
     that we come in touch with. And that radiating joy is 
     real, for we have no reason not to be happy because we 
     have Christ with us. Christ in our hearts, Christ in the 
     poor that we meet, Christ in the smile that we give and 
     the smile that we receive. Let us make that one point: 
     That no child will be unwanted, and also that we meet each 
     other always with a smile, especially when it is difficult 
     to smile.
       I never forget some time ago about 14 professors came from 
     the United States from different universities. And they came 
     to Calcutta to our house. Then we were talking about home for 
     the dying in Calcutta, where we have picked up more than 
     36,000 people only from the streets of Calcutta, and out of 
     that big number more than 18,000 have died a beautiful death. 
     They have just gone home to God; and they came to our house 
     and we talked of love, of compassion, and then one of them 
     asked me: Say, Mother, please tell us something that we will 
     remember, and I said to them: Smile at each other, make time 
     for each other in your family. Smile at each other. And then 
     another one asked me: Are you married, and I said: Yes, and I 
     find it sometimes very difficult to smile at Jesus because he 
     can be very demanding sometimes. This is really something 
     true, and there is where love comes--when it is demanding, 
     and yet we can give it to Him with joy. Just as I have said 
     today, I have said that if I don't go to Heaven for anything 
     else I will be going to Heaven for all the publicity because 
     it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really 
     something ready to go to Heaven. I think that this is 
     something, that we must live life beautifully, we have Jesus 
     with us and He loves us. If we could only remember that God 
     loves me, and I have an opportunity to love others as He 
     loves me, not in big things, but in small things with great 
     love, then Norway becomes a nest of love. And how beautiful 
     it will be that from here a centre for peace of war has been 
     given. That from here the joy of life of the unborn child 
     comes out. If you become a burning light in the world of 
     peace, then really the Nobel Peace Prize is a gift of the 
     Norwegian people. God bless you!

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside. Obviously, we have a vote locked in at 2 
o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I want to do is give an opportunity 
for other Senators who have amendments to come to the floor and offer 
their amendments during this time so we can move forward on the bill, 
with the expectation we can finish the bill sometime today.
  Also, if any Senator has a statement on either side of the issue, 
this is a good opportunity to come down and make their statement about 
the bill or about any amendment that has been offered to date. I hope 
we will use this time fruitfully and not delay the Senate any further 
in acting upon this very important measure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Pennsylvania intend 
to stay on the floor for a while?
  Mr. SANTORUM. For another 10 minutes, and then I am going to be gone.
  Mr. KERREY. I have to leave as well. I have come a couple times 
trying to engage in a colloquy on this piece of legislation. I thought 
now would be the time to take a few minutes to do so.
  I support a woman's right to choose. I voted yes on Medicaid funding. 
I think it is critical for me to support a woman's right to choose for 
those people who cannot afford it. I supported Federal employees' 
rights to use health insurance, and I supported rights of people in the 
armed services to reproductive services. I think I voted five times 
against your legislation or something to that extent, and a couple 
times to sustain the President's veto.
  I want people on both sides of the aisle to understand this procedure 
deeply troubles me. I am not certain how I am going to vote this time 
around. I indicated to people in Nebraska that I am listening to their 
concerns about this procedure.
  I state at the beginning this is a very difficult issue because very 
often we do not have a chance to debate and talk about it in a personal 
way, as in the way the Senator from Pennsylvania did last evening. I 
caught about the last 30 minutes of the presentation. It is a very 
moving and personal presentation the Senator makes, and oftentimes we 
just do not get that. We lock in our positions early on in our 
political careers and are told by our political consultants: You cannot 
change your position or modify your position in any way--especially in 
my case; I am coming up on an election--you are doing it for political 
reasons, so forth, your supporters get bitterly disappointed, on and on 
and all that political advice.
  I have, in my case, to ignore that. I find this to be very much about 
what kind of a country we want to be, and it is a very serious debate. 
I do not know

[[Page S12964]]

that we have time, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, today or 
right now to do it, but at some point, even when the Senator from 
California is down here, I want to talk about this question of medical 
necessity because for me it turns on that. If this procedure is not 
medically necessary, then your legislation is not an undue burden upon 
anyone who chooses to undergo an abortion. It is not an undue burden. 
If it is medically necessary, then it can be an undue burden. That is 
where it gets in a hurry for me as I consider this.

  I have talked to people in Nebraska about this, both for and against. 
It is very difficult for anybody, once they consider what this 
procedure is, to say: Gosh, that's good; it doesn't bother me; I am not 
concerned about it. Almost unanimously people say there is something 
about this that just does not seem right.
  I wonder if the Senator can talk for a bit--I do not want to drag him 
too long into this discussion--about this issue of medical necessity. I 
will announce ahead of time for the staff, for the Senator from 
California, I will give her an opportunity, as well, to describe why 
she believes this is medically necessary. I have heard the Senator from 
Pennsylvania say it is not. I appreciate very much an opportunity to 
hear directly from him.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first off, I thank the Senator very much 
for his interest in an honest and open debate. I agree, this is one of 
the critical issues we have to address, and the courts have confronted 
this question of undue burden.
  Underlying that are two issues; one is the center point: Is this 
medically necessary. Second, are there alternatives to this procedure 
so as not to have an undue burden.
  That gets into a couple issues. Let me address the medical necessity 
issue.
  I will present the evidence as best I can that supports, we believe, 
the fact that this is not medically necessary. We have, of course, the 
AMA which said it is not medically necessary. That is the American 
Medical Association. They have said in a letter and stand by it that 
this procedure is not medically necessary.
  We have C. Everett Koop, obviously someone who has a tremendous 
amount of respect in this country, who has written directly this is not 
medically necessary.
  We have an organization of 600--actually more than 600--obstetricians 
and gynecologists, many of them members of the American College of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology, many of them fellows, who have written 
without any hesitation this procedure is not medically necessary and 
is, in fact, dangerous to the health of the mother. They go one step 
further: It is never medically preferable, not only medically 
necessary.
  On the other side of the issue--and I am trying to present it, and I 
know the Senator from California will present her side--what is used is 
the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology policy statement on 
the issue. Several years ago, they put together a select panel, and the 
select panel reviewed the procedure to determine whether there were 
cases in which it was medically necessary to perform this procedure. 
They came forward with a statement. This is what their statement said:

       [We] could identify no circumstances under which this 
     procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or 
     preserve the health of the woman . . . 

  They went on to say--and this is where the Senator from California 
will come in and say, see, that is not the whole story, so I will go 
on. It says:

       An intact D&X--

  Partial-birth abortion--

       however, may--

  May--

     be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
     circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a 
     woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, 
     based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this 
     decision.

  We have asked the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology to 
provide us an example of where this procedure may be the best procedure 
because what they say is it ``may.'' For 3 years we have asked them to 
provide us a factual situation where, in fact, this ``may'' would come 
into play, and they have not done so.
  In fact, we have letters, and I would be happy to share them with 
you; there are dozens--in fact, there is a whole stack--from 
obstetricians and gynecologists throughout America who take issue with 
this statement, saying there are no circumstances where this would be 
the most appropriate procedure.
  Dr. Frist addressed that issue last night. He went through the 
medical literature and talked about it. I have asked him to come over, 
if he can, because I think, as a physician, as a surgeon, he may be 
better to answer this question than me.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that very much.
  Mr. President, I expect, after lunch, to come back. I hope there is 
an opportunity to engage in this kind of colloquy.
  I will give you an example. There was a woman who approached me and 
said: Senator, there are times when a woman gets an abortion where she 
would prefer not to. She has gone in for delivery--that is the 
situation this woman described to me. She went in to deliver a baby. 
She went in and delivered prematurely, and the doctor had to make a 
decision and chose, she thought, this procedure--I don't know 
precisely; I don't have the documentation on this--but thought the 
doctor chose this procedure and was worried that if this procedure was 
not available, the doctor might not have been able to save her life.
  I presume the Senator has a response to that. This is not a unique 
situation. In other words, this is not a woman who has chosen to have 
an abortion. She wanted to have the baby. She wanted to deliver the 
baby.
  Mr. SANTORUM. She was in the process of delivery, and they had to do 
something?
  Mr. KERREY. That is correct.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Two comments.
  First of all, the definition of ``partial-birth abortion'' is very 
clear. It requires an intent to do an abortion. So if you were going 
in, and you were having a delivery, and the delivery is breech, for 
example, that would not be covered under this. It is very clear. There 
is no court in the land, that has reviewed this, that has suggested 
that anyone who is in the process of delivering a child for the purpose 
of a live birth is covered under this definition because you have to 
have the intent to have an abortion. If there is no such intent, then 
you are not covered under the act.
  Mr. KERREY. Has the Senator examined the Eighth Circuit decision that 
overturned it?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I have.
  Mr. KERREY. Can we speak to that later? I don't want to keep you any 
longer. You were kind enough to stick around a few minutes. I need to 
leave for a luncheon, as well. Perhaps we can speak later this 
afternoon.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, I would be happy to. In fact, I shared with the 
Senator from Nebraska yesterday an amendment to the bill that I think 
directly is on point with what the Eighth Circuit decision had concern 
with, which is the vagueness of the definition, that it could cover 
more than one abortion. I think this refinement of the definition makes 
it crystal clear that we are only talking about this one procedure.
  As I said to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, when she 
was going through the Eighth Circuit decision earlier, the Eighth 
Circuit said our problem with this is it includes too much. Obviously, 
if you take the logic of that, they would probably not have a problem 
if it did not include too much.
  Mr. KERREY. The language you showed me earlier to modify your 
amendment was to respond to the Eighth Circuit?
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I accomplished at least the objective of 
letting people know that: Please, don't put me in the ``no column'' on 
this immediately. I indicated the last time this thing was around that 
I have significant reservations about it. I have listened to people and 
talked to people, especially at home, and under no circumstances do I--
I was Governor for 4 years and have been a Senator for 10 years. The 
worst thing is to be locked into a position from which people say you 
can't change, even if you acquire evidence that your previous position 
is wrong.
  So I want both the Senator from Pennsylvania and especially the 
people

