[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12972-S12999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1999--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VOINOVICH). Under the previous order, the 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2321. On this question, the 
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2321) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the underlying 
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2320), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I voted against the Harkin amendment 
because I disagree with the findings stated in the resolution and 
because it is not relevant to the underlying bill. However, I would not 
vote to repeal Roe v. Wade, as it stands today, which has left room for 
States to make reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am about to send an amendment to the 
desk. The purpose of the amendment is a modification of the language 
that defines what a partial-birth abortion is in S. 1692.
  The reason for the modification is in direct response to the Eighth 
Circuit decision where the court asserted the procedure defined--it was 
a similar definition to the one here--was unconstitutionally vague; 
that it could have included other forms of abortion and, thereby, was 
an undue burden because it would have eliminated other forms of 
abortion and would have, by doing so, restricted a woman's right 
unduly, according to the court.
  I am not going to take issue with the court whether they are right or 
wrong. I do not believe they are right, but in response to that, I am 
going to be offering an amendment that makes it very clear we are not 
talking about any other form of abortion; that we are talking about 
just the abortion procedure that has been described over and over about 
a baby being delivered outside of the mother, all but the head, and 
then killed; not a baby that is being killed in utero and a part of the 
baby's body may be in the birth canal. That is what the court said they 
were concerned about.
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. I think I have the language that--
  Mr. SANTORUM. We made a slight modification.
  Mr. KERREY. The language you gave me earlier said:

       As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion deliberately and intentionally delivers through 
     the vagina some portion of an intact living fetus until the 
     fetus is partially outside the body of the mother for the 
     purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will 
     kill the fetus while the fetus is partially outside--

  Any changes?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The only change is in the first few words.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask the Senator to respond to me. We had a colloquy 
earlier. I have the Eighth Circuit decision. Earlier all I had was 
opinions on the Eighth Circuit decision from both opponents and 
supporters of the Senator's legislation. The Eighth Circuit says, 
referencing the Nebraska statute, which is the concern I have, that it 
did create an undue burden because, in many instances, it would ban the 
most common procedure of second-trimester abortions, and that is the 
D&E. You are saying you are drawing it more narrowly so it does not.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. Here is the language, I say to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, that the court found objectionable, and it sounds awfully 
similar to your amended version. I want to give you an opportunity to 
talk to me about it. It says:

       . . . deliberately and intentionally delivering into the 
     vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion 
     thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the 
     person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn 
     child and does kill the unborn child.

  Mr. SANTORUM. That is similar to the language that is in the bill 
right now. But the amended language further specifies the fetus is 
partially outside the body of the mother. The court was concerned about 
a D&E performed in utero, but the baby during this procedure could be 
partially delivered into the birth canal and that occasionally an arm 
or leg or something might be delivered, and that was the confusing part 
for the court.

  This is clear that the living baby has to be outside of the mother 
before the act of killing the baby occurs; that the act of killing the 
baby is not occurring in utero, but occurring when the baby is outside 
the mother. I think it pretty well carves out any other form of 
abortion.
  Mr. KERREY. May I ask him one more question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, ask as many as you like.
  Mr. KERREY. I will get you the comparative language. Again, I will 
not give the precise Eighth Circuit compared to yours. You have been on 
this a lot longer than I have, and I know the Senator from California 
has as well. Perhaps between the two of you, you can clarify if this 
change meets the Eighth Circuit's test.
  I understand that this is one circuit, and you may get--I have voted 
against other circuits before when they have had decisions, so there is 
certainly precedent for me ignoring what a court says.
  But in the earlier discussion we had, I expressed one of the concerns 
I have. And since we talked earlier, I have talked to an OB/GYN from 
Omaha who does not, in a normal practice, conduct abortions. What she 
does is work with women who are pregnant and helps them through their 
delivery. She is expressing a concern that if she is working with a 
woman who is having some difficulty, because of the penalties that are 
in here, she finds herself saying: Am I going to be able to do 
something that I ordinarily might have done?

[[Page S12973]]

  In other words, you said to me earlier, when I talked about this, 
that this is for people who intentionally make a decision to go in and 
get an abortion as opposed to somebody, as this doctor described to me, 
who is not going in for an abortion. I think it is a very important 
point because the universe consists of people who get abortions but do 
not want one; they were intending to deliver, and the doctor, for 
medical reasons, makes this decision, but the woman may prefer that 
that not have happened. The doctor is making the decision based upon 
life and health considerations. And you said to me it has to be the 
intent. Where in the bill does it say that?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. Do you have the bill in front of you? Page 3, 
lines 9 and 10:

       As used in this section, [the] term ``vaginally delivers a 
     living fetus before killing the fetus'' means deliberately 
     and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or 
     a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing 
     a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and 
     [then] kills the fetus.

  So it is----
  Mr. KERREY. It seems to me that can still easily cover a doctor 
making a decision with a woman who does not want an abortion, but the 
abortion is selected by the doctor as a consequence of some 
complications occurring.
  What this doctor said to me was----
  Mr. SANTORUM. If you have some language that could clarify--but if 
you read the definition, it says:

       . . . means deliberately and intentionally delivers into 
     the vagina a living fetus, or a substantial portion thereof, 
     for the purpose of performing a procedure the physician knows 
     will kill the fetus. . . .

  That is, if you deliver for the purpose of killing the fetus, as this 
says, as opposed to delivering for the purpose of delivering a live 
baby where that may go awry and something may happen, and that would 
require the killing of a fetus. And that is not covered. I think it is 
pretty clear that is not covered.
  If you have some language that would make you more comfortable with 
that, it is certainly not our intention--let me make it very clear--to 
cover any case where you have a birth where a complication arises and 
something has to be done.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that. I will give that some consideration.
  I say that I have had a very interesting conversation--both the 
earlier one and subsequent one with this OB-GYN physician in Omaha--
because, again, she is not an abortion doctor. That is not her 
practice.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Right.
  Mr. KERREY. Her practice is in working with women who either are 
pregnant or want to get pregnant; and that is her business.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Has she read this language?
  Mr. KERREY. I just faxed the language to her, both the amended 
version and the original version.
  Again, one of the problems that all of us have--I have two problems: 
One, as a man, I have difficulty trying to figure all this out; but 
secondly, as a nonphysician, I have a difficult time figuring it out. 
She starts talking to me and says: Understand, the cervical arteries 
are at 3 and 9 o'clock.
  What you are dealing with here is a situation where you can produce 
damage. You have to be careful not to. In other words, she is saying to 
me: Understand that delivery itself is a life-threatening process--as 
the Senator from Pennsylvania knows all too well. Delivery itself is a 
life-threatening process to the mother, and decisions are being made by 
the physician as to what to do and what not to do. And she is very 
concerned that this will make it difficult for her to continue her 
practice.
  As I said, I faxed it to her. And I look forward to further 
colloquies with the Senator.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate that. I state for the record this is part 
of the legislative history. Obviously, if there is some language that 
makes you more comfortable, that we need to be more clear here, it is 
certainly clearly the legislative intent not to include situations 
where the baby is in the process of being born and the process of a 
natural childbirth and a complication arises which forces the doctor to 
do things that result in the death of the child. That is clearly 
outside the scope of this. It certainly is our intent for it to be 
outside the scope. We think the language here is clear that it is.

  But, again, I would be willing to work with the Senator from Nebraska 
to make sure he is comfortable that that is clearly outside the scope 
of this.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that. I said earlier, when we had our 
colloquy, that I am comfortable in my position in saying I believe a 
woman or doctor, physician, should--and her spiritual counselor--be 
making this decision. I consider myself to be a pro-choice individual 
as a consequence of that.
  I supported Medicaid funding because I think it is hypocritical of me 
not to if I am going to let people who have the means get a legal 
procedure. But this procedure troubles me. I have voted against you on 
a number of occasions. And I have promised people in Nebraska I would 
keep an open mind. I listened, especially last evening, to your 
arguments. And I am willing to keep an open mind on this.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I am going to be sending an amendment to the desk, 
which the Senator from Nebraska referred to in our colloquy, that 
redefines what a partial-birth abortion is--the definition section of 
the act.
  Again, it is in response, as the Senator from Nebraska accurately 
pointed out, to the Eighth Circuit's concern about this provision in 
the bill as being unconstitutionally vague. In other words, it is a 
provision in the bill that defines the procedure, that the Eighth 
Circuit said could include other procedures.
  As I described to the Senator from Nebraska, the most common form of 
late-trimester abortion is a D&E in which the baby is killed in utero. 
During that procedure, occasionally, I am told, a part of the body may 
enter into the birth canal. And the concern of the court, of other 
courts--not just the Eighth Circuit but other courts--is that the 
definition we have in place right now--and the definition states as 
follows: ``means an abortion in which the person performing the 
abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the 
fetus and completing the delivery.'' According to the court, it is 
unclear that we are talking about a baby outside the mother.
  Of course, from the charts we have shown here, we described partial 
birth as the baby being outside of the mother and then killed. We do 
not say that in this underlying bill. So the courts have said: Well, it 
can mean partially delivered; it could be a body part in the birth 
canal. That could be seen as partially delivered; therefore, overly 
broad.
  Again, I think that is, frankly, stretching it to the extremes. But 
because of the other sections--again, to address the issue of 
vagueness--we have come up with an alternative definition. It is as 
follows:

       As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion deliberately and intentionally--
       (A) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living 
     fetus--

  I underline ``intact living fetus.''
  Again, with a D&E, the baby is killed in utero and is not intact or 
living at the time it is coming through the birth canal, and certainly 
not intact or living if it is outside the mother.
  Again:

       . . . vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living 
     fetus until the fetus is partially outside of the mother,--

  ``Intact living . . . outside of the mother''--

     for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person 
     knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially 
     outside the body of the mother; and
       (B) performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the 
     intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother.

  So this makes it crystal clear that what we are talking about here is 
just this specific procedure, just a partial-birth abortion, not a D&E, 
not any other kind of abortion that occurs in utero. This is an 
abortion where the killing occurs when the baby is intact, outside of 
the mother.
  I do not know how there could be any vagueness attached with this 
clarifying definition. I am hopeful that in combination with the other 
concern the Senator from Nebraska had, which is the intent clause--
it is section (b)(3) of the bill--again, killing the fetus means 
deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living 
fetus or

[[Page S12974]]

substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure 
the physician knows will kill the fetus, and kills the fetus. You have 
to have intent to kill when you do this. You have to have the baby 
outside of the mother with the intent to kill the baby outside the 
mother, and then do it.

  Mrs. BOXER. Is the Senator going to send it up and ask unanimous 
consent to modify?
  Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that we want to get an overall 
agreement. I will hold off until we get all----
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to have a chance to discuss what the Senator 
has done, whenever it is easy for him.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Why don't I suspend right here if the Senator would 
like to make a comment. I am interested to hear what she has to say, as 
always.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  I don't know how this is all going to end, but my side has no problem 
with the Senator from Pennsylvania changing his legislation in any way 
he wants to change it. We on our side are not going to object at all. 
He can change it any way he wants to change it.
  I will say something very important from our side, and that is, the 
change he is submitting does nothing at all to meet the health concerns 
of the mother. He is changing a definition, and he doesn't at all say, 
if a woman's health is at stake, this procedure can be used. So if the 
Senator is trying to meet the constitutional objection from the courts 
which have thrown out his bill across this country, he doesn't do it 
with his modification. He still doesn't make an exception for the 
health of a woman, and this bill remains a very dangerous bill. It 
makes no exception for health.
  Secondly, as I understand it, he still keeps the criminal penalties 
for the doctors. This caused the American Medical Association to back 
off its support for the bill. That still is a defect because, as the 
Senator from Nebraska said, after speaking to an OB/GYN, who brings 
life into the world, when these dangerous situations present themselves 
to a physician, they have to make a quick-second judgment on what to do 
to preserve life, to preserve health, to make sure the woman is not 
paralyzed, deformed, made infertile, to make sure the fetus isn't 
injured. All these things come into play. We don't want to have doctors 
saying: Just a minute, I have to read Senator Santorum's law.
  What we want is for the physicians to do what has to be done, do the 
right thing, according to their oath they take when they become 
physicians. We take an oath of office when we become Senators. We are 
not physicians. We don't take the Hippocratic oath. When we take the 
oath, we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United 
States of America. We do not get sworn in to be physicians. Physicians 
take their oath to do no harm. Our oath is to uphold the Constitution. 
And to uphold the Constitution, we should be upholding the landmark 
decision Roe v. Wade, which, by a very slim majority, this Senate says 
it upholds.

  So this so-called fix the Senator from Pennsylvania will be 
submitting, which I have no objection to his submitting, still renders 
the bill unconstitutional because the health of the woman is not 
addressed. Roe says clearly, yes, the State can get involved in the 
right to choose after viability, but you always have to respect the 
health of the woman. No such exception.
  Secondly, I only had a little time to send this new language, because 
we did not see it until literally less than an hour ago, to the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I want to ask them 
if they believe this new language Senator Santorum is going to place 
into his bill, in fact, makes the whole issue clearer, whether or not 
it is still vague, vaguely describes a procedure that is used in the 
earlier terms, which is the second reason the courts have struck it 
down. The way partial-birth abortion is described--and that is a 
political term, not a legal term--the courts say applies to all 
abortions, regardless of whether they are in the first month, second, 
third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. So the court struck it down.
  This is what Ann Allen, general counsel of the American College of 
OB/GYNs--those 40,000 physicians who bring babies into the world and, 
yes, if things go tragically wrong, may have to resort to this 
procedure--says:

       Upon review of the attached language . . . in my opinion 
     the language does not correct the constitutional defects of S 
     1692. In particular, this language does not correct the 
     issues addressed by many states and federal courts, including 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which have 
     held similar legislation to be unconstitutional.

  The Senator from Pennsylvania says he is reacting to the Eighth 
Circuit Court. The doctors at the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, through their general counsel, say it does not cure that 
problem.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record during the 
debate.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Upon review of the attached language, 
     an amendment to S. 1692, the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
     of 1999,'' by Senator Rick Santorum, in my opinion the 
     language does not correct the constitutional defects of S. 
     1692. In particular, this language does not correct the 
     issues addressed by many states and federal courts, including 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which have 
     held similar legislation to be unconstitutional.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ann Allen, JD,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mrs. BOXER. I have a second letter on the new Santorum language from 
the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. It was addressed to Senator 
Chafee.

       Dear Senator Chafee: You have asked for our advice 
     regarding the significance of new language defining partial-
     birth abortion in substitution for the prior language. In our 
     opinion, the changes are without legal significance and will 
     not correct the constitutional infirmities of S. 1692. Nor do 
     they limit the prohibition's wide-ranging ban on previability 
     abortion procedures.

  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Center for Reproductive


                                               Law and Policy,

                                                 October 21, 1999.
     Hon. John H. Chafee,
     Washington, DC.

                  Re: New Santorum language (S. 1692).

       Dear Senator Chafee: You have asked for our advice 
     regarding the significance of proposed new language defining 
     ``partial-birth abortion,'' in substitution for the prior 
     language of Section 1531(b)(1). In our opinion, the changes 
     are without legal significance and will not correct the 
     constitutional infirmities of S. 1692, the proposed 
     ``partial-birth abortion'' ban. Nor do they limit the 
     prohibition's wide-ranging ban on pre-viability abortion 
     procedures.
       The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP), lead 
     counsel in 14 state cases successfully challenging ``partial-
     birth abortion'' bans including challenges to laws in Iowa, 
     Arkansas, and Nebraska struck down by the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, appreciates the opportunity 
     to comment on this iteration of ``partial-birth'' definition.
       (1) The proposal continues to preclude any procedure at any 
     gestational age of a pregnancy. Court after court--including 
     the unanimous 8th Circuit--has held that such an approach 
     unduly burdens the right to abortion.
       (2) The proposal purports to add a requirement of 
     intentionality. Numerous statutes containing similar language 
     (``deliberate'' and ``intention'') have been enjoined, 
     including those in Nebraska, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 
     and West Virginia,
       (3) Similarly the requirement that an ``overt act'' be 
     performed adds nothing. Every abortion procedure requires an 
     ``overt act.''
       (4) The new Santorum formulation is similar to proposed 
     abortion bans labeled ``infanticide'' in some states. 
     Although the rhetoric is extreme and the images repellant, 
     the fundamental legal prohibition remains the same--and is 
     similarly unconstitutional.
           Sincerely,
     Janet Benshoof,
       President.
     Sana F. Shtasel,
       Washington, DC Director.

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  To sum up my feeling on this and the feeling of those of us who 
actively oppose the Santorum bill, we have no objection to the Senator 
amending his bill in this fashion, but we still believe very strongly 
that it doesn't meet the

[[Page S12975]]

constitutional arguments. It still doesn't do anything to protect the 
health of a woman, and it doesn't do anything to remove criminal 
penalties on physicians.
  I hope we will get this moving forward. We will amend the bill the 
way the Senator from Pennsylvania wants. I hope we can get to a vote at 
some point, although I know Senator Smith is still talking about an 
amendment. Senator Landrieu has a very important amendment. I hope when 
we can get this wrapped up, all of those things can be done, perhaps in 
the next hour or two.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2323

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the Federal 
Government should fully support the economic, educational, and medical 
         requirements of families with special needs children)

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2323.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING SPECIAL NEEDS 
                   CHILDREN.

       ((a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) middle income families are particularly hard hit 
     financially when their children are born with special needs;
       (2) in many cases, parents are forced to stop working in 
     order to attempt to qualify for medicaid coverage for these 
     children;
       (3) the current system of government support for these 
     children and families is woefully inadequate;
       (4) as a result, working families are forced to choose 
     between terminating a pregnancy or financial ruin; and
       (5) government efforts to find an appropriate and 
     constitutional balance regarding the termination of a 
     pregnancy may further exacerbate the difficulty of these 
     families.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Federal Government should fully cover all expenses 
     related to the educational, medical and respite care 
     requirements of families with special needs children.


                    amendment no. 2323, as modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I send a modified amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2323), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING SPECIAL NEEDS 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) middle income families are particularly hard hit 
     financially when their children are born with special needs;
       (2) in many cases, parents are forced to stop working in 
     order to attempt to qualify for medicaid coverage for these 
     children;
       (3) the current system of government support for these 
     children and families is woefully inadequate; and
       (4) as a result, many families are forced to choose between 
     terminating a pregnancy or financial ruin.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Federal Government should fully cover all expenses 
     related to the educational, medical and respite care 
     requirements of families with special needs children.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, when Justice Blackmun delivered the 
opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade, which is one of the most 
significant decisions--regardless of how one feels about this issue, it 
is one of the most significant decisions rendered by our highest 
court--he wrote for the Court the following:

       We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and 
     emotional nature of the abortion controversy, the vigorous 
     opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and 
     seemingly absolute convictions that this subject inspires. 
     One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the 
     raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's 
     attitude toward life and family, and their values and the 
     moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe are all 
     likely to influence and to color one's thinking and 
     conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, 
     pollution, poverty and racial overtones tend to complicate, 
     not simplify, the problem.

  Mr. President, he was quite accurate, as we have witnessed on the 
floor of this Senate in the last few hours a very emotional and tough 
debate regarding one of the most serious issues I think this body has 
ever considered in the history of the Congress.
  Regardless of how one feels about this issue, or the way we vote on 
these amendments, whether we regard ourselves as pro-life or pro-
choice, or somewhere in the middle, the amendment I send to the desk 
and urge my colleagues to vote for and support is an amendment that is 
quite simple. It simply states that all individuals families or who 
find themselves in a situation of having a child with a birth defect 
would have their expenses covered--their medical expenses, their 
educational expenses, and the respite care for those families. That is 
so important for the many families who find themselves in the most 
difficult of situations. At that time in a family's life, there should 
be no hesitation on the part of this Government to come forward with 
the money and resources to support that family in this great time of 
need.
  So I offer this amendment with great spirit and hope my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, regardless of how they are going to vote on 
the final outcome, will understand the merit of this amendment and will 
put this Senate on record as saying we believe all families should have 
assistance when faced with the great challenge and heartache of raising 
a child who has been challenged in some special way.
  So I thank the managers for the time.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
her amendment. It gets to the heart of the concern for people with 
disabilities. I think it reflects that we should open our arms to 
unborn children who are faced with disabilities and the difficulties 
they are going to deal with. I talked about it over and over again--how 
the debate for this abortion technique to be kept legal centered upon 
disabled children who were not wanted. There may be a percentage of 
those cases where abortion is done because of the financial concerns of 
parents in dealing with a disabled child. Those are real concerns and 
things people think about--whether they can provide a quality of life 
under the financial constraints of a child who may need a lot of care.
  So to have an amendment that is a sense of the Congress that we 
should be open to helping and supporting life and affirming the 
decision of someone who wants to carry their child to term and accept 
them the way God has given that child to them is something I think 
Congress should do.
  So I commend the Senator from Louisiana. I would be willing to accept 
the amendment, but I understand the Senator would like a recorded vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to be heard on the amendment 
if my friend has finished.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would like to respond to her remarks about my 
amendment, also.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to add my voice on this amendment. I am really 
pleased that the Senator from Louisiana has brought this amendment to 
the floor. It is very important that we make a statement today that the 
children of America will be protected, and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania said he views this amendment as opening our arms to unborn 
children. To me, this is opening our arms to children regardless of 
where they come from, so the children born in this country will get 
help.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that 
appeared in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago. Its title is, 
``Study Links Abortion Laws, Aid to Children.'' It says, ``States With 
Stricter Rules Are Less Likely To Spend on the Needy.'' That is 
incredible. Legislators stand up and say Roe v. Wade ought to be 
overturned, women should not have a right to choose, and what happens? 
``States with the strongest anti-abortion laws generally are among the

[[Page S12976]]

States that spend less on needy children and are less likely to 
criminalize''--this is amazing--``the battering or killing of fetuses 
in pregnant women by a third party. . . .''
  That doesn't add up. So I think what we are doing today with the 
Landrieu amendment--because I think it is going to get overwhelming 
support--is saying whatever side of the aisle we fall into on the 
Santorum amendment--and there are strong differences there--we agree 
with her sense of the Congress that the Federal Government should fully 
cover all expenses related to the educational, medical, and respite 
care requirements of families with special needs children.
  Many times, these children come into the world, and it is anticipated 
by their parents that it will happen, and the parents choose to go 
forward with the pregnancy. Many times, we have children born and it is 
a total surprise to parents that they have special needs requirements. 
Either way, any way, however it happens, how could our hearts not go 
out to children in this country with special needs?

  By the way, I would like to engage my friend in a colloquy. Wouldn't 
this apply to any child--perhaps a child who is 1, 2 or 3--who gets 
injured in a car accident and suddenly the family finds that they need 
special care for the child?
  My friend isn't just talking about newborn babies. I think she is 
basically saying all children and all families that have this need 
ought to be covered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. The Senator from California is correct. The way 
that this is drafted is in a broader way because I believe that we have 
to be very sensitive to children with special needs, and their families 
that sometimes find themselves--even families at a fairly significant 
income level--in great financial distress. Often one of the parents has 
to quit their job or give up their job to qualify for the woefully 
inadequate. It would be my intention to do that. There would be others 
with other opinions. But I think it would be important for us to reach 
out to all families with children with special needs.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  Again, I think it is really important because to have this study come 
out and say that States with the strongest antiabortion laws and want 
to end a woman's right to choose are the weakest in taking care of 
these children seems to be a horrible contradiction to me. I think what 
my friend is saying is regardless of our position, my goodness, we 
ought to come together when it comes to taking care of our children who 
have special needs.
  I thank her. I will be proud to support her amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I cannot support amendment No. 2323, offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I appreciate 
her concern regarding the devastating financial impact that having a 
special-needs child can place on working families.
  However, I am also mindful of the fact that, as we strive to complete 
our budgetary work, nearly all Members have agreed that we should do so 
without using Social Security Trust Fund surpluses or raising taxes. 
Despite the fact that this is a sense of the Congress amendment and 
therefore has no statutory consequence, I am nevertheless concerned 
with the unknown financial consequence that a commitment of this 
magnitude could have. For that reason, I am constrained to oppose the 
Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Louisiana if she 
would be willing to withhold a vote until we have a couple of votes so 
that we can stack them together a little later in the afternoon. 
Senator Smith has an amendment that I think he would require a vote on. 
Senator Boxer may have an amendment to the Smith amendment. Hopefully, 
we will be able to work that out.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. 
Does he yield the floor?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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, thank you.
  Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments about my amendment 
and the attempt that I am trying to make to address the constitutional 
infirmities that the Eighth Circuit found in this language of the 
partial-birth abortion bill. The Arkansas statute is similar to the 
language that is in the bill presently.
  The Senator from California talked about this not addressing the 
other constitutional issues that the Eighth Circuit brought up.
  I remind the Senator from California. I am quoting from the case.
  The district court held the act unconstitutional for three reasons.

       Because it was unconstitutionally vague, because it imposes 
     an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and because it 
     was not adequate to protect the health and lives of women. We 
     agree the act imposes undue burdens on women and therefore 
     hold the act unconstitutional. And because we based it on 
     undue burden grounds as we did in Carhart, we do not decide 
     the vagueness issue or whether the act fails to provide 
     adequate protections.

  The Eighth Circuit did not address that issue. The only circuit court 
that addressed it, addressed it on the issue that we are addressing 
here, which is that this could include other procedures, would ban 
other procedures, and as a result it could be unduly burdensome because 
it would eliminate all forms of abortions late in pregnancy.
  We are making it clear what the court said, and not what some say the 
court said. That is what the court said. That is the only circuit court 
to have ruled on the case. Now we have an amendment which clearly deals 
with the issues of the circuit court which we are concerned about. I 
think we have cleared that constitutional hurdle.
  It is interesting that the Senator from California talks about we 
have to follow the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the 
issue of partial-birth abortion mentioned, as far as I can see. Nowhere 
in the Constitution is the right to privacy mentioned. Nowhere is it 
mentioned. It is created by the Supreme Court.
  To be technically correct, the Senator from California should say 
that we need to follow the Supreme Court, and not the Constitution, 
because there is a difference. The Supreme Court has interpreted and 
legislated rights through their Court decisions. The Senator from 
California accurately reflects that the law of the land is the high 
court. But to suggest we are following the Constitution, which is clear 
about this issue as far as I am concerned because the Constitution says 
that we have the right to life. So if the Constitution speaks at all to 
this issue, it speaks on our side.
  Again, the law of the land is--I think she would be correct if she 
phrased it that way. We need to comport with the law of the land as the 
Court has interpreted the Constitution.
  I would like to get back to my amendment and go through my 
modification to the bill. I am trying to get my terms correct. It is 
not going to be an amendment. It will be a modification. I would like 
to get back to the modification of the underlying bill that will 
redefine partial-birth abortion, and again focus on the fact that this 
solves one of the two issues that are out there with respect to the 
constitutionality.
  More importantly, in my mind, it deals with the two issues that I 
think concern Members of the Senate as to whether to support this bill. 
One is, is it an undue burden? Do we ban more than what we say we do? 
If people are concerned whether that is the case, I think we have 
solved that problem--that if this bill passes no procedure other than 
partial-birth abortion, when the baby is outside of the mom after 20 
weeks, outside the mother, would otherwise be born alive, and then 
brutally killed, executed by having a sharp pair of scissors thrust 
into the base of the skull of the baby and then its brains suctioned 
out. That would be outlawed under this procedure. But no other 
procedure would.

[[Page S12977]]

  I want to make clear Congress' regard as to what the intent of the 
Congress is. Again, I think the language is amply clear for the court 
to do so.
  It was interesting that the Senator from California contacted ACOG, 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and on an 
hour's notice, when asked about our amendment, ACOG was able to fax 
back to the floor of the Senate a response objecting to this provision. 
But those of us who have asked ACOG for 3 years, 3 years, to provide us 
a for instance as to when and under what circumstances this procedure 
would be a preferable or more proper procedure than other abortion 
techniques, they have yet to respond. It is interesting they can 
respond in an hour with great specificity about their concerns about 
this bill, about this modification. But in 3 years they have not been 
able to respond to a very simple question. You state--and they did--
that it ``may be'' the best or most appropriate procedure in a 
particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the 
woman. We have asked for a ``for instance.'' We have asked for that for 
instance to be peer reviewed, to see whether their suggestion is, in 
fact, an accurate suggestion. In more than 3 years, in three sessions 
of Congress, they have refused to provide an example.

  That, my friends, is the underpinning of the second objection to the 
people to this bill that it unduly infringes upon the health of the 
mother; that this is medically necessary to preserve the health of the 
mother under Roe v. Wade.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on his criticism of ACOG?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask my friend from Pennsylvania, am I right, he 
is critical of the general counsel of the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are the doctors in charge of 
women's health in this country; he is critical that their general 
counsel, upon reading his amendment, could determine on its face that 
amendment or that modification does not meet the criticism of the 
Eighth Circuit Court? Is he critical that the general counsel trusted 
her law degree, her reading of his bill, her understanding of the law, 
to come back with an opinion? It is hard for me to believe that.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Please. I know the Senator wants to criticize the 
doctors, but now he is criticizing the lawyers.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Any reasoned understanding of what I just said would 
lead one to believe I was not criticizing the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists for promptly responding to your 
request. I was comparing their swift response to your request to what 
could whimsically be considered a casual response to my request which 
has taken now 3 years on the core point, on the core question, as to 
whether this bill restricts or in any way inhibits the health of the 
mother.
  Again, I will read their own report: We could identify no 
circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to 
save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Then they go on to say 
it may be best or appropriate in some circumstance, but they give no 
such circumstance, no such evidence.
  This is the only pillar upon which the other side stands, saying it 
is medically necessary.
  I will read several letters from members of ACOG, fellows in ACOG, 
who dissect their policy statement and say this second sentence, it may 
be the best position, is hogwash. That is a medical term--it is 
hogwash.
  Again, ACOG has not responded to a letter, now in, 2\1/2\ years.

       I would like to respond to the January 12th statement of 
     policy issued by the executive board. I am a former abortion 
     provider.

  Let me repeat. This is an obstetrician, a member, a fellow of the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

       I am a former abortion provider and I would like to take 
     issue with the ``Statement'' for a number of reasons.
       First, I can think of no ``established obstetric 
     technique'' that ``. . . evacuat(es) the intercranial 
     contents of a living fetus to affect vaginal delivery of a 
     dead but otherwise intact fetus.'' The closest technique that 
     I can imagine is a craniocentesis on a hydrocephalic infant 
     to allow for vaginal delivery. There is no necessity that 
     the infant be killed in this situation, and you must admit 
     that there is a vast difference between craniocentesis for 
     hydrocephaly and suctioning the brain of an otherwise 
     normal infant who would be viable outside the womb.
       Second, as to the number of abortions performed after 16 
     weeks, I do not trust the CDC's data on this since abortion 
     statistics are at best, arguable. Abortion industry lobbyist 
     Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons' recent admission of purposely 
     misinforming the media and Congress on the statistical 
     incidence of the procedure and its predominant usage (normal 
     infants) should at a minimum demand an accurate audit of 
     second and third trimester abortions in America. . ..
       Finally, I'm sure there are many ACOG members who join me 
     in reminding you that your stand on this issue, published as 
     an official policy statement, does not reflect the views of 
     many, if not most, ACOG members. However, the perception of 
     the general public and the media is that you speak for all of 
     us. Please recognize that you have a responsibility to all 
     members of ACOG if not to stay neutral in sensitive areas 
     such as this, to at least issue a disclaimer on such 
     statement that the opinions of ACOG Executive Committee do 
     not reflect those of its members.

  This is signed by three members of ACOG.
  I can go through another letter of a physician in Northern Virginia 
who writes in detail, a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, a letter to Senator Torricelli last year:

       My name is Dr. Camilla Hersch. I am a board certified 
     Obstetrician and Gynecologist, a fellow of the American 
     College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, in private practice, 
     caring exclusively for the health needs of women for thirteen 
     years. I am also a clinical assistant professor of [OB/GYN] 
     for Georgetown University. I have been involved with teaching 
     medical students and OBGYN residents for fourteen years at 
     two major medical teaching centers.

  Not, by the way, compared to the inventor of partial-birth abortion. 
Not an obstetrician or gynecologist but a family practitioner who does 
abortions. That is who they are defending --a procedure not taught in 
medical school, not in any of the literature which Senator Frist, Dr. 
Frist, went through in detail last night. His thorough review of all 
the medical literature on the subject of abortion had not a mention of 
this procedure.
  Back to the letter:

       I have delivered over two thousand babies. On a daily basis 
     I treat pregnant women and their babies. In my everyday work 
     I am privileged to participate in the joy of healthy birth 
     and the agony and sorrow of complications in pregnancy which 
     can lead to loss of life or heartbreaking disability.
       As a member of the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, 
     which now has more than 600 members, I strongly support and 
     applaud the legislative efforts to ban this heinous Partial-
     Birth Abortion procedure.
       Many of the members of PHACT, Physicians' Ad Hoc Committee 
     for Truth, hold teaching positions or head departments of 
     obstetrics and gynecology or perinatology at universities and 
     medical centers across the country. To our knowledge, there 
     are no published peer-reviewed safety data regarding the 
     procedure in question. It is not taught as a formally 
     recognized medical procedure. Proponents of partial-birth 
     abortion tout it as the safest method available. Nothing 
     could be further from the truth.  There are in fact several 
     recognized, tested, far safer, recommended methods to 
     empty the uterus when it is medically necessary to do so.
       There is no data in the accepted standard medical 
     literature that could possibly support any assertion of the 
     appropriateness of this procedure.
       If you ask most obstetricians or family practice physicians 
     about partial-birth abortion, they will tell they have never 
     seen or heard of such a treatment for any reason in their 
     educational training or practice.
       Most physicians I have questioned are incredulous that 
     anyone knowledgeable about Obstetrics and Gynecology would 
     ever consider this procedure as any kind of serious 
     suggestion, because it is so obviously dangerous. It has 
     never been proposed or taught as the safest method to empty 
     the uterus and end a pregnancy whether for purely elective 
     reasons for abortion or in those grave instances when it is 
     medically necessary to do so to save the mother's life.
       Consider the grave danger involved in partial-birth 
     abortion, which usually occurs after the fifth month of 
     pregnancy, even into the last month of pregnancy. A woman's 
     cervix is forcibly dilated over several days. This risks 
     creating an incompetent cervix, a leading cause of subsequent 
     premature delivery. It also risks serious infection, a major 
     cause of subsequent infertility. In the event of a truly life 
     threatening complication of pregnancy, the days of delay 
     involved substantially add to the risk of loss of life of the 
     mother.
       The abortionist then reaches into the uterus to pull the 
     child feet first out of the mother's body, up to the neck, 
     but leaves the head inside. He then forces scissors through 
     the base of the baby's skull--which remains

[[Page S12978]]

     lodged just within the opening of the forcibly dilated 
     cervix, because the baby's head is larger and of course 
     harder than the remainder of the soft little body.
       I think it is obvious that for the baby this is a horrible 
     way to die, brutally and painfully killed by having one's 
     head stabbed open and one's brains suctioned out.
       But for the woman, this is a mortally dangerous and life 
     threatening act.
       Partial-birth abortion is a partially blind procedure, done 
     by feel, thereby risking direct scissor injury to the 
     mother's uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower uterine 
     segment. Either the scissors or the bony shards or spickules 
     of the baby's perforated and disrupted skull bones can 
     roughly rip into the large blood vessels which supply the 
     lower part of the lush pregnant uterus, resulting in 
     immediate and massive bleeding and the threat of shock, 
     immediate hysterectomy, blood transfusion, and even death to 
     the mother.
       Portions of the baby's sharp bony skull pieces can remain 
     imbedded in the mother's cervix, setting up a complicated 
     infection as the bony fragments decompose.
       Think of the emotional agony for the woman, both 
     immediately and for years afterward, who endures this process 
     over a period of several days.
       None of this nauseating risk is ever necessary, for any 
     reason. Obstetrician-gynecologists like myself across the 
     U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the 
     same conditions as those cited by proponents of the 
     procedure.
       Never is the partial-birth abortion procedure necessary: 
     not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid 
     collecting around the baby),

That is one of the cases given by the other side. Never is a partial-
birth abortion procedure necessary--

     not for trisomy (genetic abnormalities characterized by an 
     extra chromosome), not for anencephaly (an abnormality 
     characterized by the absence of the top portion of the baby's 
     brain and skull),

Never is a partial-birth abortion necessary,

     not for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the 
     head),

Water on the brain. Never is partial-birth abortion necessary,

     not for life threatening complications of pregnancy to the 
     mother.
       Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first 
     necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head, 
     with a special long needle, to allow safe vaginal delivery. 
     In some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, a 
     doctor performs a Cesarean section. But in no case is it 
     necessary or medically advisable to partially deliver an 
     infant through the vagina and then to cruelly kill the 
     infant.
       The legislation proposed clearly distinguishes the 
     procedure being banned from recognized standard obstetric 
     techniques.

We are even further clarifying it.

     I must point out, even for those who support abortion for 
     elective or medical reasons at any point in pregnancy, 
     current recognized abortion techniques would be unaffected by 
     the proposed ban.
       Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at the least 
     seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst so 
     consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any-cost'' activism, 
     to be criminally negligent. This procedure is blatant and 
     cruel infanticide, and must be against the law.
  Mr. President, I would like to put in place as legislative history 
for this modification that I will add to the bill a colloquy. Senator 
DeWine is here. We are going to go through a colloquy that will create 
for the court a clear understanding of what is meant by this amendment.
  So I yield to the Senator from Ohio for a question.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator. I am looking at the language 
obtained in the modification. I do have some questions concerning some 
of the language that is in there, some of the wording.
  First, let me ask the sponsor, my colleague from Pennsylvania, what 
is the meaning of the word ``living'' as used in the amendment, as 
where it refers to a living fetus?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  In the Michigan partial-birth abortion case, Evans v. Kelly, the 
Federal District Court found that:

     [t]he doctors were . . . unanimous in their understanding of 
     the meaning of the term ``living,'' as used in the statute's 
     definition of a ``partial-birth abortion'': A living fetus 
     means a fetus having a heartbeat.

