[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8772-S8782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1061, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1061) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1998, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Gregg amendment No. 1070, to prohibit the use of funds for 
     national testing in reading and mathematics, with certain 
     exceptions.
       Coats/Gregg amendment No. 1071 (to Amendment No. 1070), to 
     prohibit the development, planning, implementation, or 
     administration of any national testing program in reading or 
     mathematics unless the program is specifically authorized by 
     Federal statute.
       Specter amendment No. 1069, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the Attorney General has abused her discretion by 
     failing to appoint an independent counsel on campaign finance 
     matters and that the Attorney General should proceed to 
     appoint such an independent counsel immediately.
       Coats/Nickles amendment No. 1077, to prohibit the use of 
     funds for research that utilizes human fetal tissue, cells, 
     or organs that are obtained from a living or dead embryo or 
     fetus during or after an induced abortion.


                           Amendment No. 1077

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1077 is now pending.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we will be resuming discussion of the 
amendment I offered last evening. I don't intend to repeat all that I 
said last evening. I do know there are a few other Senators who wish to 
speak on this amendment, and, hopefully, we can accomplish that in a 
reasonable time and then move to a vote.
  It is not my intention to utilize this amendment as a means of 
delaying a vote on the larger appropriations bill or specifically on 
the amendment that we adopted last evening, increasing funding for 
Parkinson's research, an amendment I supported and worked together with 
Senator Wellstone and others on this effort. I was pleased the Senate 
adopted my amendment related to the whole area of medical research so 
that we can commission a study which would give us, before the next 
appropriations and authorization cycle, a better idea of how we can 
direct research funds to achieve the greatest good for the greatest 
number.
  There are allocations currently made on the basis of who has the best 
lobbying effort and perhaps who has the best champion in the Congress. 
While I don't in any way mean to impugn the motives of anyone here who 
is putting their heart and soul into providing support for research on 
a disease that affects them or that they believe is important and 
critical, I do think that in the interest of the widespread number of 
diseases that are currently under research at NIH and other places and 
the Federal funds that are used for that research, having a better 
understanding of where we can best apply those dollars to achieve the 
breakthroughs that can prevent the suffering and, hopefully, provide 
the cures for a number of these diseases is the direction we ought to 
go. We adopted that amendment last evening, and I am pleased the Senate 
supported that.
  This particular amendment is designed to address a specific issue 
that relates to the utilization of human fetal tissue in research in a 
number of neurological disease areas. There is a broader question of 
whether we ought to utilize human fetal tissue and put restrictions on 
how that is sustained as

[[Page S8773]]

applies to neurological research in a whole number of areas--
Parkinson's, diabetes, and there are a number of other neurological 
traumas that this could apply to. However, this specific amendment 
applies only to research in Parkinson's.
  I offer it because this is really the issue in terms of where we are 
applying specific research and increase in research dollars, and we 
will leave the discussion as it applies to other neurological disease 
research areas to the NIH reauthorization bill or a more appropriate 
time. But I believe it is relevant to this particular issue because we 
are addressing the question of Parkinson's research.
  I will summarize the two arguments that I made last evening. One is 
that we really don't have a pressing need to utilize human fetal tissue 
obtained through abortions other than human fetal tissue that is 
obtained through spontaneous miscarriages and through ectopic 
pregnancies. Because we have available to us some information that 
indicates that there is a diminishing viability of the utilization of 
human fetal tissue for Parkinson's research--it hasn't proved to be the 
promising breakthrough that we once thought it would be--there are 
alternatives to the utilization of human fetal tissue, specifically 
cell engineering, specifically utilization of animal fetal tissue, 
genetic engineering, and some other alternatives.
  Second, there are more promising areas of research that don't involve 
human fetal tissue at all, that involve brain implants, that involve a 
number of other research areas which I could detail, but I did last 
evening and I won't do that again.
  More importantly, however, than the question of whether or not this 
is even necessary to continue significant and important human fetal 
tissue in Parkinson's research, more importantly and most importantly, 
there are ethical considerations that I believe ought to give us 
significant pause before we just simply allow the utilization of human 
fetal tissue research.
  A number of moral and ethical questions have been raised, and I 
raised those last evening. I think Members ought to consider those, 
particularly those who perhaps don't have a personal concern about the 
utilization of fetal tissue research. It ought to be considered by them 
particularly since we have alternatives that allow us to address this 
problem without utilization of human fetal tissue for this research. If 
medical research becomes dependent on widespread abortion--and this is 
a concern because if human fetal tissue is determined to be effective 
in treatment, when we look at the whole widespread area of neurological 
research, we are talking of potentially utilization of fetal tissue of 
up to 20 million fetuses. That presents a wrenching dilemma for those 
of us, and I think that is most of us in this body, who believe that 
abortion ought to be rare, if not banned. For those who say it ought to 
be legal, safe and rare, we certainly would not be moving down a path 
that would allow us to limit abortions to only those that are most 
medically necessary.
  Second, let me just say that the dilemma that is posed is that the 
person who is responsible for the termination of the life of the child 
is the very person who gives the consent for the use of fetal brain 
tissue from that particular child. It is not consent of the child for 
utilization of the tissue. The very person who volunteers to have an 
induced abortion gives consent for the utilization of fetal brain 
tissue for one who has no voice in that consent. I think that presents 
a real ethical and moral dilemma that each of us ought to contemplate 
before we cast our vote in favor of the use of human fetal tissue.
  Third, I think there is a concern that we might be encouraging 
abortion by covering it with a veneer of compassion. ``After all, there 
is a benefit,'' the thinking goes. ``There is a benefit to this 
abortion because the product of the abortion can be used in alleviating 
human suffering.''
  We all want to alleviate human suffering. We all want to do 
everything that we possibly can to find a cure for these diseases. And 
yet we have to be confronted with the moral and ethical dilemma of the 
possibility of the abortionist, the person encouraging the abortion, 
covering the fundamental underlying question about the life of a child 
by saying, ``Well, after all, we can mitigate your concerns because 
look at the good that it will do, the side benefit of the good that it 
will do.'' Ultimately that is a question that is a great question that 
ought to be pondered by each of us before we just simply say there is a 
great benefit to this fetal tissue research.
  So on the narrow question of whether or not fetal tissue is necessary 
for significant Parkinson's research, I think we have answered the 
question in saying it isn't. There are alternatives available and there 
are many more promising areas of research that can lead us to 
breakthroughs in Parkinson's research.
  And on the question of the moral, ethical dilemma, we can address 
that dilemma, particularly in this specific narrow area, by not 
allowing the use of human fetal tissue research with the exception that 
the research can go forward with fetal tissue obtained from spontaneous 
abortions or fetal tissue obtained from ectopic pregnancies.
  So it seems to me that we have addressed this issue in a way that 
allows the research to go forward, utilization of alternatives other 
than induced abortions, on a voluntary consent basis, and in ways that 
will not present us with this horrible ethical and moral dilemma that I 
think deserves great consideration before Members vote. That is the 
crux of the dilemma that I have presented. I hope Members consider that 
carefully before they cast their votes and not simply be caught up in 
``this is anti-Parkinson's, this impedes Parkinson's research, this has 
nothing to do with abortion, this has nothing to do with the 
fundamental moral questions here.''
  We can address this and then save and reserve the greater debate in 
terms of utilization of human fetal tissue for other neurological 
research at a time when we are addressing that specific bill. So that 
is the crux of the argument, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor at this particular point in hopes that we can move 
forward to a successful resolution of this particular issue. Mr. 
President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one thing should be very clear in this 
discussion. This is not a debate that pits those who are pro-choice 
against those who are antiabortion. In fact, it is not a debate about 
abortion at all. The issue is whether Americans suffering from a host 
of dreaded diseases are going to have the benefits of the best and most 
ethical medical science possible.
  Though the Senator has targeted his particular amendment on one 
particular disease, there is a broader issue that is raised and that 
ought to be considered, because if we accept it for this disease, it is 
going to be accepted obviously for the other diseases of which this 
process, this procedure is applicable.
  Mr. President, let us review the record. And there is an extensive 
record because the Senate has already voted on this issue a number of 
times and spoken decisively in favor of ethical, controlled, 
scientifically valuable fetal tissue research.
  In 1988, a Reagan commission, a panel of experts consisting of 
theologians, scientists, legal experts, ethicists, and pro-life 
activists studied this issue extensively and voted 18 to 3 to lift the 
moratorium on fetal tissue transplantation research.
  In 1992, both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly approved bills 
to lift the moratorium. The vote in the Senate was 87 to 10. This 
legislation was vetoed by President Bush.
  Again in 1993, the Senate voted to approve fetal tissue funding for 
this vital research. That vote was 93 to 4.
  Each of these votes was preceded by exhaustive debate, careful 
consideration of all the issues and concerns associated with fetal 
tissue research. Each time the support for and recognition of the need 
for this research was overwhelming. Over the last decade, opponents of 
fetal tissue research have attempted to create a connection between 
abortion and fetal tissue testing. The use of fetal tissue in medical 
research cannot and should not be associated with the abortion issue. 
Past and

