[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PARKINSON'S RESEARCH ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 17, 1997

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing 
legislation that will provide for and coordinate greater research 
efforts on Parkinson's disease. I am introducing this bill for two 
reasons.
  First, I support expanding life-affirming research on Parkinson's. 
Increasing resources to find a cure is not only a compassionate 
response to the suffering experienced by over 500,000 Americans, but it 
is a wise and economical use of our nation's tax dollars. In addition 
to the human tragedy resulting from the condition, Parkinson's patient 
advocates note that this terrible disease costs our society some $25 
billion a year in direct medical expenses and reduced productivity. 
Parkinson's is a progressive and debilitating disease that affects a 
large segment of our population. Therefore, the discovery of a cure or 
an effective treatment will pay dividends far in excess of the $100 
million in authorized funds provided in this bill.
  As you already know, Parkinson's disease results from a degenerative 
condition in the brain whereby nerve cells lose the ability to produce 
the neurotransmitting chemical dopamine. Common symptoms include 
tremors--particularly in the extremities--rigidity, loss of balance, 
and bradykinesia, or very slow movements.
  Parkinson's disease is an incurable condition which afflicts roughly 
1 in every 100 people over the age of 60. Existing treatments, such as 
L-dopa, a pharmaceutical substitute for dopamine, and pallidotomy, a 
surgical technique which can relieve symptoms, are not long-term 
solutions, and their effectiveness diminishes over time.
  While new drugs, medical devices, and surgical techniques which offer 
symptom relief are all extremely important, a real cure requires the 
ability to halt the neurodegenerative cycle and repair damaged brain 
cells. This year, it is estimated that another 50,000 Americans will be 
diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.
  Despite these troubling numbers, Parkinson's disease does not get the 
attention it deserves in our federal medical research institutes. 
Patient advocates correctly note that while federally funded medical 
research spends roughly $1,000 per person with AIDS, and $255 per 
person with cancer, Parkinson's disease receives only $21 per person in 
research from NIH. This does not mean that other, more prominently 
discussed, diseases and conditions should receive less, but it does 
mean that more Parkinson's research is desperately needed, and soon.

  Second, I continue to have a serious concern that under the Morris K. 
Udall Parkinson's Research bill--H.R. 1260--introduced by our 
colleagues from Michigan and California, NIH could expand its research 
using tissue from intentionally aborted babies. As someone with a deep 
respect for life during all of its phases, I find the exploitation of 
these murdered innocents simply unethical. The end, even though I agree 
it is very worthy, does not justify immoral means.
  The Parkinson's research expansion bill being introduced today by me 
and 12 of our colleagues addresses this concern. It authorizes the same 
research funding level as the Udall bill, but bars the use of these 
funds for research using tissue from aborted babies. Unlike the Udall 
bill, this legislation will ensure that 100 percent of the funds 
authorized for Parkinson's research are ethically unimpeachable and 
noncontroversial.
  Let me be clear: Parkinson's research is vitally important and should 
be increased. However, unborn children should not be exploited in the 
process. In fact, were the Udall bill to come up before the House with 
the pro-life safeguards included in my legislation, I would 
enthusiastically support it.
  Unfortunately, there is a well-founded concern with respect to the 
issue of fetal tissue research. In January 1993, one of President 
Clinton's first acts was to overturn a Bush administration policy 
prohibiting NIH funding of research involving the transplantation of 
fetal tissue from intentionally aborted babies. In June 1993, a new NIH 
bill specifically authorized NIH funding of human fetal tissue 
transplantation research using tissue from any source: ectopic 
pregnancies, miscarriages, and induced abortions.
  Since 1993, there have been four awards by NIH for research on human 
fetal tissue transplantation, and every single one of them has been in 
the area of Parkinson's research. So the fetal tissue research issue is 
clearly relevant to a bill dealing with research to find treatments for 
Parkinson's disease.
  Another reason pro-life people have reason to be concerned about the 
issue of fetal tissue research as it relates to Parkinson's is provided 
by an April 1996 article in The Washingtonian. In that article, Morton 
Kondracke writes that the ``fight over lifting a ban on federal funding 
of fetal-transplant research is what got Joan Samuelson into 
Parkinson's activism.'' Joan Samuelson, as you may know, is the 
president of the Parkinson's Action Network, which is the principal 
organization lobbying Members of Congress to cosponsor H.R. 1260.
  Of course, there is nothing improper about people or organizations 
lobbying Congress to endorse fetal tissue research. If people disagree 
with my view on this issue, that is their right. However, many Members 
of Congress have been given the impression that there is absolutely no 
connection whatsoever between fetal tissue research and Parkinson's 
disease. To the contrary, my colleagues should understand that the 
forces urging them to cosponsor H.R. 1260 are substantially similar to 
the forces that lobbied Congress during the Bush administration to 
endorse fetal tissue research involving intentionally aborted unborn 
children. Many of the same players also opposed an amendment to the NIH 
reauthorization bill in 1993 which would have ensured that all of the 
safeguards recommended by an NIH advisory panel were in place before 
tax dollars were used for fetal tissue transplantation research.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am offering is 
identical to the Udall bill both in structure and in the funding 
authorization provided. The only differences between my bill and the 
Udall bill are: First, the title, to prevent confusion; and second, the 
pro-life protections contained in the bill. Everything else is 
identical.
  Therefore, there is no debate over the commitment to fighting 
Parkinson's disease. There is no debate over funding levels. There is 
no debate over the structure of the new program. Indeed, if we could 
simply focus Federal funding toward the overwhelming majority of 
Parkinson's research that is uncontroversial, there would be no debate, 
and the expansion of Parkinson's research could begin almost 
immediately.