[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S318-S325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 1597. A bill to establish food safety research, education, and 
extension as priorities of the Department of Agriculture, to require 
the use of a designated team within the Department of Agriculture to 
enable the Department and other Federal agencies to rapidly respond to 
food safety emergencies, and to improve food safety through the 
development and commercialization of food safety technology; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                     THE SAFE FOOD ACTION PLAN ACT

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing companion 
legislation to a bill prepared by Congresswoman Debbie Stabenow 
entitled the Safe Food Action Plan Act.
  The bill adds food safety as a new statutory priority in the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's research, education and extension programs. 
This should mean that more of the nearly $1.5 billion spent through 
existing grant and research programs, including the Fund for Rural 
America, will be focused directly on food safety. That's the kind of 
awareness that we need, to prevent and combat food supply 
contamination.
  The bill also creates a Federal Emergency Management Agency-like 
approach to dealing with food safety crises. Currently, there are at 
least 3 agencies within the Department of Agriculture that have some 
responsibility for preventing and controlling outbreaks of food borne 
disease, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Centers for Disease Control. This bill establishes a Food Safety Rapid 
Response Team across internal division boundaries within USDA that will 
coordinate with other Federal agencies. If outbreaks do occur, the 
American people must be confident that the government is prepared to 
efficiently handle and limit such public health threats.
  This legislation was developed by Congresswoman Stabenow over several 
months with input from all parts of the food production and consumption 
chain and the Department of Agriculture. It is an excellent complement 
to the Administration's enforcement enhancement proposal. The Safe Food 
Action Plan is a sensible and cost-effective way to make the Federal 
government responsive and responsible.
  I hope the Agriculture Committee will seek to move this legislation 
as quickly as possible, and I urge my colleagues to consider 
cosponsoring this important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Grams and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1599. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of 
human cloning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               THE HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I rise to announce that we are 
introducing a measure that places an outright ban on the use of somatic 
cell nuclear transfer technology for human cloning purposes. Recent 
reports that a Chicago-based scientist is prepared to move forward with 
human cloning experimentation forces us to engage in an immediate 
debate on how far out on the moral cliff we are willing to let science 
proceed before we as a Nation insist on some meaningful constraints. 
When the announcement was made last month that these efforts to raise 
funds for human cloning were going forward, we stated that we would 
move on an emergency basis to deal with this and to express, through 
congressional action, a strong sense that this is unacceptable and we 
must prohibit it. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished 
cosponsors, Senators Frist, Gregg, Lott, Hutchison, Shelby, Nickles, 
Lugar, Abraham, Grams, and Hagel.
  I believe we no longer have the luxury of waiting around for this 
morally reprehensible act to occur in the United States. Less than a 
year ago, the cloning of Dolly, the now famous sheep, provoked a debate 
of unprecedented proportions, a debate which to this day generates 
polar feelings of fascination and fear. We have in this body adopted 
prohibition on the use of Federal funds for research on or 
experimentation in human cloning. The time has come for us to make that 
a flat prohibition and to put our country in league with other 
civilized countries, which are saying human cloning is not acceptable 
and will not go forward.
  Daily news accounts about the successful cloning of animals and 
stories of organizations and individuals pursuing human cloning have 
kept the debate alive. The American public is asking if similar 
techniques can be used to clone humans, and they are concerned whether 
something that was once thought only to be science fiction is now 
closer to becoming a reality.
  Those opposing a prohibition on human cloning suggest that we cannot 
put the genie back in the bottle, and that we cannot stop progress. I 
suggest that in this case our technological capability may be 
outrunning our moral sense.
  The ethical implications of human cloning are staggering. We should 
never create human life for spare parts, as a replacement for a child 
who has died, or for other unnatural and selfish purposes.
  How many embryos or babies would we tolerate being created with 
abnormalities before we would perfect human cloning? It took Scottish 
scientists over 276 tries before they created Dolly, and we still do 
not even know if Dolly is the perfect sheep. What would have happened 
had those 276 been badly deformed potential humans? For humans, these 
results are entirely unacceptable. Dr. Ian Wilmut, the leading Scottish 
scientist who created Dolly, himself has stated that he can see no 
scenario under which it would be ethical to clone human life. I believe 
he is right.
  Moreover, in September of 1994, a federal Human Embryo Research Panel 
noted that ``allowing society to create genetically identical persons 
would devalue human life by undermining the individuality of human 
beings.''
  Further, the panel concluded that ``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.''
  And I would emphatically argue that those statements apply to private 
sector research as well.
  It is also important to note that this legislation is narrowly 
drafted, and it's sole objective is to ban the use of somatic cell 
nuclear transfer for human cloning purposes. We worked overtime to 
ensure that this language was specific so that it would only ban this 
technique which was used to create Dolly.

[[Page S319]]

  This technique has also been criticized by a representative of the 
pharmaceutical industry. In a prepared statement for members of 
Congress, dated January 13, 1998, the representative said,

       While conventional cloning technology has been used 
     extensively worldwide to meet global medical needs, nuclear 
     transfer technology is fraught with untold failures for each 
     partial success, and has major significant ethical issues 
     associated with it. Furthermore, it has no strong therapeutic 
     or economic based need driving it at this time. The concept 
     that it is a viable alternative to infertile parents is cruel 
     and completely unjustified. I would challenge you not to 
     confuse the two as the Congress considers its options here.

