[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11320-S11329]
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, 2002--Continued

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there have been very extensive 
discussions on the issue relating to stem cells, which is in the bill, 
relating to what President Bush did on August 9 using existing stem 
cell lines, in an effort to codify that and give the President 
authority to move in that direction. The stem cell issue has been very 
controversial for reasons which do not have to be amplified at this 
time.
  A good bit of the debate on the subject has been between the Senator 
from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and myself. Senator Brownback has posed a 
series of amendments, which he intends to bring up on this bill, of a 
very complex nature. The amendments Senator Brownback has proposed to 
bring up involve the questions of the human germ line gene which I will 
not begin to explain at the moment, issues about therapeutic cloning, 
where science has given a name which suggests reproductive cloning, 
which it is not, but very complicated as to how it is worked out; 
amendments on the prohibition of the mixing of human and animal gametes 
where there has been some scientific thought that although very 
repugnant on its face, there are some important scientific issues 
involved.

  One of the matters was submitted to the American Society for 
Reproductive Medicine, and they have not even taken a position on it, 
which shows the complexity of the issue.
  Were we to proceed with these amendments, on which we have consulted 
with the Parliamentarian, who says they are germane because there is 
some sufficient--it does not require a whole lot to make them 
appropriate, and the Senator from Kansas has every right to bring them. 
I do not know how long it would take to debate them.
  In the course of the past 2 days, we have talked about second-degree 
amendments, and we have talked about many subjects which are 
extraordinarily complicated. I have been trying to get up to speed to 
know what to say about them.
  The concerns I have involve the issue of unintended consequences. 
That is a doctrine well-known in our culture. When one deals with these 
scientific issues, many scientists have told me it would stultify their 
activities, or at a minimum have a profoundly chilling effect.
  So after very extensive discussions, what we have decided to do is to 
defer this matter to another day. The reason we have decided to defer 
this matter to another day is we have a very important appropriations 
bill funding the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human 
Services, and the completion of this bill at an early date is important 
so we can go to conference.
  Ten days ago, I had a long discussion with Senator Lott about seeing 
the need to conclude our work by November 16, which is the week before 
Thanksgiving. I have found my constituents in Pennsylvania are more 
interested in hearing what is going on in Washington now than they have 
ever been in the 21 years I have been in the Senate. It is obvious, 
with the war on terrorism going on, with the fighting in Afghanistan 
against the Taliban, and the bombing and the complexities there, then 
with the anthrax, there is an enormous concern across the country about 
bioterrorism. There is a real need, it seems to me, for Senators to be 
in their States and Members of the House to be in their districts to 
talk to their constituents, to tell them we do have a plan, we do know 
what is going on, and we are working constructively on these issues.
  Ideally we should complete work on these appropriations bills as of 
September 30, but we know from practice we have continuing resolutions 
and the complexities of our work take us beyond that point. What really 
happens is that among the 535 of us, and add the executive branch, we 
debate and argue and hassle until we have our backs against the wall 
and really have to conclude our deliberations.
  I said to Senator Lott about 10 days ago I thought all of us were 
going to have to make concessions on some of the issues which we 
thought were of enormous importance and had to be resolved, and I am 
prepared to do that today. Senator Brownback is prepared to do that 
today.
  These issues will be taken up, though, and in the very near future. 
Senator Brownback and I talked to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, 
who agreed to bring up the stem cell issue with an opportunity for 
Senator Brownback to raise his issues in the February/March timeframe. 
I consulted with Senator Lott, in the event Senator Lott is the 
majority leader at that time, and got a similar commitment from Senator 
Lott to bring up stem cells and Senator Brownback's issues in the 
February/March timeframe.

  Senator Lott had agreed to have a freestanding bill when he was 
majority leader, where we deferred action on stem cells going back to 
September in the fall of 1999. It was a very different issue, and he 
wanted to await developments as to what would be happening on the 
scientific front.
  These discussions were held. Senator Reid was a party to them.
  I yield to the Senator from Nevada to confirm the representations I 
have made about Senator Daschle's commitment to have a freestanding 
bill in the February/March timeframe.
  Mr. REID. The majority leader understands how important this is to 
the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am a member of the subcommittee he 
chaired and of which he is now the ranking member. He has held a number 
of extremely interesting hearings on this subject and has really perked 
everyone's interest in the Senate on this issue.
  Senator Brownback feels just as fervently, and I think it is 
extremely appropriate, as does the majority leader, that there be a 
discussion on this issue, as indicated by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania, with Senator 
Harkin, will hold a number of hearings on this prior to that date. I 
look forward to the discussion.
  I think it is really good these two fine Senators worked out this 
arrangement because I think everyone needs more knowledge. This is a 
new area, a new field of science, at least for most of us. I think with 
the passage of a few months we will be in much better shape to listen 
intelligently, and perhaps a number of us will be able to join in the 
debate. If we had these votes today, a lot of us would be really in 
uncharted territory. We have not had

[[Page S11321]]

hearings on a lot of these issues. There is not a lot of material we 
have had to go through, and so I applaud and compliment these two 
Senators for allowing us to work this out. I know Senator Harkin feels 
the same way.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Nevada for those comments. He 
is correct on the issue of holding the hearings.
  I have conferred with the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Harkin, who agrees we need to have the hearings. I have discussed it 
with Senator Brownback. These issues are extraordinarily complicated. 
We are going to have to have a whole series of hearings with regard to 
the complicated issues so we can know what we are doing on making 
public policy, especially in the context where Senator Brownback's 
amendments carry penal sanctions, jail terms and fines, so that we can 
know what we should be doing in the public interest but not stifling 
science.
  Senator Brownback and I have worked together over the years on a 
great many items, and we have had some lively television discussions. I 
think when we finally get around to this discussion it will be lively 
as well.
  I yield to my colleague from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and particularly 
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania who has been quite patient and 
diligent in working with me. I might also note that Bettilou Taylor on 
his staff has been wonderful to work with, as well as Senator Reid from 
Nevada, who has really worked to try to push these issues forward so we 
can get to some point of resolution on the underlying bill. I am not 
unaware of the need to move this bill through. We need to get the 
appropriations bills moved. We need to get this done so we can get to 
the economic stimulus package and be able to conclude it. I am pleased 
to see we have some resolution on the overall issue.

