May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6467

Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 3 p.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, in open and closed

session, to receive testimony on tactical intelligence and related activities

in the Army and Air Force in review of

S. 727, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and the

future years defense program.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Immigration Subcommittee of the Committee

on the Judiciary be authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on

Wednesday, May 10, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.,

to hold a hearing on ‘‘Verification of

Applicant Identity for Purposes of Employment and Public Assistance.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

fAN ETHICAL DILEMMA

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is a

lot of emotion and not much rationality to the question of whether we use

fetal tissue to assist people who have

problems, particularly with Parkinson’s disease.

It is interesting that in the U.S. Senate, many of those who support the use

of fetal tissue comprise those who are

totally opposed to abortions.

I believe their stand makes sense,

much more sense than those who emotionally oppose use of fetal tissue.

If for a reason of taste, or culture, or

religion, people are opposed to any

transplant, I understand it.

When I die, if my eyes or any part of

me can be used to be of assistance to

someone else, I want that done.

I would think most people who have

had an abortion would want the same.

The requirements are very strict.

You cannot make any money on it.

You cannot designate to whom the tissue would go. You cannot even know to

whom it is going.

Joan Beck has written a column in

the Chicago Tribune that outlines the

situation clearly, and I ask that it be

printed in the RECORD.

The column follows:

[From the Chicago Tribune, April 30, 1995]

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA—IN DEFENSE OF FETAL

TISSUE TRANSPLANTS TO TREAT NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS

(By Joan Beck)

He was 59 years old and he had had Parkinson’s disease for eight years. His body was

becoming increasingly rigid and immobile.

He had trouble moving and talking clearly.

He had tremors he couldn’t stop and he had

to give up his job.

The medication that had helped early in

the onset of the illness could no longer give

him much relief, despite increasing doses. As

the disease inexorably progressed, he decided

to try a new, experimental treatment, despite the intense political and medical controversy that has marked its development.

Surgeons inserted several grafts of fetal

tissue into one side of his brain. A month

later, they repeated the procedure on the

other side. The transplants came from seven

donors, aborted babies from 61⁄2 to 9 weeks

old.

Within a few weeks after the surgery, the

man’s condition improved markedly, according to a report in the current issue of the

New England Journal of Medicine. He could

once again handle daily activities, even take

part in an active exercise program. He needed less medication, but now it was much

more effective.

A year and a half after the first transplant,

the patient had surgery on his ankle to repair damage from a fracture years earlier. As

he was recovering from the operation, he suffered a massive pulmonary embolism and

died.

Studying his brain after death, doctors

found conclusive evidence that the transplants had worked as hoped. The fetal neurons had survived, grown and were functioning, replacing the patient’s damaged brain

cells, just as the improvement in his symptoms had indicated.

An estimated 200 transplants of fetal tissue

into human brains have been done over the

past several years. Some have been performed in other countries, some under scientifically questionable circumstances. Results have been uneven and often discouraging.

The case reported this week is important

because it is the first to prove that fetal tissue transplants can survive and function and

that they can be linked to a patient’s improvement.

The long-range implications are medical,

political and ethical. The success story offers

eventual hope for hundreds of thousands of

patients, not only with Parkinson’s disease

but also with Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders caused

by brain cell impairment and destruction for

which no good treatment or cure is now

available.

Much research is still necessary, however.

More data are needed about optimal size of

the grafts, whether the tissue can be frozen

in advance, which patients are likely to benefit, how long improvement will last, whether the underlying disease will eventually destroy the new brain cells.

Fetal tissue is considered necessary for

transplants because it can survive and grow

where grafts of more mature cells do not. It

can take on new biological functions, unlike

other cells. And the recipient’s body is not so

likely to reject it.

But the research has been slowed in the

past for political and ethical reasons.

The problem is that such transplants almost always must come from abortions—and

that has raised fierce and intractable opposition from pro-life forces. They see the possibility that women will deliberately get pregnant and have an abortion to provide a graft

for a loved one—or even worse, sell the tissue

on some sort of medical black market.

Even with tight controls, abortion opponents argue, using tissue from aborted

fetuses will make it easier for women to decide to have an abortion because they can rationalize that some desperately ill person

could benefit and that might ease any guilt

feelings they may have.

Should fetal transplants eventually prove

to be of great medical benefit and become

widely used, it will be even harder to rally

the nation to oppose abortion—the source of

such grafts—pro-life leaders fear.

In response to anti-abortion fervor, the

Reagan administration prohibited the use of

federal funds for research using fetal tissue

for humans, a major setback because most

research grants are based on federal approval. Some experiments did continue, however, using private money, and in other

countries.

Under mounting pressure from Congress,

President Bush attempted a compromise. He

authorized a grant of more than $2 million to

study whether fetal tissue obtained as a result of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies—not deliberate abortions—could be

used for transplants.

The answer turned out to be no. Out of

1,500 such fetuses tested, all but seven were

unsuitable because of chromosome errors (a

major cause of miscarriage) or problems

with bacteria and virus contamination.