  In addition, our bill is straightforward and clear. It prevents a 
specific technology that is characterized by industry, researchers, 
theologians, ethicists, and others as ``fraught with failures and 
lacking therapeutic value.'' This bill, however, does allow important 
and promising research to continue.
  In vitro fertilization research, plant and animal cloning, the 
cloning of DNA, cells and tissues, stem cell research, gene therapy 
research and other activities taking place at the Human Genome Center 
offer great hope in addressing how to prevent, diagnose, and treat many 
devastating diseases. And these types of research will continue to 
thrive.
  I have long been a supporter of biotechnology; however, there is a 
bright line between those activities and human cloning. And we must 
draw that line.
  The belief that all human beings are unique and created by God is 
shared by billions of us around the world. Human cloning, or man's 
attempt to play God, would change the very meaning of life, of human 
dignity, and of what it is to be human. Are we ready for that? Hardly.
  I heard a profound statement from a leading bioethicist. He said, ``I 
have heard from many who wish they could be cloned, but I have never 
heard someone say that they wished they were a clone of someone 
else''--because cloning threatens human dignity, of what it means to be 
a unique individual.
  There is a bright line between those activities--the legitimate 
activities and investigations to improve human life, to deal with the 
significant diseases that we have that might be ameliorated by 
technological research. We have to draw the line between legitimate 
research in medicine and human cloning.
  Human cloning would devalue human life by undermining the 
individuality of human beings. We must show the moral courage and have 
the will to say no to human cloning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1599

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Prohibition 
     Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       Congress finds that in order to prevent the creation of a 
     cloned human individual through human somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer technology, it is right and proper to prohibit the 
     creation of cloned human embryos that would never have the 
     opportunity for implantation and that would therefore be 
     created solely for research that would ultimately lead to 
     their destruction.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CLONING.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 15, the following:

                         ``CHAPTER 16--CLONING

``Sec.
``301. Prohibition on cloning.

     ``Sec. 301 Prohibition on cloning

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
     entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate 
     commerce, to use human somatic cell nuclear transfer 
     technology.
       ``(b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
     entity, public or private, to import an embryo produced 
     through human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology.
       ``(c) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person or entity who is convicted of 
     violating any provision of this section shall be fined 
     according to the provisions of this title or sentenced to up 
     to 10 years in prison, or both.
       ``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity who is convicted 
     of violating any provision of this section shall be subject 
     to, in the case of a violation that involves the derivation 
     of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not more than an 
     amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2.
       ``(d) Definition.--The term `human somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer technology' means taking the nuclear material of a 
     human somatic cell and incorporating it into an oocyte from 
     which the nucleus has been removed or rendered inert and 
     producing an embryo (including a preimplantation embryo).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 15, the following:

``16. Cloning Sec. 301''...............................................

     SEC. 4. COMMISSION TO PROMOTE A NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON 
                   BIOETHICS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Institute of Medicine a commission to be known as the 
     National Commission to Promote a National Dialogue on 
     Bioethics (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 25 members, of whom--
       (A) 6 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (B) 6 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 6 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (D) 6 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (E) 1, who shall serve as the Chairperson of the 
     Commission, to be appointed jointly by the Majority Leader of 
     the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
     in consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and 
     the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Requirements.--Each individual described in 
     subparagraph (A) through (D) of paragraph (1) shall ensure 
     that members appointed to the Commission are representative 
     of the fields of law, theology, philosophy or ethics, 
     medicine, science, and society.
       (3) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed by not later than December 1, 1998.
       (4) Terms of appointment.--A member of the Commission 
     appointed under paragraph (1) shall serve for a term of 3 
     years. Members may not serve consecutive terms.
       (5) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of its 
     Chairperson or a majority of its members.
       (6) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of 13 members of the 
     Commission.
       (7) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled 
     in the same manner in which the original appointment was made 
     not later than 30 days after the Commission is given notice 
     of the vacancy and shall not affect the power of the 
     remaining members to execute the duties of the Commission.
       (8) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall receive 
     no additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their 
     service on the Commission.
       (9) Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall receive 
     travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall provide 
     an independent forum for broad public participation and 
     discourse concerning important bioethical issues including 
     cloning, and provide for a report to Congress concerning the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Commission 
     concerning Federal policy and possible Congressional action.
       (d) Staff and Support Services.--
       (1) Staff.--With the approval of the Commission, the 
     chairperson of the Commission may appoint such personnel as 
     the chairperson considers appropriate.
       (2) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff of the 
     Commission shall be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title (relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates).
       (3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Commission, the chairperson may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Physical facilities.--The Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration shall locate suitable office space 
     for the operation of the Commission. The facilities shall 
     serve as the headquarters of the Commission and shall include 
     all necessary equipment and incidentals required for the 
     proper functioning of the Commission.
       (e) Powers of Commission.--
       (1) Hearings and other activities.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out its duties, the Commission may hold such public 
     hearings and undertake such other activities as the 
     Commission determines to be necessary to carry out its 
     duties.
       (2) Detail of federal employees.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to 
     detail, without reimbursement, any of the personnel of such 
     agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying 
     out its duties. Any such detail shall not interrupt or 
     otherwise affect the civil service status or privileges of 
     the Federal employee.

