[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S425-S433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 304, S. 1601, regarding human 
cloning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOND. In light of the objection from the other side of the aisle, 
I now move to proceed to S. 1601.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the motion?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to debate the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California may proceed.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a rush to judgment on one of 
the most fundamental issues of the 20th century. Mr. President, this is 
not renaming National Airport Ronald Reagan Airport.
  Mr. President, I submit respectfully to the distinguished Senators on 
the other side of the aisle that this is a major debate that has 
scientific implications, moral implications and ethical implications. 
It is a debate, also, that involves one of the most difficult areas of 
science involving human genetics, with a vocabulary and a lexicon that 
is not understood by the great bulk of the American people and 
certainly not by many of us in the U.S. Senate.
  Both the Bond-Frist bill and the Feinstein-Kennedy bill dealing with 
the subject of human cloning were introduced less than 48 hours ago--48 
hours. No hearings have been held on either bill, no floor debate has 
been held on either bill. The medical community, the research 
community, patients with currently incurable diseases whose cure we 
might affect by both of these bills have barely read the bills, much 
less analyzed them.
  As a matter of fact, the letters are now beginning to pour in. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 9-page statement of 
the Biotechnology Industry Organization regarding legislation 
introduced to ban human cloning and a letter to Senator Mack from the 
American Association for Cancer Research.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Statement of the Biotechnology Industry Organization Regarding 
              Legislation Introduced To Ban Human Cloning

       The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) believes that 
     it is both unsafe and unethical to even attempt to clone a 
     human being. BIO strongly supported the review of this issue 
     by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and the 
     moratorium on cloning imposed by President Clinton. We 
     believe that the FDA has clear authority and jurisdiction and 
     will, as they have stated, prohibit any attempt to clone a 
     human being.
       BIO is concerned about the scope and impact of legislation 
     introduced to make it a crime with a ten year prison sentence 
     to conduct biomedical research which may or may not have any 
     relevance to the cloning of a human being. We are very 
     concerned about the rushed process to pass legislation on 
     this complex subject and the possibilities for unintended 
     consequences. The scientific and legal issues with respect to 
     any legislation regarding biomedical research are exceedingly 
     technical, and a hastily drafted bill could advertently and 
     inadvertently damage biomedical research on deadly and 
     disabling diseases.
       The Senate needs to adhere to the standard for doctors, 
     ``first, do no harm.'' Biomedical research into deadly and 
     disabling diseases is far too important to rush to enact 
     legislation which would unequivocally undermine promising 
     research and therapies. The Senate should be extremely 
     cautious before it starts sending scientists to jail when the 
     purpose of their research meets the highest moral and ethical 
     standards and holds such promise for relieving human 
     suffering.


           analysis of pending bills and the science at risk

       Several bills have been introduced in the Senate regarding 
     human cloning. They vary widely in focus and precision. The 
     three principal bills are S. 368, S. 1599, and S. 1602 and we 
     have analyzed each of them here.
       The first bill introduced by Senator Bond last year, S. 
     368, is one of the better drafted bills introduced in either 
     body. It uses reasonably accurate terms to describe the 
     applicable science and limits Federal funding for the cloning 
     of a human being.
       The new bill introduced by Senator Bond, S. 1599, would 
     impose a ten year prison sentence for any individual for the 
     act of ``producing an embryo (including a preimplantation 
     embryo)'' through the use of a specified technology, 
     ``somatic cell nuclear transfer,'' even if the production of 
     such an embryo is for purposes unrelated to the cloning of a 
     human being and even if the embryo does not contain nuclear 
     DNA which is identical to that of an existing or previously 
     existing human being (cloning). The bill goes beyond the 
     issue of cloning to make it a crime to use somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer of a nucleus derived from normal sexual 
     union of an egg and sperm, which is obviously not cloning. It 
     would also make it a crime to conduct some research seeking 
     to generate stem cells to treat a wide range of deadly and 
     disabling diseases, treatments which have nothing whatever to 
     do with human cloning.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ An identical bill has been introduced by Senator Lott as 
     S. 1601 and this may be the bill which is called up for the 
     Senate debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The third bill, introduced by Senator Feinstein, S. 1602, 
     would impose heavy civil fines for any entity that would 
     ``implant or attempt to implant the product of somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer into a woman's uterus . . .'' This sharply 
     focuses the bill on an attempt to clone a human being and 
     would not imperil biomedical research.


                 impact of bills on stem cell research

       The current bill introduced by Senator Bond would, because 
     it goes well beyond the issue of human cloning, imperil 
     promising biomedical research, including research to generate 
     stem cells. Instead of focusing on cloning, it makes it a 
     crime to zygote or embryo through the use of a new 
     technology, somatic cell nuclear transfer, even if the use of 
     this technology is essential for the generation of stem cells 
     to treat disease and where there is no intention or attempts 
     through use of this technology to clone a human being. 
     Basically the current bill would make it a crime to conduct 
     research if it could possibly be related to the cloning of a 
     human being even if it is not, in fact, conducted for that 
     purpose.
       This approach in S. 1599 goes beyond the issue of human 
     cloning and would outlaw some research to create stem cells, 
     including stem cells for the following types of treatments: 
     cardiac muscle cells to treat heart attack victims and 
     degenerative heart disease; skin cells to treat burn victims; 
     spinal cord neuron cells for treatment of spinal cord trauma 
     and paralysis; neural cells for treating those suffering from 
     neurodegenerative diseases; pancreas cells to treat diabetes; 
     blood cells to treat cancer anemia, and immunodeficiencies; 
     neural cells to treat Parkinson's, Huntington's and 
     Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS); cells for use in genetic 
     therapy to treat 5,000 genetic diseases, including Cystic 
     Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs Disease, schizophrenia, depression, 
     and other diseases; blood vessel endothelial cells for 
     treating atherosclerosis; liver cells for liver diseases 
     including hepatitis and cirrhosis; cartilage cells for 
     treating of osteoarthritis; bone cells for treatment of 
     osteoporosis; myoblast cells for the treatment of Muscular 
     Dystrophy; respiratory epithelial cells for the treatment 
     of Cystic Fibrosis and lung cancer; adrenal cortex cells 
     for the treatment of Addison's disease; retinal pigment 
     epithelial cells for age-related macular degeneration; 
     modified cells for treatment of various genetic diseases; 
     and other cells for use in the diagnosis, treatment and 
     prevention of other deadly or disabling diseases or other 
     medical conditions.
       To be precise, the current bill introduced by Senator Bond, 
     S. 1599, would make it a crime to generate stem cells, for 
     the above uses, where somatic cell nuclear transfer 
     technology is used. It would not ban stem cell research where 
     the stem cell is generated without the use of somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer. It is not possible to say how much of this 
     promising research will or might involve the use of somatic 
     cell nuclear transfer. As described below, the bill would 
     clearly ban the generation of any stem cells

[[Page S426]]