[[Page S8774]]

present supporters, pro-life and pro-choice alike, have clearly stated 
that fetal tissue research is a medical, not a moral, issue.
  Many of my antiabortion colleagues, including Senator Dole and 
Senator Thurmond, spoke in support of fetal tissue research during the 
1992 debates. They, like many others, recognized that supporting this 
research is the true pro-life position because it offers hope and a 
chance for a better life to individuals suffering from such terrible 
afflictions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, 
birth defects, and spinal cord injuries.
  Yesterday, we heard a number of arguments against this research. And 
I would like to review and respond to these arguments for the benefit 
of my colleagues because they are based on a misunderstanding of the 
facts.
  First, we heard that fetal tissue research was no longer needed for 
the study of Parkinson's disease. Information from the Parkinson's 
Action Network was cited in support of these claims. I have today a 
letter from the Parkinson's Action Network correcting the Record. The 
letter states that fetal tissue transplant research shows tremendous 
promise. In fact it shows such promise that persons currently afflicted 
with Parkinson's are looking to the research as a likely source of 
major therapeutic benefit to them--if the research is not halted.
  The letter further states that alternative sources of cells, such as 
genetically engineered cells, pig cells, and stem cells, may eliminate 
the need for cells from abortions to be used in the future. At the 
present time, however, it is vital that the research be allowed to 
continue so that the therapy and the alternative cell sources can be 
developed at the same time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Parkinson's Action Network,

                                                September 3, 1997.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: Senator Coats' remarks have cited the 
     Parkinson's Action Network's fact sheets, but by taking them 
     out of context twisted their message. The following is the 
     case:
       Fetal tissue transplant research shows tremendous promise 
     (see attached memo). The research in fact shows such promise 
     that persons currently afflicted are looking to the research 
     as likely to be a major therapeutic benefit to them--if the 
     research is not stopped.
       The alternative sources of cells, such as genetically 
     engineered cells, pig cells and stem cells, will prevent the 
     need for aborted tissue to be needed in the future. At this 
     point, however, it is vital that the research be allowed to 
     continue, so that the therapy can be developed and the 
     alternative cell sources developed at the same time.
       There is not one reported violation of the ethical 
     protections separating the abortion decision and the abortion 
     procedure from the use of tissue. See GAO Report, March 1997. 
     Thus, contrary to Senator Coats statements there is no 
     evidence of changes in the abortion procedure in any instance 
     at all.
           Sincerely,
                                          Joan L. Samuelson, J.D.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. KENNEDY. We also heard allegations that providers were altering 
the methods of abortion to obtain tissue suitable for research 
purposes, thereby putting women's health at risk.
  NIH guidelines provide that ``no abortion should be scheduled or 
otherwise accommodated to suit the requirements of research.'' To do so 
would be a clear violation of the safeguards that Congress enacted into 
the law.
  As part of its 1997 study of adherence to these and other guidelines 
to assure that the research was conducted ethically, the GAO contacted 
the NIH's Office of Protection from Research Risks as well as the 
institutional review boards of each of the institutions conducting 
fetal tissue research and found that no violations of tissue donation 
restrictions had been reported or detected. None.
  My staff called NIH this morning to verify that no violations have 
been detected or reported since the GAO study was completed, and we 
were told that there were none.
  Concern was also expressed that the success of fetal tissue therapies 
would create an economic link between abortion providers and the 
research community. Again, I point to the NIH safeguards which prohibit 
the purchase of fetal tissue. Since no economic incentives exist for 
abortion providers, it is impossible to create an economic link between 
providers and the research community.
  This issue has been debated and debated. Each time the opponents of 
the research have tried to argue that fetal tissue research will 
somehow stimulate abortions. Each time these arguments have ignored the 
extent of safeguards built into the law and regulations to assure that 
there is no link between the decision to have an abortion and the 
decision to allow fetal tissue research to be conducted. Each time 
these arguments have been rejected by the Senate and the American 
public.
  The preservation and enhancement of life is the foundation of this 
research. Fetal tissue research and transplantation are not just 
clinical abstractions, they are transforming the lives of Americans 
every day.
  A 55-year-old man who suffered with Parkinson's disease for more than 
20 years and had lost much of his mobility is now able to climb 
mountains. A 58-year-old woman suffering from the disease for 14 years 
used to begin her day by literally crawling to take her first dose of 
medication. She is now able to ski and play tennis.
  The benefits of fetal tissue research are not limited to Parkinson's 
disease. Recent breakthroughs in the study of treatments for a host of 
other diseases and conditions, including diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, 
spinal cord injuries, blindness, Huntington's disease, cancer, birth 
defects, multiple sclerosis, and conditions causing intractable pain, 
are the direct result of fetal tissue research conducted on Parkinson's 
disease. If this amendment is adopted on this disease, it will be 
readily applied to those as well.
  Any attempt to turn back the progress made in this area by placing 
restrictions on Parkinson's research will jeopardize further advances 
in the treatment of these conditions. These setbacks and delays will 
lead to unnecessary suffering for the millions of Americans afflicted 
with illnesses that are currently benefiting from Parkinson's research. 
Make no mistake about it, if the fetal tissue research is banned for 
Parkinson's disease today, it will be banned for every other disease 
tomorrow.
  Every time this issue has been put to the Senate, it has spoken 
strongly in favor of ethical, scientific, promising medical research 
that offers hope to millions of Americans. I urge the Senate to 
reaffirm that commitment by rejecting the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I will take just a moment of the Senate's time to 
review the set of eight requirements that were established in the 1993 
legislation.
  First, informed consent of the donor must be obtained. Each woman 
must sign a written statement that she is donating fetal tissue for 
research without knowing who the recipient will be.
  Second, the physician obtaining the tissue must make a written 
statement declaring that consent for the abortion was obtained prior to 
the consent of the donation and that the abortion was not performed 
solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.
  Third, the researcher using the tissue must sign a statement 
acknowledging that the tissue is human tissue and that it was obtained 
from an induced abortion or stillbirth. He or she must also agree to 
inform all subsequent users or recipients of those facts.
  Any recipient of transplanted tissue must sign a statement indicating 
that he or she is aware that the transplant tissue is human tissue and 
that it was obtained from an induced abortion or a stillbirth.
  Each agency head must certify that copies of all signed statements 
will be available for audit by the Secretary of HHS.
  Recipients of funding for research must agree to conduct research in 
accordance with applicable State laws.
  HHS must submit an annual report to Congress detailing compliance 
with these requirements.
  And the purchase of fetal tissue is prohibited and no donated tissue 
can be transplanted into a recipient specified by the donor.
  These were guidelines developed by theological, ethical, and 
religious people, as well as researchers. And we have the GAO study. 
And I will include the relevant parts of this study that was conducted 
by the NIH reviewing this particular program from 1993 to 1997.