[[Page S320]]

       (3) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such 
     technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out its duties.
       (4) Use of mails.--The Commission may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be 
     considered a commission of Congress as described in section 
     3215 of title 39, United States Code.
       (5) Obtaining information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any Federal agency information necessary to 
     enable it to carry out its duties, if the information may be 
     disclosed under section 552 of title 5, United States Code. 
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head 
     of such agency shall furnish such information to the 
     Commission.
       (6) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis such 
     administrative support services as the Commission may 
     request.
       (7) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing 
     and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from 
     the Government Printing Office, the Commission shall be 
     deemed to be a committee of the Congress.
       (f) Subcommittees.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall establish 6 
     subcommittees, including--
       (A) a subcommittee on legal issues;
       (B) a subcommittee on theological issues;
       (C) a subcommittee on philosophical and ethical issues;
       (D) a subcommittee on medical issues;
       (E) a subcommittee on scientific issues; and
       (F) a subcommittee on social issues.
       (2) Membership.--With respect to the issues for which each 
     subcommittee has been established, each subcommittee shall be 
     composed of--
       (A) 1 expert to be appointed by the members of the 
     Committee who were appointed under subparagraphs (A) and (C) 
     of subsection (b)(1);
       (B) 1 expert to be appointed by the members of the 
     Committee who were appointed under subparagraphs (B) and (D) 
     of subsection (b)(1);
       (C) 1 individual operating in the private sector who is 
     acquainted with the issues but who is not an expert to be 
     appointed by the members of the Committee who were appointed 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection (b)(1);
       (D) 1 individual operating in the private sector who is 
     acquainted with the issues but who is not an expert to be 
     appointed by the members of the Committee who were appointed 
     under subparagraphs (B) and (D) of subsection (b)(1); and
       (E) 4 members of the Commission with relevant expertise.
       (3) Meetings.--Meetings of the subcommittees shall be 
     approved by the Commission.
       (g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1999, and annually 
     thereafter, the Commission shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report which shall 
     contain a detailed statement of the recommendations, 
     findings, and conclusions of the Commission.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 5. UNRESTRICTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

       Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) 
     shall be construed to restrict areas of scientific research 
     that are not specifically prohibited by this Act (or 
     amendments).

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government 
     should advocate for and join an international effort to 
     prohibit the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer 
     technology to produce a human embryo.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now yield to my distinguished colleague 
from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to support both the intent and to 
underscore the importance of this bill, the Bond-Frist-Gregg bill, 
which does address the issue of human cloning. The purpose of this bill 
is very straightforward, and that is to prohibit human cloning while at 
the same time protecting very important scientific research.
  This bill does prohibit human cloning, a topic which has captured the 
imagination of not only the American people but really the world over 
the past year after the successful experiment by Ian Wilmut, the 
Scottish scientist who successfully cloned ``Dolly,'' an adult sheep, 
using a new technique, a technique called somatic cell nuclear 
transfer. Public sentiment in response immediately registered, and I 
think appropriately so, opposition to the application of this specific 
technique to human beings. Fears that the ``Dolly'' experiment might 
lead to asexual human reproduction nearly drowned out pleas from the 
scientific community to protect legitimate cloning research at the 
cellular and animal level.
  Congress responded to the public fear by enacting a ban on the 
Federal funding for any human cloning research at the embryo level, and 
the President soon after issued an Executive order forbidding 
implantation of a cloned human embryo with the use of Federal funds.
  Scientists in the private sector have been left unregulated, but most 
research societies, appropriately I believe, adopted a voluntary 
moratorium on the use of somatic cell technology for the purpose of 
human cloning.
  Since no imminent threat of human clones at the time was perceived, 
the issue took a back seat to the more visible items before the 
Congress and the country, such as balancing the Federal budget. With 
the exception of an occasional television show, movie or news report, 
cloning pretty much faded from the mental radar screen of most 
Americans. But then not too long ago Dr. Seed gave new life to the 
whole human cloning debate when he announced in a public way his 
intention to use the Wilmut technique to create a cloned human 
individual.
  At that time it very quickly became apparent to virtually everyone 
that without Federal legislation human cloning could, and many feel 
would, occur in the private sector without due consideration to the 
ethical, social, theological and medical implications of this new and 
unproved technique.
  Our collective instinct that human individuals should not now be 
cloned has its roots in the most basic feelings we have about human 
nature. We know that an individual is more than the sum of individual 
body parts, more than the sum of the various organs, and we know 
instinctively that the human spirit, no matter how hard we try or how 
good the science is, cannot be replicated. The science of somatic cell 
nuclear transfer is still today imperfect. Wilmut's technique can be 
dangerous, we know, to the cloned child. In addition, we have no idea 
about the long-term effects of asexual reproduction on the human gene 
pool or on the psychosocial structures of our world.
  Quite simply, we are not prepared for a human ``Dolly'' experiment. 
And our inability to respond adequately to the moral, the ethical and 
the theological implications of this technology has highlighted a 
serious weakness in the fabric of our social structure. In too many 
instances we have allowed ourselves to separate scientific progress 
from those ethical conversations. We no longer can divorce the two. Dr. 
Seed and others have forced us to confront our deficits and to fashion 
timely answers to the timeless question: ``Is there a line that should 
not be crossed even for scientific or other gain, and if so, where is 
it?'' I have used that line in this Chamber before. It is from a 
Washington Post editorial in October of 1994: ``Is there a line that 
should not be crossed even for scientific or other gain, and if so, 
where is it?''
  The debate on this particular bill, and others that address the issue 
of cloning, will have to center around that question, where is that 
line?
  I have a research background. I am a research scientist. I am a 
transplant physician. I am committed to the public welfare through that 
public service of medicine and science. From that background, I 
personally would use four principles that I think must, in my view, be 
a part of any legislation as we embark on prohibiting human cloning. 
First, legislation must differentiate between human cloning on the one 
hand and animal, cellular and molecular and plant cloning on the other. 
It is that human dimension we must address and address very 
specifically in order not to halt the progress of science in those 
other fields.

  The second principle. The legislation must be crafted very 
specifically with surgical precision, with laser-like precision, 
narrowly, yes, so that we will avoid inadvertently banning other 
nontargeted research, research that is critically important to 
improving health care for the current generation as well as that next 
generation, important research that we must protect in terms of stem 
cell research, in vitro fertilization, our search for cures of juvenile 
diabetes, our attack on prevention and cure of cancer.
  The third principle that I would encourage my colleagues to adopt as 
we

[[Page S321]]

embark upon this banning of human cloning is that the legislation must 
prevent the specific technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer, the 
specific technique, because of its potential to facilitate the mass 
production of cloned human embryos that could be created solely for 
research and ultimately destroyed.
  Fourth, the legislation must include the creation of a new permanent 
bipartisan commission that is representative of the American people, 
representative of science, representative of our ethical thinking, 
representative of theology, so that we can more adequately address in a 
sophisticated, mature way, consistent with the science and ethical 
thinking of today, the many issues that are going to face us in this 
arena of bioethics, this rapidly oncoming onslaught of science, and 
very good science as we look to the future. Science is critically 
important as we learn better to address the ravages of disease.
  Two temptations threaten both science and ethics in the current 
environment. On the one hand, we have the pressure on legislators, 
often unfamiliar with the specifics of scientific issues, to rush out 
and draft laws that could hamper important research efforts if we are 
not very careful. And on the other hand, almost in parallel, is this 
tendency on the part of some scientists to say, no, we don't need that 
type of intervention, that type of oversight of ethics, of laws. Thus 
we have science and we have ethics that are almost lost in this 
political morass and the public meanwhile stays outside, all too often 
frightened, uninvolved, and unengaged.
  This cloning debate, I think, maybe for the first time in the history 
of this body, forces us to address what is inevitable as we look to the 
future, and that is a rapid-fire, one-after-another onslaught of new 
scientific technological innovation that has to be assimilated into our 
ethical-social fabric.
  Thus, this bioethics commission is important to consider these future 
innovations as they come forward. Right now there are no fewer than six 
legislative proposals that are either on the table or soon to be on the 
table on this issue of banning human cloning. These bills range from a 
sweeping prohibition of all types of cloning to really some very 
symbolic bans. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, the 
commission that was appointed by and that reports to President Clinton, 
did a good job of trying to assimilate the information on the cloning 
under their very short, 90-day deadline last year. But they, as hard as 
they tried, were unable to substantively address the ethical issues 
surrounding human cloning.
  The commission cited at the time that they had inadequate time to 
tackle these difficult ethical issues in the context of our pluralistic 
society, and they focused primarily on scientific concerns, as well as 
the less abstract issue of safety--a really proscribed area of safety, 
saying that the technique today is not safe or has not been proven to 
be safe. And then they appealed, to us, as Americans--to take this to 
the public square, take this out to the people around America and talk 
to them and look for the sort of leadership that we need on forming a 
national policy on human cloning.
  In an effort to follow up on the recommendations of the National 
Bioethics Commission, the Senate Labor Committee's Subcommittee on 
Public Health and Safety, which I chair, on June 17, 1997, held a 
hearing. That hearing was entitled ``Ethics and Theology: A 
Continuation of the National Discussion on Human Cloning.'' And we 
heard outstanding testimony on all sides of the issue, from Christian, 
Islamic and Jewish traditions and from philosophers and theologians, 
all well schooled in biomedical ethics. We launched a much broader 
public debate with questions about the nature of human individuality, 
about family, about social structure. However, the time has now shown 
that both a Presidential commission and the U.S. Congress are really 
inadequate forums to fully address the diversity, the richness, the 
fabric of these bioethical issues and their importance as we look to 
the future.
  I, therefore, today, through our legislation, propose creation of a 
new, permanent, independent national bioethics commission, 
representative of the public at large, with the combined participation 
of experts in law, ethics, theology, medicine, social science, 
philosophy, coupled with interested members of the public. It is my 
hope that this public commission, in an environment where it can 
capture the diversity of our society today, will forge a new path for 
our country in the field of bioethics, in considering new techniques 
and new innovation; that they will enable us to have an informed, 
ongoing, thoughtful, scientific debate in the public square, without 
fear or politics driving our decisions.
  In this proposal the majority and minority leaders of Congress would 
appoint members of the panel, but no current Member of Congress or 
administration political appointee would participate during his or her 
term of office. Individuals would serve for 3 years. There would be 24 
such members, six subcommittees looking at the various fields that I 
have mentioned. Each and every citizen should have an opportunity to 
participate in these ongoing bioethical debates.
  I anticipate that some may question the role of theology in a public 
policy debate. Certainly the President's advisory commission found that 
their considerations were incomplete without examining the religious 
mores of our culture. Indeed, our Founding Fathers also recognized that 
public policy could not be formulated in a theological vacuum. While 
they forbade the establishment of a state religion, they simultaneously 
affirmed the rights of God-fearing people to make their voices heard in 
the public arena. Today, and throughout history, religion has been a 
primary source of the beliefs governing these decisions for men and 
women of all races, of all creeds.
  While these four principles that I outlined earlier start as the 
basic foundation, we do need to reach out and receive the input of 
others as we embark upon consideration of this piece of legislation. 
With these four principles it is my hope that we can build a bipartisan 
coalition of support for a ban on human cloning.
  I do call upon my colleagues in the scientific community to step 
forward and participate in the ongoing debate in good faith. We have 
much to gain from your expertise, and the public has much to gain from 
your ongoing work.
  In recent days, many in the biotechnology community have argued that 
the mass production of cloned human embryos for research purposes is 
vital to their research efforts. I appeal to them this afternoon to 
take one step back and recognize that this legislation does not 
prohibit the vast majority of all current embryo and stem cell 
research, and acknowledge that there are serious ethical dilemmas 
associated with churning out human embryos as if they were products on 
an assembly line.