     ``customized'' to an individual where somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer must be used.
       This stem cell technology is exciting and potentially 
     revolutionary. Scientists are developing a new approach for 
     treating human diseases that doesn't depend on drugs like 
     antibiotics, but on living cells that can differentiate into 
     blood, skin, heart, or brain cells and can potentially treat 
     various cancers, spinal cord injuries, and heart disease. For 
     example, this stem cell research has the potential to develop 
     and improve cancer treatments by gaining a more complete 
     understanding of cell division and growth and the process of 
     metastasis. This could also lead to a variety of cancer 
     treatment advances.
       The type of cells that make up most of the human body are 
     differentiated, meaning that they have already achieved some 
     sort of specialized function such as blood, skin, heart or 
     brain cells. The precursor cells that led to differentiated 
     cells come from an embryo. The cells are called stem cells 
     because functions stem from them like the growth of a plant. 
     Stem cells have the capacity for self-renewal, meaning that 
     they can reproduce more of themselves, and differentiation, 
     meaning that they can specialize into a variety of cell types 
     with different functions. In the last decade, scientists 
     studying mice and other laboratory animals have discovered 
     new powerful approaches involving cultured stem cells. 
     Studies of these cells obtained from a mouse's stem cells 
     show they are capable of differentiating, in vitro or in vivo 
     into a wide variety of specialized cell types. Stem cells 
     have been derived by culturing cells of non-human primates. 
     Promising efforts to obtain human stem cells have also 
     recently been reported.
       Stem cell research has been hailed as the ``[most] 
     tantalizing of all'' research in this field, because adults 
     do not have many stem cells. Most adult cells are fully 
     differentiated into their proper functions. When 
     differentiated cells are damaged, such as damage to cardiac 
     muscle from a heart attack, the adult cells do not have the 
     ability to regenerate. If stem cells could be derived from 
     human sources and induced to differentiate in vitro, they 
     could potentially be used for transplantation and tissue 
     repair.
       Using heart attacks as an example, we might be able to 
     replace damaged cardiac cells, with healthy stem cells, that 
     could differentiate into cardiac muscle. Research using these 
     stem cells could lead to the development of ``universal donor 
     cells,'' and could be an invaluable benefit to patients. Stem 
     cell therapy could also make it possible to store tissue 
     reserves that would give health care providers a new and 
     virtually endless supply of the cells listed above. The use 
     of stem cells to create these therapies would lead to great 
     medical advances. We have to be sure that this legislation 
     concerning human cloning would not in any way obstruct this 
     vital research.


             Bond Bill Application to Non-Identical Nucleus

       The purpose of a bill to ban human cloning is supposedly to 
     ban the cloning of an individual and the essence of this is 
     the duplication of the DNA of one individual in another. The 
     term ``somatic cell,'' however, is not limited in the current 
     Bond bill to somatic cells with DNA which is the same as that 
     of an existing or previously existing human being. If it is 
     not limited to cases where the DNA is identical, human 
     cloning is--by definition--not involved.
       The current Bond bill goes beyond cloning because it does 
     not define the term ``somatic cell'' or limit to cases where 
     the DNA is identical. It only defines the term ``somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer,'' but it does not define the term ``somatic 
     cell.'' We need a brief glossary of terms to define what 
     constitutes a ``somatic cell.''
       ``Zygote'' means a single celled egg with two sets (a 
     diploid set) of chromosomes as normally derived by 
     fertilization;
       ``Egg'' and ``oocyte'' mean the female gamete;
       ``Gamete'' means a mature male or female reproductive cell 
     with one set (a haploid) set of chromosomes;
       ``Sperm'' means the male gamete;
       ``Somatic cell'' means a cell of the body, other than a 
     cell that is a gamete, having two sets (a diploid set) of 
     chromosomes.
       So a ``somatic cell'' is any cell of the body other than a 
     gamete, and it includes a fertilized egg. This means that the 
     current Bond bill would make it a crime to use somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer even in cases where the somatic cell 
     contains a nucleus derived from sexual reproduction, which is 
     obviously not cloning. This means that even though the 
     nucleus is not a clone, the current Bond bill makes it a 
     Federal crime to create it. This means that the current Bond 
     bill goes beyond the issue of cloning.
       Because of this coverage of all ``somatic cells'' the 
     current Bond bill would make it a crime for doctors to use a 
     currently effective treatment for mitochondrial disease. 
     In this treatment women who have the disease have an 
     extreme and tragic form of infertility. The disease is a 
     disease of the mitochondria, which is an essential element 
     of any egg. The treatment for this disease involves the 
     use of a fertilized nucleus which is transferred through 
     the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to an egg from 
     which the nucleus has been removed. The new egg is a 
     fresh, undiseased egg. The current Bond bill would make a 
     crime to provide this treatment even though the nucleus 
     which is transferred is the product of fertilization, no 
     cloning.


                         customized stem cells

       If the current Bond bill was limited to sometic cells with 
     nuclear DNA identical to that of an existing or previously 
     existing human being, i.e., to a cloned nucleus, it would 
     make it a Federal crime to conduct one especially promising 
     type of stem cell research, into generating ``customized'' 
     stem cells.
       A researcher or doctor might want to create a human zygote 
     with DNA identical to that of an existing or previously 
     existing person through the use of somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer, the act prohibited in the bill, in order to create 
     a customized stem cell line to treat the individual from whom 
     the DNA was extracted. By using the same DNA, the stem cell 
     therapy would more likely to compatible with, and not be 
     rejected by, the person for whom the therapy is created. By 
     starting with the patient's own nuclear DNA, the therapy is, 
     in effect, custom made for that person. It is like taking the 
     patients blood prior to surgery so that it can be infused 
     into the patient during surgery (avoiding the possibility of 
     contamination by the use of blood of another person).
       Because the current Bond bill makes it a crime to use the 
     technology--somatic cell nuclear transfer--it would make it a 
     crime to develop a therapy with the equivalent of the 
     patient's personal monogram on it a customized treatment 
     based on their own nuclear DNA.
       Because the bill introduced by Senator Feinstein requires 
     the implantation of an embryo, it does not curtail stem cell 
     research, and the bill provides that the transfer nucleus 
     must be that of an ``existing or previously existing human 
     child or adult,'' precisely the limitation not present in the 
     current Bond bill. None of the issues we have raised 
     regarding the current Bond bill apply to the Feinstein bill, 
     which is narrowly focuses on the act of cloning, or 
     attempting to clone an individual.


                     Protecting biomedical research

       The current Bond bill and the Feinstein bill both contain 
     clauses for the protection of biomedical research. There is a 
     critical difference between them.
       At the press conference announcing introduction of his bill 
     Senator Bond distributed a document entitled ``Current 
     Research Untouched by the Bond/Frist/Gregg Legislation.'' The 
     title of this document was followed by a list of such 
     research, including ``In Vitro Fertilization,'' ``Stem Cell 
     Research,'' ``Gene Therapy,'' ``Cloning of Cells, Tissues, 
     Animals and Plants,'' ``Cancer,'' ``Diabetes,'' ``Birth 
     Defects,'' ``Arthritis,'' ``Organ Failure,'' ``Genetic 
     Disease,'' ``Severe Skin Burns,'' ``Multiple Sclerosis,'' 
     ``Muscular Dystrophy,'' ``Spinal Cord Injuries,'' 
     ``Alzheimer's Disease,'' ``Parkinson's Disease, and ``Lou 
     Gehrig's Disease''. Unfortunately, the title is followed by a 
     critical qualification, an asterisk. The asterisk 
     qualification states, ``The current Bond bill would not 
     prohibit any of this research, even embryo research, as long 
     as it did not involve the use of a very specific technique 
     (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to create a live cloned human 
     embryo.''
       In the ways described above this asterisk qualification 
     acknowledges that the bill would, in fact, make it a crime to 
     conduct some types of stem cell research and other research. 
     Given the importance of the asterisk, the document's title 
     the list of supposedly protected research could be considered 
     misleading. The document should more accurately have been 
     entitled ``Only Some Research Regarding the Following 
     Diseases is Outlawed.''
       The current Bond bill contains a Section 5 entitled 
     ``Unrestricted Scientific Research.'' This section provides 
     that ``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).'' This provision is circular. It states that the 
     bill does what it does and does not do what it does not do. 
     The provision does nothing to modify the prohibitions on 
     research and does nothing to protect ``scientific research.''
       In contrast the Feinstein bill includes a provision 
     regarding ``Protected Research and Practices'' which provides 
     that ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict 
     areas of biomedical and agriculture research or practices not 
     expressly prohibited in this section, including research or 
     practices that involve the use of--(1) somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer or other cloning technologies to clone molecules, 
     DNA, cells, and tissues; (2) mitochondrial, cytoplasmic or 
     gene therapy; or (3) somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques 
     to create nonhuman animals.'' This is a ``savings'' clause 
     with meaning and content. Its reference to the cloning of 
     ``cells'' and to ``mitrochondrial'' therapy are laudatory and 
     meaningful.