  Mr. DeWINE. Let me also ask, then, what is the meaning of the word 
``intact,'' as used in the amendment where it refers to an ``intact'' 
living fetus? Intact?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The word ``intact'' is used in this context to refer to 
the living fetal organism rather than a fetal part that has been 
removed from a fetus. Because of the use of the word ``intact,'' a 
person performing a partial-birth abortion would not fall under the 
prohibition that the law provides if, for example, he or she delivers a 
dismembered fetal arm or leg. To fall under the prohibition, the 
abortionist would have to deliver a living fetal body, functioning as 
an organism.
  The use of the word ``intact'' is not, however, meant to allow the 
killing of a partially born fetus merely because some nonessential body 
part is missing. An abortionist cannot cut a toe of the fetus off 
before partial delivery and then claim in defense that the fetus killed 
after the partial-birth abortion was not intact.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for that answer.
  Let me also ask about this. The amendment referred to an ``overt 
act'' that kills the fetus; an ``overt act'' that kills the fetus. I 
wonder if my friend from Pennsylvania could tell us what is meant by 
the term ``overt act'' in this particular context?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
  The term ``overt act'' is used to mean some separate specific act 
that the abortionist must undertake to deliberately and intentionally 
kill the fetus, other than delivering the fetus into a partial-birth 
position or causing the fetus to abort. It does not mean the overall 
abortion procedure which typically begins with a living fetus and ends 
with a dead fetus.
  Under the amendment, the abortionist must not only deliver the fetus 
in such a way that some portion of the body of the fetus is outside of 
the mother's body, he or she must also separately and specifically act 
to then kill the fetus while it is in the partially-delivered position, 
for example, by puncturing the fetal skull or suctioning out the fetal 
brain.
  Mr. DeWINE. I again thank my colleague. Let me ask a further 
question.
  Would the bill as amended prohibit the suction curettage abortion 
procedure?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No. The bill would have two elements. First, the fetus 
must be delivered into the partially delivered position for the purpose 
of performing an overt act that will kill the fetus while it is in the 
partially delivered position. Second, the fetus must actually be 
killed; that is, it must die while it is in the partially delivered 
position. Neither of these would happen with the suction curettage. 
Removal of the dismembered fetal parts entailed in a suction curettage 
is not prohibited because the parts do not constitute an intact living 
fetus. Suction curettage also typically involves dismemberment and 
fetal death in utero, conduct beyond the scope of the bill.
  In the extremely implausible event that an entire fetus was suctioned 
through the cannula and died after removal from the mother's body, then 
the bill would not apply either, since it requires that the fetus be 
killed while in a partially delivered position.
  Even if one argues that a fetus might occasionally die in the cannula 
while partially outside the mother's body during the course of a 
suction curettage procedure, the fetus would not have to be 
deliberately positioned there for the purpose then of taking a 
separate, second step to end its life at that point. Nor is any such 
separate step ever taken. Rather, suction curettage involves a single 
continuous suction process that removes the fetus from the uterus 
through a cannula and out of the mother's body. The physician could not 
knowingly deliver an intact living fetus into the partially delivered 
position by this method because he would have no way of knowing that 
the fetus yet lived at this point when it was partially outside the 
mother's body. The abortionist would, thus, never knowingly cause fetal 
death to occur at the partially delivered stage because the physician 
would never know at what point fetal demise occurred.
  Even State partial-birth abortion statutes that did not have the 
``fetus partially outside the mother's body'' have been held not to 
govern suction curettage abortion, and that is the Federal district 
court in Virginia and Kentucky.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for that answer.
  Let me pose an additional question. Would the bill, as amended, 
prohibit the conventional dilation and evacuation abortion procedure 
which involves dismemberment of the fetus?

[[Page S12979]]

  Mr. SANTORUM. Absolutely not. In the conventional D&E procedure, the 
intact living fetus is never positioned partly outside the mother's 
body for the purpose of taking a separate overt act to end its life 
while it remains in that position. Moreover, the second step to end 
fetal life in that position is never taken. Also, once a physician has 
begun performing a conventional D&E dismemberment, he typically does 
not know when the fetus dies. Thus, he cannot meet the mens rea 
requirement of knowingly bringing an intact living fetus partially out 
of the mother for the purpose of performing a separate overt act 
intended to kill the fetus in the partially delivered position.
  Mr. DeWINE. Again, I thank my colleague for his answer.
  I pose one additional question. Would the bill, as amended, prohibit 
the induction abortion procedure?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No. Physicians doing inductions never deliberately and 
intentionally deliver an intact living fetus partially outside the 
mother's body for the purpose of pausing to perform an act that they 
know will kill the fetus while it remains in a partially delivered 
position before continuing the delivery.
  It is possible that rarely during an induction abortion, an intact 
living fetus could be trapped in a partially delivered position with 
complete delivery being prevented by entanglement of the umbilical cord 
or the fetal head being lodged in the cervix. In such circumstances, 
the physician may cut the cord or decompress the skull before 
completing delivery without being in violation of the bill because he 
did not intentionally and deliberately get the fetus in that position 
for the purpose of killing it while it was in that position.
  Even State partial-birth abortion statutes that did not have ``fetus 
partially outside the mother's body'' language have been held not to 
govern induction abortions, and again, Federal district courts in 
Virginia and Kentucky have so ruled.

  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague very much for those answers.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  The Senator from Nebraska had questions about how this amendment from 
a constitutional standpoint would be perceived. This is very clear. 
With this colloquy, we very clearly address all the different aspects 
of different kinds of abortions which would not be outlawed by this 
procedure and why they would not be outlawed by this procedure.
  For those who have suggested--and I know many have suggested--that 
what we are about here is the first step to eliminating abortions, I 
again state for the record that I cannot honestly say we will eliminate 
one abortion in this country if we pass this bill. I can honestly say 
that is not the thrust of what we are trying to accomplish.
  I have said it once, and I will say it again and again: What we are 
trying to accomplish is to make sure that in a society where the lines 
are ever blurring, in a society where sensitivity to life may be at an 
all-time low, in a society where the Peter Singers of the world are 
running rampant with their talk of being able to kill children if they 
are not perfect after they are born, we need a bright line. And the 
bright line should be that if the child is in the process of being 
born, you cannot kill the child, you cannot do an abortion where the 
baby is in the process of being born.
  That has to be the bright line, except, of course, to save the life 
of the mother. But to deliberately birth the baby for the purpose of 
killing the baby goes over the line.
  In closing, I refer to what the Senator from California said when I 
said she defends a procedure in which the baby is born all but the 
head; that under those circumstances you can still kill the baby. But 
if the baby is born head first and all but the foot is still inside the 
mother, when I asked her, can you kill the baby in this circumstance, 
she said no, ``Absolutely not.''
  If that is a bright line to anybody in this Chamber, if that is where 
we want to stand, I will tell you, that is on shifting ground. In fact, 
that is on quicksand, and pretty soon the Peter Singers of this world 
who say, ``Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to 
killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all''--a professor at 
the University of Princeton. And you say that is outrageous?
  Look at the examples the other side has given as reasons to keep this 
procedure legal. The examples are all about disabled infants. None of 
them concerns the health of the mother. They all concern a case where 
children were going to be born with profound abnormalities, disabled. 
The argument is, we need to keep this legal because disabled children 
are less entitled to protection than healthy ones.
  You have heard no example. You will hear no example. You will hear no 
example of a healthy mother and a healthy child being used to 
legitimize this procedure. They won't dare do that. Why? Because it 
would shock you. Yet 90 percent of abortions performed under partial 
birth are performed on just those cases. What they will use is the 
disabled child, and the American public, incredibly, to me, will say: 
OK; that's OK; I understand; it's OK; if the child is disabled, of 
course you can kill it.
  If that is what we are thinking, America, if that is a legitimate 
reason to keep this ``safe'' procedure--which, of course, it is not--
how far are we from, killing a disabled infant is not morally 
equivalent to killing a person? How far away are we, America? If this 
Senate today upholds, by not passing this bill by a constitutional 
majority, that logic, then, Dr. Singer, come on down because you are 
next.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
  Let me say at the outset, I am so grateful to the younger Senators 
who have taken up this battle. And they are doing well with it. They 
may not win, but they are doing the Lord's work as far as I am 
concerned.
  I remember, on January 22, 1973--and I had barely arrived in the 
Senate--Jim Buckley and I were sitting right over there, and the clerk 
brought in a bulletin from the Associated Press announcing the Supreme 
Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Jim Buckley looked at me, and he said: 
We've got to fight this. I said: We certainly do. And we did. And we 
are still fighting it--in different ways. He is a Federal judge now, 
and I am a somewhat older Senator.
  But my respect goes out to the ladies outside who are standing up for 
the right to life. They will always be dear to me.
  Mr. President, before I launch into what I want to say, I have 
thought so many times of a beautiful Afro-American lady named Ethel 
Waters, born in Mississippi, the product of a rape. Her mother was much 
beloved by citizens in that Mississippi town. And they offered to take 
care of an abortion for her. She said: No. I don't want it. The Lord 
put that child in me, and I want it to be born. The baby turned out to 
be a girl who grew up to be one of the greatest singers in the history 
of this country. Ethel Waters' name is in all of the musical records as 
being a great voice.
  That brings me up to the point that I want to try to make today, as 
briefly as possible. The United Nations recently sounded its alert 
button to announce what the United Nations described as the arrival of 
the six-billionth baby born in this world. And the news reports went on 
and on, of course, in great lamentation that the Earth does not produce 
enough resources to handle such population growth, the point being, of 
course, that the United Nations crowd does not believe bringing more 
babies into the world is advisable.
  If I may be forgiven, I do not regularly agree with the United 
Nations, and this is another time when I do not agree.
  In fact, the spin doctors worked steadily drumming up all manner of 
contrived environmental statistics to persuade the American people to 
support abortion. And those spin doctors, of course, used the term 
``population control''--which is nothing more than a diplomatic way of 
promoting abortion because that is exactly what ``population control'' 
means. It means brutally killing innocent unborn babies.
  Anyone doubting the horrors of population control need only to look 
at Red China, a Communist country, that proudly boasts of its 
population control program, a program which forces

[[Page S12980]]

pregnant women, who have already given birth to a male child, forces 
those women to undergo an abortion.
  Astonishingly, Red China's Premier, Zhu Rongji, boasted that the 
world had been spared the ``burden'' of 300 million babies as a result 
of Red China's forced-abortion policy.
  So I think there is no doubt that the ``population control'' spin 
doctors are, without fail, pro-abortionists with an undying and 
unyielding commitment to the abortion movement.
  And no matter where it is performed, whether it is in Red China or in 
the United States, abortion, in any form, is atrocious and wrong. And 
my critics may come out of their chairs, but they are breaking one of 
the Ten Commandments.

  That is why I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, for his strength and conviction in standing 
up in defense of countless unborn babies. Rick Santorum's willingness 
to continue to lead the fight on behalf of the passage of the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act is a demonstration of his courage.
  From the moment the Senate first debated the Partial-Birth Ban Act in 
the 104th Congress, the extreme pro-abortion groups have sought to 
justify this inhumane, gruesome procedure as necessary to protect the 
health of women in a late-term complicated pregnancy. That is what they 
always say. However, well-known medical doctors, obstetricians, and 
gynecologists have repeatedly rejected this assertion that a partial-
birth abortion can be justified for health reasons.
  Moreover, there is much to be said about the facts surrounding the 
number of partial-birth abortions performed every year and the reasons 
they are performed--or at least the stated reasons. It is difficult to 
overlook the confession of Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who acknowledged that he 
himself had deceived the American people on national television about 
the number and nature of partial-birth abortions. Mr. Fitzsimmons has 
since then estimated that up to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are 
conducted annually on healthy women, carrying healthy babies--a far cry 
from the rhetoric of Washington's pro-abortion groups who have insisted 
that only 500 partial-birth abortions, as they put it, are performed 
every year, and only--they say, every time--in extreme medical 
circumstances.
  It is time for the Senate, once and for all, to settle this matter 
and pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with a veto-proof vote and 
affirm the need to rid America of this senseless, brutal form of 
killing.
  It is also important to note that the American people recognize the 
moral significance of this legislation. The majority of Americans agree 
that the Government must outlaw partial-birth abortion. In fact, in 
recent years, polls have found as many as 74 percent of Americans want 
the partial-birth procedure banned.
  Unfortunately, the American people have to contend with President 
Clinton's adamant refusal to condemn this senseless form of killing, 
despite the public's overwhelming plea to ban it.
  The President of the United States should have to explain, over and 
over again, to the American people why he will not sign this law. The 
spotlight will no longer shine on the much proclaimed ``right to 
choose.''
  I remember vividly the day when the Supreme Court handed down the 
decision to legalize abortion. As I said earlier, Jim Buckley and I--
Senator Jim Buckley of New York and I--were sitting side by side 
because we were back-bench Senators at that time. Each of us who has 
fought, heart and soul, to undo that damaging decision, understood so 
well that day that we had yet to see what devastation would come of 
such a horrendous rule.
  Indeed, when you stop to think about it, when the President of the 
United States condones the inhumane procedure known as ``partial-birth 
abortion,'' it is clear that our worst fears that January morning are 
coming true. So it is time, once again, Mr. President, for Members of 
the Senate to stand up and be counted for or against the most helpless 
human beings imaginable, for or against the destruction of innocent 
human life in such a repugnant way. Senators are going to have to 
consider whether an innocent, tiny baby, partially born, just 3 inches 
from the protection of the law, has a right to live and to love and to 
be loved. In my judgment, the Senate absolutely must pass the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act. I pray that it will do it by a great margin, of 
at least the 67 votes to override Bill Clinton's veto.

  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                        Modification to S. 1692

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to send a modification of the bill to the desk, the 
modification of the bill be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Pursuant to the agreement, I send the modification to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is so modified.
  The modification was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 2, strike lines 18 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion deliberately and intentioinally--
       ``(A) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living 
     fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the 
     person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially 
     outside the body or the mother; and
       ``(B) performs that overt act that kills the fetus while 
     the intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother.
       On page 3, strike lines 8 through 13.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, while I have a few minutes, I want to 
continue building the record, not from Rick Santorum, not from other 
Senators who are not experts in the field, but building the record from 
physicians, obstetricians, and experts who comment directly, fellows of 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an 
organization that the other side uses as defense.
  Again, this defense is a paper bag that simply needs to be tested. It 
is a facade. It will collapse. It will be punched through.
  Let me strike a blow. This is a statement of Dr. Don Gambrell, Jr. 
M.D., with the Medical College of Georgia, again, a fellow of the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He is a clinical 
professor of endocrinology and OB/GYN. First sentence right out of the 
block:

       Partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to 
     protect a woman's health or fertility.

  You have heard several other comments I have made about obstetricians 
who have said the exact same sentence. Think about who is saying this. 
This is an expert. We have 600 such physicians. The American college 
itself, who is against this bill, said it is never the only option. So 
they even agree it is not the only option. What they say is, it may be 
preferred. But they give no case; in 3 years, they have given no case. 
Their own members say it is never medically indicated--never.
  He underlined the word ``never.'' This is a doctor at a medical 
college. By the way, I have reams of letters here, all from physicians, 
all from obstetricians from all over the country who say the same 
thing.
  Think about this he is a doctor. For a doctor to say ``never,'' put 
it in writing and stand behind it--in this case, this was submitted as 
testimony to the House of Representatives in Atlanta, GA--to put this 
in sworn testimony, to be able to stand up and, without flinching, to 
lead off, first sentence, ``never medically necessary.''
  What do we have on the other side of this medical necessity debate? I 
will read it one more time. The only factual evidence that supports the 
other side is this statement:

       The select panel 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 agree with us: Not the only option; it is not an undue burden; 
there are, in fact, other procedures that can be used that are as safe.
  But they go on to say, however, it ``may be the best or most 
appropriate procedure.'' It ``may be.''
  Here is one of their members--by the way, there are at least five, 
six dozen members, their members, who have written, who have said 
``never,'' letter after letter after letter after letter after letter, 
``never.'' What did they respond to their own members? A deafening 
silence.

[[Page S12981]]

  Their own members have asked: Give us a for instance. What has been 
their response? Nothing.
  Then we are to defeat a bill based on no evidence and an assertion 
that it may be, without a shred of evidence to support that ``may be.''
  We have mountains of evidence, of expert opinion, of specific 
indications, of, as I just read from Dr. Hersh, where she went through 
specific abnormalities and said, not appropriate, not appropriate, not 
appropriate, not appropriate. Why these abnormalities? Because they 
were all the abnormalities listed in their anecdotes, in their case 
histories, that said ``requires'' a partial-birth abortion or is a 
preferable procedure to perform under these circumstances. Again, 
experts on the record under oath--never.

  Now they go further than that. These people say not only is it never 
medically indicated, it is contraindicated. It is more dangerous to do 
this.
  I want Members to know, when they walk to this floor and vote on this 
bill this time, A, the medical evidence is crystal clear: Never 
medically necessary to protect the health of the mother. And anybody 
who walks outside this Chamber and asserts that is doing so against 100 
percent of the record before us.
  By the way, that won't stop people. It won't stop anybody. But look 
at the record; look at the facts. Anybody who walks out of here and 
says, I am opposed to this because it is unconstitutional, it is vague, 
it may cover more of this abortion, and it is an undue burden because 
of that, read the modification that has just been sent to the desk and 
adopted. It is crystal clear that no other abortion is banned by this 
bill now. I don't believe it was before, but if you had any doubt, it 
is not now.
  Senator DeWine and I entered into a colloquy that specifically listed 
instances and other abortion techniques used that are not covered by 
this bill. We explain in legal and medical detail why they are not. We 
say to the courts, that is not our intention; it is not covered. Here, 
legally and medically, is why it is not.
  If you want to walk out here and tell your constituents that you 
voted against this because we needed to protect the health of the 
mother, ``check strike one, not true.'' You can say it. You might get 
away with it. But it is not true. They don't have a shred of evidence 
to say that it is.
  They will put up pictures and tell stories about difficult decisions. 
Every one of those cases have been reviewed and every single one of 
them, experts in the field, 600 of them have said, not true. You may 
walk out this door and tell your constituents that I need to vote 
against this because it bans other procedures; it would be an undue 
burden; it would prohibit a woman's right to choose. Not true. It does 
not ban any other procedures. If it conceivably did, by some distortion 
of the words, which is what I think the courts have done, we make it 
crystal clear. This bill, the new bill, the first time any Member of 
this Senate will be voting on this particular bill be careful, be 
careful, because all of the trees you can hide behind in the game of 
abortion politics are being cut down at the base. In fact, there aren't 
even stumps left to hide behind. There is no medical evidence to 
support what they suggest. There is no constitutional argument on undue 
burden left with this new bill.