[[Page S8775]]

  And as the results say--I am directly quoting ``Results in Brief''--
``There's been no reported violations in the acquisition of human fetal 
tissue for use in transplantation according to NIH and our verification 
efforts.''
  By just reviewing this report, and I will not take the additional 
time unless there are further questions about it, there is a very clear 
indication that the guidelines that have been established in the 1993 
legislation have been conformed with. It does not say there have been 
some violations. It does not say there is an increasing number of 
violations. It does not say that the GAO recommends further 
congressional action. It says there have been no violations, none, in 
1997.
  Mr. President, at a time when there have been extraordinary 
opportunities for progress in treating Parkinson's disease and so many 
other diseases and conditions, and with the kind of protections that 
have been agreed to by ethicists, those religious and research panels 
investigating the utilization of this type of material, and with all of 
the hope and opportunity this provides to so many American families in 
addressing some of the most prominent ailments suffered by mankind, to 
try and restrict fetal tissue research in Parkinson's disease and in 
other areas would be a dramatic and a serious mistake and would have a 
very significant and, I believe, grave impact and effect on the 
research and the opportunity for important progress in helping to 
relieve the pain and anxiety associated with these various diseases.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for laying out the case as to why the Coats amendment 
ought to be defeated.
  I also want to thank Senator Paul Wellstone for working so hard on 
this issue. He shared with me some very important information from the 
Parkinson's Action Network, which also lays out the case in a very 
clear-cut way, by people who really know about what it is like to have 
this disease and how devastating it would be if the ban on fetal tissue 
research was put back into law.
  For 8 years there was a ban on this research under the Reagan and 
Bush years. Finally, that ban was lifted, and we are seeing hope for 
many, many people all over this country. We really cannot go backward 
now.
  I have said often on this Senate floor in relation to health issues 
that come before the Senate that when we act, we ought to act to 
improve the health of the American people. But at the minimum, Mr. 
President, we should do no harm. At the minimum, when we take a vote 
around here, we should make sure we are not hurting people.
  I think the Coats amendment would definitely hurt people, a million 
people who have Parkinson's disease, not to mention the others who may 
well get it as a result of this amendment, because this amendment would 
stop the progress on fetal tissue research in reference to Parkinson's 
disease. The prohibition in this amendment eliminates medical research, 
which shows significant promise of treatment or prevention of this 
tragic disease.
  Let's take a moment to talk about Parkinson's disease and the real 
people it affects. According to the NIH, almost 1 million people suffer 
from Parkinson's disease in the United States alone, with about 50,000 
new cases reported each and every year. There is a myth out there that 
the symptoms begin appearing very late in life. That is not so. The 
symptoms begin fairly early in life, sometimes in the twenties, 
thirties, and forties. The average age of the disease is 57. I, myself, 
know several middle-aged mothers with children who suffer from this 
disease.
  The hallmark symptom of Parkinson's disease is the shaking or 
trembling of a limb, and in the later stages, a slow shuffling walk and 
stooped posture, not to mention the effects on speech. I know one 
Parkinson's victim who actually has to crawl around his home--a proud, 
professional man who has to crawl around his home. The only hope he 
has, because he has told me this, is fetal tissue research. This man 
has a family. This man has grandchildren. They are watching this debate 
and they are praying that we will reject this amendment.
  Will we deny these people the possibility of a healthier life, which 
may well result from fetal tissue research, which is already showing 
great promise, as Senator Kennedy has said? Will we deny these people 
hope? Will we do harm today to these people when we have not yet found 
a cure for Parkinson's? I certainly hope not.
  I received a letter yesterday from two medical doctors at the 
Parkinson's Action Network in Santa Rosa, CA. They emphasize the 
tremendous need to be able to continue to use fetal tissue in their 
fight against Parkinson's disease. Let me read from these physicians. 
They know what they are talking about.

       Neural cell transplantation using fetal tissue has greatly 
     advanced our understanding of ways to replace degenerating 
     cells in the brain. From this work, in addition, alternatives 
     to fetal tissue may be developed. To close off arbitrarily 
     any particular area of investigation is potentially to retard 
     progress across a broad front by many months, perhaps many 
     years.

  They continue:

       The ban on fetal research during the 1980's was a crippling 
     blow to progress in many areas, including Parkinson's 
     disease, Huntington's and Lou Gehrig's disease, spinal cord 
     injury, and diabetes.

  These doctors are telling us don't go back to the eighties, don't go 
back to the years where we stopped this important research.
  Mr. President, I will share with you the comments of Dr. Jack Lewin, 
a medical doctor who is executive vice president and CEO of the 
California Medical Association, the largest State medical association 
in the Nation, which has over 38,000 physicians. Dr. Lewin stated:

       Research involving the use of human fetal tissue is 
     responsible, high-integrity research. Using human fetal 
     tissue to find cures for or to alleviate the symptoms of 
     diseases such as Parkinson's disease is a life-giving 
     procedure.

  Mr. President, I repeat that: ``Using human fetal tissue to find 
cures for or to alleviate the symptoms of diseases such as Parkinson's 
disease is a life-giving procedure.''
  We are giving life with this procedure. Why would we vote to take 
away life by going back to the eighties when we had a ban on this 
because of politics? There is no place for that in this debate.
  Dr. Lewin said that the California Medical Association promotes all 
legitimate research, including research involving fetal tissue. He 
continues:

       It is important to dispel the myth that this research 
     promotes abortion. This is not the case. On the contrary, 
     research involving fetal tissue promotes the healing of 
     crippling diseases. This research shows promise and needs to 
     be pursued.

  Now, on the issue of abortion, I am going to refer to the history of 
this issue where in 1991 and 1992, there was legislation passed which 
directly confronted this ethical and moral issue which Senator Coats 
talked about today. He says we must confront this ethical and moral 
issue. He is right. We did do that. We did do that in 1991 and 1992. 
Let's discuss what is in place today in terms of the moral and ethical 
issues of abortion and fetal tissue research.
  First, a woman may not be approached for consent to donate the 
aborted tissue until after she has made the decision to have an 
abortion. So, no woman can be told this prior to her decision.
  Second, the donor may never be paid for donation of the tissue. It is 
outlawed. No one can get a single penny for donating fetal tissue.
  Third, the donor may not designate who will be the recipient of the 
tissue, nor ever be informed of the recipient's identity.
  This is not a question where, say, a daughter says, ``I will become 
pregnant, have an abortion and let my father regain the use of his 
life.'' This cannot be done.
  I think what is very important to know is that if you violate this 
law, you could be punished by 10 years in a Federal prison. We had a 
report and the report came back: ``There have been no violations in the 
acquisition of human fetal tissue research for use in 
transplantation.''
  So when Senator Coats talks about confronting the ethical and moral 
issues, those issues were confronted in 1991 and 1992, and the Research 
Freedom Act clearly addresses this issue.

[[Page S8776]]

There has been no violation at all. If all of our laws were so 
effective, I think we would be very proud.
  Let me offer a specific example of how doctors are using fetal tissue 
to improve people's lives. Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles was 
one of the first hospitals in the country to offer a new, promising 
surgical procedure using fetal tissue transplants. Many of the patients 
who received this procedure did so only after one of the most common 
drugs was no longer effective in helping their illness and their 
symptoms had worsened, some to the point where they compared their 
conditions to rigor mortis--in other words, total stiffness and 
inability to move.
  Today, the vast majority of the more than 40 Parkinson's patients who 
have undergone the procedure at Good Samaritan have experienced 
moderate to substantial improvements in their condition. This is a 
life-giving procedure. This procedure gives life, gives movement to 
people. The issue of abortion is addressed in the Research Freedom Act 
and has been confronted and not one violation has occurred. We should 
be proud, all of us together.
  According to Dr. Oleg Kopyov, more than 70 percent of the patients 
who got this transplant have shown ``statistically significant 
improvement'' on standard neurological tests. The other 30 percent are 
now taking 20 to 40 percent less medication. None of the patients' 
Parkinson's symptoms have worsened following neurotrans-plantation.
  Do no harm. We should do no harm. The Coats amendment does harm, 
direct harm, to good Americans, and it takes away hope from a million 
people with Parkinson's in America. Said hospital neurosurgeon Dr. 
Deane Jacques:

       We are proud to be in the forefront of treatments like 
     neurotransplantation, which clearly have enhanced patients' 
     quality of life.

  Yet another example of the tremendous effects and great potential of 
this research comes from Colorado. A professor at the University of 
Colorado Health Sciences Center, who is conducting a study using fetal 
tissue, described the incredible effects on one participant earlier 
this year. He is quoted as saying:

       We have a woman who could never walk prior to taking her 
     first dose of drugs in the morning. Now she can walk before 
     her first dose of drugs, and has resumed playing tennis. A 
typical transplant patient cuts the drug by 40 to 50 percent.

  Why would we inject ourselves into this important nonpolitical health 
issue when, in fact, the issue of abortion has been successfully 
addressed in the Research Freedom Act? I cannot understand why this 
amendment is before us.
  Mr. President, these are significant results of helping people. Why 
would we even consider closing the door on this promising life-giving 
research? We make progress in research by opening doors, not by closing 
doors.
  I want to bring back the words of South Carolina Senator Strom 
Thurmond that he spoke on this Senate floor in 1992 when he urged this 
body to lift the ban on fetal tissue research. He said, ``We cannot 
afford to lose this opportunity to develop a cure.''
  The Senator was speaking in reference to his daughter Julie, who has 
diabetes. He stated, ``As a parent of a diabetic, I have a personal 
appreciation for the urgent need for a cure.'' Those were Senator 
Thurmond's words back then.
  No doubt this sentiment is shared today by the parents, siblings, and 
children of those suffering from serious debilitating diseases such as 
Parkinson's disease.
  Senator Coats said we are only stopping the fetal tissue research for 
Parkinson's disease. Yes, that is on this bill. What is the next one 
going to be? Alzheimer's? What is the next one going to be? It is not a 
good precedent. We took care of this issue. Anti-choice politics should 
not get into this debate. This is not about choice. It is about health. 
We addressed the issue. Let's move on.
  I am going to quote again from Senator Thurmond, whose words 5 years 
ago captured the essence of the issue before us today, when he stated:

       This is not a debate about abortion. This is a debate about 
     allowing federally sponsored research that will serve 
     humanity and may save thousands of lives. Passage of this 
     bill [to allow fetal tissue research] should improve the 
     quality of life for many people with devastating diseases and 
     disabilities.

  Supporters of this amendment may argue that fetal tissue research 
could still continue if this amendment were passed, as the ban would 
not apply to tissue obtained from spontaneous abortions or ectopic 
pregnancies.
  But, Mr. President, we have heard this argument before. It remains as 
weak as ever. Doctors have addressed this issue in earlier debates, and 
have stated that tissue from spontaneous miscarriages is often diseased 
and is difficult to collect in a safe and timely fashion to preserve 
the viability of the cells. The same applies to ectopic pregnancies, 
which produce tissue that is likely to be non-viable due to the lack of 
blood supply.
  So, really, we addressed this issue before. There has not been one 
violation. A woman may not be approached for consent to donate the 
aborted tissue until after she has made the decision to make the 
abortion. The donor may never be paid for donation of tissue, and the 
donor may not designate the recipient of the tissue. A GAO study 
reports not one violation. And if there is, someone is going to jail 
for 10 years. The issue has been addressed.
  Mr. President, doctors have made significant progress toward 
understanding and treating serious debilitating diseases, such as 
Parkinson's disease, through research involving fetal tissue. But we 
are not there yet. I know that my phone has been ringing off the hook 
from people who have Parkinson's disease. Some are pro-choice. Some are 
anti-choice. They know that issue was addressed in 1991 and 1992. They 
know that the only hope they have is for the doors of research to 
continue to be open.
  I am so pleased that we will be spending more on Parkinson's disease. 
I want to see us double the research at NIH. And I have joined with 
Senators Mack, Specter, Durbin, and others to make that a reality.
  The enemies we face are right here at home. We fear that a loved one 
will get cancer. We fear that a loved one will get AIDS. We fear that a 
loved one will fall ill. We fear that we are going to lose our parents 
to Alzheimer's. These are legitimate fears, and these are legitimate 
areas for the Federal Government to be involved in.
  I will say this. When Senator Coats says we have to confront ethical 
and moral issues, he is right. But what I don't understand is why he 
isn't proud of the Research Freedom Act, which does, indeed, protect 
against people saying, ``Well, I am going to get an abortion because I 
can get money for this fetal tissue,'' when, in fact, that has never 
happened. That cannot happen. And it will not happen as long as we keep 
the Research Freedom Act in place. And there is not one Member of this 
Senate that I know of who isn't a strong supporter of that.
  So, Mr. President, today we have a million Americans with Parkinson's 
watching the debate, and we have millions of other Americans with other 
diseases and families who love and adore these family members hoping 
that we will not take a step backward. I have faith that we will not do 
so.
  I hope that we will vote down the Coats amendment. I hope we will 
continue the progress. I hope we will all continue to support the 
Research Freedom Act so that we can feel we did everything we could to 
ensure that this research is ethical.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me make two points. One is that I don't 
need to be reminded by the Senator from California about the ravaging 
effects of Parkinson's disease, having watched my grandfather suffer 
and die from Parkinson's, and having watched my father suffer and die 
from complications from Parkinson's. I am well aware of the 
debilitating nature of Parkinson's disease. I think many of us have had 
personal experiences with that. I have not mentioned that before. But I 
think the implication is that if one truly understood Parkinson's, you 
couldn't begin to support the Coats amendment. I think I truly 
understand Parkinson's and what it does and how it affects an 
individual, how it affects family and loved ones. There is the

[[Page S8777]]

very real possibility that it is genetically induced and that I may go 
through the same experience.
  Second, let me just state for those who suggest that there is no hope 
for the millions of Parkinson's sufferers, there is great hope for the 
millions of Parkinson's sufferers. There is hope because, No. 1, fetal 
tissue research can continue if the Coats amendment is adopted. I do 
not deny research utilizing human fetal tissue through this amendment. 
I simply say that that fetal tissue cannot be obtained through induced 
abortions. It can be obtained through spontaneous abortions, 
miscarriages, or ectopic pregnancies.
  But, second, there is hope because there are so many viable, 
wonderful alternatives that are now being researched which offer far 
more promise than the fetal tissue research. If you want to continue 
fetal research--and it probably should be continued--that fetal tissue 
can be obtained through sources other than human fetal tissue. In fact, 
it is much more promising now using animal tissue. There are a number 
of alternatives being explored, both through the use of cell 
engineering techniques, genetic engineering, and other developing cell 
lines.
  There are also alternatives outside tissue research that hold some 
promise. Perhaps the recent discovery of a gene that has an effect on 
Parkinson's, which perhaps is the cause of Parkinson's, albeit for a 
percentage of people and not for all the people, offer hope. So there 
is great hope. There is great promise in Parkinson's research. And 
nothing in this amendment denies that hope, denies that promise.
  So I think Members need to understand when they are voting for the 
Coats amendment that it is a way to preserve and continue Parkinson's 
research. But it is done so in a way that avoids what I think is a 
potential significant, ethical, and moral dilemma in terms of utilizing 
human fetal issue without the consent of the person giving the tissue.
  The very person who makes the decision to terminate that life is not 
the person who gives the consent to utilization of the tissue. That is 
a moral and ethical dilemma that I think is important for us to 
explore.
  So for those two reasons, I think the Coats amendment is more than a 
reasonable amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the debate goes any further, I ask 
unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending 
amendment at 12 noon today, and that the time between now and noon be 
equally divided in the usual form with no amendments in order prior to 
the 12 noon vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
on this issue.
  Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to revisit an issue that 
has been settled and should remain settled. It attempts to reverse a 
decision supported by both pro-choice and pro-life Senators alike. The 
last time this body voted on this issue, the vote was 93 to 4.
  The ban on fetal tissue research was lifted 4 years ago. Since that 
time, the NIH has awarded over $23 million in grants for research 
involving the study, analysis, and use of fetal tissue. This research 
holds the potential to provide tremendous advances in the treatment of 
debilitating conditions such as Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's, 
Huntington's, epilepsy, blindness, multiple sclerosis, leukemia, and a 
host of other illnesses.
  The issue of fetal tissue research has been debated, as I said, and 
legislated by the Congress. The Senate voted 93 to 4 that the benefits 
of this research far outweigh the unsubstantiated fears and concerns 
that it would lead to increases in abortions.
  The bill enacted in 1993 established rigorous standards to safeguard 
against any potential that the needs of researchers would affect 
individual decisions about abortion. Those safeguards are in place and 
they are working. In 1997, a GAO study of the safeguards reports that 
``the act's documentation requirements were met'' and that there have 
been no reported violations in the acquisition of human fetal tissue 
for use in transplantation.''
  These safeguards were not written specifically to address research 
involving Parkinson's disease, but all research using fetal tissue. 
There is no need to revisit this debate as it relates to research on 
Parkinson's. The research being conducted today with fetal tissue is 
also providing new techniques such as specialized cell lines and 
genetically engineered cells. In fact, the development of these new 
technologies may well eliminate the need for using fetal tissue for 
research purposes in the future.
  Mr. President, yesterday I received a letter from Joan Samuelson, 
president of the Parkinson's Action Network. It was addressed to 
Senator Kennedy and others. I would like to read for the Record what 
she had to say. Her letter starts:

       For decades, despite the eight-year ban on federal support 
     for the research, significant progress has been made in the 
     therapeutic benefit of cell transplants, including the 
     following:
       Major progress has been made in confirming the new neural 
     cell transplant process works. In the last two years, post-
     mortem review of transplanted cells has proven that the 
     transplanted cells can take hold in the host brain and 
     produce dopamine, thereby replacing the dopamine in the body.
       Major progress has been made in developing an alternative 
     source of tissue for transplantation, so that when a therapy 
     is available to the public, it will not be dependent on 
     elective abortions. Several alternatives are in development, 
     including use of porcine (pig) cells, stem cells and 
     genetically engineered cells.
       The research is also providing valuable insights into the 
     fundamental issues of Parkinson's cause. For example, the 
     transplanted cells do not appear to be affected by the 
     underlying disease process: While the original cells continue 
     to degenerate, the transplanted ones do not continue to 
     degenerate. This fact is giving essential clues into the 
     nature of the cause and disease process.
       The transplanted cells are proving more and more effective 
     at treating Parkinson's symptoms. A few transplant patients 
     are now off medication and symptom-free--a dramatic change.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the 
Samuelson letter be printed in the Record.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Parkinson's Action Network,

                                Washington, DC, September 3, 1997.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: For decades, despite the eight-year 
     ban on federal support for the research, significant progress 
     has been made in the therapeutic benefit of cell transplants, 
     including the following:
       Major progress has been made in confirming the neural cell 
     transplant process works. In the last two years, post-mortem 
     review of transplanted cells has proven that the transplanted 
     cells can take hold in the host brain and produce dopamine.
       Major progress has been made in developing an alternative 
     source of tissue for transplantation, so that when a therapy 
     is available to the public, it will not be dependent on 
     elective abortions. Several alternatives are in development, 
     including use of porcine (pig) cells, stem cells and 
     genetically engineered cells.
       The research is also providing valuable insights into the 
     fundamental issues of Parkinson's cause. For example, the 
     transplanted cells do not appear to be affected by the 
     underlying disease process: while the original cells continue 
     to degenerate, the transplanted ones do not. This fact is 
     giving essential clues into the nature of the cause and 
     disease process.
       The transplanted cells are proving more and more effective 
     at treating Parkinson's symptoms. A few transplant patients 
     are now off medication and symptom free--a dramatic change. 
     Although the first clinical trials are still ongoing, initial 
     results indicate that even in these initial experimental 
     stages the typical patient is able to reduce medication 
     dramatically--thereby also reducing the related side 
     effects--while also significantly lessening Parkinson's 
     symptoms.
       The Parkinson's research has created a research base which 
     is now being used for important research using neural cell 
     transplantation to treat many other diseases and disorders 
     including diabetes, spinal cord injury, blindness, 
     Huntington's disease, intractable pain, Alzheimer's disease, 
     cancer, birth defects and Multiple Sclerosis.
           Sincerely,
                                          Joan I. Samuelson, J.D.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the letter points out that we are making 
progress, that we are discovering new things. Now is not the time to 
revisit

[[Page S8778]]

this issue. This issue has been settled and I believe we ought to leave 
it alone. As we have said, the studies have shown that the safeguards 
we put in place are working. No violations have been encountered, and I 
believe the best course of action is to stay the course that we have 
had since 1993, and, of course, I think at the appropriate time there 
will be a motion made to table the Coats amendment. And I urge all 
Senators to support that motion to table and to continue what we have 
been doing since 1993 in providing for fetal tissue research but with 
adequate safeguards to ensure that unintended consequences do not 
happen because of this research.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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 (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Idaho for such 
time as I need.
  Mr. CRAIG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] to prohibit the use of Federal money 
to conduct research using fetal tissue on Parkinson's disease, fetal 
tissue that is produced from elective abortion. The Coats amendment 
exempts spontaneous abortions, exempts ectopic pregnancies. But really 
the thrust of his amendment is that we do not want to turn abortion 
clinics into mills producing tissue that is used for research.
  I support his amendment. I do think it is immoral to use fetal tissue 
from elective abortions for medical research. I think occasionally we 
have to make moral statements. Do we really want to allow abortion 
clinics to harvest material to be used for research in whatever 
disease? In this case it is Parkinson's disease. Do we really want that 
to happen in this country?
  We had a prohibition on it for years. It was not done for years. Now 
some people think that maybe it would be a good idea. Tissue can be 
harvested, can be used if the abortion is spontaneous, but not in the 
case of elective abortions. Do we want to have a situation where an 
individual goes in and kills a human being, although not yet born, 
maybe up into the eighth month of pregnancy, kill that unborn human 
being and use that human being's cells for medical research? I do not 
think so, and I do not think we should fund it.
  The Senator from Indiana should be complimented for his amendment. I 
wish that this amendment was not necessary. I heard yesterday that NIH 
or someone has alluded to the fact that NIH, had no objections to the 
amendment.
  So I am maybe a little bit surprised that others are opposing this 
amendment as aggressively as they are. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Coats amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I regret that it 
is needed, but it is needed. I think it is important. I do not think we 
as a country want to have a national policy allowing abortion mills to 
kill unborn children and use their body parts for medical research. 
That is a serious issue. That is what we are voting on. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Coats amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bill 
and not have the time charged to either side on this amendment.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Missouri such 
time as he requires.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the acting manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thought, as children are going back to 
school across the country and in our States, we ought to take a few 
moments to think about the education they are receiving and how we as 
parents, not just in our role as legislators, can make a real 
difference in how our children develop.
  The truth is, we have come to know the foundations of learning begin 
long before a child ever gets to school. Babies from birth to age 3 
years old are learning fundamental language skills at this time. 
Research tells us that 50 percent of a child's mature learning 
intelligence develops by the time that child is 3 years old. We can 
play a very large role in determining how successful that learning 
function is. We do this by reading to children even before they are old 
enough to hold a book. We do this by talking to them. We do this by 
interacting with them.
  Over the August recess I traveled around the State of Missouri, 
focusing on the issue of literacy and working with young children who 
were in preschool classes or, in Missouri, in our Parents as Teachers 
Program. I found it to be a very exciting, a very interesting, and a 
rewarding experience, and one that I hope we can show--all of us, as 
colleagues, as others who are concerned--is a very rewarding activity 
for the parents.
  We have always thought that early childhood was a key learning time. 
That is common sense. But now we have seen it validated by science. The 
development of children's learning skills depends upon the child's 
exposure to language in the earliest years. What we do to encourage and 
stimulate literacy, reading ability, communicating ability, in very 
young children, is going to provide the basis of their success later in 
life.
  When you come to think about it, reading is the basic skill. Learning 
to understand, to read and communicate is absolutely essential, 
particularly as we live in a complex society. Most of us think about 
reading and learning as part of the economic process of getting a job. 
I can tell you that my experiences in job training in the years when I 
was Governor reemphasized the importance of that. In my second term as 
Governor we had an on-the-job training program for industries expanding 
in Missouri and creating new jobs. I will never forget visiting one 
facility where they were installing sophisticated computer-assisted 
manufacturing systems. They were very complicated. You had to 
understand a lot of science to do the job well. And these jobs were 
extremely high-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, one of the workers in 
one of those jobs, working a 2,000-hour year, would earn more than the 
Governor of Missouri would have at that time. The science had all 
developed since I last opened a science textbook in college.
  They had a 6-week training program for these workers. Four of the 
weeks were devoted to teaching these workers to read, because so many 
of them had not learned the basic reading and understanding skills in 
school. The prize there was demonstrable; the prize was visible. If you 
could read and understand, you could operate one of these machines and 
earn more than the Governor of Missouri was earning. And there is no 
question, as I talked to employers around the State, they are looking 
for and begging for workers. But the workers have to be able to read 
and understand complicated instructions, because the tasks that the 
workers will be called on to perform, now and in the years ahead, are 
rapidly changing. They are changing with technology. And the people who 
are doing the work have to learn to read and understand the changed 
instructions.
  So, reading is a fundamental skill, an absolutely essential skill to 
get ahead economically. But we ought not to focus ourselves just on the 
economic side. To be an informed citizen, to participate in our 
democratic form of government, requires that people read, be able to 
understand all the messages that are coming to them. Reading provides 
the basis for communicating and getting along in the world in many 
other ways--in social activities, in community activities. So, literacy 
really is the fundamental basis, the foundation for knowledge and for 
development of well-informed, well-attuned children in our communities, 
in our States and in our Nation.

[[Page S8779]]

  Former First Lady Barbara Bush has made literacy her top priority, 
and I take my hat off to her. I think, as I see more and more of the 
challenges we face in this country, the more I understand that Mrs. 
Bush is right. Where people do not have the fundamental reading skills, 
they have significant problems.
  One of the reasons I have been closely associated with this literacy 
project is following up on the Parents as Teachers program we have in 
Missouri. Parents as Teachers begins by providing assistance, on a 
voluntary basis, to parents of children from birth to 3 years old. We 
have found that parents who participate in this program with their 
children--No. 1, are able to avoid many of the serious learning 
problems that affect children today and require that they be put in 
remedial or special education; but we are also finding that in every 
measure of scientific testing, these children are scoring higher than 
their peers. When I talk to kindergarten teachers and elementary 
schoolteachers and administrators, they can see the difference in these 
children who have worked in the program where literacy is emphasized, 
where parents reading to their children is emphasized.