          NBAC Recommendation and Clinton Administration Bill

       The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) cautioned 
     that poorly crafted legislation to ban human cloning may put 
     at risk biomedical research on the following types of 
     diseases and conditions: ``Regeneration and repair of 
     diseased or damaged human tissues and organs'' (NBAC report 
     at 29); ``assisted reproduction'' (NBAC report at 29); 
     ``leukemia, liver failure, heart and kidney disease'' (NBAC 
     report at 30); and ``bone marrow stem cells, liver cells, or 
     pancreatic beta-cells (which product insulin) for 
     transplantation'' (NBAC report at 30). The Clinton 
     Administration proposed law, like the Feinstein bill, avoids 
     the peril identified by

[[Page S427]]

     NBAC and focuses only on the issue of human cloning and does 
     not imperil biomedical research.


                         sunset and preemption

       NBAC proposed that any law include both sunset review and 
     preemption provisions.
       Regarding a sunset review provision, NBAC stated in its 
     report: ``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. Some 
     mechanism, therefore, such as a sunset provision, is 
     absolutely needed to ensure an opportunity to re-examine any 
     judgment made today about the implications of somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer cloning of human beings. As scientific 
     information accumulates and public discussion continues, a 
     new judgment may develop and we, as a society, need to retain 
     the flexibility to adjust our course in this manner. A sunset 
     provision . . . ensures that the question of cloning will be 
     revisited by the legislature in the future, when scientific 
     and medical questions have been clarified, possible uses have 
     been identified, and public discussion of the deeper moral 
     concerns about this practice have matured.'' NBAC report at 
     101.
       President Clinton has proposed a five year sunset in his 
     bill. The Feinstein bill includes a ten year sunset and the 
     current Bond bill includes no sunset review.
       BIO supports inclusion of a sunset review provision, but 
     the most important issue is whether the terms of the 
     prohibition in any law focuses only on the issue of human 
     cloning. A sunset review provision will not undo the damaged 
     which a poorly crafted, over broad law would do to biomedical 
     research prior to the sunset date.
       The Feinstein bill, but not the current Bond bill, includes 
     a clause which preempts inconsistent state laws. NBAC 
     strongly supported a preemption of state laws: ``The 
     advantage to federal legislation--as opposed to state-by-
     state laws--lies primarily in its comprehensive coverage and 
     clarity. . . . Besides ensuring interstate uniformity, a 
     federal law would relieve the need to rely on the cooperation 
     of diverse medical and scientific societies, or the actions 
     of diverse IRBs, to achieve the policy objective. As an 
     additional benefit, federal legislation could displace the 
     varied state legislative efforts now ongoing, some of which 
     suffer from ambiguous drafting that could inadvertently 
     prohibit the important cellular and molecular cloning 
     research described . . . in this report.'' NBAC report at 
     100.
       Numerous bills introduced in state legislatures, some of 
     which are very poorly crafted and over broad.
       BIO supports inclusion of a preemption clause. Again, the 
     key issue is whether the prohibition in any law focuses only 
     on the issue of human cloning and does not imperil biomedical 
     research. A poorly drafted, over broad Federal law which 
     preempts state laws might do even more damage.


                        nbac role and commission

       NBAC performed a public service with its quick and 
     thoughtful analysis of the human cloning issue. The current 
     Bond bill would set up an entirely new body to review the 
     human cloning issue rather than rerefer the issue back to 
     NBAC for further review. NBAC is well qualified and 
     positioned to perform this function and it may be wasteful 
     and expensive to establish another body to perform this 
     ongoing review. The Feinstein bill calls on NBAC to conduct 
     the reviews.
                                  ____

                                          American Association for


                                        Cancer Research, Inc.,

                               Philadelphia, PA, February 4, 1998.
     Hon. Connie Mack,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mack: Medical research, conducted in the 
     United States over the last 20 years, has opened up 
     tremendous opportunities to make progress against many 
     devastating diseases. The scientific community does not 
     desire to make human beings, or modify or genetically mark 
     any portion of our population. However, to deny the 
     application of molecular biology, made possible through the 
     use of cloning technologies, to patients who could be 
     benefited would be a great injustice.
       A litany of beneficial applications of cloning technology 
     was enumerated in this weeks TIME Magazine. Several of these 
     applications are at the core of cutting-edge cancer research, 
     and there are many more potential benefits that are unknown 
     at this time. These applications, as well as any future 
     progress, would be eliminated by broad legislation setting 
     back progress and potential in our conquest to develop 
     effective approaches to the prevention, detection, and 
     treatment of cancer.
       The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), with 
     over 14,000 members, is the largest professional organization 
     of basic and clinical cancer researchers in the world. 
     Founded in 1907, its mission is to prevent, treat, and cure 
     cancer through research, scientific programs, and education. 
     To accomplish these important goals it is essential that 
     scientists vigorously pursue all promising lines of 
     investigations against cancer.
       The AACR feels strongly that an ethical and just compromise 
     can be reached that will protect the public and the 
     scientific community from the irresponsible application of 
     cloning technology while permitting meaningful and ethical 
     research to move forward. The medical and cancer research 
     community feels that the present rush to enact legislation 
     without proper consideration or deliberation is a serious 
     mistake, and the unfortunate result would be irresponsible 
     legislation.
       As scientists we clearly see the tremendous advantages of 
     cloning technology as well as its potential problems, which 
     we, also, have reason to fear if it is applied in an 
     unreasonable manner.
       The AACR, therefore, appeals to all Members of Congress to 
     establish and honor a moratorium of at least 45 days on 
     enacting any legislation until definitions and implications 
     of legislation can be determined in a more reasonable and 
     thoughtful manner, and in an open and public process. This 
     would be a service to humanity, science, and millions of 
     individuals who are now suffering, or will suffer in the 
     future, from catastrophic and crippling diseases such as 
     cancer. We appeal to all members of Congress to give this 
     important moral and scientific issue very careful 
     consideration and deliberation. Clearly a rush to judgment on 
     this complex issue could be a major setback for cancer and 
     medical research.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donald S. Coffey,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Biotechnology Industry Association 
analyzes both the Bond-Frist bill and the Feinstein-Kennedy bill, which 
is a second bill that addresses cloning. This interesting analysis, 
representing the entire biotechnology industry of the United States, 
makes a very important point, that whatever we do here impacts on human 
research in a multitude of different areas, and most particularly it 
affects cancer research. Mr. President, I will comment on this paper 
and also comment on a number of other items.
  The American Association for Cancer Research's letter to Senator 
Connie Mack urges that there be a 45-day delay in enacting any 
legislation until definitions and implications of legislation can be 
determined in a more reasonable and thoughtful manner and in an open 
and public process. They are calling for reason, they are calling for 
thoughtful deliberation, they are calling for a public process. Who can 
deny that on a very complicated subject?
  The Whitehead Institute--and specifically Gerald R. Fink, a Director 
of the American Cancer Society, Professor of Genetics--in his letter 
talks about the limited ability to develop cell-based strategies, which 
will take place if the Bond-Frist bill is ramrodded through this body.
  The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has written a letter 
urging this body to vote no on the Bond-Frist legislation.
  The American Psychological Association has written to us urging that 
we delay, that there be discussion and debate, and they point out that 
we need to protect research efforts in this area.
  The American Association for the Advancement of Science has said that 
they are deeply concerned about the ethical and scientific issues. They 
warn us: ``Use great caution in moving with this legislation.''
  Even the College of Veterinary Medicine from the University of 
Missouri, Colombia, has written to this body urging caution.
  The University of California at San Francisco, Roger A. Pederson, 
Professor and Research Director of the Reproductive Unit of the 
Department of OB/GYN and Reproductive Science, has written to this body 
urging caution and restraint as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              American Society for


