[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.

                          ____________________