[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1734-S1735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Ashcroft):

  S. 368. A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for human cloning 
research; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                          RESEARCH LEGISLATION

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a measure on 
behalf of myself, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Byrd which would 
prohibit permanently the use of Federal funds for human cloning 
research. I am sure most Americans by now have heard about the 
successful cloning of Dolly, the sheep, by Scottish scientists. Many 
people are now asking can similar techniques be used to clone a human 
being? Something that was once thought to be only science fiction is 
now close to being a reality.
  With the legislation I introduce today, I intend to make sure that 
human cloning stays within the realm of science fiction and does not 
become a reality. The bill that I am introducing with my colleagues 
today will place a permanent ban on Federal funding for human cloning 
or human cloning research. We must send a clear signal: Human cloning 
is something we cannot and should not tolerate. This type of research 
on humans is morally reprehensible. We should not be creating human 
beings for spare parts or as replacements. Moreover, a National 
Institutes of Health human embryo panel noted, ``allowing society to 
create genetically identical persons would devalue human life by 
undermining the individuality of human beings.''
  In a September 1994 report of the Human Embryo Research Panel, the 
heading is, ``Research Considered Unacceptable for Federal Funding.'' 
It said:


[[Page S1735]]


       Four ethical considerations entered into the deliberations 
     of the panel as it determined what types of research were 
     unacceptable for Federal funding: The potential adverse 
     consequences of the research for children, women and men; the 
     respect due the reimplantation embryo; concern for public 
     sensitivities in highly controversial research proposals, and 
     concern for the meaning of humanness, parenthood, and the 
     successions of generations.

  The President has said we should study the issue. President Clinton 
has asked a Federal bioethicist board to consider the implications of 
this research and report back to him within 90 days. I do not think we 
need to study this. I think we can save the board some effort because 
the President's own administration has concluded that human cloning was 
``research considered unacceptable for Federal funding.'' There are 
some aspects of life which simply ought to be off limits to science.
  I think it will be helpful to go through some of the ethical 
considerations the board looked at. First, they asked: Is it ethical to 
create genetically identical individuals who can be born at different 
times? Is it ethical to store a frozen human embryo that is genetically 
identical to a born child in order to serve as a later source for organ 
and tissue transplantation; thus treating humans as spare parts? Is it 
ethical to create a genetically identical child as a replacement in 
case the first child dies?
  Again, these are just a sample of the ethical questions the issue 
poses.
  The board concluded the analysis by stating:

       There are broad moral concerns about the deliberate 
     duplication of an individual genome. The notion of cloning an 
     existing human being or of making ``carbon copies'' of an 
     existing embryo appears repugnant to members of the public. 
     Many Members of the panel share this view and see no 
     justification for Federal funding of such research.

  I also should point out an important distinction with this bill. It 
is narrowly drafted so that it only affects human cloning research. It 
does not address the issue of plant and animal cloning research, and it 
will also allow--and I personally strongly support--NIH to continue its 
human genome mapping project.
  I have long been a supporter of biotechnology, genome mapping and 
manipulation, and even plant and animal cloning. But we can draw a 
clear line here. For plants and animals, it makes sense to clone your 
specimens to improve human health and human well-being. But when we are 
talking about creating an entire human being, identical to another, we 
are talking about playing God, and that is where we must draw the line.
  I note, the Vatican and leading ethicists throughout the country have 
called for a ban on human cloning and human cloning research.
  I ask unanimous consent that the names of those ethicists and 
scientists be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dr. Ted Cicero, Vice Chancellor for Research at Washington 
     University in St. Louis, Missouri.
       Dr. Kevin Fitzgerald, a Jesuit priest and a geneticist at 
     Loyola University in Illinois.
       Arthur Caplan, head of the Center for Bioethics at the 
     University of Pennsylvania.
       Dr. Harmon Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at Duke 
     University.
                                 ______