  I spent the month of August trying to encourage more and more 
families in Missouri--parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, 
caregivers--to read to their children to show that it is fun, but also 
to tell them that it is vitally important.
  Also, we want to expand--and this bill does provide expansion of the 
opportunities for more States to participate in the Parents as Teachers 
Program. At my request, the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member included $30 million to expand Parents as Teachers programs to 
other States around the country and to improve on the program. Already, 
47 States participate, to some degree, in the program.
  Early childhood learning and development is important, and we can do 
a much better job. The Parents as Teachers Program is one that has had 
tremendous success. Mr. President, 150,000 Missouri families 
voluntarily participate in that program every year, and if you want to 
know if the program works, I can refer you to any one of those 150,000 
families, because they see it is working, they know it is working, and, 
Mr. President, this bill provides more resources to help start these 
programs in every school district in the country.
  I hope there will be a time when we find that families, wherever they 
are, who want help developing the child's learning skills will be able 
to get the kind of assistance that is now available in Missouri. It can 
make a difference, and it will make a difference in our children's 
education, their preparation for the work force but, most of all, their 
preparation to take the role in society as responsible adults, as 
responsible parents themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting and keeping in the 
money for early childhood development. I hope to work with Senator 
Kerry and others to provide authorizing legislation in this session to 
expand on the opportunities to support early childhood development. 
Government programs are fine, but it all comes down to the 
responsibility of the parents, and that responsibility is very easy to 
outline, because the starting point is reading to children, relating to 
them and showing them the excitement and the wonders that are opened 
through reading of books and other materials.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I beg 
your pardon. I withdraw that.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes off 
whatever time remains on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.


                Amendment No. 1071 to amendment no. 1070

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this morning, the appropriations 
subcommittee is having a hearing, as I understand it, to resolve the 
question about testing. The President has proposed a reading test that 
would be voluntarily made available to States and local school 
districts for fourth graders where the school wants to provide testing 
in reading, and one for eighth graders in mathematics.
  There has been some controversy about this. Senator Coats from 
Indiana has proposed an amendment which would--the Coats amendment and 
the Gregg amendment together, as I understand it--essentially prohibit 
the use of funds to go forward with the development of these tests. I 
believe this would be a very grave mistake for this Congress to make if 
we were to prohibit the Department of Education from going forward with 
the development of these tests. I think the President's support on this 
issue has been strong. The White House has indicated that they would 
veto the legislation if, in fact, it did contain a prohibition on the 
use of funds to go ahead and develop these tests.
  As I see it, the tests that the President has proposed and the 
Department of Education would like to develop and make available to 
school districts and to States is designed to allow parents, to empower 
parents, to understand the educational performance and the achievement 
level of their own children and how well the school that their child is 
attending is doing in preparing their child for a career later on.
  The Coats amendment, as I said, would prohibit the development of the 
tests, and I think that would be a very serious mistake.
  The problem we have today, frankly, is that every State that gives 
tests--and all of our States do give tests--every State that gives 
tests measures by a different standard how well their students are 
doing. Accordingly, you have some States where most all the students do 
reasonably well on the test that is provided, and there is a general 
perception that they are going to be fine. The general trend is that 
everybody thinks that although the school system nationally, the 
educational system nationwide, is in serious difficulty, they believe 
that their own child is getting a good education. It just doesn't add 
up. Every individual child in our country cannot be getting a good 
education and still have the vast majority getting a less than quality 
education.
  What we need to do is to have a system where there is agreement as to 
what the standard is, there is agreement as to what the test results 
demonstrate, and then parents can make an intelligent decision about 
how their child is doing relative to other children, how their child is 
doing, how their school that their child attends is doing relative to 
other schools in that same district and relative to other schools in 
the State or in the Nation.
  We have today what is called the National Assessment for Educational 
Progress test, and that is a test that in 43 States tens of thousands 
of students participate in on a voluntary basis. This test has been in 
place now for 25 years. The problem, of course, is that it is not 
available to most students. But clearly, communities, States, and 
school districts recognize that it is a good, objective assessment of 
how the students in the schools are doing.
  What we are trying to do through the development of these new tests 
is to take the model that the NAEP, the National Assessment for 
Educational Progress, has developed and, essentially, have a test that 
then is available for each student in each school around the country 
where they want to have that test administered.
  I believe this is important because I believe that improvement in 
education in the country is going to have to be driven by concern of 
parents. They are the ones who need to understand the quality of the 
education that their children are receiving. Without something like 
this test available, you are not going to have the level of concern by 
parents that is necessary in order to ensure and require the 
improvements in education that I believe are needed.

  Let me just indicate that there is nothing that complicated about the 
tests that they are talking about giving here. The reading test is a 
simple one. One example is they essentially go through and ask fourth 
graders to describe Charlotte to a friend after they read a passage 
from the well-known book ``Charlotte's Web.'' That is a commonsense 
kind of a test that all of us would like our children to be able to 
pass. It is the kind of test which is appropriate to make available to 
all of our schools.

[[Page S8780]]

  The same thing in math. The test there is a straightforward test. 
There is nothing convoluted or complicated about it. It tests basic 
math skills for eighth graders, and, goodness knows, everybody in this 
country, every parent I talked to believes their child should be 
prepared with a basic understanding of math by the time they complete 
the eighth grade.
  Let me say, the business community strongly supports the President's 
initiative to have these tests available to States and school 
districts. There has been a call, a repeated call and a consistent 
call, by the business community to have more objective assessment going 
on in our schools so that we don't have so much rhetoric, but we have 
actual information, good solid information, about how well our students 
are doing.
  That is exactly what employers require before they hire a person. 
They give them those objective tests to determine whether they have the 
basic skills in reading and in mathematics so that they can become 
productive employees. For us not to make those same kind of objective 
tests available in the schools before they get out into the workplace I 
think would be a serious mistake.
  Not only does the business community support this, the public 
supports it. In the most recent national poll, 77 percent of the public 
that was questioned supported establishing national standards; 67 
percent specifically supported using national tests, such as were 
described and supported by the President and the Department of 
Education.
  I know that we have testimony being presented this morning. Secretary 
Riley is making the case before the Appropriations Committee. I hope 
very much that he will be persuasive to the members of that committee 
and that we can go forward with the funding of these tests as the 
administration intends.
  I do think this is an issue that has great long-term consequences for 
our country. It would be a serious mistake for us to head this off. We 
already have a whole number of States--I see the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee on the floor here right now. His State 
of Alaska has chosen to participate voluntarily in the use of these 
tests when they are made available. The superintendent of public 
instruction in my State of New Mexico has indicated his desire that we 
should also participate at some future date in the use of these tests. 
There are many States that are anxious to participate. There are many 
large school districts in our larger cities that have indicated the 
same thing.
  We need to keep faith with them, go forward and develop these tests, 
make the tests available. If they want to use them, so much the better, 
that is their choice. But it would be a serious mistake for this 
Congress to try to make that decision for the States, make that 
decision for the local school districts by denying the Department of 
Education the funds necessary to go ahead and develop these tests.
  So I hope very much that, once the appropriations subcommittee 
concludes its hearing on the issue, we can proceed to dispose of this 
matter. I hope very much that the Coats amendment and the Gregg 
amendment, which is a second-degree amendment, as I understand it, or a 
perfecting amendment, that those amendments can be disposed of and we 
can proceed to pass this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the courtesy. 
My understanding is we have a vote at noon; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to advise the Senator that 
the time is under the control of the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I inquire, do we have a vote scheduled at noon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 1077