  So if you want to support this procedure, look your constituents in 
the eye and say: I believe abortion should be done at any time, at any 
place, in any manner, anyone wants to do it, and that includes 3 inches 
from being completely born and being protected by the Constitution. If 
you want to say that, then you are telling the truth; then you are 
being honest.
  If you want to say anything else, then you are hiding behind what was 
a truth. It is gone. There is no protection. You will have to look your 
constituents in the eye and say: I am not concerned about the dividing 
line between what is protected under our Constitution and what is not; 
I am not concerned that this is a slippery slope, where if the head is 
not born, you can kill the baby, but if the foot is not born, you 
can't, and it doesn't concern me at all; it doesn't set a double 
standard at all; it doesn't cause a problem in our society where a baby 
3 inches away from life can be executed. It doesn't bother me, America. 
I want you to know that, constituents. This doesn't bother me. It 
doesn't bother me that all of the reasons given by the other side as to 
why this procedure should be kept legal are because of disabled 
children who were either not going to live long, or live long with a 
disability.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No, not at this time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask, how much longer does the Senator plan on 
going at this point in the debate?
  Mr. SANTORUM. A couple of minutes. The Senator from Illinois wants to 
speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have not objected to his modification, 
but I wanted to speak on it. The Senator did it when I was talking 
about Senator Smith. I would like to have a little time prior to the 
Senator from Illinois to respond to the modification.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SANTORUM. So if you want to look your constituents in the eye and 
say: I am not concerned that we need to draw a bright line, and that 
the examples being used as to why this procedure should be kept legal--
and the stories and the cases to legitimize this procedure all involve 
deformed babies; they all involve babies who were not perfect in 
someone's eyes--if you want to look at them and say we need to keep 
this procedure legal because of these cases, then you need to look them 
in the eye and say: Well, I don't mean what Dr. Singer says, that 
killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a 
person. But if you say that, then you have to look them in the eye and 
say: By the way, I want this procedure to be legal to kill healthy 
children with healthy mothers because that is how 90 percent of these 
abortions are done.
  So if you can look in the eyes of constituents and say a 25-week-old 
baby who is from a healthy mother, a healthy baby, which would 
otherwise be born alive, that may in fact be viable, can in fact be 
delivered, all but the head, its brains punctured and suctioned out, 
and that is OK in America, and that doesn't bother us, and that doesn't 
create a slippery slope and create a cultural crisis--if you can look 
in the eyes of your constituents and tell them that, then come down 
here and vote no. Vote no, and you can do so with a clear conscience; 
you can do so with a clear conscience as to what you are saying.

  I don't know about other aspects of your clear conscience, but know 
what you are doing because anybody who will take the time to read the 
Record of what happened over the last 2 days will have no doubt as to 
what you are doing. I know most folks don't read the Record. But you 
have, you listened, and your staff listened. You know the facts. You 
know what is at stake. You know the right thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we finally have reached a point where the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and I have a strong agreement; we are urging 
everybody to read the record of this debate. I do hope the American 
people will read the record of this debate, and they will find out who 
stands for the mainstream view on the issue of a woman's right to 
choose and who stands for the extreme view on a woman's right to 
choose. The extreme view is overturning Roe v. Wade, which, from 1973, 
has protected the right of a woman to make a personal, private, moral, 
spiritual decision with her family, her doctor, her God, her advisers.
  That is the mainstream view in America. That is the law of the land. 
The Senator from Pennsylvania is right that it is the law of the land 
because the Supreme Court found a right of privacy in the Constitution 
and said that, yes, women count. We have a right to privacy. So, 
please, read the record.
  We voted on the issue of Roe v. Wade and by a thin, small margin--the 
vote was 51-48--we said don't overturn Roe. That is a dangerous vote. 
Forty-eight Members of this body want to criminalize abortion, make it 
illegal, go back to the days when women died--5,000 women a year. This 
is the first time this Senate in history has ever voted on that 
landmark decision, and 48 Senators don't trust women; 48 Senators want 
to tell women what to do in

[[Page S12982]]

a personal, private, religious, moral decision.
  So, yes, I do hope the people of this country will read the Record 
because the Record is complete on this issue. We heard from the other 
side that we don't care about Roe v. Wade; we are not going to overturn 
it. We don't want to do anything about it. We just want to talk about 
this one procedure. And many of us on this side of the aisle said it is 
a smokescreen, and we tested it today. What did we find out? The 
leaders of this ban, which has been called unconstitutional by 19 
courts, also voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
  I hope the families of America read this Record. It is very clear 
about who stands where. Let me tell you the difference between the two 
sides. It is not so much about how we feel on the issue because that is 
a personal matter. I have given birth to children--the greatest joy in 
my life. I have a grandson--a new joy in my life. I have one view; the 
Senator from Pennsylvania has another. Let me tell you the difference. 
It is who decides. I respect the right of the Senator from Pennsylvania 
to make that decision by himself with his wife, with his family. He 
does not respect my right, or your right, or the right of anyone in 
America to be trusted to make that decision. He wants to tell you what 
to do. I didn't think we were elected to play God or to play doctor. I 
thought we were elected to be Senators. I thought we were elected to 
uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.

  Yes, this Record is full. It is important. It ought to be reflected 
upon. Our votes ought to be scrutinized. I agree with the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. Every word that was spoken here ought to be looked at. 
Every single time we engage in a conversation ought to be reviewed. I 
think it is important.
  I also think it is important to understand that this modification 
that was sent to the desk--we had no objection to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania rewriting his law. That is his right. I don't have a 
problem with it. It does not do what the Senator from Pennsylvania says 
it does. The Senator from Pennsylvania says his new language addresses 
the objection of the Eighth Circuit and of the other courts that have 
ruled on his law that has been enacted in many States as 
unconstitutional on its face.
  In the short period of time we have had to send out his new language, 
we have heard from the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. The 
letter is in the Record. It says:

       The proposal continues to preclude any procedure at any 
     gestational age of a pregnancy. Court after court--including 
     the unanimous Eighth Circuit--has held that such an approach 
     unduly burdens the right to abortion.

  That is the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
  The general counsel of the Association of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, the very group that deals with bringing life into the 
world, the very group of doctors we go to when we are ready to have our 
families and to help us have our families, says about this new 
language, upon review of it, that the language does not address the 
issues addressed by many States and Federal courts, including the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  The Senator may say he has met constitutional objections. But those 
who deal with this law, who deal with it every day, say it does not.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Northwestern University


                                               Medical School,

                                    Chicago, IL, October 21, 1999.
       I have reviewed Senator Santorum's amendment. It would 
     apply to all second trimester procedures. It does not narrow 
     the definition of the so-called ``Partial-Birth Abortion 
     Ban'' Act. It would effectively ban the safest and most 
     common form of second trimester abortions.
           Sincerely,

                                Marilynn C. Frederiksen, M.D.,

                                              Associate Professor,
                                        Obstetrics and Gynecology,

                          Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this letter is from Northwestern 
University Medical School signed by Marilynn Frederiksen, M.D., 
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, who says:

       I have reviewed Senator Santorum's amendment. It would 
     apply to all second trimester procedures. It does not narrow 
     the definition . . . [and] would effectively ban the safest 
     and most common form of second trimester abortions.

  I say to my colleagues, if you were looking for a fix on the 
constitutionality, it isn't here.
  Again, I repeat that if you believe in the Constitution, if you 
believe in the right of privacy, and if you believe in following court 
precedent, a woman's health must always be protected. Under this law, 
as modified, the woman's health isn't even mentioned.
  It is possible she could be paralyzed. All kinds of horrible things 
could happen. She could be made infertile. And, yet, no exception.
  We have another letter that I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Senate Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: In response to the current Senate floor 
     debate on the so-called ``partial birth abortion'' ban, I 
     would like to clarify that there are rare occasions when 
     Intact D & X is the most appropriate procedure. In these 
     instances, it is medically necessary.
           Sincerely,

                                          Stanley Zinberg, MD,

                                                   Vice President,
                                     Clinical Practice Activities.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this letter is from Stanley Zinberg, vice 
president, clinical practices, the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecology. This is a new letter:

       . . . I would like to clarify that there are rare occasions 
     when intact D&X is the most appropriate procedure. In these 
     instances, it is medically necessary.

  The very words that some Senators said were not present in this 
debate are suddenly present in this letter. The doctors are telling us 
that the procedure that many Senators are voting to ban without making 
a health exception is medically necessary on certain occasions.
  I will conclude with these remarks in the next few minutes by 
addressing something that has been very upsetting to me as a human 
being. Forget that I am a Senator. We have heard from people who would 
have to go through this procedure a series of stories that could break 
your heart. They decided, because they believed it was in their best 
interests, in the best interests of the fetus they were carrying, and 
in the best interests of their families, they decided after consulting 
their spiritual counselors that it was the right thing to do for their 
families.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania wants to outlaw this option, this 
choice. But, worse than that, he calls these stories anecdotes. He 
says: Do not listen to anecdotes. But yet he cites his own experience 
and doesn't call it an anecdote. He calls it a tragedy. I have to say I 
hope we would apply the same kind of language to all Americans as we do 
to our own families.
  These are stories. Let me share some with you.
  Tiffany Benjamin: Genetic tests revealed that her child had an extra 
chromosome. Doctors advised her that her condition was lethal. No one 
could offer hope. They determined the most merciful decision for their 
child and the family would be to terminate the pregnancy. She says, 
``Although three years have passed for us, the depth of our loss is 
vivid in our minds.'' She says to every Senator who would outlaw this 
procedure, ``We are astounded that anyone could believe that this type 
of decision is made irresponsibly and without a great deal of soul 
searching and anguish. These choices were the most painful of our 
lives.''
  Is that an anecdote? That is a true life experience of a woman who 
says to us, please don't ban a procedure that is medically necessary.
  Coreen Costello, a registered Republican, describes herself as very 
conservative. She made it clear that she is opposed to abortion. She 
was 7 months pregnant in 1995 with her third child. She was rushed to 
the emergency

[[Page S12983]]

room, and an ultrasound showed something seriously wrong. The baby had 
a deadly neurological disorder, had been unable to move inside her womb 
for 2 months. She goes on. The doctors told Coreen and her husband that 
the baby was not going to survive, and they recommended terminating the 
pregnancy. The Costellos say this isn't an option for us: ``I want to 
go into labor.'' She said: ``I want my baby to be born on God's time. I 
did not want to interfere.''
  They went from expert to expert. And the experts told her labor was 
not an option. They considered a cesarean section. But the doctors said 
the health risks were too great. In the end, they followed the doctor's 
recommendation and Coreen had an abortion. She says now they have three 
happy, healthy children, and she since then has had a fourth.
  She writes to us: ``This would not have been possible without the 
procedure.'' She says please give other women and their families this 
chance. Let us deal with our tragedies without any unnecessary 
interference from the Government. Leave us with our God. Leave us with 
our families. Leave us with our trusted medical experts.
  I could go on and on with these stories, these real-life tragedies. 
They are not anecdotes. They are not stories that are made up. They are 
not rumors. They are real people who have gone through this. I daresay 
we ought to listen because they are people who count. They are telling 
us to stay out of their private lives. Stay out. If anyone wants to 
make a decision about their family, please, that is their right. I 
would do anything in my power to fight for anybody's right not to have 
an abortion if that is their choice. I am as strongly for that.

  However, I think it is an insult, an indignity, a slap in the face of 
the women and the families of this Nation for government to tell them 
what to do in these tragic moments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have heard on this floor that there 
haven't been any of these late-term abortions performed by doctors or 
performed in hospitals. The Senator has been diligent on the floor of 
the Senate in these last days in making sure women's rights are 
protected. It has been a tough fight. I wonder, to the Senator's 
knowledge, is it true these late-term abortions have been done 
exclusively outside of hospitals by nonobstetricians, by nonphysicians? 
Does the Senator have that kind of information?
  I had a chance to speak to Ms. Koster, portrayed in the photograph, a 
woman very happy with her decision to have an abortion in late term. By 
the way, this is not an unreligious person or not a person we could 
accuse of immorality. She insisted and told me she had obstetricians 
and she had it performed in a hospital, as I remember, in Iowa.
  Is the Senator familiar with that situation?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, and I want to say in my State we have a law. A 
procedure done in the late term must be done inside a hospital.
  We have received a letter from the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists who work in hospitals all over this country and have 
said this procedure that the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to ban is, 
in certain instances, medically necessary.
  We have the most prestigious group of doctors from the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying banning this 
procedure is dangerous. That, in fact, even with the changes that the 
Senator from Pennsylvania made, it is so broadly worded it allows most 
abortions. There is still no health exception.
  My friend is absolutely right. These procedures, and abortions in 
general, are done by physicians.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. My most recent grandchild was delivered 1 week ago, a 
large baby. My daughter is very active athletically. She produced a 9-
pound, 7-ounce baby girl, larger than the two brothers who preceded 
her.
  I also have two other daughters, each of whom has two children; one 
daughter carried a fetus for almost 8 months and something happened. 
She called me and said: Daddy, I've got bad news. The baby got caught 
in the cord and apparently choked to death. She wasn't feeling a 
heartbeat when she went to the doctor. Nothing hurt me more, nothing 
hurt her more.
  We are not the kind of family that casually looks at abortion and 
says everybody ought to have one. This is the right of privacy, is it 
not?
  Mrs. BOXER. It is absolutely about the right to privacy and respect 
of the woman and her family.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator find women's organizations coming 
forward about outlawing this procedure? Does it make sense in any way 
to protect women who have an unfortunate condition or whose health is 
in danger in the late term in their pregnancy?
  Mrs. BOXER. Anyone who believes in the basic right to choose and the 
basic decision in Roe, which protected a woman's health, is opposed to 
this Santorum bill.
  Let me read into the record a few groups, and I will not even name 
women's groups; I will name other groups: The American Public Health 
Association opposes this bill; the American Medical Women's Association 
opposes this bill; the American Nurses Association opposes this bill; 
the Society for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health opposes 
this bill; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
opposes this bill; and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice 
opposes this bill.

  I say to my friend, women's groups who support a woman's right to 
choose see this as chipping away at the right of a woman to make a 
decision with her God and her doctor and her conscience. They oppose it 
as well as the medical and religious groups.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I inquire as to the Senator's response, if this is an 
attempt to establish the moral platitudes around which this country 
should operate--and that is fortified in my view by the fact that while 
we ignore the opportunity to protect a born child 15 or 10 years old in 
school, we are unwilling to pay attention to the mother's plea in that 
case to protect the child; but we hear the National Rifle Association's 
voice.
  Does the Senator see a born child, a child going to school, a child 
walking in the neighborhood, a child at play, as being as protected as 
the definition that we want to exert here on a woman whose pregnancy is 
in a late term, and a doctor and she agree that it is an appropriate 
thing to do? Does the Senator see some kind of conflict here? Or 
perhaps even hypocrisy? The Senator ought to correct me if I am wrong 
because I don't want to be wrong about this.
  As I remember, those who are presently so strongly advocating 
removing the right of a woman to make a decision, vote against gun 
control measures that we have when it comes to protecting children. 
Does the Senator see the same question raised that I see?
  Mrs. BOXER. The irony of this issue is right there. I say that the 
leading voices in this Chamber on this issue are the same voices that 
we hear against any type of sensible laws to protect our children that 
deal with gun violence.
  Interestingly, in my State, gunshots are the leading cause of death 
among children. It is a supreme irony.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware that 13 kids a day are killed by 
gunfire in this country, over 4,500 children a year are killed by 
gunfire? Children who are alive, working, and with their families, 
exchanging love with their parents, brothers and sisters. Is the 
Senator aware that 13 children every day in this country are killed by 
gunfire because we lack control over that?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am aware and it is a tragedy.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Where does the Senator think we are in terms of 
saying to women, you can't make a choice on your own; you don't have 
the moral rectitude to go ahead and make this decision, even though you 
and your doctor agree and there is some risk to the mother's health in 
carrying this pregnancy.
  We can't even get an exception to that. Am I right in that 
interpretation?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. No exception for health.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It reverts back to wanting to control other people's 
destinies, other people's decisions by a few other-than-experts in this 
body on pregnancy, and the health care necessary to attend to that.

[[Page S12984]]

  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is right. There is not one obstetrician or 
gynecologist in this Senate, yet we see the pictures used, the cartoon 
figures of a woman's body--which I find rather offensive. The bottom 
line is, we were not elected to be doctors, but we were elected, it 
seems to me, to be tough on crime and to stop crime and to do what it 
takes to protect our citizens.
  My friend from New Jersey has been a leading voice in that whole 
area. I do not know how many months it has been since the Vice 
President broke the tie there, when my friend had a very important 
amendment up to close the gun show loophole so people who are mentally 
unbalanced and people who are criminals can no longer get guns at a gun 
show to shoot up kids and shoot up a school.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator has mentioned we have drawings on the 
floor, of the horror that is involved in performing a surgical 
procedure. Aren't surgical procedures generally unpleasant to witness?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I once saw an appendix removed and saw a couple of 
people around me faint. It is never pretty, but it is done for a 
purpose. When a lung is removed, or a colon is removed, it is never a 
beautiful procedure. But the fact is, the person for whom the procedure 
is done often is in better health afterward.
  Has the Senator ever seen pictures of the kids jumping out of the 
windows at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I say to my friend, I think those are images that 
are in everybody's mind.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. They are not drawings.
  Mrs. BOXER. They are real TV images of children escaping gun 
violence.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know the Senator's home State is California. Did 
the Senator see the picture of the tiny children being led hand-in-hand 
by policemen and others trying to protect them from gunfire?
  Mrs. BOXER. Again, my friend is evoking images I don't think anyone 
in America will ever forget, of those children grasping the hands of 
those policemen in the hopes of being saved.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did the Senator see the pictures from, I believe the 
city was Fort Worth, TX, of those young people praying together, 
reaching out to God?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Trying to correct what imbalances they saw in life. 
Did the Senator see the pictures of those people?
  Mrs. BOXER. I saw the horror, yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did you see them crying and holding each other?
  Mrs. BOXER. I did.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can the Senator tell me why it is we refused to 
identify those buyers of guns at gun shows here? In a vote we had here? 
We finally eked out a vote, 51-50, that said we should not have it. But 
our friends on the Republican side in the House dropped it out of the 
juvenile justice bill, and we do not see it here.
  Can the Senator possibly give me her description of what might be the 
logic there, as those on the other side want to take away the right of 
women to make a decision that affects their health and their well-being 
and their families' well-being?
  Mrs. BOXER. I can only say to my friend, we see an enormous amount of 
passion, which I think, in the end, puts women in danger. It goes 
against the basic right of privacy and the basic dignity of women and 
their families in their to make a personal decision. We see a lot of 
emotion to end those rights. But we do not see the same intensity of 
emotion--we do not even get the votes of those people--to make sure our 
children who are living beings, who are going to school, have the 
protection they deserve to have.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware, because we serve on 
the environment committee together, of the threat to children's health 
that is resulting from the contamination of our air quality?

  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I have authored a bill called the Children's 
Environmental Protection Act which would, in fact, strengthen our laws. 
There are very few cosponsors, I might add, from the other side of the 
aisle. But it is a good law and would protect our children from 
hazardous waste and toxic waste and make sure our standards are 
elevated, because, when a child breathes in dirty air and soot and 
smog, et cetera, it has a much worse impact than it does on a full-
grown adult.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Has the Senator seen the recent news reports about 
children, the numbers of children increasingly becoming asthmatic, as a 
result?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I have.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a daughter who is my third daughter. She is a 
superb athlete. She suffers from asthma. It is a very painful thing to 
witness.
  My sister was a board member at a school in Rye, NY, a school board 
in Rye, NY. She was subject to asthmatic attacks. One night at a school 
board meeting--she carried a little machine she would plug into the 
cigarette lighter in the car to help her breathe--she felt an attack 
coming on and she tried to get to her car and she didn't make it. She 
collapsed in the parking lot, went into a coma, and 2 days later had 
died.
  I have a grandson who has asthma and I have a daughter who has 
asthma.
  Does the Senator remember anything that got support from the other 
side to protect lives by adding to the cleansing of our environment by 
getting rid of the Superfund sites, the toxic sites around which 
children play and from which they get sick? Does the Senator recall any 
help we got to protect those children? No. No. No. What we got was a 
denial.
  But, heaven forbid a woman should make a decision to protect her 
health for the rest of her children, or her health for her family, or 
to continue to be a mother to her other children. Does the Senator 
recall any similar passion or zeal on those issues when we went up to 
vote here?
  Mrs. BOXER. No, I do not.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Well, I thank the Senator because of her courage in 
standing up against what I consider an onslaught against the lives and 
well-being of women by those men who would stand here primarily and 
say: No, Madam, you can't do that because according to my moral 
standard you are wrong.
  But the Senator does recall, as I do, when we had votes to protect 
children from gunfire or protect children from a contaminated 
environment, the votes were not there from that side.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is correct. I want to say his series of 
questions and comments have moved me greatly. I consider him a great 
Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is very kind.
  Mrs. BOXER. I only wish he would stay here longer than he plans.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware I have been a protector of 
children's health by raising the drinking age to 21?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator know we saved 14,000 children, 
14,000 families from having to mourn the loss of a little child or 
youngster in school?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am aware of that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator knows I tried to take away guns from 
spousal and child abusers, and succeeded by attaching an amendment to a 
budget bill that had to get through, that was signed over the 
objections of our friends on the other side--
  Mrs. BOXER. I recall.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Almost unanimously. So I think the Senator, as she 
said, knows I have credentials in terms of wanting to protect the 
children in our society.

  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Frankly, that is my main mission in being here.
  So I conclude my questions by asking the Senator if she will continue 
to fight no matter what is said--anecdotally, hypocritically, falsely 
in some cases--will she continue to fight this fight for the women of 
America?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, he has asked me if I will continue to 
fight for the women of America. The answer is yes. I believe while I 
fight for them, I am fighting for their families, for the people who 
love them, their fathers, their mothers, their grandfathers, their 
grandmothers, and their children.
  I think underlying all this debate is that basic difference between 
myself and the Senator from Pennsylvania; between the Senator from New 
Jersey and the other Senators on the other

[[Page S12985]]

side of the aisle. I think it is about basic respect of the women and 
the families of this Nation.
  In concluding my remarks, because I know the Senator from Illinois 
has been waiting very patiently, I will conclude with a quote from 
three Justices. I ask my friend from New Jersey to once more listen to 
their words.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will hear them.
  Mrs. BOXER. I heard them yesterday. He said to me how touched he was 
by them. I think it would be suitable to quote them again, reminding 
everyone these are three Republican Justices of the Supreme Court.
  In their decision upholding Roe v. Wade, this is what they said:

       At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own 
     concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the 
     mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not 
     define the attributes of personhood were they formed under 
     compulsion of the State.

  The Senator from New Jersey and I and those of us in this body who 
voted today to uphold Roe, and many of us who will vote against the 
Santorum bill, believe the State must not, should not be able to tell 
people in this country how to think, what to believe, and especially 
what to do for themselves and their families when it comes to a medical 
procedure.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I again appreciate the indulgence of the 
Senator from Illinois who has been incredibly patient now for 50 
minutes.
  Let me make a couple points first to the Senator from California. She 
seems to object to the term ``anecdote'' in referring to the cases that 
were brought here. I looked up the word ``anecdote'' in the dictionary 
right at the leader's desk, the Standard College Dictionary.

       Anecdote: A brief account of some incident; a short 
     narrative of an interesting nature.

  I will put it over here and share it with the Senator from 
California, and if she finds that to be an offensive word in describing 
what she has presented, I think we have gotten rather touchy.
  The Senators from New Jersey and California mentioned that the 
leading cause of death in California is gun violence among children. 
Wrong. The leading cause of death in California among children is 
abortion. The Senator from New Jersey said 13 children a day die of gun 
violence. Mr. President, 4,000 children a day die from abortions--4,000 
children die a day--that some say they want legal, safe, and ``rare,'' 
4,000 a day.
  The Senator from New Jersey equates the medical procedure of partial-
birth abortion to the equivalent of an appendectomy. That is not an 
appendix, I say to my colleagues.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is not a blob of tissue. That is a living human 
being.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did the Senator hear me say that I compared an 
abortion to a surgical procedure? Might I offer a correction to our 
colleague from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I hope the Senator will.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I said surgical procedures are never pretty. I did 
not say abortions and appendectomies are the same thing. Don't distort 
the Record, if the Senator will oblige me.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think the Record speaks for itself.
  Mr. President, the Senator from California suggested this in her 
opening comments: Banning this procedure of taking a child who would 
otherwise be born alive, taking it outside of the mother and killing 
the child is an extreme view; banning this procedure is an extreme view 
in America.
  Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? This now defines ``extreme.'' 
Killing a child, a living being outside of its mother is now an extreme 
view in America. The mainstream view, according to the Senator from 
California, is the mother has the absolute, irrefutable right to 
destroy her child at any point in time for whatever reason. That is the 
mainstream view in America.
  Our Nation turns its eyes to you, Joe. That is the mainstream view in 
America. So welcome to America; welcome to America 1999. Welcome to an 
America with which Peter Singer, the new prophet of America, who is 
from Australia, will feel most comfortable; Peter Singer, the 
philosopher who writes:

       Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to 
     killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

  Welcome to America 1999 because this is killing an infant, and the 
reason given is because it is not perfect, and they say it is not 
morally wrong. And by the way, who are we to judge? Why is murder wrong 
if it is not morally wrong? Is it because we have a number of votes 
that ban murder? Is that the only reason, because the majority says we 
think murder is wrong? Not morally wrong because we can't make moral 
judgments; God forbid we make a moral judgment on the floor of the 
Senate. Oh, no, who am I to tell you that murder is wrong? I mean, how 
dare me. How can you tell me that murdering someone is wrong if it is 
not based on some moral judgment?
  So, please, don't come down here and say I have no right to impose 
moral judgments. We do it every day in the Senate. How many speeches do 
I hear that it is immoral not to provide health insurance? That is 
immoral, this isn't. That is immoral and this isn't.
  We can't judge anybody. We can't say that taking a child almost born 
outside of the mother, 3 inches from legal protection, and killing that 
baby in a barbaric fashion, we can't say that is wrong because that 
would be judging somebody else; we can't judge anybody here. Who are we 
to judge anybody?
  Welcome to America 1999. Welcome to the mainstream America 1999. 
Welcome to the Peter Singers of the world. Read the New Yorker 
September 6 issue. Read it when he says:

       If a pregnant woman has inconclusive results from 
     amniocentesis, Singer doesn't see why she shouldn't carry the 
     fetus to term. Then, if the baby is severely disabled and the 
     parents prefer to kill it, they should be allowed to. That 
     way there would be fewer needless abortions and more healthy 
     babies.

  Welcome to America because here you can find out if the baby is 
healthy or not. If you want to kill it, you can. If not, you can 
deliver it. Welcome to Peter Singer's world.
  And you are not concerned about the lines drawn in America? You are 
not concerned we need to a have a bright line to prevent the Columbines 
in the future? When the Senator from California reads the Casey 
decision, doesn't she see Columbine in the Casey decision? What does 
the Casey decision say that she so proudly stands behind? ``At the 
heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, 
of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. . .''
  A young boy in Littleton, CO, said the same thing just before he shot 
13 people. He said: What I say goes; I am the law.
  This is what the Casey decision says. It says each one of us has the 
right to determine our own reality. We are the law. We can do whatever 
we want to do.
  God help us. God help us if that is the law of the land. God protect 
us, if that is the law of the land, from predators who think they can 
do whatever they want to do to us because they are the law; they can 
define their own meaning of existence. They can define their own 
meaning of the universe. They can define their own meaning of human 
life. God help us.
  And where does this decision come from? It comes from the poisonous 
well of keeping procedures like this legal. Drink from it, America. 
Drink from it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                Amendment No. 2324 to Amendment No. 2323

   (Purpose: to provide for certain disclosures and limitations with 
           respect to the transference of human fetal tissue)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 
amendment to the pending amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2324 to amendment No. 2323.


[[Page S12986]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the Landrieu amendment, add the following:

     SEC. ____. TRANSFERENCE OF HUMAN FETAL TISSUE.

       Section 498N of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     289g-2) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d), as 
     subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:
       ``(c) Disclosure on Transplantation of Fetal Tissue.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--With respect to human fetal tissue that 
     is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, any entity that 
     is to receive such fetal tissue for any purpose shall file 
     with the Secretary a disclosure statement that meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Contents.--A disclosure statement meets the 
     requirements of this paragraph if the statement contains--
       ``(A) a list (including the names, addresses, and telephone 
     numbers) of each entity that has obtained possession of the 
     human fetal tissue involved prior to its possession by the 
     filing entity, including any entity used solely to transport 
     the fetal tissue and the tracking number used to identify the 
     packaging of such tissue;
       ``(B) a description of the use that is to be made of the 
     fetal tissue involved by the filing entity and the end user 
     (if known);
       ``(C) a description of the medical procedure that was used 
     to terminate the fetus from which the fetal tissue involved 
     was derived; and the gestational age of the fetus at the time 
     of death.
       ``(D) a description of the medical procedure that was used 
     to obtain the fetal tissue involved;
       ``(E) a description of the type of fetal tissue involved;
       ``(F) a description of the quantity of fetal tissue 
     involved;
       ``(G) a description of the amount of money, or any other 
     object of value, that is transferred as a result of the 
     transference of the fetal tissue involved, including any fees 
     received to transport such fetal tissue to the end user;
       ``(H) a description of any site fee that was paid by the 
     filing entity to the facility at which the induced abortion 
     with respect to the fetal tissue involved was performed, 
     including the amount of such fee; and
       ``(I) any other information determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Disclosure to shippers.--Any entity that enters into 
     a contract for the shipment of a package containing human 
     fetal tissue described in paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) notify the shipping entity that the package to be 
     shipped contains human fetal tissue;
       ``(B) prominently label the outer packaging so as to 
     indicate that the package contains human fetal tissue;
       ``(C) ensure that the shipment is done in a manner that is 
     acceptable for the transfer of biomedical material; and
       ``(D) ensure that a tracking number is provided for the 
     package and disclosed as required under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `filing 
     entity' means the entity that is filing the disclosure 
     statement required under this subsection.
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall permit the 
     disclosure of--
       ``(A) the identity of any physician, health care 
     professional, or individual involved in the provision of 
     abortion services;
       ``(B) the identity of any woman who obtained an abortion; 
     and
       ``(C) any information that could reasonably be used to 
     determine the identity of individuals or entities mentioned 
     in paragraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(6) Violation of this section shall be punishable by the 
     fines of more more than $5,000 per incident.
       ``(d) Limitation on Site Fees.--A facility at which induced 
     abortions are performed may not require the payment of any 
     site fee by any entity to which human fetal tissue that is 
     derived from such abortions is transferred unless the amount 
     of such site fee is reasonable in terms of reimbursement for 
     the actual real estate or facilities used by such entity.''.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FITZGERALD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to be 
heard.
  Mr. President, listening to my distinguished colleague from 
California, Senator Boxer, I thought back to earlier this year. We had 
an issue on which we agreed; in fact, we have had a few this year. This 
isn't one of them, however.
  But earlier this year, Senator Boxer was very concerned about the 
inhumane treatment of dolphins who are getting caught in tuna fishing 
nets. In fact, she spoke so eloquently on the cruel and inhumane 
treatment of dolphins that I distinctly remember during that debate, I 
called home to see how my family was doing, and my 7-year-old boy 
answered the phone, and he said to me: Daddy, I hope you're going to 
vote tonight to protect the dolphins. And boy, when I heard that, I 
really took a careful look at Senator Boxer's bill. I was inclined to 
support her already, but when I heard that from my son, and I started 
to focus on that debate, and the eloquence with which she spoke, I 
wound up voting with her to support and protect those dolphins.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would my friend yield for a question so I have a chance 
to thank him for that support, and thank his son, and tell his son that 
I am going to fight just as hard to protect the life and health of his 
mother and all the moms of this country and to make sure we protect the 
children as well. Thank you.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I would like to encourage the Senator from 
California, and others in the Senate, to maybe think about the humanity 
issue here as we focus on the debate on partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this bill, 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999. I would like to thank 
Senator Santorum for sponsoring it again and for his forceful and 
eloquent arguments on behalf of the innocent unborn.
  Every time I think about partial-birth abortion, I think of the 
observations which, I believe, capture the essence of this debate. My 
esteemed colleague from Illinois, Representative Henry Hyde, asked: 
What kind of people have we become that this procedure is even a matter 
of debate?
  He went on to say: You wouldn't even treat an animal, a mangy raccoon 
like this.
  What is a partial-birth abortion? As it has been described so 
thoroughly by my colleague from Pennsylvania, and many others, it is a 
truly gruesome procedure. It is barbaric. It is chilling. It is cruel. 
More than anything else, what I would like to emphasize here is that it 
is inhumane.
  The medical term for this procedure is ``intact dilation and 
extraction,'' or ``intact D&E,'' for short. I have also heard it 
referred to as ``intrauterine cranial decompression.'' What do these 
medical terms mean?
  Briefly, what happens is this: The abortionist turns the baby around 
in the womb so it is in the breech position--feet first. The 
abortionist then pulls the baby out of the womb and into the birth 
canal so all but its head is outside the mother; thus, the term 
``partial birth.'' At this point, the abortionist takes out a sharp 
surgical instrument, often a pair of scissors, and stabs the baby in 
the back of its head to create a hole. The abortionist then inserts a 
type of suction tube into the hole and sucks out the baby's brain. 
Sucking out the baby's brain causes the skull to collapse, or implode, 
and the delivery can then be completed.

  I will read an excerpt from testimony given to Congress by Mrs. 
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse. While working for a temporary 
placement agency in 1993, Mrs. Shafer was assigned to an Ohio abortion 
clinic, where she was asked to assist with a partial-birth abortion on 
a woman who was just over 6 months pregnant. Here is some of what Mrs. 
Shafer testified to Congress that she observed that day:

       He 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 baby was 
     hanging there, and the doctor was holding his neck to keep 
     his head from slipping out. 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. Then 
     the doctor opened up the scissors, stuck the high-powered 
     suction tube into the hole [in the head] and sucked the 
     baby's brains out. The baby went completely limp. Then, the 
     doctor pulled the head out, and threw the baby into a pan.

  This is inhumane. You wouldn't treat an animal, a mangy raccoon like 
that.
  In an attempt to somehow justify the humaneness of this procedure, 
opponents of a ban have cited the statements of a handful of medical 
professionals who contend that the unborn baby is actually killed, or 
rendered brain dead, prior to being extracted

[[Page S12987]]

from the womb by the anesthesia given to the mother.
  Mr. President, and my colleagues, consider this: Professor Robert 
White, director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research at 
Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, testified before a House 
committee several years ago that:

       The fetus within this timeframe of gestation, 20 weeks and 
     beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.

  He stated, regarding partial-birth abortions:

       Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful 
     experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical 
     procedure.

  Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 34,000-member American Society of 
Anesthesiologists, testified before Congress:

       I think the suggestion that the anesthesia given to the 
     mother, be it regional or general, is going to cause the 
     brain death of the fetus is without basis of fact.

  And finally, Dr. Martin Haskell, who has been called a ``pioneer'' in 
the use of the partial-birth abortion procedure, in 1993, stated:

       . . . the majority of fetuses aborted this way are alive 
     until the end of the procedure.

  He went on to say:

       . . . probably about a third of those are definitely dead 
     before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the 
     other two-thirds are not.

  What kind of a people have we become that this procedure is even a 
matter of debate in the Senate? You wouldn't treat an animal, a mangy 
raccoon like that.
  To my colleagues today who are still seriously considering this 
debate, this is an issue of basic humaneness, and humaneness is an 
issue that many of us, on both sides, have often found quite troubling. 
In my short time in the Senate, I have joined a number of my colleagues 
on several occasions to speak against the inhumane treatment of 
animals. In fact, it wasn't very long ago, during the debate on the 
Interior appropriations bill that I voted in support of an amendment 
offered by Senator Torricelli that would have prohibited the use of 
funds in the Interior budget to facilitate the use of steel-jawed traps 
and neck snares for commerce or recreation in national wildlife 
refuges.
  During the debate on this amendment, my distinguished colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Reid, described the amendment as a ``no-brainer.'' My 
colleague went on to say that ``these traps are inhumane. They are 
designed to slam closed. The result is lacerations, broken bones, joint 
dislocations, and gangrene.'' In conclusion, Senator Reid stated that 
``in this day and age, there is no need to resort to inhumane methods 
of trapping. . . .'' And many of us were persuaded.
  And why were we persuaded? Why are we troubled by steel-jawed traps? 
Isn't it, Mr. President, because there's something in our gut that 
twists and turns over the unnecessary suffering and pain of creatures 
with whom we share this Earth? The majestic animals that are as much a 
part of God's wonderful creation as we are. Wonderful animals who add 
richness and texture to our own experience of the planet. Animals whom 
we thank God for allowing us to appreciate and admire.
  The suffering of a bear or a deer can lead many of us to say no to a 
steel-jawed trap and a neck snare. But what about a scissor through the 
head and neck of a child? What about sucking out a baby's brain.
  Mr. President, You wouldn't treat an animal, a mangy raccoon like 
this.
  The Senate also acted this year to do more to fight the inhumane 
treatment of dolphins. On July 22, I supported an amendment offered by 
Senator Boxer to the fiscal year 2000 Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill to force countries to pay their fair share of the 
expenses of the Tuna Commission and delay the importation of tuna 
caught using fishing methods that unnecessarily harm and kill dolphin. 
During debate on this amendment, Senator Boxer spoke eloquently of the 
thousands of dolphin killed each year by fishing methods that cruelly 
and unnecessarily harass, chase, encircle, maim, and kill dolphin that 
happen to be swimming over schools of tuna. I appreciated hers and 
others' efforts in the name of humaneness.
  God has given us dominion over a wondrous planet, a beautiful blue 
sphere that takes our breath away when we see it silhouetted against 
the dark of the universe. And with that dominion we know comes a 
stewardship, a responsibility to appreciate, care, and speak for God's 
creation who cannot speak for themselves.
  I believe our Maker has touched our human conscience with something 
that makes us almost instinctively recoil from causing unnecessary pain 
and suffering to animals. I know there's a tender spot in the hearts of 
some who now oppose a ban on this procedure. I know it's there because 
I've seen it in debates on the floor of this body. But I don't 
understand how those who can hear the howl of a wolf or the squeal of a 
dolphin, can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child.
  Mr. President, if people were sticking scissors in the heads of 
puppies, we would not abide it. In the name of common decency and 
humanity, I implore my colleagues not to let this happen to our own 
young.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that the only amendments in order be the pending Smith of New 
Hampshire amendment and the pending Landrieu amendment, that they both 
be separate first-degree amendments, and the votes occur in relation to 
these amendments at 5:30 in the order listed, with 3 minutes prior to 
each vote for explanation.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the votes described 
above, the bill be immediately advanced to third reading and passage 
occur, all without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--can 
we be sure the 3 minutes are equally divided between the two sides?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is our understanding.
  Mrs. BOXER. Fine. That is fine with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, there will 
then be three votes beginning at 5:30 p.m.
  Mr. President, 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. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all colleagues, I 
believe there are going to be three rollcall votes commencing at 5:30. 
So hopefully everybody will be present and we can move the votes fairly 
rapidly.
  I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, for the 
outstanding debate he has conducted on the floor during the last couple 
of days. In addition, Senator Smith and others, I think, have presented 
a very compelling case that this procedure, the so-called partial-birth 
abortion procedure, should be stopped. There is no medical necessity 
for it. It is not necessary to save the life of the mother under any 
circumstances, according to experts such as Dr. Koop, the American 
Medical Association, and others. It is a gruesome, terrible procedure. 
It needs to be stopped.
  We have laws on the books that protect unborn endangered species from 
Oregon to Florida. We have fines and penalties that if you destroy an 
animal, or an insect, you can be subjected to fines and penalties of 
thousands of dollars. You can even go to jail for destroying the unborn 
of a particular type of insect which happens to be classified as 
endangered.
  Yet in this procedure, when we are talking about a child who is 
partially born, we won't give it any protection whatsoever. We are 
talking about a child, a human being. I know some people say, ``It's a 
fetus and not a child; it

[[Page S12988]]

is not a human.'' Well, if we waited maybe 30 seconds, then it would be 
a child, or a human being, totally outside the mother's womb. I just 
find that incredible that we are not going to offer at least some 
protection for these unborn children.
  I want to allude to something else. There was a sense of the Senate 
passed earlier today, and some people have talked on it and said it 
reaffirms Roe v. Wade, as the law of the land. That Roe v. Wade is a 
great thing. There are a couple of points about this I would like to 
address. From a legislative standpoint, we are the legislative body; we 
pass the laws of the land. The Supreme Court is not supposed to 
legislate. I read the Constitution. We all have a copy. It says, in 
article I, section 1, of the Constitution:

       All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

  All legislative powers.
  Then if you read through the conclusion of the Constitution, in the 
10th amendment it says:

       All of the rights and powers are reserved to the States and 
     to the people.

