[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 130 (Monday, October 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11241-S11245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHRISTOPHER REEVE
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, like millions of other Americans, I was
[[Page S11242]]
shocked and saddened to learn last evening and to learn more this
morning of the death of Christopher Reeve. In Hollywood life, he played
Superman. But in real life, Christopher Reeve was a super person, a
truly wonderful individual who embodied the indomitable human spirit in
a way that won the respect and admiration of people across the globe.
Christopher Reeve was a classic example of a person with a disability
who is remembered most of all for his ability, not his disability--the
abilities that he mobilized to become an extraordinarily effective
advocate for stem cell research.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquent and
straightforward presentation of the arguments on behalf of embryonic
stem cell research.
But I want to commend the memory of Christopher Reeve. He marshaled
forces, he traveled all over this country at great expense, and at
great cost to himself personally in terms of his own health, to marshal
the forces necessary to promote embryonic stem cell research.
He spoke with passion and intelligence and conviction. Christopher
Reeve offered hope--not a false or idle hope. He offered hope grounded
in science and discovery, hope grounded in the promise in possibilities
of embryonic stem cell research. Forty-two Nobel laureates--I think
maybe many of them because Christopher Reeve called them on the phone
and visited--came out in strong support of embryonic stem cell
research.
Just yesterday there was a march here in Washington by families and
survivors of those who had ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease. One of those
marchers was a staff person of mine whose father just passed away from
ALS. She and her mother were both in that march yesterday.
Christopher Reeve's argument for stem cell research was compelling.
It was beyond personal. Yes, he did speak once about his own personal
spinal cord injury and stem cell research at Ohio State University in
2003 at a commencement address.
He said:
I come to know people of all ages and from all walks of
life that I would otherwise never have even met. For all our
differences, what we had in common was our disability and the
desire to find a reason to hope. I was inspired by so many
and gradually discovered that I had been given a job that
would create urgency and a new direction in my life. I could
do something to help.
Christopher Reeve really did do a lot to help.
Senator Specter as chairman and I as cochair of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services held the first hearing
on December 2, 1998, after Dr. Thompson of Wisconsin and Dr. Gerhart of
Johns Hopkins isolated the first stem cells. I am proud that our
subcommittee had 15 hearings on this issue. At more than one of those
hearings it was determined that we did have the authority to do stem
cell research from embryos. That was determined. That was determined
before August of 2001.
I also point out that Christopher Reeve very eloquently testified at
one of those early hearings on the necessity of embryonic stem cell
research. We decided that the Government did have the authority. It is
the President's Executive order of August 9, 2001, that limited what we
could do.
When the President says that he is the first President to authorize
stem cell research, that is not so, as Senator Kennedy pointed out. He
is the first President to limit, severely restrict, what we could do in
stem cell research. The President said all the stem cells that were
derived prior to 8 p.m. on August 9, 2001, could be used. Anything
after that could not be used.
I remember watching that address. I was in my home State of Iowa. I
thought to myself, why 8 p.m.? Why not 8:05? How about 8:10? In other
words, if someone derives a stem cell at 7:59, it is okay, but at 8:01,
it is not. What kind of arbitrary restriction is this? Totally
arbitrary.
Because of that, he said there would be 60 stem cell lines--and we
know there are only 22, and as the Senator from Massachusetts said
every single one of those is contaminated because they used mouse cells
on which to grow. So their use in human treatments is highly unlikely,
at best.
The fact is, embryonic stem cell research offers enormous potential
to ease human suffering. That is why this person, Christopher Reeve,
fought so hard. The promise of stem cell research gave Chris Reeve
hope, just as it gives hope for those suffering from ALS, Parkinson's
disease, and diabetes, and all of their families. It is giving my
nephew, Kelly McQuaid, hope. He was injured in the military. He is now
quadriplegic and has been for over 20 years. He has hope that this stem
cell research will allow him to again walk one day, just as Chris Reeve
hoped it would for him.
We know stem cells have worked in rats. It has been proven that rats
with spinal cords that have been severed and reconnected with stem
cells walk again. That has been done in rats. As I pointed out, we
humans are 99.5 percent rats--I don't mean just us politicians, I am
saying genomically, structurally, we are about 99 percent the same
cells. If stem cells can get rats walking again, think of the hope it
has for humans. Yet this President says no.