                                        Reproductive Medicine,

                                 Birmingham, AL, February 5, 1998.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Society for Reproductive 
     Medicine (ASRM) urges you not to allow the Bond Human Cloning 
     Prohibition Act (S. 1601) to be brought to the floor for a 
     vote today, and if it is, to vote against it.
       ASRM is very concerned that in the rush to make human 
     cloning illegal, Congress will inadvertently outlaw very 
     serious and promising medical research that may uncover cures 
     to some of the most deadly diseases. Cloning is a highly 
     technical area that cannot easily be understood and should 
     not be hastily legislated.
       Scientists engaged in legitimate medical research are not 
     interested in cloning a human being. Since October, 
     professional organizations representing more than 64,000 
     scientists have announced their participation in a voluntary 
     five year moratorium on human cloning. Efforts led by the 
     scientific community, rather than legislative prohibitions, 
     have worked before, and will work this time.
       When we first discovered how to duplicate DNA at any level, 
     there were cries to outlaw it. Luckily your predecessors did 
     not take that step, instead allowing the scientific 
     community's voluntary moratorium to slow

[[Page S428]]

     research while we explored its implications. Today millions 
     of Americans are alive thanks to drugs made using recombinant 
     DNA.
       This bill prohibits not just the creation of a human clone, 
     but any attempt to understand how somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer could be used to improve our understanding and 
     treatment of disease.
       We urge you and your colleagues to carefully consider any 
     human cloning legislation and to proceed through the proper 
     legislative channels so that a hastily drafted bill does not 
     get passed, sentencing millions of Americans to needless 
     suffering.
           Sincerely,
                                        J. Benjamin Younger, M.D.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           American Psychological Association,

                                                 February 2, 1998.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein and
     Senator Edward Kennedy,
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, I write to support the 
     proposed ``Prohibition on Cloning of Human Beings Act of 
     1998'' introduced by both of you. There appears to be 
     considerable confusion on this topic which apparently has 
     resulted in an effort by some to restrict various areas of 
     biomedical and agricultural research dealing with 
     reproduction and embryo research. It is important to 
     differentiate between human cloning and other types of 
     research. My understanding also is that the FDA has indicated 
     that they are the federal agency responsible for monitoring 
     any possible attempts at cloning research.
       I do want to emphasize again that we need to protect 
     researchers efforts at research which does not include ``the 
     production of a precise genetic copy of a molecule (including 
     DNA), cell, tissue, organ, plant, animal or human''.
       Let me also add that the American Psychological Association 
     took the stand that it is human behavior, in all its aspects 
     which should ultimately serve as the focus of scientific and 
     bioethical inquiry, not simply the techniques which initiate 
     the process. After all, just think if nature had not beaten 
     us to the development of twins. Wouldn't there be a huge cry 
     about how we ought not to have identical twins because it 
     would be unnatural to have two people so similar to each 
     other?
       Thank you for permitting me to express my viewpoints. I am 
     sure they are shared by many scientists in this country.
           Sincerely,
                                              Norman Abeles, Ph.D,
     Professor and Immediate Past President.
                                  ____

                                      American Association for the


                                       Advancement of Science,

                                                 February 2, 1998.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: The American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science (AAAS) has followed with interest the 
     developments of the past year related to cloning, including 
     current and proposed legislation regarding the possible use 
     of somatic cell nuclear transfer to clone a human being.
       Throughout its 150-year history, AAAS has been a pioneer 
     among American scientific organizations in addressing the 
     moral and ethical issues related to scientific developments. 
     We are deeply concerned about the scientific and ethical 
     issues raised by the possibility of cloning human beings and 
     believe that a much more complete understanding of these 
     issues is essential before such experiments are even 
     considered. At the same time, however, we are also concerned 
     that well-intentioned legislation in the area of human 
     cloning may inadvertently impede vital research in 
     agriculture, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and genetics.
       We urge that congressional leaders use great caution in 
     drafting legislation to ban human cloning. Congress should 
     consult with leading researchers in genetics and other areas 
     of the life sciences in crafting language so that definitions 
     of scientific and technical terms are well understood and the 
     resulting laws do not impede important research that may use 
     similar techniques but do not raise the same kinds of moral 
     and ethical concerns. Such related research can yield great 
     benefits, for example, in increasing agricultural production, 
     generating new products through biotechnology, finding cures 
     for genetic disorders, and reducing the costs of 
     pharmaceuticals. It is essential that these legitimate and 
     socially-important areas of research not be adversely 
     affected by legislation aimed at restricting human cloning.
       AAAS, founded in 1848, is the world's largest 
     multidisciplinary scientific association, with 145,000 
     individual members and nearly 300 affiliated scientific and 
     engineering societies. Our Committee on Scientific Freedom 
     and Responsibility has been a powerful voice for ethics in 
     science and, in collaboration with our Program of Dialogue 
     Between Science and Religion, held a major public forum in 
     Washington last June that explored scientific, moral, 
     ethical, and religious implications of human cloning. We are 
     eager to assist in promoting a responsible and constructive 
     dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and the public in 
     this area, and stand ready to assist you in any manner that 
     would be useful.
           Sincerely,
     Richard S. Nicholson.
                                  ____

                                   College of Veterinary Medicine,


                              University of Missouri-Columbia,

                                   Columbia, MO, February 4, 1998.
     To: Ms. Adira Simon, Senator Kennedy's Office.
     From: R. Michael Roberts, Curators' Professor and Chair, 
         Veterinary Pathobiology.
     Subject: Feinstein/Kennedy (S1602) versus Bond (S1599).
       I am sending you a copy of my letter to Senator Bond, which 
     addresses some of the same scientific issues raised in your 
     comparison.
       I have read S1602 and believe that it would be well 
     accepted by scientists, including members of the Society for 
     the Study of Reproduction, and the Developmental Biologists. 
     What is important is criminalization of any intent to produce 
     a baby and not to ban a possibly desirable outcome of the 
     technology, which is the generation of replacement cells and 
     tissues for an individual. The Feinstein/Kennedy Bill also 
     creates a moratorium rather than a difficult-to-reverse ban 
     on cloning of human beings. Again, most scientists would find 
     this comforting.
       I should point out that the term ``somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer technology'' has much broader meaning than the way 
     it is defined in either bill. Nuclear transfer between 
     somatic cells is a common technique and has been used for 
     decades. I would be happier if the wording of both bills made 
     it clear that it is the transfer of a somatic cell nucleus to 
     an oocyte to create a human baby that is the issue.
       What I found contradictory about S1601 is that it creates 
     an elaborate commission to report on cloning (and other 
     issues), yet the very technique that could allow future 
     discourse will have been criminalized.
       In summary, I judge the Feinstein/Kennedy Bill likely to 
     accomplish what most scientists and the lay public support, a 
     ban on cloning human beings. It will not prohibit the 
     legitimate use of somatic nuclear transfer to oocytes to 
     create replacement tissues, and it places a time limit on the 
     ban, which can be extended as public and scientific sentiment 
     dictates.
                                  ____

                                         University of California,


                                                San Francisco,

                                                 January 30, 1998.
     Hon. Senator Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy, I am writing to express my profound 
     appreciation and support for your efforts to preserve the 
     opportunities for continuing research in the United States on 
     the earliest stages of human development. I can provide you 
     with the names and histories of several patients in our 
     experience who have benefited directly from prior research 
     and diagnostic procedures leading to healthy pregnancies and 
     births. In addition, I can provide you with one or more names 
     of families whose health misfortunes could have been or could 
     be avoided through research on early products of human 
     conception.
       Please tell me if this additional information will be of 
     value to you. I applaud your efforts to achieve a responsible 
     bill on the subject of human cloning prohibition that does 
     not impede the benefits of basic and clinical research for 
     the American people.
           Sincerely yours,
                                         Roger A. Pedersen, Ph.D.,
         Professor and Research Director, Reproductive Genetics 
           Unit, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and 
           Reproductive Sciences.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished Senator 
from California how long she will be? We have not had an opportunity 
for an opening statement. I would like to know how long she proposes to 
proceed in opposition.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to respond to the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri. I think the Senator is right. I do have a very lengthy 
presentation to make, and it is going to be quite involved. I would be 
very happy to yield to him to make his opening statement if he would 
see that I have the floor regained directly following his statement.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would be happy to ask unanimous consent 
that when my remarks are finished, the Senator from California be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thought before we got into a full-fledged 
debate saying this is bad, perhaps my colleagues would like to know 
what it is that we propose to do, speaking for the sponsors of this 
measure. It is obviously one that is going to take some discussion and 
debate, and it's very helpful to know some of the objections that are 
raised to it. Again, for the sake of the Record, let me say what this 
is.
  This measure is a very carefully and narrowly targeted provision that 
places an outright ban on the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer for 
human cloning purposes. It defines one technique, the technique that 
was used to

[[Page S429]]

create, by cloning, the sheep Dolly and says that you shall not do that 
for human beings --quite simply.
  Why is this necessary? Why is it necessary that we move forward on 
this? Well, frankly, recent reports show that a Chicago-based scientist 
is prepared to move forward with human cloning experimentation. I think 
this forces an immediate debate on how far out on a moral cliff we are 
willing to let science proceed before we as a nation insist on some 
meaningful constraints. We no longer have the luxury of waiting around 
for this morally reprehensible act to occur.
  That scientist is proposing to raise huge sums of money and promise 
infertile couples that he can clone human beings for them. The time for 
the debate and action is now. If creating test tube babies by cloning a 
human embryo is morally, ethically, and practically wrong, as I 
strongly believe it is, we need to stop it now. To delay it, to 
filibuster it, to postpone it means that not only this scientist and 
others who, perhaps, are not holding news conferences, can go forward 
with a process that I believe the overwhelming majority of American 
people believe is wrong, as I believe it is. To those who say we have 
not studied this or debated this, I only say that since we had this 
story about the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and stories of 
organizations and individuals pursuing human cloning, they have kept 
the debate alive. The American public is asking if similar techniques 
can be used to clone human beings, and they are concerned very deeply 
whether something which was thought only to be science fiction is now 
closer to reality.
  Now, there are some distinguished books that oppose a prohibition on 
human cloning. They suggest that we cannot put the genie back in the 
bottle and we cannot stop progress. I suggest that we have come to the 
point where our technological capability may be outrunning our moral 
sense. We have, in this body, carried a prohibition against Federal 
funding of cloning human embryos. We have prohibited the research and 
experimentation with Federal funding because we thought it was way down 
the line. We didn't want to see money used. Last year, after the 
cloning of Dolly the sheep, we held hearings; tremendous amounts of 
testimony were presented. I personally testified before Senator Frist's 
subcommittee. This is not a new debate. The reason this debate is 
important, and the reason that action is important is that now we are 
faced with scientists of, I believe, questionable judgment, who would 
go forward with something that is morally reprehensible.
  This measure is targeted narrowly to one specific process that was 
used to clone the sheep Dolly. It is the somatic cell nuclear transfer 
to create a human embryo. In addition to prohibiting that, we have, at 
the urging of my distinguished cosponsor, Senator Frist, provided for a 
commission to study the ethical implications of related technologies. 
And I believe we have made it clear that ongoing legitimate activity, 
short of this one specific process, cleaning out a human embryo and 
putting in a nuclear cell transfer, and starting the process of 
differentiation of the cell toward creating a test tube baby is 
unacceptable.
  The ethical implications of human cloning are staggering. I believe 
that we would have the overwhelming understanding and support of the 
American people that we should never create human life for spare parts, 
as a replacement for a child who has died, or for unnatural or selfish 
purposes. How many embryos or babies would we tolerate being created 
with abnormalities before we perfect human cloning? It took Dr. Wilmut, 
the Scottish scientist, 276 tries before creating Dolly, and we still 
do not even know if Dolly is the perfect sheep. For humans, those 
results are unacceptable--creating tremendously deformed human embryos 
or human beings. Dr. Ian Wilmut, the lead Scottish scientist who 
created Dolly, himself stated that he can see no scenario under which 
it would be ethical to clone human life. And he is right.
  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 moral concerns about the 
deliberate duplication of an individual genome, and that making carbon 
copies of a human being is repugnant to members of the public. ``Many 
members of the panel share this view and see no justification for 
Federal funding of such research.''
  I emphatically argue that those statements apply to private sector 
research as well. That is what we are trying to reach. It is important 
to note that the legislation is narrowly drafted, and its 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 ban only the technique used to create Dolly.

  This technique has also been criticized by a representative of the 
pharmaceutical industry, who in a prepared statement for Members of 
Congress, dated January 13, 1998, stated:

       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 scientific and 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.

  Well, Mr. President, myself, Senator Frist, Senator Gregg, and 
others, have met with and consulted with representatives of the 
pharmaceutical industry, researchers, representatives of patient 
groups, and we have told them what we are proposing to do, and we have 
listened to them discuss all of the implications. We know that in vitro 
fertilization, plant and animal cloning, 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. These types of research will continue to thrive, that is 
clear, because we have targeted our ban so narrowly, and we intend only 
to prohibit, by cloning, the creation of the human embryo.
  This is a technique characterized by industry, researchers, 
theologians, ethicists, and others, as fraught with failures and 
lacking therapeutic value. This bill, however, does allow the important 
and promising research to continue. I have long been a supporter of 
biotechnology. I have supported biotechnology efforts. I continue to 
support everything from human genome mapping to all of the other human 
research efforts. We have no problems with and support cloning of 
animals. But there is a bright line between those activities and human 
cloning, and we must draw that line. There is a line, Mr. President, 
and that line is clear.
  You can do all the research you want. You can create organs, you can 
do all kinds of experimentation. But you should not be able to create a 
human embryo by cloning, starting a test tube baby. Now, there are some 
who say that it is all right so long as you don't implant that cloned 
human embryo, so long as you destroy it. Once you start the process of 
creating this test tube baby, it is OK to destroy it. As a matter of 
fact, they would have us believe that we would start all these human 
embryos, start the cell differentiation, and then wipe them out. Well, 
I think that raises serious questions with many people, and I am 
included in that. But it also raise also the prospect that once you 
start cloning these human embryos--they are very small --they can be 
transported very easily, picked up and taken from this country to 
someplace else in the world in large numbers, where there may be no ban 
on implementation. The difficult science is creating the human embryo. 
Once you do that, you have opened a whole area. And to say we are just 
going to prevent them from being implanted so a baby is brought to 
term, that won't get it because that is too late. I have heard the 
arguments of those who oppose this bill. And, quite frankly, let me 
tell you what those arguments are.

  They are that some scientists would like to be able to create human 
embryos, play with them, and experiment with them, experiment with a 
human embryo that is differentiating and starting to grow, and say, 
``OK. Time is

[[Page S430]]

up. We will toss this one away and we will start playing with another 
one.'' Once you get into that process, Mr. President, you have stepped 
over the moral and ethical line. There is a clear line. There is a very 
clear line.
  We are ready to have the argument because I believe a significant 
majority of the Members of this body reflect a significant, 
overwhelming view of the American people that that is unacceptable. 
There may be well-intentioned scientists who say we need to play with 
human embryos and start these embryos growing and let us play with 
them. They may get something. They may develop some scientific 
knowledge. But the statements I have already presented show that there 
is no really legitimate, scientific need, and, in fact, there are grave 
moral and ethical reasons not to. I strongly hold the belief that all 
human beings are unique and created by God. And I think billions of 
people around the world share it. Human cloning, a man's attempt to 
play God, will change the very meaning of life, of human dignity, and 
what it is to be human. Are we ready for that? I don't think so.
  Mr. President, the Washington Post in October of 1994 in an editorial 
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 a brand new embryo? But before you get to these questions, 
     there is a simpler one. ``Is there a line that should not be 
     crossed even for scientific, or other gain, and, if so, why 
     is it?"

  That is the quotation from the Washington Post. In case you missed 
it, let me give you the first sentence again. ``The creation of human 
embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is 
unconscionable.''
  That is a simple, straightforward statement with which I agree, and I 
believe when the Members before the body have an opportunity to reflect 
on it and consider it, they will agree that is right.
  Let me quote President Bill Clinton, 1994.

       The subject raises profound ethical and moral questions as 
     well as issues concerning the appropriate allocation of 
     Federal funds. I appreciate the work of the committees that 
     have considered this complex issue, and I understand that 
     advances in in vitro fertilization research and other areas 
     could be derived from such work. However, I do not believe 
     that Federal funds should be used to support the creation of 
     human embryos for research purposes.

  That is the President. He said don't create human embryos by cloning 
for research.
  That is the question. Those who would delay and filibuster want to 
avoid that question and delay it. I know they are well-intentioned. I 
know they may have great reservations. They may not agree with that 
simple moral standard. But there are people out there who want to start 
that process, who may as we speak be engaged in that process.
  We have debated whether cloning of human embryos is a good idea. I 
think there is a clear consensus. We have drafted a narrow bill, a 
targeted one that I hope we can move forward to enact. There is a lot 
of smoke and mirrors, and there are a lot of discussions about a whole 
range of other options. These are very technical. That is why we set up 
a commission to review all of these things. What we are targeting right 
now is the one procedure that has been used with sheep, and could be 
used, if it is not stopped, to start creating human embryos. For those 
people who want to create human embryos for research purposes and 
destroy them or implant them, I say you are going across the line. I 
don't care what your motives are. I don't care whether it is 
profitable. I don't care what you think might come out of it. At this 
point we are saying, ``No, you cannot cross the line.''
  Mr. President, that is what this debate is all about. I believe that 
we may have an opportunity, if discussion continues, to bring this 
debate to a close. At such time I will be back on this floor to say, if 
you want to allow the scientific community and some people with 
different sets of standards and different sets of judgments to go ahead 
and attempt to create human embryos by cloning by a somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, go ahead and support the extended discussion. Vote no 
against cloture. But, by doing so, you are providing a green light. You 
are saying, go ahead and use this technique that I believe is 
unacceptable and should be made illegal in this country as it is in the 
United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and many of the other developed and 
leading countries in the world.

  Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from California 
allowing me to explain what the bill is and what it is not. I yield the 
floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri. I appreciate his comments. And I must tell him that in the 
main I agree with him.
  We have submitted an alternative bill to Bond-Frist. It is Feinstein-
Kennedy.
  I am opposed to human cloning. I believe human cloning is 
scientifically dangerous, it is morally unacceptable, it is ethically 
flawed, and we should outlaw it. That is not the issue.
  The issue is we are dealing with a complex subject. The bill at hand 
is a bill that uses words and does not define those words. There is the 
rub.
  So the issue here today is whether we go ahead and ramrod through 
legislation with virtually no consideration by this body, legislation 
that would impose a permanent ban forever with prison terms of up to 10 
years, and we will not understand fully what that bill will do. That is 
why the medical and the scientific research community have asked us to 
proceed with caution.
  Let's say that you don't believe me. Would you believe the 
Biotechnology Industry Association representing the entire 
biotechnology community? Let me quote from page 4 of their 9-page 
statement to us.
       The current Bond bill goes beyond cloning because it does 
     not define the term ``somatic cell'' or limit to cases where 
     the DNA is identical. It only defines the term ``somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer,'' but it does not define the term ``somatic 
     cell.'' We need a brief glossary of terms to define what 
     constitutes a ``somatic cell.''
       ``Zygote'' means a single celled egg with two sets (a 
     diploid set) of chromosomes as normally derived by 
     fertilization;
       ``Egg'' and ``oocyte'' mean the female gamete;
       ``Gamete'' means a mature male or female reproductive cell 
     with one set (a haploid) set of chromosomes;
       ``Sperm'' means the male gamete;
       ``Somatic cell'' means a cell of the body, other than a 
     cell that is a gamete, having two sets (a diploid set) of 
     chromosomes;

  Here is the point.

       So a ``somatic cell'' is any cell of the body other than a 
     gamete, and it includes a fertilized egg. This means that the 
     current Bond bill would make it a crime to use somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer even in cases where the somatic cell 
     contains a nucleus derived from sexual reproduction, which is 
     obviously not cloning. This means that even though the 
     nucleus is not a clone, the current Bond bill makes it a 
     Federal crime to create it. This means that the current Bond 
     bill goes beyond the issue of cloning.
       Because of this coverage of all ``somatic cells'' the 
     current Bond bill would make it a crime for doctors to use a 
     currently effective treatment for mitochondrial disease. In 
     this treatment women who have the disease have an extreme and 
     tragic form of infertility. The disease is a disease of the 
     mitochondria, which is an essential element of any egg. The 
     treatment for this disease involves the use of a fertilized 
     nucleus which is transferred through the use of somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer to an egg from which the nucleus has been 
     removed. The new egg is a fresh, undiseased egg. The current 
     Bond bill would make it a crime to provide this treatment 
     even though the nucleus which is transferred is the product 
     of fertilization, not cloning.

  This is the Biotechnology Industry Association's statement.
  It goes on into other areas that would be prohibited. But let me say 
what I think the major problem here is.
  The key terms in this bill are undefined, and the full scope of the 
bill is unknown by anyone in this body. It is just 48 hours old. We 
don't understand the impact of it. The bill is not ready for rushing to 
the full Senate for immediate consideration.
  The Bond-Frist bill fails to define the following terms: somatic 
cell, oocyte, embryo, and preimplantation embryo.
  These are all technical, scientific, state-of-the-art terms that need 
definition. The bill actually drops the definitions that were in 
earlier versions of it.
  Undefined key terms will chill vital medical research and treatment. 
The medical and scientific community has

