Most Recent Comments

1) Sen. Switalski's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on December 16, 2006]
Senator Switalski's statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to House Bill No.6292, which is part of what is generally a good package of bills, but this one, I think, we should pay particular attention to. Everybody wants to be supportive of stem cell research, especially cord cell research, which is not as controversial as embryonic stem cell research. But in our haste to support cord blood stem cell research, we should be careful to actually create good policy, which brings us to a review of the proposed tax credit for cord blood donations that are in front of us now.

Please note that the Treasury is opposed. Now, stem cell research is hugely popular out there in the world. Why would anyone be opposed to this? Well, No.1, it costs $13 million and our budget is seriously in the red. No.2, why give a tax credit to encourage people to do something that they will do anyway for free? Now, we've done this before. We have had NCAA and a couple of golf tournaments come to this state. They are already committed and afterward we give them a tax break. But, you know, that was only for like a $1 million; this is $13 million.

Now, think about this for a minute. What else would a person do with their cord blood? They are going to throw it away. It has no value to them. They will gladly sign a form and say, "Please take my cord blood cells rather than throw them in the garbage and use them for research. You don't have to pay me to do that." So why would we give them $13million to do what they will do for free?

We don't do this for any other type of donation. We don't do it for eyes or kidneys or any other internal organs. Why do it for these cord cells? And then, if we do that, how would we then say "no" to a tax credit for eyes or lungs or a heart or kidneys or skin or any other organs or body tissue, and what would the cost of that be?

So we're setting a bad precedent here. On principle, should we really be in the business of paying people for body parts, tissues, or fluids that would otherwise be burned or buried? We should be careful about this issue and defeat this bill.

Reply

2) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on December 16, 2006]
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'no' on concurring with the Senate Substitute for HB 6292, largely because of the cost to state coffers, which is estimated at between $2 and $3 million a year. The Senate changes actually made the bill more expensive, by creating a refundable tax credit. Thus, I voted 'no' on HB 6292."

Reply

3) 2006 House Bill 6292 (Create (umbilical) cord blood stem cell bank ) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on June 29, 2006, to authorize a $100 refundable income tax credit for cash donations to the statewide network of cord-blood stem cell banks proposed by House Bill 6291 or Senate Bill 1355. Under House Bill 6294, this network would be funded by a $5 million earmark from the "21st Century Jobs Fund", a $400 million program that gives subsidies to public entities and private businesses engaged in various “competitive edge” projects chosen by government committees, in this case, by the legislature

The vote was 106 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 980 at House Journal 80)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation