Christopher Reeve

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Oct. 11, 2004

CHRISTOPHER REEVE

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.

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 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 1½ 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.