  Let us have no more hedging about what is and what is not an embryo. 
Biologically it is clear. Proponents of embryo research have always 
been quite open that they are seeking to do embryo research because the 
embryo is biologically unique. So I say to those in the research 
community, this legislation does not threaten your ongoing embryo 
research. It does not limit your ability to experiment with stem cells, 
with gene therapy, with in vitro fertilization. Help us stop Dr. Seed 
dead in his tracks. Keep this issue focused on human cloning and join 
our efforts to create a new commission to deal with these issues on an 
ongoing basis.
  The Washington Post, in 1994 said:

       The creation of human embryos specifically for research 
     that will destroy them is unconscionable. . .. Viewed from 
     one angle this issue can be made to yield endless 
     complexities. What about the suffering of individuals and 
     infertile couples who might be helped by embryo research? 
     What about the status of the brand new embryo? But before you 
     get to these questions [the Post says] there is a simpler 
     one.

  It is the question I read a few minutes ago at the beginning of my 
statement and I will read it again. It is:

       Is there a line that should not be crossed, even for 
     scientific or other gain, and if so, where is it?

  As the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine has said in the 
past:

       Knowledge, although important, may be less important to a 
     decent society than the way it is obtained.

  This is where the debate will be over the next several days. I 
believe that an

[[Page S322]]

honest ban on human cloning must begin at the level of the activation 
of the embryo, not later at some point, at the time of implantation. Is 
the Federal Government capable of preventing a woman from implanting an 
embryo derived from her own genetic makeup into her own womb? Is it 
wise to perfect our cloning techniques on embryos when we forbid their 
implantation? Yes, I think we need to start the ban at the time of the 
activation of the embryo.
  In closing, it is clearly vital that our public debate and reflection 
on scientific developments keep pace with and even anticipate and 
prepare us for this, really, rush of new scientific knowledge that is 
coming toward us each and every day. The moral and ethical dilemmas 
that are inherent in the cloning of human beings may well be our 
greatest test to date. We don't simply seek knowledge, but we seek the 
wisdom to apply that knowledge. As with each of those mind-boggling 
advances of the last century, we know that there is the potential both 
for good and evil. Our task as legislators is to reflect the public 
trust, to define the role of the Federal Government in harnessing this 
technology for the good. Our task as citizens is to exercise 
responsible stewardship of the precious gift of life.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1600. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive 
in the case of multiemployer plans the section 415 limit on benefits to 
the participant's average compensation for his high 3 years; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                   INTERNAL REVENUE CODE LEGISLATION

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code 
limits annual pension benefits from multiemployer plans to the average 
of the three highest consecutive years of income while a worker was 
covered by the plan. The bill I am introducing today will exempt 
multiemployer pension plans from the income-based limitations imposed 
by Section 415.
  Section 415 was enacted in an effort to prevent the ``gaming'' which 
occasionally occurred in single employer pension plans. Such gaming 
occurred when an employee's salary was significantly increased the year 
before retirement in order to increase that employee's retirement 
benefits. Single employer plans, unlike multiemployer plans, are 
generally based upon an employee's salary prior to retirement. 
Reportedly, from time-to-time, such gaming did occur in single employer 
plans.
  Multiemployer plans, conversely, are generally based on the number of 
years an employee has worked, plus the collectively-bargained-for 
dollar amount of contributions made into the plan. Therefore, such 
gaming generally did not occur in multiemployer plans. Section, 415, 
however, does not distinguish between multiemployer plans and single 
employer plans. Instead, section 415 assumes the salaries of all 
workers increase steadily over the course of their employment. In fact 
however, for many workers, particularly those that belong to 
multiemployer pension plans, there is no such steady increase in 
earnings. Rather, the salaries of these workers tend to fluctuate over 
the course of their employment. Because of these fluctuations, the 
three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan 
participants are not necessarily consecutive.
  Congress recognized this inequity and in 1996, as part of the Small 
Business and Jobs Protection Act (Pub. L. 104-188), exempted public 
employee pension plans from Section 415. This exemption, however, was 
not extended to private sector employees covered by multiemployer 
pension plans. The bill I have introduced today exempts multiemployer 
pension plans, single employer plans would still be subject to Section 
415 limitations.
  Congressman Peter J. Visclosky introduced similar legislation in 
April 1997 in the House of Representatives. His bill has bipartisan 
support in the House. I hope that my bill will receive similar support 
here in the Senate. Private sector employees, who are covered by 
multiemployer pension plans, should receive the same treatment as 
public sector employees. My bill will alleviate the disparity which now 
exists.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1600

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415 
                   LIMIT ON BENEFITS.

       Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special limitation rule for 
     governmental plans) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and multiemployer 
     plans'' after ``governmental plans''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or a multiemployer plan (as defined in 
     section 414(f))'' after ``governmental plan (as defined in 
     section 414(d))''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to plan years 
     beginning after December 31, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1602. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit 
any attempt to clone a human being using somatic cell nuclear transfer 
and to prohibit the use of Federal funds for such purposes, to provide 
for further review of the ethical and scientific issues associated with 
the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer in human beings, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


         the prohibition on cloning of human being act of 1998

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Kennedy and I are 
introducing legislation that would prohibit, for a period of ten years, 
any person from attempting to clone a human being using somatic cell 
nuclear transfer technology.
  The reason for this legislation is simple: the cloning of a human 
being today remains scientifically dangerous, morally unacceptable, and 
ethically flawed.
  Let me be clear about the intent of this legislation right at the 
outset: I am opposed to human cloning. I do not believe it is, or will 
ever be, morally acceptable to clone human beings.
  This legislation was carefully drafted so that it would not prevent 
or interfere with vital biomedical research into cancer and other 
diseases, birth defects, infertility, and the mass production of drugs 
and vaccines.
  The Bill authorizes the continuation of the National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission, and requires the Commission to report to the 
President and the Congress in 4\1/2\ years and 9\1/2\ years on the 
science and ethical issues associated with this technology.
  The Commission's reports to Congress will also include a 
recommendation as to whether the moratorium should be continued beyond 
the ten years set by this legislation.