[[Page S12965]]

in Nebraska to understand that I am looking at it. If I conclude I was 
wrong the other time, I will vote differently this time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his 
openmindedness on this. From my perspective, in looking at his career, 
it comports very well with his previous practice. I appreciate the 
opportunity to converse with the Senator.
  I might just say, this is the kind of dialog I think we need to have 
on the Senate floor when it comes to this issue. Let's get to the 
material facts that are before us, and let's have an enlightened 
discussion about what underpins this case.
  Dr. Frist is here. If the Senator would care to add to this colloquy, 
I would certainly appreciate his comments.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is interesting. I believe much of the 
discussion centers on the fact of this being a particular procedure; 
that is, as I have said on the floor of the Senate, this particular 
procedure, as described, is a subset of many other types of procedures 
of abortion.
  As I talk to physicians and surgeons, which I do on a regular basis--
because, as I said, I am not an obstetrician, I am a surgeon who is 
trained in looking at surgical techniques--this is a specific technique 
which is a subset of a much larger armamentarium. This is where much of 
the confusion is. It is confusing to many physicians. Physicians today 
have this great fear that by prohibiting a single procedure, in some 
way that is going to be expanded to eliminate the much larger 
armamentarium of tools used.
  That is what we have to be very careful of. We are talking about a 
very specific procedure that has been described. We do not need to go 
through the details now. There are other procedures that are in a 
broader arena called D&E and all these more medical terms it is not 
worth getting into.
  But it is important for people to understand this is a very specific 
type of procedure that is different, that is on the fringe; that does 
not mean the other procedures can't and in certain cases shouldn't be 
used.
  Mr. KERREY. If the Senator will yield for a question in this regard.
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. This bill, then, is inaccurately characterized as a late-
term abortion bill? It is not? I have had people ask me about it: Are 
you going to support the partial-birth abortion bill because it is 
going to end this procedure, late-term procedure? This is a bill that 
would make illegal a specific medical procedure?
  Mr. FRIST. That is exactly right.
  Mr. KERREY. The second part, is there precedent for us to do this 
sort of thing?
  Mr. FRIST. No, there is not, or to my mind, there is not. You can 
find certain examples, because we are talking about life, and other 
places that the Senate has intervened.
  The real concern among physicians, which I think is very accurate, is 
you are taking a specific procedure and taking it off the table. And 
the question is, Why?

  The other big concern is, is this a slippery slope? Does this mean 
the Congress is going to come in and take another procedure and another 
procedure to accomplish a goal with some hidden agenda of eliminating 
all abortions for everybody under all circumstances at a certain point 
in life? It is not.
  In is this unusual nature of being a specific procedure that is what 
is hard for the American people to understand and physicians to 
understand and our colleagues to understand. This basically takes a 
procedure, which is one of many, at any point --really 22 weeks and 
later--and eliminating it because of the brutality, the inhumaneness, 
the way it is performed, the risk, the unstudied risk of the safety of 
the mother, and the damage to the fetus, which during that period, I 
would argue, does feel pain.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FRIST. Thank you.
  Let me move to something that I commented on very briefly, and that 
is this whole concept of a slippery slope. I have talked to a number of 
physicians in the last several days. Their concern is exactly as I 
implied. We have the Congress coming in and taking a procedure--and 
none of the physicians I have talked to have tried to justify this 
procedure in any way--but the great fear is that you take this 
procedure, and the Congress will come back a year from now, or 2 years 
from now or 3 years from now, and ban other very specific procedures.
  I struggled with this a great deal because I do not want to see the 
Federal Government coming in to that decision making capacity. I 
struggled with it night and day. I struggled with it since we last 
debated this on the floor. But ultimately, I come back to the fact that 
women are being hurt by a specific procedure; thus, we have a public 
responsibility, as being trustees to the American people, since there 
are women being hurt by a procedure, which is unnecessary today, that 
continues to be performed on the fringe, out of the mainstream, that we 
do have a public obligation to reach out and prohibit that specific 
procedure.
  I described in some detail last night the out-of-mainstream whole 
fringe nature of this procedure. Again, I think it is very important 
for people to understand this is a fringe procedure.
  Then people will come and say: If it's such a fringe procedure, why 
do you say we need to go so far as to have the Federal Government 
become involved?
  Again, it comes back to the fact that being a fringe procedure, the 
safety, the efficacy of this procedure has not been discussed.
  As a surgeon, as someone who has spent his entire adult life, or 20 
years of his life, studying surgical procedures, studying the 
indications for operation, the techniques of operation, the potential 
complications of operation, the risks of operation, and the outcome of 
operation, none of that--none of that--has been studied by the medical 
profession for partial-birth abortion, which involves the rotation of 
the fetus in utero, pulling out most of the fetus, inserting scissors 
into the base of the cranium of the skull, expansion of those scissors, 
and evacuation of the brain. It has not been studied.