  I will point out what I am talking about in the amendments I was 
proposing. We had filed four of these amendments and were willing to 
put them into one amendment, have one vote, and have a moratorium for 1 
year on several items. The moratorium would include human cloning. No 
human cloning, whether it be reproductive, or so-called their 
futuristic-type, for 1 year, a 1-year moratorium on germ line 
manipulation, where you insert a snippet of a genetic code from a cow 
or pig into the egg or sperm of a human, so that once they connect to 
each other they become fertilized. It goes on to future generations. It 
would ban that for a year's period of time. It would ban for a year's 
period of time, embryo ``farming'' where embryos were created just for 
research purposes.
  That was the series of amendments we put forward and were germane to 
this debate.
  We have had extensive negotiations and discussions back and forth. 
The belief is that Members could be more up to speed on these topics 
come February or March. The majority leader has agreed to a free-
standing bill at that point in time in order to get direct votes on 
these issues. That is the more appropriate way. It is the right way. I 
am appreciative of the majority leader and Senator Reid for agreeing to 
that taking place so we can take this up at a more prudent time, with 
hearings in between taking place.
  It is my understanding what we would agree to would be that I not 
offer these amendments at this time; that we will have free-standing 
debate, discussion and vote come the February-March timeframe on these 
topics and the topics Senator Specter is putting forward, with direct 
votes up or down on the topics, and none in the second degree or 
tabled. These are direct votes. And the language Senator Specter 
inserted that was in the appropriations bill, which was beyond what the 
President was asking for on stem cell research, would not be in the 
final Labor-HHS appropriations bill as it passes out of the Senate.
  This is good progress on a very difficult issue. By that point in 
time, we will be on board with the executive branch on the biomedical 
research. They are enormously important.
  I enter one quick note into the record. Scientists say the first 
human clone is near--a group says within the end of the year.
  I ask unanimous consent to have several other articles printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of this colloquy, including a story about the 
rhesus monkey which has been cloned. That was announced this week. That 
is the closest model to a human off which we work. If you can do it 
there, you can probably do it in a human. The technology leap is not 
far.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 1)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. For these reasons I think it is an appropriate way to 
proceed. I am pleased Senator Specter has been so kind in working with 
us. Senator Reid and Senator Daschle, the majority leader, have agreed 
to this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the language which will be stricken 
appears on page 91 and reads as follows:

       Subject to the provisions of section 510(a) and (b), 
     Federal dollars are permitted at the discretion of the 
     President solely for the purpose of stem cell research on 
     embryos that have been created in excess of clinical need and 
     will be discarded and donated with the written consent of the 
     progenitors.

  That will be stricken.
  I have legislation pending which would permit the use of Federal 
funding to extract stem cells from embryos. The precise format of the 
legislation which I will propose will be determined, and I will give 
Senator Brownback ample notice as to what I intend to do. We will have 
the hearings on that, and we will have the hearings on the issue which 
Senator Brownback has raised with Senators.
  It is worthwhile making one comment on the nature of complexity as to 
concerns which my staff and I have had. I echo Senator Brownback's 
praise for Bettilou Taylor and also acknowledge the contribution of Dr. 
Sudip Parikh, an assistant with us, and also Mr. Rob Wasinger, who is 
with Senator Brownback. A concern expressed to me by many doctors has 
been whether there would be a danger of eliminating therapeutic 
cloning. Regretfully the words ``cloning'' and ``therapeutic cloning'' 
have given it a very bad name.
  What it amounts to--and this is an illustration--is taking a cell, 
for example, from a woman who has Parkinson's; take the nucleus out of 
the cell and take an egg from a woman donor whose nucleus has been 
removed, and put the nucleus from the cell of the woman who is the 
patient, put it into the egg where the nucleus has been removed. You 
wait 5 to 7 days, and then you have a blastocystic state of an embryo. 
The stem cell which is extracted can then be used on the patient, who 
is a woman, to cure Parkinson's.
  That is a very brief statement, but in the complexities of the 
amendments we might not have had that opportunity. We will be going 
into these issues and a great many others. I think had we debated it on 
the Senate floor today, as Senator Reid has said, it would have been 
very difficult to grasp these issues.
  When Members want to have penal provisions, jail sentences and fines, 
those are matters which require a lot of deliberation as to what is 
appropriate for deterrence and what is appropriate as a punishment.
  The arrangement we have worked out today is an important arrangement. 
Most fundamentally, it allows moving forward on this bill, conclude 
this bill, go to conference, and get it passed. To pick up on the 
conversation with Senator Lott, we show our willingness to make 
concessions on matters we would like to work on now, but it can wait 
until the February-March timeframe.
  I hope my colleagues in the House and Senate will undertake the same 
kind of consideration to decide what we have to decide now, move ahead 
with airport security and the stimulus package and the matters of 
absolute necessity, the appropriations bills. If matters can be 
deferred, as Senator Brownback and I have deferred until March, that 
should be the order of the day so we can go back to our States or 
districts and explain to people of America what is going on so they 
know with some confidence we do have a plan, we do have a program, and 
we are working in a constructive way in the Federal Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would like to make sure from Senator Reid of Nevada 
we have accurately reflected this

[[Page S11322]]

in the Record. I hope this is accurately reflected as to when Senator 
Reid and the majority leader agreed on bringing up this issue.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kansas, the statement made by you 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania is accurate. I was in on the 
conversation of the majority leader and he, without any hesitation, 
indicated he would hold the hearings within the timeframe you 
indicated, the February-March time period.
  We all acknowledge it is the right thing to do, and it is something 
we need to do. The statement made by the Senator from Pennsylvania and 
the Senator from Kansas is absolutely accurate.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                      [From Reuters, Oct. 5, 2001]

                Scientist Says First Human Clone is Near

                          (By Michele Kambas)

       Nicosia (Reuters).--Scientists could create the first 
     cloned human before the end of the year, a doctor with the 
     controversial project said on Friday. Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, 
     who along with his Italian colleague Dr. Servino Antinori has 
     triggered worldwide . . . with plans to create tailor-made 
     offspring, said research was going faster than initially 
     expected. The team has been banned from carrying out research 
     in most European Union (news--web sites) countries. Zavos 
     said that was not hindering progress. ``It is going well 
     enough so we may attempt the first production of embryos--
     cloned embryos--in the very near future. That is, 3 or 4 
     months from now,'' Cypriot-born Zavos told Reuters in an 
     interview on Friday.
       Human cloning could effectively create a replica of another 
     living or dead person. But Zavos, who said the ``genie was 
     out of the bottle'' when researchers cloned the first mammal, 
     Dolly the sheep, insisted there was nothing sinister in the 
     endeavor. He said he was not in the business of creating 
     ``genetically-modified doppelgangers,'' but in helping 
     infertile couples have a child. ``We are not interested in 
     cloning the bin Ladens of this world, the Michael Jacksons or 
     the Michael Jordans of this world,'' the Kentucky-based 
     fertility specialist added. ``We are not interested in the 
     replica of dead people. We are interested in assisting a 
     father who does not have sperm to have a biological child of 
     his own . . . in assisting couples to reproduce.''
       Countries like France and Germany have appealed to the 
     United Nations (news--web sites) to get human cloning banned 
     in an international treaty. Religious groups are also enraged 
     at what they view as the doctors' attempts to play God. But 
     Zavos, whose partner Antinori hit the headlines by helping a 
     woman of 62 have a child in 1994, dismissed suggestions they 
     were only interested in cloning for its own sake. He said 
     thousands of childless people from all over the world were 
     helping in their research.
       Though regarded as something of a maverick in the medical 
     world, Zavos's medical accomplishments are a source of pride 
     for many Cypriots. He emigrated to the United States more 
     than 30 years ago but retains close . . . with the island. 
     Zavos declined to say where the research was under way, but 
     indicated it was in more than one country. He added that 
     governments that had banned human clone tests were making a 
     mistake in mixing politics with medical issues. ``They are 
     trying to make a political decision for a procedure which is 
     medically oriented. This is not a popular decision, this is a 
     medical decision that needs to be made by physicians and 
     their patients and not by politicians,'' he stated.
       But Zavos said the ban was not in any way hindering 
     progress. ``We have options we are exercising--beyond Europe, 
     of course. This is the world we are talking about. This is 
     not Europe, this is not America.''
                                  ____