                   technology outpaces public policy

  The successful cloning of a sheep in Scotland last year, using a 
procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, was hailed as an 
amazing scientific success.
  But it also ignited a fierce international debate about the potential 
use of this technique to clone human beings, and the ethical, legal and 
religious questions raised by such a possibility.
  Chicago-area physicist Dr. Richard Seed stirred that debate into full 
force last month when he told the media that he intends to clone human 
beings.
  He said that there were ten clinics in the United States interested 
in offering cloning services and that he believes the demand will be 
for over 200,000 cases per year, according to the American Medical 
News.
  Setting aside the fact that Dr. Seed's claims are somewhat 
implausible at the moment given the rudimentary state of cloning 
technology, he did hit a nerve.
  This is a classic example, in my view, of how the lightening speed 
with which we are able to develop new technologies can sometimes get 
ahead of society's ability to handle these advances.
  I do not believe that, today, we know enough to permit human cloning, 
or to make a permanent determination about the use of this technology.
  But, when writing laws that would have such an enormous impact on an 
entire field of science--science that includes the development of 
lifesaving 

[[Page S323]]

new therapies for disease, the prevention of birth defects, and 
fertility--Congress has a responsibility to be prudent and judicious in 
drafting legislation.

  In preparing this legislation, Senator Kennedy and I, and our staffs, 
met with representatives from: The National Bioethics Advisory 
Commission; The National Institutes of Health; The American Society for 
Reproductive Medicine; The Biotech Industry Association; The Department 
of Health and Human Services; The Food and Drug Administration.
  Included in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission were members 
of the religious and medical ethics communities.
  This bill is carefully drafted to prohibit attempts to clone a human 
being, while not impeding other important research involving somatic 
cell nuclear transfer technology, and the cloning of cells, tissues, 
DNA and animals.


                          procedure is unsafe

  One compelling reason to prohibit attempts to clone human beings at 
this time is the fact that the technology is so new that it is unsafe 
even in animals.
  Dolly, the famous cloned sheep, was the only success out of 277 
attempts, and the procedure has not been repeated successfully 
(although there are reports of the pending birth of at least one calf 
using the same cloning procedure).
  The National Bioethics Advisory Commission concluded that attempting 
to use this process to clone humans would involve unacceptable risks to 
the fetus or potential children, possibly resulting in multiple 
miscarriages, developmental abnormalities, and unknown risks to the 
mother.
  Even if and when concerns about safety are resolved, the ethical 
concerns of cloning humans still remain.
  This 10-year moratorium will allow us the time to study and debate 
this issue fully--which we as a society need to do because the science 
is not going to go away, and we will have to have a greater 
understanding of it to make informed decisions on its use.


                must not impede other important research

  The term ``cloning'' is used by scientists to describe various 
techniques that involve duplication of biological material, both animal 
and human.
  A blanket ban on cloning, or on use of the nuclear cell transplant 
technique to clone, would be too broad, and would deprive the United 
States--and the world--of invaluable biological research.
  The cloning technique that was used to produce Dolly, somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, was an extension of experiments carried out over 40 
years to facilitate understanding of how development of an animal from 
a single fertilized egg is carried out.
  The agricultural industry has been using nuclear transplantation 
research to try to improve livestock breeding.
  Biotechnology companies are exploring ways to use cloning to improve 
the production of therapeutic drugs.
  And health researchers are hoping that a greater understanding of 
nuclear transplantation cloning can lead to new treatment for human 
disease.


                                 cancer

  A report issued by the National Institutes of Health, dated January 
29, indicates that cloned tissue culture cells have allowed scientists 
to test potential chemotherapies on cancerous cells, to study the 
cellular events leading to cancer, and to mass-produce drugs and 
vaccines.


                                diabetes

  Cloning technology, using somatic cell nuclear transfer, could teach 
scientists how to augment the insulin-producing cells in diabetics 
using cells from their own bodies.
  Not only could cloning technology revolutionize the treatment for 
diabetes--it could potentially provide a cure for this debilitating 
disease.


                              skin grafts

  Somatic cell nuclear transfer might also be used in the future to 
create skin grafts for people who are severely burned.
  In severe burn cases, many times there is not enough healthy skin on 
the victim to perform a skin graft, so doctors are forced to use skin 
from cadavers or skin cells grown in tissue culture.
  In both cases, the skin is genetically different from the burn 
victim, and while it provides material for emergency grafting, this 
skin is ultimately rejected and the patient must undergo numerous 
grafting.
  Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning could allow skin to be 
generated from virtually any of the burn victim's cells, which would be 
genetically identical and therefore should not be rejected.
  The life-saving possibilities for this technology are enormous:
  The creation of nerve stem cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases 
such as multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease, 
Parkinson's disease, and to help repair injuries of the spinal cord.
  Bone marrow stem cells, for the treatment of leukemia, sickle cell or 
other blood diseases.
  Liver cells to treat liver damage.
  Muscle cells to treat muscular dystrophy and heart disease.
  Cartilage-forming cells to reconstruct joints damaged by injury or 
arthritis.
  The cloning of cells in culture has reduced the use of live animals 
in research and has allowed studies of human cells that could not be 
done otherwise.
  As scientists from NIH clearly warn, without future research 
exploring this cloning technology, these and other potential life-
saving possibilities will be unrealized.
  NIH scientists also make clear that all of these possibilities can be 
accomplished without using this technology to create, or attempt to 
create, a human being.
  A letter signed by more than 50 medical and patient organizations 
sent to Members of Congress last week warning very clearly of the 
danger in drafting legislation to ban cloning.
  In the letter they say:

       Poorly crafted legislation to ban the cloning of human 
     beings may put at risk biomedical research, such as the use 
     of cloning techniques on human cells, genes and tissues, 
     which is vital to finding the cures to the diseases and 
     ailments which our organizations champion.


             the differences with the president's proposal

  The bill we are introducing today is very similar to the President's 
bill which he sent to Congress on June 10, 1997. But it differs from 
the President's in five important aspects.
  First, it adds additional provisions to prevent anyone from cloning 
or even attempting to clone a human being. In addition to the outright 
prohibition on cloning a human being, the bill prohibits the use of 
Federal funds for such a purpose. Furthermore, the bill prohibits 
shipping the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer in interstate or 
foreign commerce for the purpose of attempting to clone a human being. 
This provision will ensure that no one may attempt to evade the law by 
shipping the product of somatic nuclear cell transfer overseas for the 
purpose of cloning a human being.
  Second, it stiffens already tough penalties in the President's bill 
to deter any attempt at cloning a human being. The bill provides a 
penalty of $1,000,000 or three times the gross gain or loss from such a 
violation, whichever is greater. In addition, the bill provides that 
any property used in an attempt to violate the act, as well as any 
property traceable to such an attempted violation, will be forfeited. 
Furthermore, the Attorney General, who is solely empowered to enforce 
the act, is granted the power of injunction to immediately enjoin 
violations.
  Third, the bill preempts state laws that prohibit or restrict 
research regarding, or practices of, somatic cell nuclear transfer, 
mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy, or the cloning of molecules, DNA, 
cells, tissues, organs, plants, animals, or humans.
  This provision is important because I believe we need a consistent 
national policy and we should discourage the practice of ``forum 
shopping'' from state to state for lenient laws.

  This bill is not intended to preempt state laws such as California 
Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 12, Section 367g, and California Business 
and Professions Code Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 12, Section 2260, 
which require that physicians and other medical personnel obtain signed 
written consent from patients before sperm, ova, or embryos are used 
for any purpose other than reimplantation in the same patient or in 
their spouse, and require that any use

[[Page S324]]

of sperm, ova, or embryos of donors comply with the written intent of 
the donor.
  The California statues were passed in order to address serious 
allegations by at least 60 California families, that medical personnel 
at fertility clinics at the University of California at Irvine and the 
University of California at San Diego transferred donors' sperm, ova, 
or embryos to researchers or implanted them in other women, without 
donors' knowledge or consent. These allegations raise grave concerns 
about serious violations of personal integrity and privacy. This 
legislation is in no way intended to preempt or interfere in any way 
with these California statutes, or with related statutes that would 
have a similar effect.
  Fourth, the bill we are introducing urges the President to cooperate 
with foreign countries to enforce restrictions on human cloning. Other 
countries are moving to ban human cloning and we should join them so 
that scientists cannot evade our laws by moving their operations 
offshore.
  Finally, our bill establishes a 10-year ban, as opposed to the 5-year 
ban in the President's recommended legislation.
  It is conceivable that there could be incredible scientific 
breakthroughs with cloning technology over the next 3 to 5 years.
  But developing a legal and moral framework for understanding of the 
potential use and abuse of this technology will take much longer.
  This legislation sunsets after 10 years, during which time the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission must keep Congress and the 
President informed on the status of the science, its potential uses for 
society, and make recommendations on whether to continue the 
prohibition.
  Congress can extend the ban temporarily or permanently at any time 
during or after the ten year period if it so chooses.


                               conclusion

  Creating life outside of the normal reproductive process has 
challenged many of our basic beliefs--never more so than with the 
notion of cloning a human being.
  It is important that we as a society engage in a rigorous public 
debate to fully understand the science, the dangers, the potential 
benefits, and the moral and legal implications of this technology.
  Throughout history, science has empowered humankind to achieve things 
never before believed possible. Our challenge is to harness this power 
without losing control over our own lives, or the moral compass that 
guides us.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the 
letter to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 February 2, 1998.