  It does not say in the case of abortion we give the Supreme Court the 
right to legislate. That is exactly what they did in Roe v. Wade. So 
now we have a sense of the Senate that says we agree with Roe v. Wade. 
I wonder how many people have really looked at Roe v. Wade. I thought I 
might introduce it into the Record because it is a very convoluted, 
poorly-drafted piece of legislation in which the Supreme Court 
legalized abortion.
  The Supreme Court doesn't have the constitutional power to legalize 
anything. They don't have the constitutional power to pass laws. That 
is what they did. I was going to insert Roe v. Wade into the Record, 
but it is too long, it has too many pages. I object to the Supreme 
Court legislating at any time, even if I agree with the legislative 
result.
  If Congress wants to codify Roe v. Wade, let somebody introduce 
legislation and let it go through the process. Let's have hearings. 
Does it make sense to have abortion legal, totally legal, without any 
restrictions whatsoever in the first trimester, and maybe little 
restrictions on the second trimester, and further on the third 
trimester? Is that the way Congress would do it? If we are going to do 
it this way, at least if the people don't like the laws Congress 
passes, they would have some recourse. There is no recourse to 
legislation dictated by the Supreme Court.

  So I strongly object to the idea of the Supreme Court legislating. I 
think the sense of the Congress was a serious mistake. I don't know if 
I am going to be a conferee or not, but I will work hard to make sure 
the sense of the Senate language is not included in anything that will 
be reported out on this bill. I think that would be a serious mistake.
  Again, I compliment the authors of the bill and state for the Record 
that I urge all people, Members of Congress, to vote for the 
legislation by the Senator from Pennsylvania to protect unborn children 
who are three-fourths born, or two-thirds born; give them protection--
maybe not as much protection as we give unborn animals under the 
endangered species. Evidently, we are not going to do that, but let's 
give them some protection.
  So let's pass this bill. We can go to conference with the House, and 
we can drop this sense-of-the-Senate resolution and pass the bill, and 
hopefully this time the President will sign it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand we are ready now to do a series 
of three votes back to back.
  For the information of all Senators, these votes will be the last 
votes of the day.
  It will be my intention to begin debate on the African trade bill, 
which includes, of course, the CBI enhancement provisions, immediately 
following these votes. It is my hope that the Senate will begin 
debating and amending the bill yet this evening because we do have some 
more time that we could keep working on this bill.
  I had the opportunity this afternoon to talk to the President about 
this legislation. He is committed to being of assistance in any way he 
can to the Senate taking this bill up and passing it in its present 
form.
  I have been working with the Democratic leader, the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee, all of whom support this legislation.
  This is a free trade initiative that will be good for a America, good 
for the Caribbean Basin, and good for Africa.
  Assuming the Senate begins debate on this bill, any votes relative to 
amendments would be postponed to occur at a time determined by the 
majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
  On Monday, the Senate will be debating the African trade bill with 
the CBI provisions.
  I will propose to confirm six nominations from the Executive 
Calendar. If debate is necessary on these nominations, that debate 
would also occur on Monday.
  However, the votes, if necessary, would be postponed to occur on 
Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
  I thank all Members, and will notify each Senator as the voting 
situation becomes clearer.
  Based on what I said, I believe we will have only debate on Friday. 
It is not clear at this time what the situation would be with regard to 
Monday. We will have debate. We do have nominations we want to clear. 
But we will be in communication with both sides of the aisle and notify 
the Members as soon as further decisions can be made.


                           amendment no. 2324

  I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2324.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have a minute and a 
half per side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to vote shortly on the Smith 
amendment.
  I tried very hard to work with my colleague. There is one very 
serious flaw in his legislation which I fear could escalate the 
violence at health care clinics all over this country. Now it is 
illegal in any way to sell fetal tissue. We all support that ban. We 
have voted on that ban. You cannot sell fetal tissue.
  The Senator is concerned that this sale, nonetheless, is taking 
place. He wants certain disclosure as it relates to this issue. In the 
course of that, he has amended his legislation to deal with some of my 
problems by making sure that we can identify the woman who agreed to 
donate that tissue for research. It won't identify physicians. For that 
I am grateful.
  The one area we couldn't reach agreement on had to do with the 
identity of the health care facility in which the woman had her legal 
and safe abortion. That will be subject to disclosure. Anyone could 
find out through a Freedom of Information request where that clinic is.
  There have been 33 instances of violence against health care 
facilities since 1987.
  I really am sad that the Senator from New Hampshire was unable to 
protect the confidentiality of these clinics.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please protect the 
identity of these clinics. We don't want to have anyone calling up and 
finding out where they are. I am very fearful it could escalate the 
violence. We certainly don't want to do that unwittingly.
  Thank you very much. I will be urging a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senator Boxer and I made 
an attempt to come to accommodation on this amendment. We were not able 
to do that.
  As you heard from my presentation on the floor, we know that fetal 
body parts are being sold in violation of law. Abortions may be induced 
in certain ways, such as possibly partial birth, or perhaps even live 
births in order to have good fetal body tissue to sell.

[[Page S12989]]

  This is a serious problem. Clearly, it is a big industry.
  This amendment requires disclosure of certain information prior to 
the transfer of any of this fetal body tissue or parts in induced 
abortions. That is what it does. It is against the law to sell fetal 
tissue for research. It is against Federal law.
  This amendment allows HHS to track these transfers to enforce current 
law. You can donate tissue, but you can't sell it. It is being sold. We 
need the sun to shine in on this industry to find out what is 
happening.
  It protects the privacy of all women undergoing abortions and the 
doctors providing them.
  But this is something that is occurring within the industry. It is a 
very elaborate network of abortion providers getting those body parts 
to a wholesaler who then in turn is selling those body parts to 
universities and other research institutions. It simply let's the light 
in. That is all it does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2324. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island. (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), and the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessary absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chafee
     Gregg
     Mack
  The amendment (No. 2324) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes in this series be limited in length to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2323, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes equally divided. Who 
yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand the unanimous consent 
agreement, Senator Landrieu will have 1\1/2\ minutes and the other side 
will have 1\1/2\ minutes on her amendment, which I strongly support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Landrieu has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we have been debating 
a very contentious and emotional issue for many, many hours now. This 
debate will perhaps go on for some years to come as we try to resolve 
our many differences. It is a very tough issue for many families and 
for policymakers all over our Nation.
  This amendment is an attempt to help because whether you are for or 
against, pro-life or pro-choice, or somewhere in the middle, we can say 
today it is the sense of this Congress that we want to help all 
families who have children with birth defects or special needs, 
regardless of their circumstances.
  It is a very tough situation when families, even with a wanted 
pregnancy, have to sometimes make a very tough decision that could 
result in their financial ruin. We should step up to the plate, and 
that is what this amendment does.
  It simply says it is the sense of the Senate that many families 
struggle with very tough decisions and that we should fully cover all 
expenses related to educational, medical, and respite care requirements 
of families with special-needs children.
  I commend this to my colleagues and ask for their support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I support the amendment, and I yield 
back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2323, as modified. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), and the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chafee
     Gregg
     Mack
  The amendment (No. 2323), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and the 
third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 3 minutes 
equally divided.
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the arguments against the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Act keep changing. During previous consideration, for example, 
we heard from proponents of the procedure that it was used in only rare 
and tragic cases, so it would be wrong to ban it. Here is how the 
Planned Parenthood Federation of America characterized partial-birth 
abortion in a November 1, 1995 news release: ``The procedure, dilation 
and extraction (D&X), is extremely rare and done only in cases when the 
woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' 
Planned Parenthood was not the only group to make such sweeping 
statements at the time.
  But it did not take long for the story to unravel. On February 26, 
1997, the New York Times reported that Ron Fitzsimmons, executive 
director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he 
``lied in earlier statements when he said [partial-birth abortion] is 
rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women 
bearing severely malformed babies.'' According to the Times, ``He

[[Page S12990]]

now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues 
have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.''
  Mr. Fitzsimmons told American Medical News the same thing--that is, 
the vast majority of these abortions are performed in the 20-plus week 
range on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. He said, ``The abortion 
rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, 
probably, does everyone else.''
  We heard about the frequency of the procedure from doctors who 
performed it. The Record of Bergen County, New Jersey, published an 
investigative report revealing that far more of these abortions were 
performed in New Jersey and across the country than the abortion lobby 
wanted Americans to believe.
  Now, after the truth is exposed, we see an advertising campaign by a 
group called the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, claiming that 
it is the legislation that is deceptive and extreme. The claim is that 
the bill would prohibit ``some of the safest and most commonly used 
medical procedures and risk the health and well-being of women.'' 
Apparently out of convenience, opponents have now flipped their 
argument and claim the procedure is common, not rare at all--which is 
what supporters of the legislation contended all along.
  On the issue of safety, they have been more consistent. They claim 
the procedure is safe, but here is what the former Surgeon General of 
the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop, had to say on the subject. 
According to Dr. Koop, ``partial-birth abortion is never medically 
necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. On the 
contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.'' A 
threat to health and fertility.
  We heard the same thing from other medical experts during hearings in 
the Judiciary Committee a few years ago. Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing 
Ob-Gyn from Ohio, testified that in her 13 years of experience, she 
never felt compelled to recommend this procedure to save a woman's 
life. ``In fact,'' she said, ``if a woman has a serious, life 
threatening, medical condition this procedure has a significant 
disadvantage in that it takes three days.''
  Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the nation's most widely used 
textbook on abortion standards and procedures, is quoted in the 
November 20, 1995 edition of American Medical News as saying that he 
would ``dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to 
use.'' He called it ``potentially dangerous'' to a woman to turn a 
fetus to a breech position, as occurs during a partial-birth abortion. 
Dangerous, Mr. President.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was quoted by 
Charles Krauthammer in a March 14, 1997 column as indicating that there 
are ``no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only 
option to save the life of the mother and preserve the health of the 
woman.''
  And of course, the American Medical Association (AMA), on the eve of 
the Senate vote during the 105th Congress, endorsed the bill to ban the 
technique. According to the chairman of the AMA's board of trustees, 
``it is a procedure which is never the only appropriate procedure and 
has no history in peer reviewed medical literature or in accepted 
medical practice development.''
  To those who call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act extreme, I ask: 
Is it extreme to want to ban a procedure that medical experts tell us 
is dangerous and threatening to women? Or are the extremists those who 
are so radically pro-abortion that they defend even a such a dangerous 
and threatening procedure?
  What about those rarest of instances when it might be necessary to 
use this dangerous procedure to save a woman's life? Those are provided 
for, despite what President Clinton said when he vetoed the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act on October 13, 1997. He said he did so because 
the bill did not contain an exception that ``will adequately protect 
the lives and health of the small group of women in tragic 
circumstances who need an abortion performed at a late stage of 
pregnancy to avert death or serious injury.''

  Let me read the language of the bill that was vetoed. This is 
language from the bill's proposed section 1531. The ban, and I am 
quoting, ``shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a 
physical disorder, illness, or injury.'' Identical language providing a 
life-of-the-mother exception appears in this year's version of the 
bill, S. 1629, as well. I do not know how the language can be any 
clearer.
  Mr. President, another charge now being made against this bill is 
that it is unconstitutional. Of course, we all can speculate about how 
the U.S. Supreme Court might rule on the matter. The Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals recently struck down partial-birth abortion bans in 
Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas, but a three-judge panel from the Fourth 
Circuit stayed an injunction against a similar Virginia law, pending 
review by the full court. The Fourth Circuit has yet to rule, but 
observers expect it to uphold the Virginia ban.
  Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the 
question, given the differing Circuit Court decisions. And as Harvard 
Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe noted in a November 6, 1995 letter 
to Senator Boxer, there are various reasons ``why one cannot predict 
with confidence how the Supreme Court as currently composed would rule 
if confronted with [the bill].'' He noted that the Court has not had 
any such law before it. And he noted that ``although the Court did 
grapple in 1986 with the question of a state's power to put the health 
and survival of a viable fetus above the medical needs of the mother, 
it has never directly addressed a law quite like [the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act].''
  Mr. President, neither Roe v. Wade nor any subsequent Supreme Court 
case has ever held that taking the life of a child during the birth 
process is a constitutionally protected practice. In fact, the Court 
specifically noted in Roe that a Texas statute--one which made the 
killing of a child during the birth process a felony--had not been 
challenged. That portion of the law is still on the books in Texas 
today.
  Remember what we are talking about here: ``an abortion in which the 
person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living 
fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' That is 
the definition of a partial-birth abortion in the pending legislation.
  So we are talking about a child whose body, save for his or her head, 
has been delivered from the mother--that is, only the head remains 
unborn. No matter what legal issues are involved, I hope no one will 
forget that we are talking about a live child who is already in the 
birth canal and indeed has been partially delivered.
  I dare say that, even if the Court were somehow to find that a 
partially delivered child is not constitutionally protected, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act could still be upheld under Roe and 
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Under both 
Roe and Casey, the government may prohibit abortion after viability, 
except when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. But 
the exception would never arise here because, as the experts tell us, 
this procedure is never medically necessary.
  Although I believe the law would be upheld by the Court, I will 
concede that no one can say with certainty how the Supreme Court will 
rule until it has ruled. Until then, I suggest that we not use that as 
an excuse to avoid doing what we believe is right.
  The facts are on the table. The bill includes a life-of-the-mother 
exception--an exception that would probably never be invoked given that 
medical experts tell us a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to 
protect the life or health of a woman, and indeed may even pose a 
danger to life and health. Let us do what is right and put a stop to 
what our colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has appropriately 
characterized as infanticide. Let us pass this bill.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I enter this debate sad that partisan 
politics has obstructed the effort of many of us to address this 
problem in a meaningful way. Put simply, I oppose partial-birth 
abortions. Indeed, I oppose all late-term abortions unless they are 
necessary to save the life of the mother or to avert grievous damage to 
the physical health of the mother.