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues, and especially Senator Coats, 
for their courtesy. I was not able to come to the floor earlier, and 
sometimes if we feel strongly about an issue we will have a chance to 
speak before the vote. I thank him, and I thank Senator Stevens and 
others as well.
  I do not know quite where to start. Last night we passed an 
amendment, and this was work I was fortunate enough to get a chance to 
do with Senator McCain, and I think we had 97 votes to expand funding 
for Parkinson's disease. It was an enormous victory. I believe that 
kind of strong vote will serve us very well in conference committee, 
and I believe finally we will be able to get some funding.
  There has been so little funding. It has not been fair, and people 
who have been struggling with this disease have been here for several 
years now. They have become their own advocates. The only reason we had 
such a strong vote last night was because of their work.
  My colleague, Senator Coats, was gracious enough to raise his concern 
through this amendment separately from that vote. He is someone here in 
the Senate that I believe in. I think he speaks for what he thinks is 
right. This amendment he introduces in very good faith.
  I will be the opposite of shrill in my opposition. I think the 
amendment is profoundly mistaken. We have gone through this whole 
debate about fetal tissue research, and I again want to make it clear 
that not only have we not seen one instance of abuse, not one example, 
but we really have very, very stringent and clear protections. A woman 
may not be approached for consent to donate aborted tissue. The donor 
may not be paid for donation of the tissue. The donor may not designate 
who will be the recipient of the tissue. Violations of these 
restrictions are a Federal felony, punishable by 10 years in Federal 
prison.
  I say all that because I want to make it clear how strict the 
guidelines are. I also want to make it clear that I do not think this 
issue is really about using the labels pro-choice or pro-life, but it 
has to do with another question, which is whether or not people who are 
struggling with the disease are going to be able to look to a day where 
there will be a cure. If this amendment passes, we are essentially 
wiping out one very promising avenue of research. I think that would be 
a very crucial thing to do. That is certainly not the intention of the 
amendment.
  I say to my colleagues, because I have been active in this work 
dealing with Parkinson's since I came to the Senate, I know something 
about it, having had two parents who struggled with Parkinson's. I know 
something about it, having spent a great deal of time with people in 
the Parkinson's community, that given the strict guidelines and given 
the fact that we do not see examples of abuse, and given the fact that 
this really is not about pro-choice and pro-life, and also given the 
fact that if this kind of amendment is going to be raised it ought not 
to be focused on one disease, I just hope that my colleagues will 
oppose this amendment. I think it is profoundly mistaken.
  Now, Mr. President, just forget all of the statistics, except to say, 
and I think my colleagues will believe me, that if you talk to people 
in the medical research community they will tell you that fetal tissue 
transplant research is one of the very promising approaches. I do not 
think we want to ``defund'' that. We do not want to be in a position 
of, on the one hand, finding resources for research, and then 
essentially wiping out one of the very important modes of research to 
find a cure for the disease. We do not want to do that. It really 
undercuts part of the very important vote that took place last night.
  Maybe the best way for me to summarize my view, because we will vote 
in just a few minutes, is to talk about a woman that some of you have 
come to know. Her name is Joan Samuelson. I have not asked for 
permission to do this, but Joan has been so visible and so vocal I do 
not think she will object. I first met her a number of years ago when 
she was testifying before our committee, the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee. I think she was speaking about the need to have at least a 
little bit more by way of resources for research, but I think she

[[Page S8781]]

was talking about, if my memory serves me correctly, about this fetal 
tissue research.
  What I remember was I kept thinking about my parents. My father was 
almost 60 when he found out he had Parkinson's and he lived to be 84, 
though at the very end I will tell you, if you do not know this 
disease, he was so alert. He was a brilliant man. I am not objective, 
he was my father. He spoke 10 languages fluently but it did not help. 
He spoke 10 languages fluently, but because of Parkinson's he could not 
speak. He could not walk. And really the truth of the matter is he 
intensely wanted to die. That is exactly what he indicated to me.
  When Joan Samuelson testified, I kept thinking, gee, she is in her 
thirties. What is going to be her future? If you are lucky, this 
disease runs a slow progression, but you never know. You do not want to 
find out you have Parkinson's when you are in your thirties. By the 
way, it is a myth that this is a disease that only afflicts the 
elderly.
  When Joan Samuelson testified, more than anything what she was saying 
is, ``Look, for me and many others, time is not neutral. How can you 
say to me that you are only willing to invest about $30 per person for 
the 1 million of us who struggle with Parkinson's? How can you look at 
me in the eye and say that? This is my life or whether I will have a 
life.''
  The reason I raise this is I remember hearing her testify and 
thinking about my parents and sort of just then starting to have tears 
in my own eyes because I was thinking I don't want someone like Joan 
Samuelson to get to the place where my dad did. I don't want that to 
happen to her.
  Now, I am not a doctor. I cannot guarantee there will be a cure to 
this disease tomorrow. But when I spoke to Joan Samuelson two nights 
ago, she is out in California, she said to me, ``The way I look at this 
debate on fetal tissue research is this is the particular research that 
I think could very well lead to a cure for me.'' That is the point. 
Please, everybody, that is the point.
  Whatever your position is on the general question of pro-choice, pro-
life, that is not what this debate is about. To someone like Joan 
Samuelson, this is one avenue of research that could very well lead to 
a cure for this disease. That is of central importance to her. That is 
of central importance to the lives of many other people struggling with 
Parkinson's. I think that is what this vote is about.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to please vote against this 
amendment. I feel like I have to, in good faith, conclude by saying, 
even though I hope there will be a strong vote against this amendment, 
one more time I want to make it crystal clear that Senator Coats is 
doing what he thinks is right. Senator Coats has supported this effort 
to expand the funding for Parkinson's. Senator Coats knows this disease 
all too well. I believe his father had Parkinson's. Senator Coats, when 
he does something on the floor of the Senate does it because he 
believes in it. He does it because he thinks it is the right thing.
  I deeply appreciate the support he has given Senator McCain and 
myself on our efforts, but I think this amendment is a mistake. 
Actually, I want to say I know this amendment is a mistake, because I 
really believe it is all about someone like Joan Samuelson. We ought 
not to vote for the Mo Udall Parkinson's Research Act, the amendment 
last night introduced by Senator McCain and myself, and then turn 
around and essentially defund one of the important avenues of research 
that potentially could lead to a cure for this disease. I think that 
would be an injustice to Joan Samuelson and many other women and men 
who struggle with this disease. I hope my colleagues will vote against 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a second? There is a sufficient 
second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. That vote will occur at noon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. 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. COATS. Mr. President, just in summarizing before we vote at 12 
o'clock on the Coats amendment, let me just, for Members' information, 
clarify things here.
  This amendment does not prohibit all Federal funding for fetal tissue 
research. Fetal tissue research can go forward. It allows fetal tissue 
research to go forward with tissue obtained from ectopic pregnancies 
and spontaneous abortions. It does prohibit Federal funds from being 
used for research on fetal tissue obtained by induced abortions only.
  We encourage research in the most promising areas of Parkinson's 
disease with animal tissue transplants, gene-based therapy, deep-brain 
stimulation.
  So this applies not to diabetes research, not to other neurological 
research--just to this. Other alternatives exist. Even fetal tissue 
could go forward.
  I hope our colleagues will understand the practical nature of this 
and the ethical and moral considerations of doing this, and I urge a 
vote in support of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Indiana. 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 Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] 
and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chafee
     Murkowski
       
  The amendment (No. 1077) was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I would like to 
submit on this bill, but I would ask unanimous consent that I might be 
given an opportunity to speak to up to 10 minutes as if in morning 
business on a subject of some import dealing with the terrorist action 
today in Jerusalem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.

[[Page S8782]]

  The Senator from New York is recognized.

                          ____________________