         Regarding: Legislation to Ban Cloning of Human Beings

       Dear Member: We are writing to express our concern about 
     legislation pending in the Congress to ban the cloning of 
     entire human beings.
       Let us be clear. We oppose the cloning of a human being. We 
     see no ethical or medical justification for the cloning of a 
     human being and agree with the conclusions of the National 
     Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) that it is unacceptable 
     at this time for anyone in the public or private sector, 
     whether in a research or clinical setting, to create a human 
     child using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. We 
     recognize that this application of the technology raises 
     fundamental ethical and social issues. This technology is not 
     currently safe to use in humans.
       The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the 
     Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Federation of 
     American Societies of Experimental Biology have all stated 
     that their members will not seek to clone a human being. 
     These three associations include essentially every researcher 
     or practitioner in the United States who has the scientific 
     capability to clone a human being.
       We agree with NBAC in its report on cloning that: ``It is 
     notoriously difficult to draft legislation at any particular 
     moment that can serve to both exploit and govern the rapid 
     and unpredictable advances of science.'' Poorly crafted 
     legislation to ban the cloning of human beings may put at 
     risk biomedical research, such as the use of cloning 
     techniques on human cells, genes and tissues, which is vital 
     to finding the cures to the diseases and ailments which our 
     organizations champion. Cancer, diabetes, allergies, asthma, 
     HIV/AIDS, eye diseases, spinal cord injuries, Guillain-Barre 
     syndrome, Gaucher disease, stroke, cystic fibrosis, kidney 
     cancer, Alzheimer's disease, tuberous sclerosis, tourette 
     syndrome, alcoholism, autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis, 
     Parkinson's disease, infertility, heart disease, diseases of 
     aging, ataxia telangiectasia and many other types of research 
     will benefit from the advances achieved by biomedical 
     researchers.
       We urge the Congress to proceed with extreme caution and 
     adhere to the ethical standard for physicians, ``first do no 
     harm.'' We believe that there are two distinct issues here, 
     cloning of a human being and the healing which comes from 
     biomedical research. Congress must be sure that any 
     legislation which it considers does no harm to biomedical 
     research which can heal those with deadly and debilitating 
     diseases.
       Please keep patients' concerns in mind as you proceed in 
     analyzing this very complicated issue.
           Sincerely,
         AIDS Action Council; Allergy and Asthma Network/Mothers 
           of Asthmatics, Inc.; Alliance for Aging Research; 
           Alzheimer Aid Society; American Academy of Optometry; 
           American Academy of Pediatrics; American Association 
           for Cancer Education; American Association for Cancer 
     Research; American Autoimmune Related Diseases 
     Association; American College of Cardiology; American 
     College of Medical Genetics; American Diabetes 
     Association; American Heart Association; American 
     Paralysis Association; American Pediatric Society.
         American Society for Reproductive Medicine; American 
           Uveitis Society; Americans for Medical Progress; 
           Association of Medical School Pediatric Department 
           Chairmen; Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses; 
           Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America; A-T Children's 
           Project; Cancer Research Foundation of America; Cancer 
           Care, Inc.; Cancervive; Candlelighter's Childhood 
           Cancer Foundation; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; 
           Foundation for Biomedical Research; Guillain-Barre 
           Syndrome Foundation International; International 
           Patient Advocacy Association.
         Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; Juvenile 
           Diabetes Foundation International; Kent Waldrep 
           National Paralysis Foundation; Log Cabin AIDS Policy 
           Institute; National Alliance for Eye and Vision 
           Research; National Alliance of Breast Cancer 
           Organizations (NABCO); National Association for 
           Biomedical Research; National Campaign to End 
           Neurological Disorders; National Coalition for Cancer 
           Research; National Foundation for Cancer Research; 
           National Gaucher Foundation; National Kidney Cancer 
           Association; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National 
           Patient Advocate Foundation; National Stroke 
           Association.
         National Tuberous Sclerosis Association; Oncology Nurses 
           Association; Outpatient Ophthalmic Surgery Society, 
           Inc.; Parkinson's Action Network; Radiation Research 
           Society; Research! America; Research Society on 
           Alcoholism; RESOLVE; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; 
           Society for Pediatric Research; Tourette Syndrome 
           Association, Inc.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several months ago, the world learned of 
one of the most astounding developments in modern biology: the cloning 
of a sheep named Dolly. This extraordinary scientific achievement 
awakened widespread concern about the possibility of a brave new world, 
where human beings would be cloned and where individuals would seek to 
achieve a kind of immortality by reproducing themselves. There is 
widespread agreement among scientists, ethicists, and ordinary 
Americans that production of human beings by cloning should be 
prohibited, at least until the possibilities and pitfalls of this 
scientific procedure are better understood.
  The President reacted rapidly to this scientific advance and the 
unprecedented issues it raised by asking the National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission to study the issue and make recommendations. The 
Commission recommended that creation of human beings by cloning should 
be banned for several years, and the Administration has submitted 
legislation to implement this recommendation.
  The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I are introducing today 
will assure the American public that reproducing human beings by 
cloning will be prohibited. It largely follows the President's 
legislation and the Recommendations of the Commission. It makes it 
illegal to produce human beings by cloning and establishes strict 
penalties for those who try to do so. In addition, it prohibits anyone 
from beginning the cloning process in this

[[Page S325]]

country and carrying out the implantation step in another country.
  But just as important as what the bill does is what it does not do. 
It does not seek to use public concern about cloning to establish a 
back door ban on research into human development.
  A prohibition that goes too far could outlaw needed research on the 
prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer.
  It could outlaw needed research on fertility, to help birth defects, 
and hereditary diseases.
  It could outlaw needed research on the cure of spinal cord injuries.
  All of these various kinds of research have broad support in Congress 
and the country. Yet a blunderbuss ban on human development research 
could easily interfere with this important and life-saving research, or 
even halt it altogether.
  In addition, the FDA has jurisdiction over human cloning and will act 
vigorously to shut down any clinic that operates without FDA approval. 
The FDA must find that human cloning is safe and effective. Given the 
current state of the science, the DFA would almost certainly decide 
that a human cloning procedure is not safe at the current time. The FDA 
approval process is not a permanent ban on human cloning, but it 
effectively bans the procedures for the near future.
  The American Medical Association and over forty national medical 
organizations and research groups have voiced support for the kind of 
research that is urgently needed to continue the progress we are making 
against a wide range of diseases. Benjamin Younger, the Executive 
Director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, has said, 
``We must work together to ensure that in our effort to make human 
cloning illegal we do not sentence millions of people to needless 
suffering because research and progress into their illness cannot 
proceed.''
  The legislation we are introducing today will do what the American 
people want--ban the production of human beings by cloning. It strikes 
the proper balance between assuring that human beings will not be 
reproduced through cloning and allowing needed research to continue. I 
hope that Congress will act promptly to enact this legislation.

                          ____________________