There are those who say we cannot destroy these embryos because it is
life. This is something I have done before in my committee, and I did
it once with Chris Reeve there. He liked it, so I will do it again in
his memory. I have a pen and a blank piece of paper. I hold this up and
I ask if anyone can see what I put on that piece of paper. What I put
on that piece of paper is a dot, a little dot. That is the size of the
embryos we are taking the stem cells from--a dot you can barely see on
a piece of paper.
People say that is life. Of course it is life. Every cell has life.
All my skin cells have life. My hair cells have life. Sperm has life.
Eggs have life. But they say we cannot destroy these for stem cell
research. They equate that somehow with this human being right here.
They equate this little dot that you can barely see with someone like
Chris Reeve. This is what we are taking the stem cells from, that
little dot.
A lot of people think when we talk about embryonic stem cell research
that somehow we are destroying fetuses. They get this confused. So I
point out it is as big as a dot on a piece of paper. We will equate
that with this human or that dot with my nephew, Kelly McQuaid? This is
the promise of stem cell research.
We already have over 400,000 of these little dots that you can barely
see frozen in liquid nitrogen. They are left over from in vitro
fertilization. Guess what happens, folks. They are being destroyed. The
dots are in test tubes, frozen in liquid nitrogen. Every so often when
the donors do not want them any longer--they had their children or they
reached the age they do not want to have children--they can call up the
in vitro clinic and say, We do not want those saved any longer, and the
test tube is cleaned out and is washed down the sink. It is either that
or use them for stem cell research.
That is why I wanted to pay homage to Chris Reeve's memory today. He
was a great friend, a personal friend. I remember him coming to Iowa.
My sympathies to Dana, his wonderful wife, and their family. But rest
assured, we will prevail.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today with a
heavy heart to pay tribute to Christopher Reeve.
I was lucky to be able to call Christopher Reeve a friend.
His passion for life and for improving the lives of all Americans
serves an inspiration to all of us.
He may have played the character of Superman in the movies, but he
lived the role of a superman through his life.
I consider myself quite fortunate that our paths crossed on many
occasions, in Vermont, at his home in New York, and in the halls of
Congress.
Chris was an outspoken advocate for the arts.
As the co-founder of the Congressional Arts Caucus and, for several
years, the Chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Chris and I shared the belief
that Federal support for the arts was critical.
At a time when the NEA was under attack in 1995, I asked Chris to
testify before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on the
importance of the agency.
His testimony brought attention to the issue, and highlighted the
role that
[[Page S11243]]
arts and education play in the lives of children.
To this day, I believe that his testimony and advocacy helped
preserve the agency through very difficult times.
Later, I turned to Chris again for help, this time on the important
issue of lifetime caps on health insurance policies.
In 1996, as the Congress was writing new laws governing the
portability and availability of health care coverage, Chris helped me
gather support for a proposal to raise the lifetime caps of health
insurance policies.
Chris was an outspoken advocate in support of that proposal, and
shared his own personal story concerning health insurance to raise
awareness for the lifetime cap issue.
His courage and leadership brought that issue to the forefront of the
Congressional debate.
His dedication to stem cell research was renowned.
His testimony before the Congress and advocacy for the issue--once
again--put a human face on the possibilities that could emerge from
stem cell research for those with spinal cord injuries and other
diseases and afflictions.
Chris' commitment to bettering the lives of individuals with
disabilities never ended.
In 2000, Chris traveled to Burlington, VT, at my request to speak
before a disability conference.
It was his first visit back to Vermont since his accident.
He called the disability movement the last great civil rights
movement, saying the primary obstacle for the disabled is other
people's fear.
Chris said:
Changing the public's perception of people with
disabilities takes time. It's about them getting over their
fear. Imagining that it could be them.
And once they know that, once they can really sympathize,
then you get change.
And then America lives up to its full potential.
And I think we're on that path.
Thanks to Christopher Reeve countless Americans will live to their
full potential.
We will continue to work on his behalf on the issues he was so
dedicated to.
I send my deepest condolences to Chris' wife, Dana, and their entire
family.
They cared for Christopher with a love and kindness that was
inspirational.
Dana herself was an inspiration to all of us. She understood the
devotion and greatness of Chris. She helped Chris live out his desire
to help the disabled.