[[Page S12991]]

  I have voted for the Durbin amendment and will vote against the 
Santorum measure. One, the Durbin proposal, has failed. The other will 
pass the Senate but accomplish nothing.
  The Santorum bill suffers from a number of serious flaws. First, it 
is clearly unconstitutional. The vast majority of federal courts 
dealing with this issue have held so, and no amount of wishful thinking 
can alter that fact. Second, even if it were constitutional, it would 
not stop a single abortion. Let me reiterate that: it would not stop a 
single abortion. It would simply spur doctors and women to seek other 
methods to achieve the same goal.
  Before explaining why the Santorum measure is unconstitutional, let 
me elaborate on why it is ineffective. Long before the procedure of 
partial-birth abortion was developed, late-term, postviability 
abortions were available through alternative methods. Under the 
Santorum bill, which only prevents one particular procedure, physicians 
can simply revert to the use of other more dangerous procedures if 
partial-birth abortion is banned. This bill will not end late-term 
abortions. It will simply force doctors to fall back on antiquated 
medical interventions that will further endanger the lives and health 
of women. Is that really what we want?
  In addition, 19 recent court rulings have determined that similar 
proposals are unconstitutional. There is a strong likelihood that this 
bill, if passed, will be struck down as unconstitutional according to 
the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. As drafted this legislation is 
unconstitutionally vague and violates the clear dictates of the Supreme 
Court. Our objective should not be to pass divisive legislation that 
has no chance of ever becoming law.
  And so I support the Durbin amendment. I believe it achieves a rare 
balance in the debate about abortion. It is constitutional. It limits 
government interference in a woman's most personal and important 
decisions. And it provides a framework for dealing with the late-term 
abortions--including partial birth abortions--that the so many of us 
struggle to find sense in.
  I have spoken with women who have had late-term abortions. They 
struggled mightily with their God and their consciences. They made 
their decisions with their husbands, their families and their doctors. 
And they alone confronted the awful moment when hope for a new life 
collided with terror about the fate of their own life. I can never 
understand that conflict. But I believe that the Durbin amendment 
offers a bridge between those women and all of us who try to understand 
how or why a woman might choose to have a late-term abortion.
  I simply do not believe that Senators or any government 
representative has the authority or expertise to determine that a 
partial-birth or late-term abortion will never be necessary to prevent 
severe injury to a woman's physical health or a threat to her life. But 
I do believe that we do have the authority to ask that before a late-
term abortion is performed it be determined that the woman's life or 
physical health are truly at stake. The Durbin amendment would 
accomplish this goal. It would bar, except in narrow circumstances and 
under the advice and consent of two physicians, all late-term 
abortions.
  On balance, I believe that the difficult question of abortion should 
be left for a woman to decide in consultation with her family, her 
physician and her faith. However, once the fetus has reached viability, 
I believe that we do have a responsibility, and a constitutional 
ability, to protect the unborn child. I believe that the Durbin 
amendment was the piece of legislation before us that would have most 
effectively accomplish that goal. And so I have voted in its favor.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it boggles the mind to think that we are 
back here again, trying to convince the President that there is no 
place in this nation for partial-birth abortions.
  It is hard to believe that we are having to go through this exercise 
again because this particular procedure is so clearly barbaric. It is 
such a clear case or genocide.
  In two Congresses now--during both of which is served in the House of 
Representatives--Congress has passed a ban of this barbaric procedure 
only to see the President veto that ban and allow the killing to 
continue.
  In both of these Congresses, the House of Representatives voted to 
override the President's veto--but this body did not.
  Hopefully, we can change that. If not today--then maybe tomorrow or 
the next day--the next month--or the next year--because this is such a 
clear case of human justice--moral justice--and plain old humanity--we 
cannot ever give up until partial-birth abortions are banned across the 
land.
  It is really hard to believe that we have to go through this exercise 
every Congress because nobody--with a straight face and clear 
conscience--can stand up and defend this procedure.
  The only way anyone can justify it is to say that--hey, it doesn't 
matter--because not that many partial birth abortion are actually 
performed. They say that partial birth abortions are only utilized in 
cases when the mother's life is in jeopardy.
  And we know this just isn't true. We know that some of the most 
ardent and visible defenders of abortion have actually lied about the 
numbers. It's not just a few hundred a year--it is thousands.
  But the numbers really shouldn't make any difference. If it is wrong 
and inhumane we should ban it--whether it affects one or one million.
  But misleading facts about the numbers--trying to downplay the 
prevalence and the frequency of the procedure--are no justification at 
all.
  This bill does not ignore the health needs of women. It clearly makes 
an exception when the life of the mother is jeopardy. This bill clearly 
says that the ban on partial-birth abortions does not apply when such a 
procedure is considered necessary to save the life of a mother whose 
life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury.
  So, even though many medical experts insist that there is never any 
medical justification for partial-birth abortion, this bill permits it 
if the mother's life in jeopardy.
  No one can deny that partial-birth abortion is cruel. No one can deny 
that it is patently inhumane. No one can deny that it is grotesque.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill--support this ban.
  It is simply a matter of respect for human life.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud today to join the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and a large majority of my other colleagues in support of 
S. 1692, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in passing this bill by a sufficient margin to 
withstand President Clinton's promised veto.
  We are debating an issue that has an important bearing on the future 
of this Nation. Partial-birth abortion is a pivotal issue because it 
demands that we decide whether or not we as a civilized people are 
willing to protect that most fundamental of rights--the right to life 
itself. If we rise to this challenge and safeguard the future of our 
Nation's unborn, we will be protecting those whose voices cannot yet be 
heard by the polls and those whose votes cannot yet be weighted in the 
political process. If we fail in our duty, we will justly earn the 
scorn of future generations when they ask why we stood idly by and did 
nothing in the face of this national infanticide.
  We must reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of human life in all 
its stages. We took a positive step in that direction two years ago by 
unanimously passing legislation that bans the use of federal funds for 
physician-assisted suicide. We can take another step toward restoring 
our commitment to life by banning partial-birth abortions.
  In this barbaric procedure, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet 
first out of the womb and through the birth canal except for the head, 
which is kept lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist then 
punctures the base of the skull with long surgical scissors and removes 
the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the head 
to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the 
now dead baby. I recount the grisly details of this procedure only to 
remind my colleagues of the seriousness of the issue before the Senate. 
We must help those unborn children who are unable to help themselves.
  Opponents have argued that this procedure is necessary in some 
circumstances to save the life of the

[[Page S12992]]

mother or to protect her health or future fertility. These arguments 
have no foundation in fact. First, this bill provides an exception if 
the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother and no 
alternative procedure could be used for that purpose. Moreover, leaders 
in the medical profession including former Surgeon General C. Everett 
Koop have stated unequivocally that ``Partial-birth abortion is never 
medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future 
fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant 
threat to both.''
  A coalition of over 600 obstetricians, perinatologists, and other 
medical specialists have similarly concluded there is no sound medical 
evidence to support the claim that this procedure is ever necessary to 
protect a woman's future fertility. These arguments are offered as a 
smoke-screen to obscure the fact that this procedure results in the 
taking of an innocent life. The practice of partial birth abortions has 
shocked the conscience of our nation and it must be stopped.
  Even the American Medical Association has endorsed this legislation. 
In a letter to the chief sponsor of this bill, Senator Santorum, the 
AMA explained ``although our general policy is to oppose legislation 
criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such 
legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically 
indicated. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act now meets both these 
tests . . . Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards 
restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.''
  I have based my decision on every bill that has come before this body 
on what effect it will have on those generations still to come. We in 
the Senate have deliberated about what steps we can take to make 
society a better place for our families and the future of our children. 
We as Senators will cast no vote that will more directly affect the 
future of our families and our children that the vote we cast on this 
bill.
  When I ran for office, I promised my constituents I would protect and 
defend the right to life of unborn babies. The sanctity of human life 
is a fundamental issue on which we as a nation should find consensus. 
It is a right which is counted among the unalienable rights in our 
Nation's Declaration of Independence. We must rise today to the 
challenge that has been laid before us of protecting innocent human 
life. I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for life by 
supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  All of us in this body have had significant life experiences that 
help to shape our political philosophies. Nearly 4 years ago, I had a 
torn heart valve and was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. 
I had never been in a hospital except to visit sick folks before. I 
have to tell you that I am impressed with what they were able to do, 
but I have also been impressed with what doctors do not know. That is 
not a new revelation for me.
  Over 26 years ago, a long time ago, my wife and I were expecting our 
first child. Then one day early in the sixth month of pregnancy, my 
wife starting having pains and contractions. We took her to the doctor. 
The doctor said, ``Oh, you may have a baby right now. We know it's 
early and that doesn't bode well. We will try to stop it. We can 
probably stop it.'' I had started storing up books for my wife for 3 
months waiting for the baby to come. However, the baby came that night, 
weighing just a little over 2 pounds. The doctor's advice to us was to 
wait until morning and see if she lives. They said they didn't have any 
control over it.
  I could not believe the doctors could not stop premature birth. Then 
I could not believe that they could not do something to help this 
newborn baby. Until you see one of those babies, you will not believe 
what a 6-month-old baby looks like. At the same time my wife gave birth 
to our daughter, another lady gave birth to a 10-pound baby. This was a 
small hospital in Wyoming so they were side by side in the nursery.
  Some of the people viewing the other baby said, ``Oh, look at that 
one. Looks like a piece of rope with some knots in it. Too bad.'' And 
we watched her grasp and gasp for air with every breath, and we watched 
her the whole night to see if she would live. And we prayed.
  Then the next day they were able to take this baby to a hospital 
which provided excellent care. She was supposed to be flown to Denver 
where the best care in the world was available, but it was a Wyoming 
blizzard and we couldn't fly. So we took a car from Gillette, WY, to 
the center of the State to Wyoming's biggest hospital, to get the best 
kind of care we could find. We ran out of oxygen on the way. We had the 
highway patrol looking for us and all along the way, we were watching 
every breath of that child.
  After receiving exceptional care the doctor said, ``Well, another 24 
hours and we will know something.'' After that 24 hours there were 
several times we went to the hospital and there was a shroud around the 
isolette. We would knock on the window, and the nurses would come over 
and say, ``It's not looking good. We had to make her breathe again.'' 
Or, ``Have you had the baby baptized?'' We had the baby baptized in the 
first few minutes after birth. But that child worked and struggled to 
live. She was just a 6-month-old-3 months premature.
  We went through 3 months of waiting to get her out of the hospital. 
Each step of the way the doctors said her ability to live isn't our 
doing. It gave me a new outlook on life. Now I want to tell you the 
good news. The good news is that the little girl is now an outstanding 
English teacher in Wyoming. She is dedicated to teaching seventh 
graders English, and she is loving every minute of every day. The only 
problem she had was that the isolette hum wiped out a range of tones 
for her, so she cannot hear the same way that you and I do. But she can 
lip read very well, which, in the classroom, is very good if the kids 
are trying to whisper. But that has given me an appreciation for all 
life and that experience continues to influence my vote now and on all 
issues of protecting human life.
  Life is such a miracle that we have to respect it and work for it 
every single day in every way we can. I think this bill will help in 
that effort, and I ask for your support for this bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe that late-term abortion 
procedures should be used as sparingly as possible, when all other 
options have been ruled out. But I do believe that it should be 
permitted as a last resort, and that when doctors judge it necessary to 
save a woman's life or to avert grievous injury to the physical health 
of the mother, they should not be subject to criminal prosecution. That 
is why I cosponsored the Durbin amendment. This amendment outlaws all 
post-viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used, except to 
save the life of the mother or avert grievous injury to her physical 
health. It also requires that both the attending physician and an 
independent non-treating physician certify in writing that, in their 
medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the 
mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Grievous 
injury is defined as (1) a severely debilitating disease or impairment 
specifically caused or exacerbated by the pregnancy or (2) an inability 
to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition, and is 
limited to conditions for which termination of the pregnancy is 
medically indicated.
  The underlying legislation, on the other hand, would not prevent a 
single late-term abortion as it is written. It only seeks to outlaw one 
procedure, which is broadly and vaguely defined. The term partial birth 
abortion is a political term, not a medical one. In fact, this 
legislation is written so vaguely that it is highly likely to be 
declared unconstitutional. In 19 of 21 states considering legislation 
similar to this legislation, courts have partially or fully enjoined 
the laws. These decisions have been made by judges who have been 
appointed by every President from President Reagan on.
  Further, Mr. President, the Constitution protects a woman's right to 
make decisions about her pregnancy up to the point that the fetus is 
viable. The bill before us, and similar state bills, are vague and 
broad enough that this basic right is not protected, according to the 
vast majority of judges ruling on these laws.
  For these reasons, I support the Durbin amendment and oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on 
all

[[Page S12993]]

abortions after viability is permitted under the Constitution, 
providing the ban contains an exception to protect the life and health 
of the woman.
  S. 1692 does not meet that test because the exception it provides for 
does not include constitutionally required language relative to a 
woman's health.
  The Supreme Court has also held that states may not ban pre-viability 
abortions. S. 1692 bans a specific abortion procedure that is not 
limited to post-viability abortions and therefore would ban certain 
pre-viability abortions, also making it unconstitutional.
  In fact, 19 out of 21 state laws similar to S. 1692 have been held 
unconstitutional by the courts, including a Michigan statute. In 
Michigan, the U.S. District Court has held that:

       [T]he Michigan partial-birth abortion statute must be 
     declared unconstitutional and enjoined because, under 
     controlling precedent, it is vague and over broad and 
     unconstitutionally imposes an undue burden on a woman's right 
     to seek a pre-viability second trimester abortion . . .

  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has 
continually expressed deep concern about legislation prohibiting the 
intact D&X procedure, which is the technical name for the so-called 
partial birth abortion procedure. They have urged Congress not to pass 
legislation criminalizing this procedure and not to supersede the 
medical judgment of trained physicians. They have stated the 
legislation, ``continues to represent an inappropriate, ill advised and 
dangerous intervention into medical decision-making. The amended bill 
still fails to include an exception for the protection for the health 
of the woman.''
  Principally for these reasons, I oppose this legislation. I supported 
an alternative bill which would ban all post-viability abortions, 
regardless of the procedure used, except in cases where it is necessary 
to protect a woman's life or health. I think that approach is 
preferable to S. 692 which would criminalize the procedure and which 
fails to protect a woman's health. However, it would be even more 
preferable to leave this matter to the states which already have the 
right to ban postviability abortions by any method, as long as the ban 
meets the constitutional standard.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we once again are debating 
legislation to ban the dilation and extraction, or D&X, procedure used 
by doctors. I am again opposed to this legislation and will once again 
be voting against this ban for the fifth time in as many years.
  My reasons for opposing this legislation are many. Most have been 
discussed on the floor during the many debates on this difficult issue. 
First, and most importantly I believe that this bill undermines the 
Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade to leave these critical matters 
in the hands of a woman, her family and her doctor. The pending 
legislation is an effort to chip away at these reproductive rights 
established in that 1973 decision and upheld by court cases since 1973. 
I understand many people disagree with my position. This issue has been 
contentious since I came to Congress in 1975.
  Second, with the Roe decision, the Supreme Court wisely gave states 
the responsibility to restrict third-trimester abortions, so long as 
the life or health of the mother were not jeopardized. As of 1999, all 
but ten states have done so. To me, the rights of states to regulate 
abortions, when the life or health of the mother are not in danger, is 
an adequate safeguard. In the event the states pass unconstitutional 
regulations on this point, the appropriate remedy is with the courts. I 
realize that this policy leads to differences in law from state to 
state, but just as families differ, so too do states. As has been said 
before during the debate on this issue:

       When the Roe v. Wade decision acknowledged a state interest 
     in fetuses after viability, the Court wisely left 
     restrictions on post-viability abortions up to states. There 
     are expert professional licensing boards, accreditation 
     councils and medical associations that guide doctors' 
     decision-making in the complicated and difficult matters of 
     life and death.

  Third, the legislation before us would prevent doctors from using the 
D&X procedure where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. 
This clearly goes against the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe, as 
it required the health of the mother be safeguarded when states 
regulate late-term abortions. I will not vote for a bill that is 
neither Constitutional, nor takes into account those situations where 
carrying a fetus to term would cause serious health risk for the 
mother. This is simply unacceptable. My vote in 1997, in favor of the 
Feinstein substitute amendment underscored my commitment to 
safeguarding a doctor's options to protect the health of the mother in 
cases where a late-term procedure is necessary.
  Finally, I believe that women who choose to undergo a D&X procedure 
do so for grave reasons. We have established a delicate legal framework 
in which to address late-term abortions and we should not shift the 
decision making to the federal government.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are not here today to debate the 
legality of abortion. We are here to discuss ending partial-birth 
abortion--a particularly gruesome procedure that would be outlawed 
today but for the President's veto last year of a national ban.
  Banning partial-birth abortion goes far beyond traditional pro-life 
or prochoice views. No matter what your personal opinion regarding the 
legalization of abortion, we should all be appalled and outraged by the 
practices of partial-birth abortions. This procedure is inhumane and 
extremely brutal entailing the partial delivery of a healthy baby who 
is then killed by having its vibrant brain stabbed and suctioned out of 
the skull.
  This is simply barbaric.
  Some would argue that abortion, including partial-birth abortion, is 
a matter of choice--a woman's choice. Respectfully, I must disagree.
  What about the choice of the unborn baby? Why does a defenseless, 
innocent child not have a choice in their own destiny?
  Some may answer that the unborn baby is merely a fetus and is not a 
baby until he or she leaves the mother's womb. Again, I disagree, 
particularly, in the case of infants who are killed by partial-birth 
abortions.
  Most partial-birth abortions occur on babies who are between 20 and 
24 weeks old. Viability, ``the capacity for meaningful life outside the 
womb, albeit with artificial aid'' as defined by the United States 
Supreme Court, is considered by the medical community to begin at 20 
weeks for an unborn baby. Most, if not all, of the babies who are 
aborted by the partial-birth procedure could be delivered and live. 
Instead, they are partially delivered and then murdered. These children 
are never given a choice or a chance to live.
  Today, we have to make a choice. We can choose to protect our 
nation's most valuable resource--our children. We can choose to give a 
tomorrow full of endless possibilities to unborn children throughout 
our nation. We can choose to save thousands from being murdered at the 
hands of abortionists.
  Or we can choose to allow this barbaric procedure to continue, 
permitting doctors to kill more innocent, unborn children.
  We each have a choice, a choice which unborn children are denied. We 
must make the right choice when we vote today--the choice to save 
thousands of unborn children by banning partial birth abortions in this 
country.
  Today, I will choose to protect the unborn child. Today, I will once 
again cast my vote to ban partial birth abortions.
  I want to reiterate my strong support for this bill and my 
unequivocal and long-standing opposition to the practice of partial 
birth abortion. I find it disconcerting that a few people are 
attempting to dilute my unequivocal support for banning this horrific 
procedure as well as to cast doubt on my long standing commitment to 
protecting the life of unborn children merely because of my vote on a 
procedural motion.
  Yesterday, I voted against a parliamentary maneuver designed solely 
to end debate on S. 1593, the campaign finance reform bill. This was an 
unnecessary move since a unanimous consent agreement had been offered, 
with no known opposition, which would have allowed the chamber to 
temporarily lay aside the campaign finance reform bill so that the 
Senate could consider the partial birth abortion ban legislation. Under 
that procedure, when the Senate finished its work on the important bill 
banning partial birth abortions, we could then return to complete the 
debate on campaign finance reform. Instead, the opponents of

[[Page S12994]]

McCain-Feingold forced a vote on a maneuver which returned the bill to 
the Senate calendar, effectively cutting off the debate, well short of 
the time promised to consider this important issue.
  In no way does my vote yesterday and strong support for campaign 
finance reform reduce my unequivocal, long-standing opposition to 
abortion, including the practice of partial birth abortion. I am a 
cosponsor of this legislation, as I was in previous years. I have voted 
5 times over the past 5 years to ban this repugnant and unnecessary 
procedure, including 2 votes to overturn the President's veto of this 
legislation. When the Senate votes today on S. 1692, I will again vote 
for the ban.
  Mr. President, I am pro-life and will continue fighting for measures 
which protect our nation's unborn children and provide them with an 
opportunity for life--the greatest gift each of us has.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the fifth time in the past two years, 
the Republican leadership has chosen to debate and vote on legislation 
that President Clinton has vetoed twice and that numerous courts have 
ruled unconstitutional. No matter how often the Senate votes, the facts 
will remain the same. This bill is unconstitutional--it's a violation 
of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood 
v. Casey, and the Senate should oppose it.
  The Roe and Casey decisions prohibit Congress from imposing an 
``undue burden'' on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an 
abortion at any time up to the point where the developing fetus reaches 
the stage of viability. Congress can constitutionally limit abortions 
after the stage of viability, as long as the limitations contain 
exceptions to protect the life and the health of the woman.
  This bill fails that constitutional test in two clear ways. It 
clearly imposes an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to an 
abortion in cases before viability. In cases after viability, it 
clearly does not contain the constitutionally required exception to 
protect the mother's health.
  Supporters of this legislation are flagrantly defying these 
constitutional requirements, and they know it. Similar laws have been 
challenged in 21 of the 30 states where they have been passed, and the 
results are clear. In 20 states, laws have been blocked or severely 
limited by the courts or by state legal action. Eighteen courts have 
issued temporary or permanent injunctions preventing the laws from 
taking effect because of constitutional defects. One court and one 
attorney general have limited enforcement of the law. Of the states 
where the laws have been blocked, six have statutes identical to the 
Santorum bill.
  Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that laws in 
three states under its jurisdiction--Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska--were 
unconstitutional. In the opinion on the Nebraska law, the court 
specifically held that, ``Under controlling precedents laid down by the 
Supreme Court, [the] prohibition places an undue burden on the right of 
women to choose whether to have an abortion.''
  The conclusion is obvious. The supporters of the Santorum bill would 
rather have an issue than a law. They have rejected compromise after 
compromise. They have ignored President Clinton's plea to add an 
exemption for ``the small number of compelling cases where selection of 
the procedure, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, was 
necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse 
consequences to her health.''
  In doing so, the Republican leadership has chosen to ignore the 
Constitution. They are also ignoring the large number of medical 
professionals who oppose this legislation, including the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses 
Association, and the American Medical Women's Association. The American 
Medical Association--which once endorsed the bill--no longer supports 
it. The AMA withdrew its support after independent investigators hired 
by the organization concluded that, ``rather than focusing on its role 
as steward for the profession and the public health . . . the board . . 
. lost sight of its responsibility for making decisions which, first 
and foremost, benefit the patient and protect the physician-patient 
relationship.''
  Most important, in its effort to pass this legislation, the 
Republican leadership has ignored the tragic situations in which some 
women find themselves--women like Eileen Sullivan, Erica Fox, Vikki 
Stella, Tammy Watts, and Viki Wilson. Women like Coreen Costello, who 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and told us that she 
consulted with numerous medical experts and did everything possible to 
save her child. She later had the procedure that would be banned by 
this legislation, and, based on that experience, she told the Committee 
the following:

       I hope you can put aside your political differences, your 
     positions on abortion, and your party affiliations and just 
     try to remember us. We are the ones who know. We are the 
     families that ache to hold our babies, to love them, to 
     nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a 
     hole in our hearts. . . . please put a stop to this terrible 
     bill. Families like mine are counting on you.