In 1993, President Clinton finally lifted the

ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research. The use of such transplants is carefully governed by state and federal laws and

government and medical guidelines similar

to those that cover other transplants, including the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act

which has been adopted in all states.

The stark facts remain. Abortion is legal

in the United States. About 1.5 million abortions occur every year. Aborted tissue is now

discarded, even though it holds the potential

for successfully treating several terrible, intractable diseases.

Abortion is a tragedy, as is death from

gunshot wounds and traffic accidents. But

the success of fetal tissue grafts isn’t going

to encourage abortion any more than organ

transplants increase car crashes and murders.

Research is under way to find other means

to treat neurological disorders, some of it

building on findings from fetal tissue studies. But until these experiments are successful, surely it is more ethical and merciful to

try to use fetal tissue than simply destroy

it.∑

TRIBUTE TO THE GREEN

MOUNTAIN BOY SCOUTS

f∑ Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise

today to pay tribute to the Green

Mountain Boy Scouts and congratulate

the Boy Scouts of America on their

85th anniversary. It seems fitting, indeed, that the Green Mountain Boy

Scouts of America will hold its statewide camporee on the historic Rutland

fairgrounds. While 10,000 Vermont

scouts and 4,000 adult volunteer leaders

will be marking the 85th anniversary of

the Boy Scouts of America in June, the

Rutland Fairgrounds prepares to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Vermont State Fair.

To these fairgrounds in 1861 came

1,000 young men to form the First Vermont Regiment of infantry, the initial

unit sent from Vermont to fight in the

Civil War. It is my understanding that

the first night in camp, a chill wind

came down off Pico and Killington flattening many of their tents. It was a

strong omen, for hard times were ahead

for the Vermonters who went off to

fight in that war. Before it was over,

nearly 35,000 young men from Vermont

would serve, and more than 5,000 would

give their lives.

Those lads, every one of them volunteers, established a model of service

from which Vermont did not falter during four bloody years. It is a model

that we still find personified by the

young people, and their leaders, who

fill the ranks of scouting in Vermont.
S6468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

Not only do scouts well serve the

communities in which they live, they

are constantly acquiring knowledge

and skills which will serve them well in

later years—and make them better

citizens. In scouting lies much of the

hope for America in the fast approaching next century.

It is reassuring to know that Vermont still has within its borders able

young people willing to serve in the

best interests of their State and Nation, as did the boys of the long ago

Civil War days.

I want to congratulate the Boy

Scouts of America on their 85 years of

excellent service to the United States

and welcome the Vermont boy scouts

to my home city of Rutland for their

celebration. Rutland is where I served

in my youth as a boy scout. I hope the

Vermont camporee is as enjoyable and

successful as it is historic.

f∑

WORKING FAMILIES ANXIETY

OVER EDUCATION CUTS

∑ Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we should

never lose sight of the meaning of the

decisions we make here for ordinary

Americans and their families. This

point was brought home to me by an

article in Monday’s New York Times,

‘‘Families Await News on Cuts in Education Aid.’’ I ask that this article be

printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

This is a difficult time of year for

parents of college-age children. Along

with their sons and daughters, they

anxiously await college acceptance or

rejection letters and financial aid offers. They worry about children away

from home for the first time, about

summer jobs, about SAT scores and

grades and about the job market for

college graduates. But for the vast majority of parents, the biggest worry is

how they will be able to make it all

possible for their children.

This year, unfortunately, there is another gnawing worry for millions of

families who rely on Federal student financial aid to make college possible.

Serious cuts in these programs are

being proposed. The Contract With

America calls for the elimination of

one of the key pillars of Federal support for college students—the in-school

interest subsidy on guaranteed Federal

loans. The Domenici budget plan calls

for the elimination of this subsidy for

graduate students, but it goes on to

proposes overall education cuts so severe that the subsidy for all students is

called into question.

In addition, campus-based aid programs and other higher education programs are endangered by the severe

cuts proposed in discretionary spending

for educational activities. This casts a

shadow over the future of the College

Work Study Program, the Supplemental Education Opportunities Grant

Program, the State Student Incentive

Grant Program, and the Perkins Loan

Program.

Mr. President, education has always

been one of the most solidly placed

rungs on the ladder of economic opportunity. For generations, American

families have sacrificed to assure their

access to the best education possible.

That has paid off for us as individuals

and for us as a nation. And yet many in

Congress are prepared to turn their

backs on this record of success.

As we debate the budget resolution in

committee this week and on the floor

as early as next week, there is clearly

a great deal hanging in the balance,

not the least of which are the hopes

and dreams of American families for

their children’s future. I urge all my

colleagues to read this excellent article

and consider our country’s future.

The article follows:

[The New York Times, May 8, 1995]

FAMILIES AWAIT NEWS ON CUTS IN EDUCATION

AID

(By Lynda Richardson)

These are uncertain times for the family of

David and Maureen Grau of St. Paul, Minn.