I hope they are comforted with his memory, and the knowledge that
their loss is shared by so many across this Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is now recognized for 10 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his
very eloquent presentation. I agree with him 100 percent. I also thank
the Senator from Massachusetts for his presentation.
As the senior Senator from California, a lifelong Californian, I will
make a few remarks about Chris Reeve.
I remember when I saw Chris Reeve in ``Superman.'' He was 25 years
old. He was amazing. We now learn he did some of his own stunts. And
then what followed was the ``5th of July,'' and I remember ``Somewhere
in Time.'' We saw this tall, handsome actor, seemingly invulnerable.
I remember the film footage when he went over that jump on a horse.
We learned that he had severed a vertebra high in his neck which
canceled out all speech and rendered him quadriplegic for the rest of
his life.
As many know, it is rare that an individual survives more than 2
years with this form of injury. Yet he survived for 9 years. I remember
listening to a CNN interview with Paula Zahn over stem cells. He said:
When somebody lies still and doesn't move anything for a matter of
days, cannot even scratch their nose, let them talk to me about stem
cell research.
In fact, this is a catastrophic injury presenting him with a
catastrophic problem. So many people suffer from many of these injuries
and from catastrophic disease, all of which may well be helped if we go
eagerly, enthusiastically, and scientifically into stem cell research.
That is the challenge. Parkinson, diabetes, Alzheimer's, spinal cord
injuries all can be helped.
Yet Christopher Reeve, who could not move, made amazing progress--not
a recovery but progress--and would appear here before hearings and hold
press conferences and urge us to move forward with a stem cell bill.
I had the pleasure of introducing the first stem cell bill in this
Senate. There are five Members--the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy; the Senator from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Specter; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin--who are cosponsors of
the major stem cell bill. We will be back. We will reintroduce it as
one of our first bills in January in this new session. I will be asking
my colleagues to rename this bill the Christopher Reeve National Stem
Cell Act.
I want all of America, through this bill, to know Chris Reeve's last
9 years on Earth were not, in fact, in vain, that we will produce a
bill that will, in fact, put America on the scientific horizons of
research for catastrophic and disabling diseases and injuries. If we do
not, I believe other States will follow with what California is doing.
California has on the ballot a proposition. It is known as
proposition 71. It would produce $3 billion in bond funds to allow
California to plunge ahead to produce stem cell research. Now, other
States will follow if we do not move with a national bill. So I hope we
will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is recognized for up to 20 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to change that by unanimous
consent to 15 minutes and ask if the Chair would notify me when I have
2 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for
what she said. This tax bill came about because we got into a fight
with our trading partners over export subsidies. At the end of the
fight, they won and we lost. An export subsidy that we had in the
United States had to be taken off the books. So what was a minor
facelift when it came to an export subsidy turned out, after our
friends in the House and Senate got their hands on it, to be an extreme
makeover of the Tax Code. Unfortunately, the American people, who could
not afford the powerful lobbyists involved in writing this, ended up as
the people with the sad faces.
So when we take a close look at what this bill did, what was supposed
to be a quick and minor fix of the Tax Code blossomed into a huge
giveaway of tax benefits and made some policy changes we are going to
regret.
I have been fighting the tobacco companies as long as I have been in
Congress but 15 years ago passed the law which banned smoking on
airplanes. The passage of that law led to some very important things
happening in the U.S. Government and across the board. But I mistakenly
believed that the trend was on our side, that those of us who wanted to
protect children from becoming addicted to tobacco really had the wind
at our backs.
Well, we lost it in this conference committee because we put in the
conference report a provision which the major tobacco company, Philip
Morris/Altria, agreed on which said if we are going to buy out tobacco
growers, then we are going to put FDA regulation in place so we can
protect children from being sold tobacco products that lead to an
addiction that can lead to disease or death.
It was a good, balanced bill, a bipartisan bill. Senator DeWine, a
Republican of Ohio, and Senator Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, put
together this FDA regulation. We sent it to conference and those
conferees who put together this monstrous bill ripped it out.
Instead, they said, we are going to give billions of dollars to buy
out tobacco growers but not one penny to protect children from the harm
of tobacco products.
I will return next year, God willing, to renew this battle with my
colleagues. We cannot give up on our children as this bill did. It is
not the only thing wrong with the bill. It is the one that touches me
personally and one about which I feel strongly.