  I have also mentioned I wanted to see what our medical students are 
learning. Therefore, over the last several days, I reviewed 17 
different textbooks. In fact, they are sitting in my office. I thought 
about bringing a couple and putting them on the desk. In 17 of those 
textbooks, not once is that procedure described. Not once are the 
indications for that procedure there. Not once is there any discussion 
of the risk of the complications or of the outcome.
  I challenge my colleagues and others: Where else would we allow a 
procedure which we know has complications? They have been outlined on 
the floor. We know there is hemorrhage or bleeding, or perforation of 
the uterus by a blind manipulation. We know there is a rupture of the 
uterus. The list goes on in terms of the complications of the 
procedure. But where else in medicine today do we actually allow a 
procedure to be performed that we know hurts people, that is on the 
fringe, which has not been studied by the medical profession? There are 
no trials. There are no publications in peer review journals. Of the 
thousands and thousands of peer review articles out there, the 
thousands in obstetrics each year, this procedure has not been studied. 
We have an option. We have alternatives in each and every case.
  It is interesting because a number of people have called around and 
talked to their own medical schools trying to gather more information. 
They will call me afterwards and say: Senator Frist, or Dr. Frist, I 
just talked to the obstetrician back home and he says that abortions 
are indicated at certain points, in his or her mind. Therefore, to 
outlaw this procedure would mean no abortions will be performed in that 
middle or late trimester. You could argue, depending on your moral 
beliefs or medical beliefs, whether or not that should be the case, but 
that is not what is under discussion today.
  What is under discussion is the elimination of a specific procedure 
for which there are alternatives; a specific procedure I argue not only 
offends the basic civil sensibilities of all Americans but is inhumane 
to the fetus and hurts and damages and threatens the health of women.
  I was talking to an obstetrician yesterday at one of the very 
esteemed medical centers. I basically asked, do you teach this 
procedure. I have not talked to anybody yet--I know it is not in the 
literature--who teaches this procedure in an established surgical 
residency training program. That is the

[[Page S12966]]

program where we train the board certified obstetricians.
  There might be some abortionists who are not board certified, who 
have not gone through board programs. It is important for people to 
know you can perform abortions, you can actually do surgery without 
being board certified. You don't have to go through the certification 
process. Yes, there are people performing this procedure, but if you go 
to the established licensing, credentialling bodies, you won't find 
this procedure being taught.
  Are abortions being taught? It depends on which medical school you 
are attending. It depends on which residency training program. One 
person I was talking to yesterday said: No, at our hospital, as part of 
our program, we don't go in and teach midtrimester abortions. We don't 
teach the procedures. If you voluntarily come forward, yes, we will 
teach abortion. But we will not teach the partial-birth abortion, which 
involves manipulation within the uterus, blind extraction of 90, 95 
percent of the fetus, and opening the cranium with scissors bluntly and 
evacuation of the brain. We teach abortion voluntarily, but we do not 
actually teach the partial-birth abortion.
  Therefore, when my colleagues talk to people, be very specific that 
this procedure, the partial-birth abortion procedure as described on 
the floor of the Senate, is the procedure that is under discussion.
  To summarize, this is a fringe procedure. It is outside of the 
mainstream. It is not studied or taught in our medical schools. Of the 
17 textbooks I reviewed last night, I did find one reference, after 
looking through all 17 books, to partial-birth abortion. It had nothing 
to do with technique. It had nothing to do with complications. It had 
nothing to do with outcome. The only mention was one paragraph in this 
particular textbook. It mentioned the veto by the President of the 
United States.
  There are alternatives to this inhumane, barbaric procedure. Thus, I 
continue to support the Senator from Pennsylvania in prohibiting this 
procedure and its practice.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  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

[[Page S12967]]

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

[[Page S12968]]

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

[[Page S12969]]

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

[[Page S12970]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________