                      [From Reuters, Oct. 5, 2001]

           Cypriot Researcher Sees Human Clone in Four Months

                          (By Michele Kambas)

       Nicosia (Reuters).--Scientists could create the first 
     cloned human before the end of the year, a doctor working on 
     the controversial project said on Friday. Dr. Panayiotis 
     Zavos, who along with his Italian colleague Severino Antinori 
     has triggered worldwide alarm with plans to create tailor-
     made offspring, said research was going faster than initially 
     expected. The team has been banned from carrying out research 
     in most European Union (news--web sites) countries, but Zavos 
     said that was not hindering progress. ``It is going well 
     enough so we may attempt the first production of embryos, 
     cloned embryos in the very near future. That is, three or 
     four months from now,'' Cypriot-born Zavos told Reuters in an 
     interview on Friday.
       Human cloning could effectively create a replica of another 
     living or dead person. But Zavos, who said the ``genie was 
     out of the bottle'' when researchers cloned the first mammal, 
     Dolly the Sheep, insisted there was nothing sinister in the 
     endeavor. He said he was not in the business of creating 
     ``genetically-modified doppelgangers,'' but in helping 
     infertile couples have a child. ``We are not interested in 
     cloning the bin Ladens of this world, the Michael Jacksons or 
     the Michael Jordans of this world,'' the Kentucky-based 
     fertility specialist added. ``We are not interested in the 
     replica of dead people. We are interested in assisting a 
     father who does not have a sperm to have a biological child 
     of his own . . . in assisting couples to reproduce.''


                              Cloning ban

       Countries like France and Germany have appealed to the 
     United Nations (news--web sites) to get human cloning banned 
     in an international treaty. Religious groups are also enraged 
     at the doctors' attempts to play God. But Zavos, whose 
     partner, Dr. Antinori, hit the headlines by helping a woman 
     of 62 have a child in 1994, dismissed suggestions they were 
     only interested in cloning for its own sake.
       He said thousands of childless people from all over the 
     world were helping in their research. Though regarded 
     something of a maverick in the medical world, Zavos' medical 
     accomplishments are a source of pride for many Cypriots. He 
     emigrated to the United States more than 30 years ago but 
     retains close family ties with the island. Zavos declined to 
     say where the research was under way, but indicated it was in 
     more than one country. He added that governments which had 
     banned human clone tests were making a mistake in mixing 
     politics with medical issues. ``They are trying to make a 
     political decision for a procedure which is medically 
     oriented. This is not a political decision, this is a medical 
     decision that needs to be made by physicians and their 
     patients and not by politicians.''
       But Zavos said the ban was not in any way hindering 
     progress. ``We have options we are exercising, beyond Europe, 
     of course. This is the world we are talking about, this is 
     not Europe, this is not America.'' Zavos said countries which 
     took a stand against cloning embryos could possibly end up at 
     a disadvantage because the technology would inevitably catch 
     up. ``This is not an issue of morality, this is not an issue 
     of being ethical or unethical, but rather assisting people to 
     have children and that is the business we are in.''
                                  ____


           [From The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 29, 2001]

                  Monkey Tests Raise Human Clone Fears

                           (By Ellie Addison)

       Scientists have taken a big step towards creating the 
     world's first cloned monkey, raising fears that a human clone 
     will not be far behind. Embryos cloned from a rhesus monkey 
     are being prepared in the United States and could be 
     implanted into a surrogate mother. The first monkey clone 
     could be born within months. The work, by Don Wolf, of the 
     Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre, has successfully 
     combined techniques in the cloning of embryonic cells with 
     somatic cells, which make up adult animal bodies.
       Prof. Wolf deplores human reproductive cloning and says he 
     wants to produce genetically identical laboratory monkeys to 
     accurately test drugs and therapies. But the research is 
     being closely watched by groups interested in creating the 
     first human clone. Severino Antinori, an Italian fertility 
     specialist, has set up a group of researchers who hope to 
     create the first human clone ``within months''.
       The new discoveries have been described as ``a significant 
     step in the wrong direction'' by the Pro Life Alliance. Bruno 
     Quintavalle, its spokesman, said: ``Cloning has so far been 
     confined to livestock animals for which there can, arguably, 
     be agricultural reasons for cloning research. ``But what 
     possible reason can there be for replicating a rhesus monkey? 
     There is no reason we can see, other than to formulate and 
     clarify processes which can be used later for cloning 
     humans.'' The alliance will take the Government to the High 
     Court on Wednesday to seek a judicial review of Britain's 
     cloning legislation. The group says the laws are full of 
     loopholes.
                                  ____


            [From the Sunday Times (London), Oct. 28, 2001]

          Monkey Test Breakthrough Brings Human Clones Closer

                  (By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor)

       Scientists have created the first embryonic clones of an 
     adult primate and are preparing to implant them into 
     surrogate mothers. The work--involving embryos cloned from a 
     rhesus monkey--is a significant development in cloning 
     technology. Until now all the research had suggested that 
     primates would be far more difficult to clone than species 
     such as sheep and goats, which have already been used 
     successfully in experiments. The primate breakthrough is 
     certain to be seen as powerful evidence that it is now 
     possible to clone a human being. The researchers have 
     predicted that they will achieve the live birth of a non-
     human primate within months.
       The latest results were achieved in America by Professor 
     Don Wolf, of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, who 
     is one of the most respected workers in the field. Cloning 
     cells from embryos is known to be relatively easy. This 
     weekend, however, Wolf said the same technique was working 
     well with somatic cells--the kind that make up the bodies 
     of adult animals. He said: ``We have been working with 
     somatic cells and believe that success is just around the 
     corner as the cloned embryos created from them are growing 
     well in vito.''
       Wolf was unable to say when the embryos might be implanted 
     into surrogate mothers. The females need to be at exactly the 
     right stage of their oestrous cycles, and this is hard to 
     predict.

[[Page S11323]]

       Wolf's interest in such work has nothing to do with human 
     reproductive cloning--a concept that he and most other 
     serious researchers deplore. Their aim is to create lines of 
     genetically identical laboratory animals that can be used to 
     test drugs and therapies much more accurately. Additionally, 
     cloning technology holds out the possibility that humans 
     could one day grow replacement tissues for damaged organs.
       There are, however, a number of other groups that are 
     intensely interested in using the work done by researchers 
     such as Wolf to clone humans. One group of researchers is led 
     by Dr. Severino Antinori, the Italian fertility specialist, 
     who has set up a consortium in an attempt to create the first 
     human clone ``within the next few months''.
       Some researchers say such a venture is fraught with danger 
     since cloned animals seem to be prone to a number of genetic 
     defects that could also affect a human child. The validity of 
     such fears has been borne out by the latest results from a 
     second team of researchers, which is also working on cloning 
     rhesus monkeys. Its leader, Professor Gerald Schatten, of 
     Pittsburgh University, said that like Wolf he had also 
     recently created embryonic cloned rhesus monkeys--and had 
     already attempted to implant them into females. So far, 
     however, he has been unable to achieve a pregnancy, and last 
     week his analysis suggested that this was because the cloning 
     process had disrupted the organisation of the chromosomes 
     that carry the animals' DNA.
                                  ____