[[Page S11244]]
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. The bill that was passed by the Senate contained within
it the provision that provided authority to the FDA to protect
children; is that correct?
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. And that provision was then taken out in the conference
with the House Members, stripped out of the bill; is that right?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Maryland is correct. What they took out
of the bill was the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to
list the ingredients on a tobacco package, to put on a warning label
that really means something, as opposed to the meaningless warning
labels that have been on for 30 or 40 years, and to establish standards
and rules for selling tobacco products so children won't become
addicted.
I have never met a parent who has said to me: I am so happy. I just
learned my teenage daughter has started smoking.
I have never heard that said. There isn't a single one of us who has
reared a child who ever wanted to hear they were going to take up
smoking or cigarette tobacco. This bill established protections. Those
protections were removed. Those tobacco lobbyists who have a big grin
on their faces today, because we passed this bill by a big rollcall,
should understand their children are at risk, too. The children of
families across America are at risk as well.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me say a word, too, about Christopher Reeve. I woke
up this morning in Chicago before flying here and heard the news, as
did most Americans, about the death of Christopher Reeve at the age of
52. I saw him in the movies--we all did--``Superman'' and others. He
was quite a handsome young actor who attracted a lot of attention at
the height of his career. Then about 9 years ago he was involved in an
accident which left him a quadriplegic.
I remember the photos of Chris Reeve after this happened. There were
photos of a man in a wheelchair on a ventilator who looked as if he was
just hanging on to life by a thread. He hung on for 9 years, and he
didn't just survive, he used his life and used it heroically.
Let me also say I thought so many times about his wife Dana and their
family. Those of us who are married said we would stand by our mate for
better or for worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. You
never quite know what that vow means until you see someone like Dana,
the wife of Christopher Reeve, who stood with him, helped him every
minute of every day so he could survive.
And he didn't just survive. He fought. What did he fight for? He
fought for medical research so people just like him and others who
would be victimized like him might have a fighting chance in life. He
came here to Capitol Hill and testified, held news conferences,
traveled around the United States with the message.
Why is it important that we not just eulogize this brave man and the
9 years of his life where he showed such courage? Because the issue he
was fighting for is an issue we will all get to vote for on November 2.
Christopher Reeve and many like him, such as Michael J. Fox,
understand that embryonic stem cell research gives them hope, a chance
to overcome quadriplegia, a chance to overcome Parkinson's disease, a
chance for the millions of families who see their beautiful young son
or daughter with juvenile diabetes, just a chance that the research
will open the door to find a cure, really breakthrough scientific
research involving tiny stem cells that you can only see under a
microscope.
Why is this important? Because this administration, the Bush
administration, has taken the position that the Federal Government must
close the door to embryonic stem cell research and only limit it to a
handful of these stem cell lines that were existing on August 2001 when
President Bush announced he had in his own mind reached a compromise on
this issue. It may have been a political compromise to President Bush,
but it compromises the future for millions of Americans.
Some people argue it is a partisan issue: Durbin, you're a Democrat
criticizing a Republican President.
Listen closely: No one has ever suggested that Nancy Reagan is not a
good Republican, and she stood up to fight for embryonic stem cell
research. And Orrin Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah, has stood up
to do the same, and Arlen Specter, another Republican, has stood up to
do the same. This is not a partisan issue.
The position we take on this issue is to take the politics out of
science. We have an opportunity for Christopher Reeve and people such
as him to give them hope and a chance that medical research is going to
open doors and make lives better.
Some want this to be a debate on religion. There are some, by
religious belief, who do not endorse embryonic stem cell research. We
better take care if that is going to be the standard. We could be
walking into a very dangerous area.
There are some, by religious belief, who don't believe in blood
transfusions. So should we say at this point blood transfusions are
immoral for all Americans because one religion or another does not
agree they are necessary to prolong life?
There are some, by religious belief, who believe medical doctors
should not be turned to but the power of prayer should cure your
illness. Should we take that as a moral position for America and say
that we cannot encourage medicine in America? I think not. So why in
this area, when it comes to medical research, are we going to close the
doors that the Bush administration has to the hopes for Christopher
Reeve and many like him, and for millions across America?
In just a few days, there will be a debate between President Bush and
Senator John Kerry--the last one--in Arizona, about the economy. I hope
there is an opportunity for John Kerry to point out these facts:
Forty-seven States under the Bush administration have had a loss of
manufacturing jobs. I am sure this chart is hard to see on television.
