 |
 |
Dear PWPs: Could you possibly email Casey and Sununu again? I did, facilitated by Don's providing the contact info below: Ray # 314 Thursday, April 5, 2007 - ARGUING WITH SENATORS Like arm-wrestling with a grizzly bear, arguing with Senators is not an activity lightly to be undertaken. Every word must be weighed, every attitude and inflection considered-not only from sheer politeness, but because win or lose, they are probably not going away-and we may have to work with them again. Three Senators will have a special effect on stem cell research in the next few days. Two are national: U.S. Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and John Sununu of New Hampshire. The vote of at least one of these two is needed to get that all-important 67th vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will be voted on as soon as the Senate Recess is over. If you have not reached out to these folks before, it would be great to do so now. Bob Casey: Pennsylvania Phone: (202) 224-6324. FAX: (202) 228-0604 Address: B-40 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 http://casey.senate.gov/contact.cfmhttp://casey.senate.gov/contact.cfm John Sununu: New Hampshire Phone: (202) 224-2841 FAX: (202) 228-4131 Address: 111 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 http://www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html The third Senator is from California. Her issue is a state one, but it affects the largest single source of research funds in the world. In one of her previous careers, Sheila Kuehl was a TV star, best known for her performance as Zelda on the classic show, "Many Loves of Dobie Gillis". Senator Kuehl is tough, intelligent, determined, and a natural ally on health issues. She developed a universal health care plan which almost became law in the Golden State, passing both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. We have stood before Senator Kuehl before, advocating for funding for the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act. Ms. Kuehl has always been a member of the Health Committee she now chairs, and in the past she has always supported our small bill. We will be facing her Health committee at least twice in the coming weeks: once as an objector, and once as a supplicant. The pleading will come later, when we try to get an extra million dollars for spinal cord injury research, an add-on to the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act. So while we want to argue effectively against her bill, we also do not want to make her mad, because we will need her help later on. An interesting problem. "Please do not pass your own bill, Senator Kuehl, and let us explain to you why it would be very bad for California-but on the other hand, please do support our bill, even though we am going against you on the bill you want"? This is not exactly a recipe for success. A disguise, perhaps. Maybe we should grow a moustache, hope she does not remember me. No, wait, I already have a moustache and the ladies -- dark glasses and a rubber nose? The reality, of course, is that we must just do the best that we can, and hope for the best. What was it Gandhi said? Something about, we cannot control the consequences of our actions, just the actions themselves? If I had a choice about arguing with Senator Kuehl, a way to avoid conflict, I would jump at it. I really do want the Roman Reed Act to get an additional million. The research we have sponsored has been overwhelmingly successful, and there is so much more to do. But if it comes to a choice, it is far more important that California's stem cell program be able to function without more heavy binding chains of restrictions piled on. Senator Kuehl's bill, SB 771, would impose price controls and revenue sharing requirements on any stem cell products arising from the stem cell research program. What would this mean? Imagine if you were a scientist, who developed a stem cell cure for something-at least, the lab results look very promising. So are you home free now? No, now comes the hard part. You must convince a company to invest approximately one billion dollars to take your idea through clinical trials. (That is the approximate expense of taking just one medicine to market.) Not many companies have that kind of money-- a thousand million dollars-- to invest. And remember, even if they do develop your product, any earnings will be subject to normal taxation, plus whatever fees, permits, and licenses already apply. Senator Kuehl's bill amounts to a new and hidden tax on stem cell research products. It says that any stem cell product ever funded by CIRM in any amount, large or small, must be partially owned by California-in addition to whatever other fees, permits, taxes and licenses apply. Is a company likely to gamble that billion dollars, if they cannot at least own the product? Many companies operate at a three to five per cent profit margin-if the state owns an five per cent, what does that do to the profit? Remember, you are the scientist trying to get a company to develop your product, so you can see it actually helping people-but can it ever be of any use whatsoever, if it does not make it to the market? Would it not be better for a state to take revenues from normal taxation, rather than this pre-emptive part ownership? And, unfortunately, there's more. The product must be available to low-income folks-not at California's lowest price, which is already agreed on, part of the CIRM requirements-but at the nation's lowest possible price. Now this is heavy-duty. Most people would agree that the health care program we have right now is not satisfactory. Medicine and treatment must be available to all. But first the medicine and treatments must exist, before we can make them affordable. If we take away the lure of a decent profit, how will we attract the giant corporations, who are the only financial engines capable of bringing intellectual ideas into practical medicine and therapy? What is the good of research, if it cannot be translated into cures? Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act, was never intended to be a cash cow for the state; it is not a revenue enhancement bill, although financial advantages will spring from it. Our state will absolutely benefit: jobs, taxation, lowered health care costs and, there is a revenue sharing program in place-but money is not why Californians voted Prop. 71 into law. Our purpose is summed up by the CIRM motto: "Turning Stem Cells Into Cures". Anything which interferes with that process, slows down relief from suffering. We have already had too many delays, too much interference. It is time to let the will of the people prevail. Profits should be taxed-not our hopes for cures. P.S. Pride compels me to mention that it was my son, Roman Reed, who came up with the CIRM motto, which was officially accepted by the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee. By Don Reed www.stemcellbattles.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn