[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S318-S322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.
                                 ______