  For all of these reasons, I oppose the Santorum bill. We should stand 
with Coreen Costello and others like her, who with their doctors' 
advice, must make these tragic decisions to protect their lives and 
their health.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1692, 
the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. At the outset, I would like to 
thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his great 
efforts here this week, and over the past few years, in trying to seek 
passage of this measure. Few people can speak on this issue with the 
same passion and depth of understanding as Senator Santorum.
  As we face this vote today, it is clear that the majority of the 
Senate supports this bill. It is a bipartisan effort. The hope we have, 
however, in the face of an inevitable veto, is that a number sufficient 
to override this veto will vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. President, I have spoken in past years on this important 
legislation. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I chaired a 
major hearing on this bill several years ago, and the graphic 
description of this procedure and the testimony I heard was compelling, 
even chilling.
  This bill presents, really, a very narrow issue: whether one rogue 
abortion procedure that has probably been performed by a handful of 
abortion doctors in this country, that is never medically necessary, 
that is not the safest medical procedure available under any 
circumstances, and that is morally reprehensible, should be banned.
  This bill does not address whether all abortions after a certain week 
of pregnancy should be banned or whether late-term abortions should 
only be permitted in certain circumstances. It bans one particular 
abortion procedure.
  I chaired the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill that was held 
on November 17, 1995. After hearing the testimony presented there as 
well as seeing some of the submitted material, I must say that I find 
it difficult to comprehend how any reasonable person could examine the 
evidence and continue to defend the partial-birth abortion procedure.
  That procedure involves the partial delivery of an intact fetus into 
the birth canal. The fetus is delivered from its feet through its 
shoulders so that only its head remains in the uterus. Then, either 
scissors or another instrument is used to poke a hole in the base of 
the skull. This is a living baby at this point, in a late trimester of 
living. Once the abortionist pokes that hole in the base of the skull, 
a suction catheter is inserted to suck out the brains. This bill would 
simply ban that procedure.
  The committee heard testimony from a total of 12 witnesses presenting 
a variety of perspectives on the bill. I wanted to ensure that both 
sides of this debate had a full opportunity to present their arguments 
on this issue, and I think that the hearing bore that out.
  Brenda Shafer, a registered nurse who worked in Dr. Martin Haskell's 
Ohio abortion clinic for 3 days as a temporary nurse in September 1993, 
testified to her personal experience observing Dr. Haskell performing 
the procedure that would be banned by this bill. Dr. Haskell is one of 
only a handful of doctors who have acknowledged performing the 
procedure.
  The committee also heard testimony from four ob-gyn doctors--two in 
favor

[[Page S12995]]

of the bill and two against--from an anesthesiologist, from an 
ethicist, and from three women who had personal experiences either with 
having a late-term abortion or with declining to have a late-term 
abortion. Finally, the committee also heard from two law professors who 
discussed constitutional and other legal issues raised by the bill.
  The hearing was significant in that it permitted the issues raised by 
this bill to be fully aired. I think that the most important 
contribution of the hearing to this debate is that the hearing record 
puts to rest a number of inaccurate statements that have been made by 
opponents of the bill and that have unfortunately been widely covered 
in the press.
  Because the Judiciary Committee hearing brought out many of the facts 
on this issue, I would like to go through the most important of those 
for my colleagues to clear up what I think have been some of the major 
misrepresentations--and simply points of confusion--on this bill.
  The first and foremost inaccuracy that we must correct once and for 
all concerns the effects of anesthesia on the fetus of a pregnant 
woman. I must say that I am personally shocked at the irresponsibility 
that led some opponents of this bill to spread the myth that anesthesia 
given to the mother during a partial-birth abortion is what kills the 
fetus.
  Opponents of the measure presumably wanted to make this procedure 
appear less barbaric and make it more palatable. In doing so, however, 
they have not only misrepresented the procedure, but they have spread 
potentially life-threatening misinformation that could prove 
catastrophic to women's health.
  By claiming that anesthesia kills the fetus, opponents have spread 
misinformation that could deter pregnant women who might desperately 
need surgery from undergoing surgery for fear that the anesthesia could 
kill or brain-damage their unborn children.
  Let me illustrate how widespread this misinformation has become: In a 
June 23, 1995, submission to the House Judiciary Constitution 
Subcommittee, the late Dr. James McMahon, the other of the two doctors 
who has admitted performing the procedure, wrote that anesthesia 
given to the mother during the procedure causes fetal demise.

  Let me note also that if the fetus was dead before being brought down 
the birth canal, then this bill by definition would not cover the 
procedure performed to abort the fetus. The bill covers only procedures 
in which a living fetus is partially delivered.
  An editorial in USA Today on November 3, 1995, also stated, ``The 
fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to its mother.''
  In a self-described fact sheet, circulated to Members of the House, 
Dr. Mary Campbell, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, who 
testified of the Judiciary Committee hearing wrote:

       The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to the 
     mother intravenously. A dose is calculated for the mother's 
     weight, which is 50 to 100 times the weight of the fetus. The 
     mother gets the anesthesia for each insertion of the 
     dilators, twice a day. This induces brain death in a fetus in 
     a matter of minutes. Fetal demise therefore occurs in the 
     beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in the 
     womb.

  When that statement was referenced to the medical panel at the 
Judiciary Committee hearing by Senator Abraham, the president of the 
American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Norig Ellison, flatly 
responded, ``There is absolutely no basis in scientific fact for that 
statement.''
  The American Society of Anesthesiologists was invited to testify at 
our hearing precisely to clear up this obvious misrepresentation. They 
sought the opportunity to set the record straight.
  What was terribly disturbing about this distortion was that it could 
endanger women's health and women's lives. The American Society of 
Anesthesiologists has made clear that they do not take a position on 
the legislation, but that they came forward out of concern for the 
harmful misinformation.
  The spreading of this misinformation strikes me as a very sad 
commentary on the lengths that those who support abortion on demand, 
for any reason, at virtually any time during pregnancy and apparently 
regardless of the method, will do to defend each and any procedure, and 
certainly this procedure. The sacrifice of intellectual honesty is very 
disheartening.
  As Dr. Ellison testified, he was ``Deeply concerned . . . that the 
widespread publicity given to Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause 
pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps lifesaving medical 
procedures, totally unrelated to the birthing process, due to 
misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus.''
  He stated that the American Society of Anesthesiologists, while not 
taking a position on the bill, ``. . . have nonetheless felt it our 
responsibility as physicians specializing in the provisions of 
anesthesia care to seek every available forum in which to contradict 
Dr. McMahon's testimony. Only in that way we believe can we provide 
assurance to pregnant women that they can undergo necessary surgical 
procedures safely, both for mother and unborn child.''

  Dr. Ellison also noted that, in his medical judgment, in order to 
achieve neurological demise of the fetus in a partial-birth abortion 
procedure, it would be necessary to anaesthetize the mother to such a 
degree as to place her own health in jeopardy.
  In short, in a partial-birth abortion, the anesthesia does not kill 
the fetus. The baby will generally be alive after partly being 
delivered into the birth canal and before having his or her skull 
opened and brain sucked out.
  Mr. President, if this description is distasteful, that is because 
the procedure itself is.
  That is also consistent with evidence provided by Dr. Haskell 
describing his use of the procedure. In his 1992 paper presented before 
the National Abortion Federation, which is part of the hearing record, 
Dr. Haskell described the procedure as first involving the forceps-
assisted delivery into the birth canal of an intact fetus from the feet 
up to the shoulders, with the head remaining in the uterus. He does not 
describe taking any action to kill the fetus up until that point.
  In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Haskell 
acknowledged that roughly two-thirds of the fetuses he aborts using the 
partial-birth abortion procedure are alive at the point at which he 
kills them by inserting a scissors in the back of the head and 
suctioning out the brain.
  Finally, in a letter to me dated November 9, 1995, Dr. Watson Bowes 
of the University of North Carolina Medical School wrote, ``Although I 
have never witnessed this procedure, it seems likely from the 
description of the procedure by Dr. Haskell that many if not all of the 
fetuses are alive until the scissors and the suction catheter are used 
to remove brain tissue.''
  Simply put, anesthesia given to a mother does not kill the baby she 
is carrying.
  Let me move on to the next misrepresentation. Another myth that the 
hearing record debunks is that the procedure can be medically necessary 
in late-term pregnancies where the health of the mother is in danger or 
where the fetus has severe abnormalities.
  Now, there were two witnesses at the hearing who testified as to 
their experiences with late-abortions in circumstances in which Dr. 
McMahon's performed the procedure. Both women, Coreen Costello and Viki 
Wilson, received terrible news late in their pregnancies that the 
children they were carrying were severely deformed and would be unable 
ot survive for very long.
  I would like to make it absolutely clear that nothing in the bill 
before us would prevent women in Ms. Costello's and Ms. Wilson's 
situations from choosing to abort their children. That question is not 
before us, and it is not one that we face in considering this narrow 
bill.
  I also would like to point out that I have the utmost sympathy for 
women--and their husbands and families--who find themselves receiving 
the same tragic news that those women received.
  Regardless of whether they aborted the child or decided to go through 
with the pregnancy, which is what another courageous witness at our 
hearing, Jeannie French of Oak Park, Illinois, chose to do--and as a 
result, her daughter Mary's heart valves were donated to other 
infants--their experiences are horrendous ones that no one should have 
to go through.

[[Page S12996]]

  The testimony of all three witnesses was among the most heart-
wrenching and painful testimony I have ever heard before the committee. 
My heart goes out to those three women and their families as well as 
any others in similar situations.
  However, the fact is that medical testimony in the record indicates 
that even if an abortion were to be performed under such circumstances, 
a number of other procedures could be performed, such as the far more 
common classical D&E procedure or an induction procedure.
  When asked whether the exact procedure Dr. McMahon used would ever be 
medically necessary--even in cases like those described by Ms. Costello 
and Ms. Wilson--several doctors at our hearing explained that it would 
not. Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing Ob-Gyn and clinical professor in 
Dayton, Ohio, stated that she had never had to resort to that procedure 
and that none of the physicians that she worked with had ever had to 
use it.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Chicago, 
stated that a doctor would never need to resort to the partial-birth 
abortion procedure.
  This ties in closely to what I consider the next misrepresentation 
made about the partial-birth abortion procedure: the claim that in some 
circumstances a partial-birth abortion will be the safest option 
available for a late-term abortion. Testimony and other evidence 
adduced at the Judiciary Committee hearing amply demonstrate that this 
is not the case.
  An article published in the November 20, 1995, issue of the American 
Medical News quoted Dr. Warren Hern as stating, ``I would dispute any 
statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' Dr. Hern is the 
author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the Nation's most widely used textbook 
on abortion standards and procedures. He also stated in that interview 
that he ``has very strong reservations'' about the partial-birth 
abortion procedure banned by this bill.

  Indeed, referring to the procedure, he stated, ``You really can't 
defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do 
this procedure. But I'm not going to do it.''
  In fairness to Dr. Hern, I note that he does not support this bill in 
part because he feels this is the beginning of legislative efforts to 
chip away at abortion rights. But, his statement regarding the partial-
birth abortion procedure certainly sheds light on the argument made by 
opponents that it is the safest procedure for late-term abortions.
  Another misrepresentation that should be set straight concerns claims 
that the partial-birth abortion procedure that would be banned by this 
bill is, in fact, performed only in later-term pregnancies where the 
life of the mother is at risk or where the fetus is suffering from 
severe abnormalities that are incompatible with life.
  I certainly do not dispute that in a number of cases the partial-
birth abortion procedure has been performed where the life of the 
mother was at risk or where the fetus was severely deformed.
  Substantial available evidence indicates, however, that the procedure 
is not performed solely or primarily where the mother's life is in 
danger, where the mother's health is gravely at risk, or where the 
fetus is seriously malformed in a manner incompatible with life.
  The fact of the matter is--and I know this is something that 
opponents of the bill have not faced--this procedure is being performed 
where there are only minor problems with the fetus, and for purely 
elective reasons.
  Most important, however, medical testimony at our hearing indicated 
that a health exception in this bill is not necessary because other 
abortion procedures are in fact safer and better for women's health.
  Now, let me be perfectly clear that I do not doubt that in some cases 
this procedure was done where there were life-threatening indications.
  However, I simply must emphasize two points.
  First, those cases are by far in the minority. We should get the 
facts straight so that our colleagues and the American people 
understand what is going on here.
  Second, the most credible testimony at our hearing--confirmed by 
other available evidence--indicates that even where serious maternal 
health issues exist or severe fetal abnormalities arise, there will 
always be other, safer abortion procedures available that this bill 
does not touch.
  On that note, I would like to close by highlighting a statement made 
at our hearing by Helen Alvare of the National Conference of Catholic 
Bishops. She remarked that opponents of this bill keep asking whether 
enacting it would be the first step in an effort to ban all abortions.
  In her view, however, the real question should be whether allowing 
this procedure would serve as a first step toward legalized 
infanticide. I urge the bill's opponents to ask themselves this 
question. What is the real purpose of this procedure?
  That is the fundamental problem with this procedure, It involves 
killing a partially delivered baby.
  Let me say to my colleagues in the Senate that the evidence presented 
more than confirms my view that this procedure is never medically 
necessary and should be banned.
  This evidence, regardless of one's view on the broader issue of 
abortion, provides ample justification for an ``aye'' vote on S. 1692.
  I hope my colleagues will agree.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  The courts in twenty States have said the Santorum law that has 
basically been adopted in those States is unconstitutional. Senator 
Santorum, in an effort to fix his bill, sent up a modification to the 
desk which he believes has narrowed the definition of what he means by 
the term ``partial-birth abortion,'' which is not a medical term.
  I have letters I have put in the Record from the obstetricians and 
gynecologists organization saying that, in fact, the new language 
doesn't do anything to narrow the definition; the same problem still 
holds.
  This ban is so vague, it could impact all abortions. That is why the 
courts say it is wrong. There is no exception for the health of a 
woman. That also goes against Roe. And 51 of us voted in favor of Roe. 
I hope we will vote no. I believe at least 35 of us or so will do that. 
That will be enough to sustain the veto. I hope more of my colleagues 
will consider standing with the life and health of a woman and voting 
no on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the amendment I offered to modify the 
language, directly on point, addresses the Eighth Circuit concern. It 
specifically talks about the baby having to be intact, living outside 
the mother, before the baby is killed.
  The concern of the Eighth Circuit was that other forms of abortion 
that are performed in utero could be involved. This is absolutely, 
positively clear. We are not talking about that. We ban a particular 
procedure. All other procedures would be legal under this bill. So 
there is no undue burden.
  Second, regarding the issue of health that Senator Boxer brings up, I 
have hundreds and hundreds of letters from obstetricians who say this 
is never, never medically necessary, and is never the only alternative, 
and it is never the preferred alternative. I have entered into the 
Record where the AMA has said that, and other organizations, 600 
obstetricians.
  On the other side is one organization, ACOG, which says, also, that 
it is never the only option, but says it may be necessary, or it may be 
the preferred procedure. For 3 years, we have asked for an example of 
when it would be the preferred procedure. They have never given us an 
example; never have they provided an example that backs up their 
specious claim that this is in some way, somehow, somewhere necessary.
  It is not medically necessary. There is no health exception needed 
because it is an unhealthy procedure. This is the opportunity to draw 
the line in the sand about what is protected by the Constitution and 
what is not. A child three-quarters born deserves some protection.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S12997]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), and the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chafee
     Gregg
     Mack
  The bill (S. 1692), as amended and modified, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1692

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This 
     paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
       ``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion deliberately and intentionally--
       ``(A) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living 
     fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the 
     person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially 
     outside the body of the mother; and
       ``(B) performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the 
     intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother.
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a 
     doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to 
     practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: 
     Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician 
     or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform 
     abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
     birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, illness or injury.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ROE V. WADE AND PARTIAL 
                   BIRTH ABORTION BANS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973)); and
       (2) no partial birth abortion ban shall apply to a partial-
     birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother 
     whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
     injury.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that partial birth abortions are horrific and gruesome 
     procedures that should be banned.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING A WOMAN'S LIFE AND 
                   HEALTH.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, consistent with the 
     rulings of the Supreme Court, a woman's life and health must 
     always be protected in any reproductive health legislation 
     passed by Congress.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women 
     to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law;
       (2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973));
       (3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade 
     established constitutionally based limits on the power of 
     States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to 
     terminate a pregnancy; and
       (4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous 
     abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade 
     decision.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an 
     important constitutional right; and
       (2) such decision should not be overturned.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak for a brief period. The 
reason I want to speak is to read into the Record a great speech that 
was given by a Nobel Laureate for Peace prize winner in 1979. It fits 
in with the culmination of what we discussed today, the partial-birth 
abortion ban. That vote has taken place and we have had extended 
discussion on that. I think this is actually a very fitting final 
conclusion to this debate.
  Mr. President, this speech is titled ``The Gift of Peace.'' It was 
given by Mother Teresa, Nobel Laureate, on December 11, 1979. I think 
it relates to a lot of what we have talked about here today. I will 
read it. I think it puts a good summary on it.
  Mother Teresa said:
       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 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

[[Page S12998]]

     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 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

[[Page S12999]]

     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!

  I simply wanted to put Mother Teresa's speech here again as a 
reminder to us of one of the great people of the world of our time, one 
that we have had the pleasure of having in this body, and that at the 
face of all this, we are really talking about peace. We are talking 
about a caring peace.
  I hope that we can move forward as a society, whether we want to do 
it by laws or not by laws. If we want to do it, we are persuading 
people's hearts. What we are talking about is the peace of that 
individual, and peace of mind, caring, caring through adoption.
  I hope we can move our hearts--all of us, whether we disagree or 
agree on the legislation--forward to reach out to that child and to 
those children the way she did.

                          ____________________