Originally posted by antiquity
A lot of people are talking about the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act without actually reading it or knowing about its legislative history. Despite my many attempts to encourage people to look at the bill and its sponsors, few people have taken the time to learn about the bill, why it sat dormant in Congress for four years, and what it took to get the bill out of mothballs.
- First and foremost, the legislation does not specify the therapies that will be studied, other than to indicate that the purpose of the bill is to encourage research of therapies for paralysis, rehabilitation, and to improve quality of life. It specifies approximately $100 million per year for three years, spread out over several governmental agencies but coordinated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The legislation was arrived at after extensive negotiations with NIH and sponsors of the legislation.
- Second, when the bill was initially proposed in 2002, there was no money attached to the bill. I was on an NIH advisory committee at the time and knew about the negotiations. NIH did not want another unfunded mandate, i.e. to be told to do something but without any appropriations to do the job. Likewise, none of the agencies (such as the Veterans Administration) wanted to have an unfunded mandate given the budgetary pressures that all were under.
- Third, the primary sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives is Michael Bilirakis from Florida and he opposes embryonic stem cell research and voted against SCREA HR.810. Likewise, several of the sponsors and strongest supporters of CRPA in the Senate, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, strongly oppose embryonic stem cell research. The bill would not have seen the light of day if it contained any mention of embryonic stem cell research. Representative Bilirakis and Senator Graham, for example, spoke to the Rally last year. They were able to do so in support of the bill because it does not indicate embryonic stem cell research. The sponsors of the bill are its most important advocates. They are working very hard to gain bipartisan support of the bill.
Therefore, the Rally last year focussed on the CRPA and there was a separate push for SCREA. Please note that the push for SCREA was very successful. The Republican dominated House of Representatives voted 238-194 in favor of HR.810 (SCREA). In the Senate, 42 senators have already signed up as sponsors or co-sponsors of the bill. It is estimated that another 20 senators will vote for the bill. The strategy of separating CRPA and SCREA brought the CRPA closer to passage. We actually have a good chance of getting both bills passed in May. Please understand that the primary supporters of CRPA are people, families, and friends of people with spinal cord injury and paralysis, while many other advocacy groups with millions of people support SCREA.
CRPA is the goal of the Rally and not SCREA for several additional reasons.
• Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (SCREA) is an unfunded mandate. It simply allows the NIH to fund research on embryonic stem cell derived from in vitro fertilized blastocysts that are being discarded by the parents. It does not allow NIH to fund somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis, or any other method of producing cloned stem cells that would involve the creation or destruction of a blastocyst. As I have already summarized in another post on the subject, the NIH budget is currently embattled with significant cuts of research in many fields. The Senate just passed the Spector-Harkin amendment to restore NIH funding to 2005 levels, not even increasing the budget, and the House of Representatives has not yet proposed or passed a similar amendment. So, the likelihood of significant NIH funding of human embryonic stem cell research is low.
• President Bush has vowed to veto SCREA and has not backed away from this position despite several visits by delegations from his own party. While Senator Specter (a Republican senaor who is leading the fight for SCREA) believes that he will be able to rally 66 senators to vote for SCREA to overcome a Bush veto, most political analysts believe that it is very unlikely that 290 representatives of the House of Representatives (only 238 voted for it in May 2005) will vote for SCREA to overcome a presidential veto. In such a case, his veto will stand and we would have to wait for the November 2006 elections for the public to send a resounding message by electing a Democratic majority to the House. We are still too far enough away from the election to predict the outcome of the election. If a Republican majority stays in power, we may have to wait for a change in the presidency before SCREA can pass.
• The House of Representatives has already voted on SCREA and no vote is scheduled for SCREA in the near future. Thus, there is really no point in lobbying representatives from the House on SCREA. A re-vote in the House will only occur if the President vetoes the bill and Senate passes SCREA by a 2/3 vote. Passage of SCREA is a long shot at best. However, many stem cell advocacy groups want Congress to pass SCREA anyway so Bush can be on record on vetoing the bill and this can be used against Republicans in the November 2006 elections. While I understand the frustrations of some people with Bush's obstinate obstruction of embryonic stem cell research, we have to focus our energy on efforts that would make a difference this year.
In summary, some have claimed on these forums that separation of CRPA and SCREA is anti-ESC. I don't think that this is true. To be sure, there are some who do not support SCREA but it is their right and many others support embryonic stem cell research. The CRPA was stuck in Congressional committees for nearly four years. This may have been because there was no money for the bill and Congress was unable to get the enthusiasm up for another unfunded mandate to NIH. On the other hand, it is possible that the bill was held back because some people thought that the bill promoted embryonic stem cells. Last year, when the bill was revived, the primary sponsor of the bill in the House and several sponsors of the bill in the Senate are against embryonic stem cell research. The CRPA enjoys bipartisan support and should not be part of the embryonic stem cell battle. To now make the CRPA part of the stem cell battle, in my opinion, would jeopardize bipartisan support for the bill.
Comment