In Illinois we lost 135,800 manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years;
almost 40,000 in Missouri; 23,000 plus in Iowa; 52,500 in Wisconsin;
152,000 in Pennsylvania; 164,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Bush
administration in Ohio; 10,000 in West Virginia. The list goes on and
on for 47 States. These are the jobs we have lost.
Trust me, when these jobs are lost, they are not replaced with jobs
that pay as much or that offer the same kind of benefits. These
families are going to have a tough time getting back to where they
were. Why has this happened? The Bush administration's economic
policies have failed. Tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America
have not given us the kind of economic boost that the President
promised.
Look at what has happened in the Bush economy when it comes to
American families' household income. It is down over $1,500 since the
President took office. We have lost ground. We have lost ground for
families who get up and work hard every day to try to make ends meet.
Take a look at what happened with unemployment figures. The Senator
from Maryland got up and told us we have just set a record of 24
straight months of long-term unemployment at record levels. We have
never had that bad a period of time or that bad a stretch in modern
economic history in America. It means you have been unemployed for more
than 6 months. Look at the numbers that they have grown under the Bush
administration, where out-of-work Americans are running out of
unemployment benefits.
This President insists that he is not going to rest until every
American has a job. This President is not going to get much rest
because there are a lot of Americans who have lost jobs. Over 800,000
net jobs were lost under President Bush's administration, which is the
lowest job creation number by any President of any political party in
over 70 years. And this President is offering us 4 more years? I have
to ask, as Senator Kerry did, can America take 4 more years of this?
This administration's approach to the economic problems in America is
not taking care of business. Look what is happening to the workers who
are working harder. Productivity is up 15 times between 2001 and 2004.
Yet wages are stagnant and falling. The harder our people work in
America, the less
[[Page S11245]]
they are paid. That is the American dream? Perhaps it is to President
Bush but not to the families across America.
Meanwhile, how are corporate profits doing in the recession, the
struggling economy? Very well, thank you. They are up 65 percent under
the Bush administration, while workers' wages are going down. The rich
are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle-income
folks are feeling the squeeze. That, unfortunately, is the reality of
their tax policy.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. It is unparalleled in coming out of a recession that so
much of the growth is going to profits and so little of the growth is
going to wages. It is a stark contrast with what occurred as we tried
to move out of previous recessions in the entire post-World War II
period.
The point the Senator makes is extremely important. Productivity is
up. The workers are producing, but they are not getting a return in
their wages. The benefits are going heavily into corporate profits. The
Senator is absolutely correct. And it is a marked departure with
previous performance, where there was a much more equitable sharing of
the economic benefits of the growth that was taking place, and the wage
earner was doing better than under the circumstances we face today.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. In closing, the Senator from Maryland will speak when I
finish and talk about the economic statistics, facts, and figures. That
is the one thing we believe on this side of the aisle.
If this election is to be decided by facts and evidence, the American
people will vote for a new vision of America, a stronger economy at
home, and more respect for America around the world. But if we are
going to let this campaign disintegrate in the last 3 weeks into
sloganeering and name-calling, who knows what the outcome will be. We
trust the facts and the evidence. This administration has failed to
move this economy forward for working families. It has pushed a tax
policy that not only doesn't help them, in many instances it penalizes
them.
Look at what families are up against under the Bush administration.
The cost of medical care and health insurance, up 59 percent; gasoline
is up 38 percent; college tuition is up 38 percent; housing costs are
up 27 percent. Even the cost of a bottle of milk is up 13 percent. When
this President says in Arizona in the next debate that America is
better off under his administration, he isn't feeling the pain families
feel every single day when they try to make ends meet.
Mr. President, this election is going to be a historic turning point
for America. We are either going to move toward 4 more years of the
Bush administration, with economic policies that have taken a toll on
the hardest working people in the world, or we are going to move
forward with a new vision to help families have a better life for
themselves and their children.
We are going to decide, when it comes to foreign policy, if we are
going to continue to squander the reputation and good name that America
has built up over many decades or whether we are going to move to a new
level of respect for America around the world. The choice is in the
hands of the voters on November 2.
I yield the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Maryland is now
recognized for up to 20 minutes under the previous consent order.
____________________