As they await final word on financial aid for

the colleges that three of their eight children attend, they worry what sacrifices will

need to be made, and even which child might

not go.

The Graus know that some cuts in Government aid are likely. In the next several

weeks, Congress will begin considering the

strongest assault in recent years on the

array of college loans, grants and workstudy programs that many lower- and middle-class families have relied on since passage of the nation’s first major Federal student aid program, the Higher Education Act

of 1965.

And across the nation, governors and legislatures are cutting the state university

budgets and considering deep reductions in

aid for impoverished students.

But in the absence of decisions on what

will be cut, the most the Graus can do—like

thousands of other Americans—is make contingency plans and hope for the best. Two

daughters will cram three extra courses into

their full college loads next year so they get

through school faster, saving tuition. And all

three will work full time—or more—this

summer.

Baby-boomers, the Graus were themselves

beneficiaries of Federal student loans and

grants back in the 70’s. Mr. Grau, 44, is now

a registered nurse; his wife, 42, is a homemaker. With an annual income of $36,500,

they save and scrimp. They have not bought

new furniture, other than a couch, in 23

years.

The Graus hold many of the bedrock American beliefs that swept the new Republican

leadership into office. They go to Mass every

Sunday. They are anti-abortion. Each child

has a chore at home. Now, they say they are

feeling betrayed.

‘‘We never questioned whether or not college education was available to us,’’ Mrs.

Grau said. ‘‘Loans, grants and college workstudy were there for the taking. All that was

truly needed was a desire, and now you have

a lot of hurdles.’’

House Republicans have called for $1.7 billion in cuts in money already appropriated

in the $34 billion Department of Education

budget for the 1995 fiscal year. They have

proposed $20 billion in higher education cuts

over the next five years.

The largest cut would come from ending

the Government subsidy of interest on loans

while students are in college, which could

save $12 billion in five years. Currently, a

student who borrows $5,000 for freshman year

owes $5,000 at graduation. Under the proposal, interest would be added to the principal each month, so the $5,000 would become

$6,000 or so in debt at graduation. Students

would see an average of 20 percent to 25 percent more debt when they graduate, financial aid officers say.

Republican leaders, in their first 100 days,

also suggested dismantling Federal aid programs that are managed by colleges, including the Perkins loans for needy students,

Supplemental Educational Opportunity

Grants and work-study programs in which

the Federal government pays 75 percent of a

student’s salary and the institution pays the

rest.

‘‘It is safe to say that every low- and middle-income family with a student in college

and hoping to send a child to college has a

stake in the outcome of the debate that Congress is holding now and will be holding for

the next few months,’’ said Terry Hartle,

spokesman for the American Council on Education, a Washington-based association of

1,700 colleges and universities. ‘‘Many families would find their plans for college disrupted, fundamentally changed or eliminated by major changes in Federal student

aid.’’

But the Republicans who have proposed

them say the cuts are necessary for the financial health of the nation. Bruce

Cuthbertson, a spokesman for Representative John R. Kasich, the Ohio Republican

who chairs the House Budget Committee,

said of loan subsidies, ‘‘We think it’s a matter of fairness. We just put this on equal

footing with all other types of loans one

would receive.’’

The potential cuts have stirred public protests and private anguish. In the Bronx, Elba

Velez, a single mother of three, worries that

the cuts will halt her family’s fragile upward

mobility.

‘‘The programs that are being cut are for

the people who need them the most,’’ said

Ms. Velez, who left welfare behind after getting her degree in the 70’s. Her son is a freshman at Wesleyan University.

Carmen Vega Rivera and her husband,

John, worry that their high school senior

will never go to college. Financial aid was

crucial to Mrs. Rivera’s education. She now

heads an East Harlem tutorial program.

THE PRESENT—BEING MARRIED WITH CHILDREN

The three Grau college students are among

the nearly half of all 14.7 million college students who receive student aid. Two daughters attend Concordia College, a small liberal arts school in St. Paul, and the third is

at the University of St. Thomas there. Besides the subsidized loans, the young women

get a wide array of aid from the Federal Government, the state and the college, and both

work during the school year.

At Concordia, Amy, a sophomore, who

lives at home, received $12,305 in aid this

year. Her sister, Sarah, a freshman who lives

on campus, was awarded $13,308. The total

cost of Concordia is $15,550 for dorm students

and $14,500 for students living off campus.

The Graus pay the rest.

Their older sister, Rochelle, a junior who

plans to attend graduate school, is interested

in biomedical ethics and philosophy. She received $17,028 in aid this year to pay for

books, fees and other expenses at St. Thomas, which has an average student cost of

$16,263.

Rochelle and Amy are lining up full-time

summer jobs, as counter help at a fast-food

restaurant and as an office administrator.

Sarah will work as a counselor at a day

camp.

‘‘They are thinking maybe a part-time

evening and weekend job also,’’ said her