                 [From The Sunday Times, Oct. 22, 2001]

                      First Primate Embryos Cloned

                          (By Jonathan Leake)

       Scientists have created the first embryonic clones of an 
     adult primate and are preparing to implant them into 
     surrogate mothers. The project--involving embryos cloned from 
     a rhesus monkey--is a significant development in the 
     technology of cloning. Until now research had suggested 
     primates would be far more difficult to clone than species 
     such as sheep and goats, which have already been successfully 
     duplicated.
       The primate breakthrough is seen as strong evidence it is 
     possible to clone a human being. The researchers say they 
     will achieve the live birth of a primate within months. The 
     results were achieved in the US by Don Wolf of the Oregon 
     Regional Primate Research Centre. Cloning cells from 
     embryos is relatively easy, and Professor Wolf said the 
     same technique was working well with somatic cells from 
     adult animals.
       The next step is for the embryos to be implanted into 
     surrogate mothers. This process needs the females to be at 
     exactly the right stage of their oestrous cycles, and this is 
     hard to predict.
       Professor Wolf's work has nothing to do with human 
     reproductive cloning--a concept he and most other serious 
     researchers deplore. Their aim is to create lines of 
     genetically identical laboratory animals that can be used to 
     test drugs and therapies much more accurately than is now 
     possible. However, a number of groups are keen to use the 
     work done by researchers such as Professor Wolf to clone 
     humans. One body of researchers is led by Severino Antinori, 
     the Italian fertility specialist who has set up a consortium 
     in an attempt to create the first human clone ``within the 
     next few months''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I was unavoidably absent from the 
Chamber a few minutes ago, but I want to compliment my distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Specter, for working out an agreement on the 
vital issue of stem cell research. I know there are Senators who feel 
strongly about this one way or the other. I understand that. But I 
believe the agreement Senator Specter has worked out is one that will 
serve us well. We will have hearings. We will welcome all to come in 
and testify at these hearings on stem cells. I understand the agreement 
is that prior to the end of March, sometime in either February or March 
of next year, both the majority leader and minority leader have agreed 
that we will bring a stem cell research bill to the floor of the 
Senate.
  With that agreement, I think it paves the way for us to have some 
more in-depth hearings on whether or not we have enough stem cell lines 
to do the kind of research that needs to be done, or whether we do, in 
fact, need some more stem cell lines to conduct this kind of robust 
research. We will be having those hearings.
  Sometimes Senator Specter chairs them and sometimes I do. But we will 
continue to have those hearings throughout the next few months. Even 
though the Senate may not be in session, we will continue to have those 
hearings to try to get a better understanding of what we need to do to 
provide the ethical guidelines and the kind of monetary support that we 
need for our science to conduct embryonic stem cell research.
  Because I was missing from the Chamber when that agreement was worked 
out, I wanted to compliment Senator Specter and other Senators for 
working out an agreement on that issue.
  Lastly, we are on the floor. Debate on the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and related agencies appropriations bill is about 
over. There are some amendments to offer. I ask Senators who have 
amendments to please come to the floor and offer those amendments. The 
sooner we get to amendments, the sooner we will get out of here.
  I just had one Senator come up to me asking about catching a flight 
out tonight. I say to my fellow Senators, if you will come over and 
offer the amendments, we can have a legitimate debate and vote on them. 
Then people could get out of here. The longer people stay away from the 
floor and don't offer their amendments, people can't get out of here.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, this is the 
third day that the Senator from Iowa and Senator Specter have managed 
this bill. Significant progress has been made, especially today. But I 
think enough time has gone by to wait for people to arrive. I hope that 
in a reasonable period of time, if people are not here to offer their 
amendments, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
would move to third reading. It is not fair to keep people waiting 
around. I, as the Senator from Iowa, have been approached several 
times. People say they have things to do rather than waiting around 
doing nothing.
  What drives people to distraction, and rightfully so, is when we are 
in these endless quorum calls waiting for people to come over with 
amendments. They are not doing us a favor by offering the amendment, 
but it is a right established under the precedents of the Senate.
  I hope the two managers of the bill, in a reasonable period of time 
if we don't have people offering amendments, will move to third 
reading. We have a lot of other things to do tonight. We have three 
conference reports that have been approved by the House. We have to 
take care of those today if we want to be out of session tomorrow. The 
leader indicated to me just a short time ago that he would like to not 
have any votes tomorrow. But he is going to have votes tomorrow if we 
don't complete this bill.
  With the progress the Senator from Iowa and Senator Specter have made 
during the time since the vote expired, I think we can clearly finish 
the bill tonight. If not, we will drag this bill on. I repeat for the 
third time that if Members are not coming to offer their amendments, we 
will go to third reading.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank our assistant majority leader 
for his great leadership in pulling people together and getting this 
legislation moving, as he has done on so many other bills. He has been 
stalwart here on the floor to make this place work right and to make it 
work fairly so people can offer their amendments to make sure we move 
in an expeditious manner. I thank the Senator for his leadership in 
getting the Senate to do its work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, 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. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have an amendment I will be offering 
having to do with impact aid. That is a very significant issue. One of 
the best programs Congress put together was way back in the 1950s. That 
was when

[[Page S11324]]

they made a determination that if the Federal Government came in and 
federalized land, either for military purposes, Indian schools, or any 
other purpose, and took the land off the tax rolls, they would still 
have to educate the kids. Slowly over the years, politicians--none in 
this Chamber, I am sure--have been taking money out of the impact aid 
account, so it has gone down to about 25 percent of what it really 
should be.
  I will be offering that amendment and wanting to discuss it.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Inhofe are located in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Madam 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. 2018

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2018 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2018.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam 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:

(Purpose: To amend the funding levels for certain activities under the 
Impact Aid program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
                                 1965)

       On page 56, strike lines 5 through 17, and insert the 
     following:
       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VI of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as 
     passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001, 
     $1,130,500,000, of which $982,500,000 shall be for basic 
     support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be 
     for payments for children with disabilities under section 
     8003(d) $35,000,000 shall be for construction under section 
     8007, $55,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments 
     under section 8002, and $8,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section 
     8008.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is an issue we have addressed many 
times. We addressed it first during the budget consideration when we 
were going to increase impact aid by $300 million. Unfortunately, the 
appropriators have brought it down to an amount a little less than half 
that.
  Democrats and Republicans have set a goal so we will have impact aid 
fully funded sometime in the next 4 or 5 years. This will bring the 
amount of basic support for impact aid equal to the House figure.
  That is essentially the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have checked with the manager of the 
bill on this side. He has no objection to the amendment. We are 
confident there is no objection on the other side.
  I say to my friend from Oklahoma, if some small chance there is a 
problem with the minority, we will come back to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine. I will accept it.
  Mr. REID. I ask approval of this amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, with that agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2018) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been waiting literally all afternoon 
for two Senators to offer amendments. I don't really think it is fair 
to the rest of the Senate to wait around here as we have. Calls have 
been made. I don't know what more we can do other than move to third 
reading. At the appropriate time this afternoon, that is what we are 
going to do. Everyone should be on notice that is going to be done. I 
know we talk about it all the time. I guess it is like the proverbial 
crying of wolf all the time. We do everything we can for people to come 
and offer their amendments. I really think it is unfair that everyone 
is waiting.
  At least 10 Senators are wanting to know what the schedule is and 
whether they can make certain arrangements for travel tonight or 
tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow morning. We do not know. We are waiting 
for people to come to offer amendments.
  I hope Senators will be more considerate of the other 98 Senators, 
plus all the staff and everyone else trying to get this bill completed. 
I think it is really unfair that we have waited as long as we have.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 2062 through 2073, En Bloc