[[Page S431]]

overwhelmingly stated that this bill would chill important scientific 
and health research. The bill criminalizes that research. Scientists 
will refuse to do that research. Venture capitalists will refuse to 
fund it when faced with possible prison terms.
  The Bond bill bans somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, and, as 
a result, the Bond bill may ban production of genetically identical 
tissues for treatment of disease and transplantation, including blood 
cell therapies for diseases, such as leukemia and sickle cell anemia; 
nerve cell therapy for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's; multiple sclerosis; nerve cell therapy 
for spinal cord injury; insulin transplants for diabetes; skin cell 
transplants for severe burns; liver cell transplants for liver damage; 
muscle cell therapy for muscular dystrophy and heart disease; and 
cartilage-forming cells for reconstruction of joints damaged by 
arthritis or injury.
  Let me say what I think the problem is.
  Senator Kennedy and I have another bill. We approach this 
differently. Rather than banning all somatic cell nuclear transfer, 
period, the end, we say you can't use this technology if you are going 
to implanting it in a human uterus. You cannot grow a baby by 
implanting it in a human uterus.
  Let me restate that.
  You cannot grow a baby using this technology unless it is implanted 
in a human uterus. I have confirmed that, to my knowledge, 
scientifically at this stage, there is no way of doing it. However, you 
can use this somatic nuclear cell transfer for the tissue research, the 
other areas of research that I am talking about. Once you ban the 
technology, you cannot use it for these other areas of research.
  That is why we feel that the place to ban it is with implantation in 
the female uterus or womb. That stops the production of a baby. It is 
dangerous. It took 277 implants in Dolly before they got it to work. 
And there is a lot we do not know about the procedure. It is terribly 
dangerous because you are taking a cell at a certain degree of 
maturity, not an infant cell. You are taking a mature cell, and you 
don't know what the impact of that cell is going to be on developmental 
disabilities and the rest of human development.

  So scientifically it is dangerous to clone a human. Morally, we say 
it is unacceptable, and there are a lot of reasons for this: Who would 
clone? What rules do you set up in cloning? Do you permit the cloning 
of Adolf Hitlers and the other less favorable characters of history, 
history past and history future.
  So there are many, many questions to discuss. I think everyone in 
this body believes that human cloning should be made illegal, but we 
should not attack the technology from which so much good can come. For 
example, using this technology scientists believe that it will be 
possible to treat third-degree burns, to provide skin grafts because 
the DNA would be the same. We may that be able to clone their skin, 
grow that skin and transfer that skin without rejection. The same thing 
may be true of diabetes, and particularly in juvenile diabetes which is 
so recalcitrant and so difficult to handle.
  This technology may offer a cure. And with respect to cancer, this 
technology is what is used in the mass production of anticancer drugs. 
It would stop all of this particular technology.
  So the key is not to stop the technology. The key is to stop the 
implantation of the embryo produced by this technology in a human 
uterus. That is what we do in our bill. And that is why I can say 
virtually all of the scientific community supports Feinstein-Kennedy 
and opposes Bond-Frist.
  Now, I am aware of the fact our staffs met earlier this morning. We 
all want the same thing. Let me beg this body, do not do something in a 
rush that is going to mean one day someone is not going to have a cure 
for cancer or diabetes or somebody lying in a burn unit at St. Francis 
Hospital in San Francisco or anywhere else is not going to make use of 
this technology to produce tissue that the body will not reject.
  That is really the issue. Why does this have to be done in 48 hours? 
The FDA says it will prevent human cloning. Why are we rushing to do 
something and use terms like somatic cell and we do not define in the 
legislation what a somatic cell is. How many people do we condemn to 
death because we shut off research because anybody that does any 
research will have a 10-year Federal prison sentence, a 10-year Federal 
prison sentence if you do research on somatic nuclear cell transfer to 
try to develop a skin graft for a third-degree burn that will not be 
rejected?
  That is essentially what we are talking about here today, Members of 
the Senate. The Bond bill additionally could ban noncloning treatments 
for diseases carried in the cytoplasm. The cytoplasm is the nonnuclear 
material in a cell. So parents whose children inherit cytoplasmic 
diseases can have healthy children by using a variation on somatic cell 
nuclear transfer. This isn't cloning. It is curing a disease. And I am 
as sure as I am standing here the Bond-Frist bill bans this kind of 
therapy.
  So let's have hearings. These bills should go to committee and be 
considered thoroughly. Let's have the biotechnology community testify. 
Let's have the scientific community testify. Let's have a glossary of 
terms that we all agree upon. And let's put those definitions into a 
bill. Yes, let's ban human cloning. Let's say you cannot implant a 
uterus with somatic cell nuclear transfer. Then there are no babies. 
Then there is no human cloning. But the rest of the research, research 
to cure diseases, can move ahead.
  I am aware of the fact that the distinguished Senator from Florida is 
in the Chamber and may wish to make a statement. If I could regain the 
floor, I would be happy to yield to him for the purpose of that 
statement.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think there are others in the Chamber as 
well. I do not believe that we have any agreement at this time to go 
back and forth with proponents and opponents. The Senator from 
California has the floor, and if she wishes to yield I suggest the 
Senator from New Hampshire has been here for some time.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from California has 
the floor.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I would like to continue if I can then, and if 
there is any message that I might be able to deliver on behalf of the 
distinguished Senator from Florida, who probably knows more about 
research into areas involving cancer than many of us in this body, I 
would be happy to deliver it for him.
  I say to the distinguished Senator, I do not want to yield the floor 
and lose the floor because it is my intention to slow down Senate 
consideration today in this rushed manner in hopes that we will be able 
to send it to committee, have a hearing and follow the normal 
deliberative process, including sending it back to the Senate soon for 
thoughtful consideration.
  Mr. MACK. I wonder if I might----
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am afraid to yield the floor because I may well 
lose the floor and not get it back again. So I will continue, if I may.
  Mr. President, just yesterday, Dr. J. Benjamin Younger, the Executive 
Director of the American Society For Reproductive Medicine, wrote:

       ``I urge you and your colleagues to carefully consider any 
     human cloning legislation and to proceed through the proper 
     legislative channels so that a sloppily drafted bill does not 
     get passed and sentence millions of Americans to needless 
     suffering.

  Mr. President, once again, I say we should not charge ahead at full 
throttle on a bill that legislates issues as profound as those 
surrounding human cloning. There is simply too much at stake.
  I would like to give you just a quick side-by-side comparison of the 
two bills under consideration that ban cloning, Bond-Frist and 
Feinstein-Kennedy.
  Feinstein-Kennedy, as I have said, bans the implantation of the 
product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into a woman's uterus. It 
makes unlawful the shipping of the product of somatic cell nuclear 
transfer in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of 
implanting into a woman's uterus. And it prohibits the use of Federal 
funds for implanting the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into 
a woman's uterus. I recognize that is current in the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations law, but we reinforce it in our bill.
  The Bond bill, as I understand it, bans human somatic cell nuclear 
transfer period. It is defined as taking the

[[Page S432]]

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. Again, it 
defines none of these terms. And it makes unlawful the importation of 
an embryo produced through human somatic cell nuclear transfer 
technology. It is silent on the use of Federal funds, probably because 
the authors know that a prohibition on human embryo research is already 
in place.
  The length of the ban in our bill is 10 years. It is a permanent ban 
in the Bond bill.
  The reason it is a temporary ban or a moratorium of 10 years is 
largely because a voluntary moratorium has been put in place by the 
entire American scientific community, and to the best of my knowledge, 
what they were requesting a 5-year moratorium which the President's 
bill contained. We felt the 5-year moratorium was too short. We prefer 
the longer period so that it can be reviewed at the end of 10 years.

  The Feinstein-Kennedy bill protects and allows biomedical and 
agricultural research on practices which are not expressly prohibited. 
That would include research or practices involving somatic cell nuclear 
transfer or cloning technologies, mitochondrial, cytoplasmic or gene 
therapy or somatic cell nuclear transfer to create animals. We do not 
interfere with that. The Bond bill protects or allows areas of 
scientific research not specifically prohibited. It is silent on 
mitochondrial, cytoplasmic or gene therapy. And that is part of our 
problem here, and that is one of the reasons why we think it needs to 
go to committee and we need to know at the end of the hearing exactly 
what it is we are doing.
  On the issue of a national commission, Feinstein-Kennedy authorizes 
the current National Bioethics Advisory Commission for 10 years, from 
the date of enactment. The current commission terminates in 1999. Our 
would continue it and we require reports and recommendations from the 
commission in 4\1/2\ years and in 9\1/2\ years. The Bond bill would 
establish a new national commission to promote a national dialogue on 
bioethics of 25 members appointed by the Senate and House majority and 
minority leadership by December 1, 1998, to conduct a discourse on 
bioethical issues, including cloning, and to report to Congress by 
December 31, 1999 and annually thereafter.
  On the issue of penalties, the Feinstein-Kennedy bill has a civil 
penalty of $1 million or three times the gross pecuniary gain or loss 
resulting from the violation, in other words, a very stringent civil 
penalty. If an individual uses somatic cell nuclear transfer and 
implants the product into a woman's uterus, we subject that individual 
to forfeiture of any property derived from or used to commit a 
violation or attempted violation. This would get at the lab or hospital 
where an implantation into a human uterus would take place. Obviously, 
it has to be done somewhere, and I think this is in a sense a fail-safe 
major penalty because that entire lab could be forfeited.
  The Bond bill has 10 years in prison or a civil penalty if pecuniary 
gain is derived of not more than twice the gross gain or both. We think 
10 years in prison, when definitions are not included to clearly show 
what we are talking about, 10 years in prison for someone who might use 
somatic cell nuclear transfer to create the DNA in a cell that could 
produce a skin graft or another tissue culture, a skin graft that would 
heal a burn patient, that that individual should not be subject to 10 
years in prison.
  On the issue of preemption, there is a difference between the two 
bills as well. Feinstein-Kennedy preempts any State or local law that 
prohibits or restricts research or practices constituting somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy or the cloning 
of molecules, DNA cells, tissues, organs, plants, animals or 
humans. So, we would set a national standard so that the States could 
not pass legislation and say it's OK to insert a somatic cell in a 
woman's uterus. We preempt the area.

  Internationally, there are some differences in the two bills, too. 
Feinstein-Kennedy has a sense of the Congress that the President should 
cooperate with foreign countries to enforce mutually supported 
restrictions. The Bond bill has a sense of the 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.
  I think we could easily come to agreement on many of these, 
particularly this last one. I think we want the same thing.
  The major difference is that the Feinstein-Kennedy bill would allow 
the technology to proceed in medical research as long as it does not 
involve human cloning.
  Mr. President, the successful cloning of a sheep--
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator entertain a unanimous consent request 
that I be allowed to speak without taking the floor from the Senator, 
so the Senator can regain the floor after I finish speaking? I will not 
offer any amendments.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to, again, if I can regain the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes and at the end of the statement the floor return to the Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California because 
I wish to address this issue, also. I, unfortunately, have a meeting 
that starts at 1 o'clock.
  Mr. President, I think we are all actually concerned about the issue 
of human cloning, and certainly the representations by the doctor from 
Chicago who stated he intends to pursue a course of commercializing 
human cloning has caused us to need to accelerate addressing this as a 
public policy matter. It is appropriately an issue that should be 
addressed at the level of the Congress of the United States. It should 
be spoken to by the people's representatives and not left to a 
regulatory environment such as the FDA for a determination, because it 
is a matter of dramatic import to our culture and to our scientific 
community.
  There is no question but that the concept of cloning a human is 
unethical, inappropriate and wrong. We don't have to delve very far 
into the history of this century to see the horror that can result from 
a society which allows itself to pursue a course of creating humans or 
designing a human race not based on God's will but based on the 
determination of a political decision or a scientific community. 
Obviously, the Nazi government, in its seeking of a master race, 
represents one of the true horrors of the history of mankind.
  So, the need to debate the issue of whether or not humans should be 
cloned I think is not necessary. There should be and I believe there is 
almost unanimity on the need not to allow human cloning to go forward 
in our society or any other civilized society. I think it is 
interesting to note that the European Community has also banned human 
cloning. The question becomes how should we proceed and whether we 
should proceed with a bill that has been designed by Senator Bond, 
Senator Frist and to some part myself, or whether we should proceed in 
some other manner. I for one strongly support the initiative that is 
put forward by the bill which we are presently considering because it 
addresses the core issue of human cloning, which is the creation of an 
embryo through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is 
really the question here.
  In order to clone a human, you produce an embryo and as a result you 
get a human if you follow the next scientific steps. What we have done 
is limited dramatically and really focused the question specifically on 
the necessary scientific acts to produce a cloned human and then said, 
``No, you cannot proceed in that direction.'' That is the way it should 
be addressed.

  This bill was structured in order to respond to the very legitimate 
concerns of the scientific community for further research in all the 
areas the Senator from California has outlined. This bill does not, in 
my opinion, in any way limit the research into those areas because this 
bill is purely directed at the embryo issue and the creation of a 
cloned human being as a result of taking that step. The scientific

[[Page S433]]

issues are further protected by the commission which is in this bill, 
which says essentially that we have in place, or will have in place, a 
bioethical commission which will be able to evaluate science as it 
evolves and make a determination as to when science needs to have more 
leverage or needs to have more flexibility and then can come to the 
Congress and say what changes should occur in order to allow for that 
flexibility. So there is in place a commission which is not only 
scientifically based but is theologically based and which is 
politically based, in the sense that it represents, not politicians, 
but the community at large and which will have the capacity to review 
what is happening in the area of cloning technology so that we can stay 
ahead of the curve and be sure we are not limiting the scientific 
experience and expansion in this very critical area.
  So this bill allows for cloning in the area of agriculture and it 
allows for cloning in the area of animal husbandry. It also allows for 
cloning for the production of organs. It allows for cloning in stem 
cell research technology. It allows for cloning in a whole variety of 
places. Where it does not allow cloning is in the production of a human 
being, and that is what we should be saying. As a matter of ethics, as 
a matter of policy, as a matter of a nation which must stand up and 
define its purposes and ideas, we should be saying humans shall not be 
cloned.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know there are others on the floor. 
The distinguished Senator from Texas and my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts wished to speak on this issue. I would just like to wrap 
up very rapidly.
  This whole issue was really galvanized with the cloning of the sheep 
Dolly. Let me reinforce the fact that it took 277 attempts before this 
cloning was successful. The impact of the cloning is not yet known.
  The second point is that the science is such that huge disabilities, 
real problems can result from human cloning. It is unsafe.
  And my third point is, the circumstances to not require us to rush. 
Chicago physicist Dr. Richard Seed propelled the debate into full force 
last month when he told the media that he intended to clone human 
beings. And he said that there were 10 clinics in the United States 
interested in offering cloning services and that he believed the demand 
would be for 200,000 cases per year. That's according to the American 
Medical News.
  Since that time, as you know, the scientific community itself has 
exercised a self-imposed moratorium on human cloning. I know of no 
legitimate lab, hospital, or facility that will permit human cloning 
today. I also would like to add that the FDA has said that they are 
asserting jurisdiction in this area and will not permit human cloning. 
So I respectfully submit to those who feel there is time pressure that 
forces us to proceed to the Senate today, that is not correct. There is 
time for us to take time to consider this issue, to hear the testimony, 
to go over the scientific terms, to really debate whether the 
Feinstein-Kennedy approach or the Bond-Frist approach or perhaps a 
third or fourth approach is the right way to go.
  So I would like to end my comments today, Mr. President, by thanking 
you for your discretion and by appealing to the majority side of this 
body. You have an opportunity to do some good. But you also have an 
opportunity to do enormous harm that could cost tens of thousands of 
lives needlessly if we do not legislate carefully. So let's do it 
right.

  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak 
for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________