  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Harkin, I send a managers' package to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), for Mr. Harkin and Mr. 
     Specter, proposes amendments Nos. 2062 through 2073, en bloc.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2062

(Purpose: To provide for an election of an annuity under section 377 of 
   title 28, United States Code, for any qualified magistrate judge)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec. 519. (a) Definition.--In this section the term 
     ``qualified magistrate judge'' means any person who--
       (1) retired as a magistrate judge before November 15, 1988; 
     and
       (2) on the date of filing an election under subsection 
     (b)--
       (A) is serving as a recalled magistrate judge on a full-
     time basis under section 636(h) of title 28, United States 
     Code; and
       (B) has completed at least 5 years of full-time recall 
     service.
       (b) Election of Annuity.--The Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts may accept 
     the election of a qualified magistrate judge to--
       (1) receive an annuity under section 377 of title 28, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) come within the purview of section 376 of such title.
       (c) Credit for Service.--Full-time recall service performed 
     by a qualified magistrate judge shall be credited for service 
     in calculating an annuity elected under this section.
       (d) Regulations.--The Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts may promulgate regulations to 
     carry out this section.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2063

(Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health 
  and Human Services to audit all Federal amounts allocated for AIDS 
   prevention programs and to report to Congress concerning programs 
    offering sexually explicit workshops using any of such amounts)

       On page 54, after line 15, insert the following:
       Sec. 220. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, over 765,000 people in the United States have 
     been diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS since 1981, 
     and over 442,000 deaths have occurred in the United States as 
     a result of the disease;
       (2) Federal AIDS prevention funds should be used to provide 
     resources, training, technical assistance, and infrastructure 
     to national, regional, and community-based organizations 
     working to educate the public on the virus that causes AIDS 
     and stopping the spread of the disease;
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services shall conduct an 
     audit of all Federal amounts allocated for AIDS prevention 
     programs and report to Congress with their findings.

[[Page S11325]]

     
                                  ____
                           amendment no. 2064

 (Purpose: To provide for a study and report regarding Federal student 
       loan disbursements to students attending foreign schools)

       On page 73, after line 4, add the following:
       Sec. 306. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The number of students applying for loans and claiming 
     to attend foreign institutions has risen from 4,594 students 
     in 1993 to over 12,000 students in the 1998-1999 school year.
       (2) Since 1995 there have been at least 25 convictions of 
     students who fraudulently claimed they were attending a 
     foreign institution, then cashed the check issued directly to 
     them, and did not attend the foreign institution.
       (3) Tighter disbursement controls are necessary to reduce 
     the number of students fraudulently applying for loans under 
     title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and claiming 
     they are going to attend foreign institutions. Funds should 
     not be disbursed for attendance at a foreign institution 
     unless the foreign institution can verify that the student is 
     attending the institution.
       (b) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     regarding--
       (A) Federal student loan disbursements to students 
     attending foreign schools; and
       (B) fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Family Education 
     Loan Program as the fraud, waste, and abuse relates to 
     students receiving funding in order to attend a foreign 
     school.
       (2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall report to 
     Congress regarding the results of the study.
       (3) Report Contents.--The report described in paragraph (2) 
     shall--
       (A) include information on whether or not there are 
     standards that a foreign school must meet for an American 
     student to attend and receive a federally guaranteed student 
     loan;
       (B) compare the oversight controls for loans dispensed to 
     students attending foreign schools and domestic institutions;
       (C) examine the default rates at foreign schools that 
     enroll American students receiving federally guaranteed 
     student loans and determine the number of students that are 
     receiving loans in multiple years; and
       (D) make recommendations for legislative changes that are 
     required to ensure the integrity of the Federal Family 
     Education Loan Program.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2065

       On page 93, after line 12, insert:
       Sec. 520. Nothing in Section 134 of H.R. 2217 shall be 
     construed to overturn or otherwise effect the decision of the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of 
     Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2001), 
     or to permit gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on 
     lands described in Section 123 of Public Law 106-291 or any 
     lands contiguous to such lands that have or have not been 
     taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2066

  (Purpose: To provide funding for services for children relating to 
                                crises)

       On page 57, line 24, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available to carry out subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by 
     H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on June 14, 2001, $9,000,000 
     shall be made available to enable the Secretary of Education 
     to award grants to enable local educational agencies to 
     address the needs of children affected by terrorist attacks, 
     times of war or other major violent or traumatic crises, 
     including providing mental health services to such children, 
     and $1,000,000 shall be made available to enable the 
     Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, to develop recommendations and 
     models to assist communities in developing evacuation and 
     parental notification plans for schools and other community 
     facilities where children gather''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2067

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the provision 
  of assistance for airport career centers to enable such centers to 
   serve workers in the airline and related industries who have been 
 dislocated as a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World 
                             Trade Center)

       On page 22, after the period on line 3, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 103. It is the sense of the Senate that amounts should 
     be appropriated to provide dislocated worker employment and 
     training assistance under the Workforce Investment act to 
     airport career centers (to be located with the Port Authority 
     of New York and New Jersey) to enable such centers to provide 
     services to workers in the airline and related industries 
     (including ground transportation and other businesses) who 
     have been dislocated as a result of the September 11, 2001 
     attack on the World Trade Center.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2068

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning assistance for 
  individuals with disabilities who require vocational rehabilitation 
  services as a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World 
                             Trade Center)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
       Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Senate that amounts should 
     be appropriated to provide adult employment and training 
     activities to assist individuals with disabilities from New 
     York and New Jersey who require vocational rehabilitative 
     services as a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the 
     World Trade Center in order to permit such individuals to 
     return to work or maintain employment.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2069

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding reimbursement of 
  certain hospitals testing and treating individuals for exposure to 
                                anthrax)

       On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       Sec. 221. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services should fund and reimburse 
     hospitals and medical facilities in States that have tested 
     and treated federal workers that have been expose to anthrax 
     and continue to test and treat, federal workers that have 
     been determined by the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention as at risk for exposure to anthrax.


                           amendment no. 2070

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding lead poisoning 
         screenings and treatments under the medicaid program)

       On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       Sec. 222. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services should ensure that each contract 
     entered into between a State and an entity (including a 
     health insuring organization and a medicaid managed care 
     organization) that is responsible for the provision (directly 
     or through arrangements with providers of services) of 
     medical assistance under a State medicaid plan should provide 
     for--
       (1) compliance with mandatory blood lead screening 
     requirements that are consistent with prevailing guidelines 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for such 
     screening; and
       (2) coverage of lead treatment services including 
     diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up furnished for children 
     with elevated blood lead levels in accordance with prevailing 
     guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2071

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that States should be 
    authorized to use SCHIP funds for lead poisoning screenings and 
                              treatments)

       On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       Sec. 223. It is the sense of the Senate that States should 
     be authorized to use funds provided under the State 
     children's health insurance program under title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act to--
       (1) comply with mandatory blood lead screening requirements 
     that are consistent with prevailing guidelines of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention for such screening; and
       (2) provide coverage of lead treatment services including 
     diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up furnished for children 
     with elevated blood lead levels in accordance with prevailing 
     guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2072

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
    Health and Human Services should establish a bonus program for 
            improvement of childhood lead screening rates.)

       On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       Sec. 224. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services should establish a program to 
     improve the blood lead screening rates of States for children 
     under the age of 3 enrolled in the medicaid program under 
     which, using State-specific blood lead screening data, the 
     Secretary would annually pay a State an amount to be 
     determined.
       (1) For each 2 year-old child enrolled in the medicaid 
     program in the State who has received the minimum required 
     (for that age) screening blood lead level tests (capillary or 
     venous samples) to determine the presence of elevated blood 
     lead levels, as established by the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention.
       (2) For each such child who has received such minimum 
     required tests.
       (3) For each such child who has received such minimum 
     required tests.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2073

  (Purpose: To strike new language regarding allowable use of federal 
                     funds for stem cell research)

       On page 91, strike lines 13 through 18.

  Mr. REID. These amendments have been reviewed by staff and cleared by 
both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with what the Senator from 
Nevada has said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments, 
en bloc.

[[Page S11326]]

  The amendments (Nos. 2062 through 2073) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, 
has an amendment dealing with charitable giving. It is one of two 
amendments we believe remain on this bill. I have spoken with the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and he has indicated that his side 
will agree to 20 minutes, and this side will certainly agree to 20 
minutes. So it will be 40 minutes equally divided. This will work out 
perfectly so we can have a vote prior to the briefing which is going to 
take place in S-407. I propound that as a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the only exception I did not include is 
that there will be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments 
be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2074

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for himself and 
     Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 2074.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam 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:

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds under the National Labor 
  Relations Act for the finding of unfair labor practices relating to 
              certain no-solicitation or no-access rules)

       On page 22, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available under this Act 
     shall be used under the National Labor Relations Act to make 
     a finding of an unfair labor practice relating to a 
     published, written, or posted no-solicitation or no-access 
     rule that permits solicitation or access only for charitable, 
     eleemosynary, or other beneficent purposes.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, my amendment will allow employers to 
permit solicitations by charitable groups without subjecting themselves 
to what I believe is unfair and frivolous union litigation. It may 
sound odd that a law is needed to protect charitable giving, but 
currently when an employer permits such solicitations, it is likely to 
be found by the National Labor Relations Board to have engaged in 
unlawful discrimination unless it provides unions equal access to the 
employer's property to engage in solicitation or distribution for union 
purposes.
  In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the need for legislation of 
this type has never been greater. Currently, the NLRB interprets, I 
think wrongly, the National Labor Relations Act to require that a 
retailer that regularly allows charities or civic organizations to 
solicit or distribute material on the retailer's premises must also 
grant similar access to labor unions who are seeking to organize the 
retailer's employees attempting to communicate a message to the 
retailers' customers.
  Because of this, many of the Nation's largest retailers have adopted 
blanket no-solicitation rules which, unfortunately, include charitable 
organizations, to avoid being found in violation of unfair labor 
practices.
  I want to mention a couple of the many examples that can be given of 
retailers that are affected by the current interpretations of the NLRB.
  Example one: Prior to 1994, Meijer, Inc., located in Grand Rapids, 
MI, exercised its commitment to their communities and use of private 
property rights by allowing various charitable, religious, civic, 
community, and government groups for activities such as fundraising 
activities by groups such as United Way, Salvation Army, VFW, Lions 
Club, Shriners, school groups, and other national and local 
organizations; placement of collection or drop-off boxes by groups such 
as Goodwill, Toys for Tots, Lions eyeglass collection program and 
various community recycling programs; community service activities, 
such as immunization clinics or other medical screening activities run 
by private or government agencies, drug enforcement agencies, and the 
Armed Forces; and the use of conference rooms for meetings and use of 
parking lots for driver training, skill rodeos for public safety 
organizations and as staging areas for groups assembling for bus or 
other trips.
  In May of 1994, the Ohio UFCW Local 954 struck Meijer's four Toledo 
stores. Through the course of events that took place during the strike, 
Meijer prohibited the union from striking on their property. The union 
activity occurred in front of the doors to their stores and blocked the 
entry to the store.
  After successfully obtaining restraining orders, union picketers were 
required to move to the public right-of-way. Prior to the strike 
settlement, the union filed unfair labor practice charges with the 
NLRB. They claimed that Meijer discriminated against the union by 
prohibiting access to Meijer property while allowing other 
organizations permission, charitable groups that were soliciting. In 
the union's charge, they specifically pointed to the Salvation Army and 
the VFW as examples.
  Before the NLRB could complete its investigation to make a final 
decision, there was a settlement that was reached and the charges were 
dropped. As a result of this action, Meijer decided the only certain 
way to keep union picketers from their doors in the future was to bar 
all outside groups from access to their property--no more solicitation, 
no more charitable efforts, no more contributions to worthy causes. 
This was a difficult decision because Meijer had always striven to be a 
good corporate citizen and wholeheartedly supported the kinds of 
charitable activities described.
  Example two: Wawa, Inc., based in Wawa, PA, owns and operates 550 
convenience stores in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and 
Virginia. For years, unions have been trying to unionize their labor 
force and because of this, Wawa instituted a no-solicitation rule. Last 
year, Wawa had to turn down hundreds of worthwhile charities, including 
groups such as the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, because of this 
policy. Because of the events that took place on September 11, those 
tragic attacks upon our Nation, Wawa decided to open its doors to the 
American Red Cross to assist in the fundraising effort for the victims 
of the terror attacks in New York and in the Nation's Capital. To date, 
Wawa has raised over $2 million for this effort. By allowing Wawa to 
open its doors to several other charities, they would be able to raise 
funds for not only the American Red Cross but also the Girl Scouts, the 
American Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other worthy causes.
  Convenience stores are on nearly every street corner and provide an 
easy and reliable dropoff point for charities. Convenience stores have 
nearly 1,000 customers a day and are able to reach out to thousands of 
individuals a week for their contributions. Wawa, because of the 
current NLRB ruling, is putting the future of the company in jeopardy. 
This amendment will provide them protection and provide greater 
resources for American charities.
  When retailers do allow charities to set up shop outside their doors, 
they often have to do so with extreme caution to shield the company 
from unfair litigation. Such is the case for an Arkansas firm that I am 
very proud of, and that is Wal-Mart Inc., in Bentonville, AR, which 
does currently allow charitable organizations on their property. They 
are putting their neck

[[Page S11327]]

on the line to do so. Because they believe in this, they are doing it. 
They understand it benefits the community. But we are asking them to 
remain vulnerable until we have an amendment such as this that would 
provide them protection.
  The current NLRB solicitation rule has a profound impact on the 
neediest citizens of our country. These solicitation rules deny 
charitable and civic organizations the opportunity to raise hundreds of 
millions of dollars a year from retail customers.
  The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated. Charitable donations 
raised through Wal-Mart alone are over $127 million annually. Because 
many retailers are forced to deny access to everyone, there are now 
fewer hot meals for the hungry, fewer toys for poor children, and less 
clothing and shelter for the homeless.
  This amendment is not meant to target unions. Unions are the largest 
contributors to the United Way. They are among the leaders in the 
country in charitable acts. The amendment simply recognizes private 
property rights. There is a distinction between what a union does in 
front of a store and what local charities and civic groups are there to 
do. They should not be treated the same.
  This amendment permits retailers to support their communities' 
charitable and civic activities without requiring them to open their 
property to union activity which could, in fact, drive away customers 
or force themselves to face unfair or even frivolous litigation.
  In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, we need to do all we 
can to encourage charitable giving. I have heard from thousands of 
people since September 11 asking how they can help those directly 
affected by the terrorist attacks. By allowing retailers to open their 
doors to charitable groups, we make it possible for the American people 
to play an even greater role in this recovery effort.
  I received a letter from the chief counsel at Wal-Mart, and I want to 
read part of what he said:

       Wal-Mart's solicitation policy provides charities with 
     access to our stores and customers. Each year over $100 
     million is raised by local grass-roots charitable 
     organizations in front of Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Clubs. 
     Other retailers have chosen to avoid a controversy over 
     various forms of solicitation by simply adopting a no 
     solicitation policy. It is vitally important that our country 
     have a policy that allows retailers to work with local 
     charities to better serve their communities.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wal-Mart letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Wal-Mart,


          Thomas D. Hyde, Executive Vice President and Senior 
                                            Corporate Counsel,

                                                 November 1, 2001.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     133 Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: We appreciate your support of 
     legislation that encourages retailers to allow charitable 
     solicitation at their stores. The Senate amendment you have 
     proposed would enable retailers to open their doors to 
     charitable organizations without being compelled to allow 
     other forms of solicitation.
       Wal-Mart's solicitation policy provides charities with 
     access to our stores and customers. Each year over $100 
     million is raised by local grassroots charitable 
     organizations in front of Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Clubs. 
     Other retailers have chosen to avoid a controversy over 
     various forms of solicitation by simply adopting a no 
     solicitation policy.
       It is vitally important that our country have a policy that 
     allows retailers to work with local charities to better serve 
     their communities. We are grateful for your leadership on 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Thomas D. Hyde.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I also have a letter from the United States Chamber 
of Commerce, and I would like to read that into the Record.

       I am writing on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
     world's largest business federation representing over three 
     million businesses and organizations of every size, sector 
     and region, to express the Chamber's support for the Preserve 
     Charitable Giving Act.
       This bill will provide a much-needed change in the National 
     Labor Relations Act so that it will no longer serve as an 
     impediment to employers that wish to maintain and enforce a 
     valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy and also wish to 
     allow charitable fund-raising or other beneficent acts on 
     their premises.
       We appreciate your sponsorship of S. 929 and encourage you 
     to take appropriate steps to assure its prompt passage in the 
     Senate.

  My concern and the reason for this amendment is that retailers 
fearful of extensive litigation will likely err on the side of caution 
and not permit these acts of kindness and generosity to occur. In the 
end, it is the public that suffers. An approach that allows charitable 
solicitation as an exception to an otherwise valid no-solicitation/no-
distribution rule is in the public interest and recognizes the valid 
distinctions between the kinds of activities engaged in by charitable 
groups and those of labor unions.
  I ask my colleagues to untie the hands of retailers and consumers all 
across America that want to do all they can to help heal this country. 
Allow Americans to stretch out their arms to carry a coat, donate blood 
or reach into their pockets when they travel to their local retail or 
convenience store so they can help those who have been so deeply 
affected during this time of great need in our Nation's history.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I certainly applaud and support all 
retailers who have joined with charities to permit access to 
solicitation in light of the events of September 11 and those that were 
doing it prior to September 11. What my friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas, has said is that many retailers have adopted a 
blanket no-solicitation rule to avoid having to create a similar form 
for labor unions. In effect, that is what he said.
  There has been an assertion made that this interferes with their 
ability to raise charitable donations. Yet his own materials, which 
certainly are available to anyone, show last year charities raised over 
$100 million at the storefronts of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club alone, just 
those stores.
  That is great. I think that is very nice. But it seems to me the 
retailers, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, have done very well without this 
amendment.
  This amendment prohibits funds to the NLRB, the National Labor 
Relations Board, to enforce the laws and rules that require employers 
to provide access to all charitable and civic and labor organizations.
  If the employer provides selective access, it is prohibited. For 
example, if Wal-Mart allows Girl Scouts to sell on the property, or 
they allow the United Way to distribute literature to Wal-Mart 
employees, technically, they have to allow labor unions to distribute 
their literature. That is what this amendment attempts to prevent.
  Wal-Mart has been doing this; Sam's Club has been doing this. The 
NLRB takes this on a case-by-case basis. They are not looking for 
somebody to go after. There has to be some case made, and certainly 
there hasn't been one made of which I am aware.
  The law prohibits selective access or discrimination in places of 
employment. That is clearly what it does. Even when discriminatory 
access is alleged, the National Labor Relations Board examines the 
facts of the case on a case-by-case basis. It has found in different 
cases in favor of both the employer and the union through the case-by-
case method outlined in the National Labor Relations Act. The current 
process of permitting the NLRB to examine the facts is appropriate, and 
it is has worked. This has been in existence for many years.
  There is no need for Congress to arbitrarily discriminate against 
labor unions. That is what this does. This amendment tips the scales in 
favor of the employers in labor-management disputes. That is simply 
wrong. This amendment presumes all union solicitations are directed at 
disrupting employers' businesses. That is not the case.
  Labor unions are active participants in many charitable activities. 
We have seen them on Labor Day at a stoplight. They have the boots in 
which they ask drivers to put the money. The United Way does a lot of 
work, as well as many food drives and local community charities. Local 
firefighters, commercial food workers, and other union

[[Page S11328]]

members are active in many charities and organizations. I applaud the 
retailers who joined with charities to permit access to solicitation in 
light of the events of September 11. That is very important.
  Let's be clear: This amendment is not about increasing charitable 
giving but about discriminating against American workers. That is what 
it is.
  The present system is working very well. This amendment is not needed 
to sustain or even increase these charitable efforts. Frankly, it is 
inappropriate to use the events of September 11 as an excuse to pass 
antiworker legislation. It is discriminatory. This amendment would 
essentially allow employers to be engaged in selective discrimination.
  Current law allows retailers to support charitable and civic 
activities. This law prohibits discrimination. In this context, it 
prohibits discrimination against verbal communication and distribution 
of literature when companies grant access to outside groups to engage 
in communications or solicitations, including charities.
  This basic principle of labor and employment law dates back to the 
1930s. This has been going on for almost 70 years. We don't need to 
change it. In essence, a company cannot prohibit certain types of 
activities that it permits others to conduct based on race, sex, age, 
or, in this case, on workers trying to exercise their legal rights to 
organize a union, to register voters, or to encourage participation in 
civic activities.
  The present system works. Worker organizations should be included in 
the list of those who legally can communicate within the rules 
established by retailers. If a group violates these rules, the National 
Labor Relations Board examines the case and determines if there is 
something that should be done. This is done on a factual, case-by-case 
basis.

  I repeat: The present process has worked. This is an issue of 
fairness. This amendment promotes selective discrimination against 
workers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is simply 
wrong. Most important, it is unnecessary.
  I appreciate the fact that Wal-Mart is based in Arkansas. I met with 
the representative of Wal-Mart the other day. They have a million 
employees--a million employees. They certainly don't need this to 
protect them. They are a very large corporate giant. They can protect 
themselves. The problem in America today is that we have a lot of 
corporate giants and we have very few people speaking out for workers. 
This law has been in effect for more than 70 years. We don't need to 
change it now.
  I repeat, Wal-Mart has done very well. At Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, over 
$100 million in charities was raised within their doors last year. That 
is great. They should continue doing it the way they have and not have 
a program that would allow discrimination against workers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I pick up on a point the distinguished majority whip 
made about Wal-Mart's great success in charitable giving. That is one 
thing on which we certainly agree. That is, that Wal-Mart has been 
enormously generous, giving last year over $100 million to charity.
  The distinguished former majority leader of the Senate just visited 
the Senate, Senator Bob Dole. Senator Dole said: Tell 'em that Wal-Mart 
gave $17.5 million to the World War II memorial. And they did. And we 
are all immensely proud of that and everything else that Wal-Mart has 
done.
  This is the reality: Wal-Mart has been generous. Their customers have 
been generous. And their employees have been generous at the risk of 
the future of the company.
  To say it is working fine is not the case because the vulnerability 
that Wal-Mart faces, that Target faces, that every retailer faces, that 
every convenience store faces--somewhere along the line, a labor union 
may decide to put pickets out in front, and as the customers try to go 
in the door, they will get the message: This company, we don't like.
  That company is going to then face the choice, Do we want to continue 
to allow solicitations for charities or are we going to have to adopt 
an absolute ``no solicitation'' policy that will exclude good 
charities? Right now, we are being forced by a misunderstanding, a 
misinterpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, to allow these 
pickets in front of our door.
  I don't think it is reasonable to expect that generous companies with 
generous employees and generous management should have to subject 
themselves to that in order to do the right thing. That is what we are 
asking them to do now. That is wrong.

  This has nothing to do with saying we are anti-union; it has 
everything to do with saying you don't treat a union activity in front 
of a store the same as you treat a Salvation Army bell ringer at 
Christmastime in front of that store. That is the issue. Let's unlock 
that generous spirit of America.
  We should not require the same kind of treatment for a labor union 
and a charitable organization soliciting in front of a retail 
establishment. It is not the same. I think we all realize it is not the 
same. That is all this amendment does.
  For a year, in the wake of the September 11 attack and the incredible 
need our Nation has, let's not make it more difficult for the American 
people to give and give and give, as they so generously want to do.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I acknowledge the great work the Salvation Army does. Bell 
ringing time is fast approaching. I hope we are not here when they are 
ringing their bells.
  Anything that happens now under the present rules and laws with the 
NLRB does not prevent a single Salvation Army person from taking their 
bucket and ringing a bell. I know of not a single case that the NLRB 
has brought against an establishment for having Salvation Army people 
collecting money there--none. This is a guise, in my opinion, to keep 
unions out of these places.
  Maybe somebody wants to try to organize Wal-Mart. I don't know of 
anyone who does. Maybe they do. The Salvation Army is entitled to 
fairness. But so are workers.

  We do not need to pick on Wal-Mart. We have talked about Wal-Mart. Of 
course this applies to businesses other than Wal-Mart. These businesses 
should be treated no differently tomorrow than they are today.
  I think it is totally appropriate that we look; if someone is abusing 
what they are doing with charitable donations, then the NLRB can take a 
look at it. But there are no cases where that has happened. This is 
only an effort to inflict further punishment on the organized labor 
movement in this country. No one wanted to prevent, either prior to 
September 11 or after September 11, charitable organizations from being 
charitable or collecting money.
  I understand the intentions of my good friend from Arkansas, but I 
believe this amendment would do far more harm than it would do good.
  I am sorry I didn't make my notes more legible, even to me. But this 
does not affect picketing, only literature and donations. This has 
nothing to do with picketing.
  I hope all Members will recognize this amendment as one of simple 
fairness--leave things the way they have been for 70 years. I know of 
no abuses that have taken place. The NLRB, in Republican 
administrations and Democratic administrations, has approached this on 
a case-by-case basis. What are the facts in the particular case? As far 
as I am concerned, they have been pretty fair for 70 years.
  Madam President, how much time does the Senator from Arkansas and the 
Senator from Nevada have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Nevada has 10 minutes.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, the Senator raises some questions. 
He says there is no problem. So perhaps this letter from a retailer I 
mentioned earlier, the Meijer Company, which is headquartered in a 
wonderful State, in Grand Rapids, MI, answers that. Do we have a 
problem? I think they make it very clear in this correspondence we just 
received:
       As a mid-west based retailer, we care deeply about the 
     communities we serve. As a corporate citizen, we want them to 
     grow and thrive. That is why we are pleased to contribute to 
     so many local programs.
       However, since 1994, we have been prevented from providing 
     certain support to

[[Page S11329]]

     charitable and civic organizations due to language contained 
     in the National Labor Relations Act. The language stipulated 
     that if we provided access to our property to outside groups, 
     then we would also be required to provide access to union 
     organizations for the purposes of organizing, solicitation, 
     distribution, picketing or other union purposes. Clearly, we 
     believe there to be a difference between charitable and civic 
     groups, and union activity.
       Additionally, while Americans have generously responded to 
     our national crises, we are beginning to learn how local and 
     state-based charities are beginning to suffer. We believe 
     that your amendment is well suited for this present time, and 
     will permit us to work with such worthy causes.

  This is very simple. The issue is simple and clear. Should union 
activity, including picketing, be treated the same as the Salvation 
Army bell ringer, the VFW, or the Salvation Army and other good groups 
soliciting for good causes? Should community-based charities be 
prohibited from soliciting funds in front of a retailer if that 
retailer would like them to, simply because of a decision by the 
National Labor Relations Board that says if they do one, they have to 
allow picketing and distribution of union material in front of that 
store? That is the issue.
  Clearly, they should not be treated the same. They are totally 
different causes. Retailers, while having great incentive to help 
charities, are not going to have an incentive to do something that is 
going to impede their own businesses. We should make that distinction, 
and this amendment would allow that for this year in this 
appropriations bill, and would allow for this year--a year clearly that 
our Nation is in crisis--to encourage that kind of charitable activity 
on the part of our Nation's retailers.
  I retain the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the 
time will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the Senator from 
Arkansas, and he is going to yield back his time. I will yield back my 
time. There are a number of Members in the Chamber. We can start the 
vote. I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 318 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The amendment (No. 2074) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and 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 Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Gramm second-
degree amendment No. 2055.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from 
Colorado.

                          ____________________