[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S444-S446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. MACK. What is the pending business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 1601.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to begin my comments by making it clear, like I suspect 
everyone in the U.S. Senate, that I am against human cloning. I have 
not really found too many people who have come forward with a statement 
saying that they are for human cloning. I am opposed to human cloning. 
So, let me make that clear at the beginning of the discussion. But, 
there is much more to this debate than as to whether one is for or 
against human cloning, and I think it is important that we get beyond 
that.
  I agree with those who have indicated earlier in the day that, 
frankly, we need to delay this debate, we need to delay this 
legislation. You might say, ``Well, why?'' Certainly the individuals 
who engaged in producing the legislation are thoughtful, serious 
people. I do not question that, nor do I question their intentions. But 
what

[[Page S445]]

they have proposed I think has tremendous risks.
  I will read from just a couple of letters that I have received from 
Nobel laureates. One of the letters indicates--and this is from Dr. 
Paul Berg, Stanford professor, Nobel laureate, chemistry, 1980. In his 
letter he says:

       The bill sponsored by Senators Bond, Frist, Gregg and 
     others, if passed, would be the first to ban a specific line 
     of research.

  A specific line of research. Not the end result, but the specific 
line of research would not be permitted.
  And he goes on to say:

       I believe this is a serious mistake, one that we could 
     regret because of its unintended implications for otherwise 
     valuable biomedical research.

  He goes on in the letter to say:

       At the same time, any legislation should not impede or 
     interfere with existing or potential critical research 
     fundamental to the prevention or cure of human disease.

  In another letter, from J.M. Bishop, Nobel laureate, university 
professor, University of California, San Francisco:

       The fundamental flaw in this legislation is the prohibition 
     of a technology irrespective of its application. Such 
     prohibition forecloses on any benefit from the technology, 
     even if that benefit were in no way objectionable. Many well-
     intentioned people fail to understand that somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer is not limited to cloning an organism. There 
     are many examples of possible future applications of this 
     technology to produce healthy tissue for therapeutic 
     purposes, such as skin grafts for burn patients, or even to 
     create insulin-producing cells for diabetics. There may also 
     be applications for cancer patients who need a bone marrow 
     transplant for whom a match cannot be found.

  Mr. President, I suggest that if time had permitted and if there had 
been greater warning that this legislation was going to come to the 
floor, I could virtually fill up the Congressional Record with those 
individuals who have serious concerns about what this legislation would 
do. And the same group of people would make the statement they are 
opposed to human cloning.
  I must admit that I have more than just a casual interest in this 
legislation. I have been deeply involved in trying to understand basic 
research as it relates most specifically to finding cures and better 
treatments for cancer. I am terrified at the thought that this 
legislation could move forward without the opportunity for there to be 
in-depth scientific debate before committees of the Congress of the 
United States about what this legislation would do.
  I just say to people that, if you go back into the early 1970s, 1971, 
I believe, regarding the issue of recombinant DNA, there were horror 
stories that were told about recombinant DNA research. There were all 
kinds of fears that were created. And there were places in the country 
where bans were actually put into place.
  Well, fortunately, the Congress never passed a ban like they are 
talking about here, because if they had, just to use one disease--
cystic fibrosis--think about what it would be like if you were the 
parent of a child with cystic fibrosis that had been denied a treatment 
that was developed as a result of going forward with recombinant DNA.

  What was developed enhanced the ability of the lung to function as a 
result of the discovery. Back in 1971, no one had even an idea where 
that research might have taken us. But in retrospect we can see that 
the foundation has been built for the future research that may in fact 
find better treatments, whether that is cancer, whether that is 
diabetes, whether that is Parkinson's disease, whether that is AIDS, 
whether that is sickle-cell anemia. And I could go on and on and on.
  So, Mr. President, all I am saying here today, and to my colleagues, 
is that if there is not a change in this legislation, then I am going 
to have to oppose the legislation. I understand that the majority 
leader will be coming to the floor shortly to file a cloture motion. I 
would have to vote against cloture if this legislation is not changed. 
I frankly believe that the most significant thing we could do would be 
to delay so that in fact we could hear from both sides on this issue.
  Again, the debate really isn't whether there should be human cloning. 
I think most people in this country clearly have said we should not do 
that, that it should be banned. But what we are debating is the 
potential outcome of the language that is put into legislative form 
that would limit the scientists of our country, limit them in their 
ability again to find cures, possibly, and certainly better treatments 
for the diseases that face our families, our children and our 
grandchildren.
  So, Mr. President, I sincerely hope that either we find some way to 
correct the legislation before us or that we delay this so that not 
only the scientific community can have an opportunity for input but 
also for patient groups. I think they ought to have an opportunity to 
come before the Congress at our hearings and let them raise their 
concerns about what might be done to maybe one area of hope that they 
have about better treatment or a cure.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation to place 
a permanent ban on the unethical, immoral pursuit of human cloning.
  I do not believe, Mr. President, that the fact that a thing is 
possible makes it desirable. The study of ethics is filled with things 
we can do, but should not do. The subject of cloning presents an 
obvious example along these lines. And I believe it is necessary for us 
to face the problem head-on.
  Genetic research has been crucial to saving thousands upon thousands 
of lives all over the world. It continues to be an important part of 
medical research as we look for cures and treatments for cancer and 
other dreaded diseases. But there are certain things we cannot do, even 
as we seek, in the long run, to save lives. As shown by recent scandals 
concerning studies at Tuskegee Institute and elsewhere, in which people 
were denied treatment for serious ailments in the name of science, most 
people, most of the time, recognize the moral limits to scientific and 
medical research.
  But we cannot always trust in the good judgment of the scientist. In 
some extreme cases we, the people's legislature, must see to it that 
certain practices are not undertaken. Human cloning is one of those 
practices. No man or woman, not even a scientist, has the capacity to 
manipulate the very nature and existence of human life in a moral 
manner. Plants, animals and even discrete human cells may be the proper 
subjects of research, but to attempt to create a human being, as the 
product of scientific experiment, risking that that product may be seen 
as something other than a living, sentient human being, is simply not 
acceptable.
  Mr. President, we are not now, nor will we ever be, morally capable 
of manufacturing life, or of making experiments on the human soul.
  It is because I value life, each and every human life that comes into 
this world, that I have joined with my colleague from Missouri in 
sponsoring this legislation to ban, now and for the future, any attempt 
at human cloning.
  Now is not the time, Mr. President, for our Nation to create, or 
rather add to, an atmosphere in which human life is valued for anything 
other than itself. Each of us is unique and uniquely valuable. Our laws 
recognize this, providing as they do for due process and equal 
protection of every one of us. Our religions are based on this 
understanding of the individual as the creature of God. We must see to 
it that our science also recognizes the intrinsic value of every human 
life.
  Science has been of great service to mankind. It will continue to 
improve, protect and save lives, so long as we recognize our duty to 
see that scientists abide by their duty to serve, and not manipulate, 
each and every human being.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the Senate has already had a 
healthy debate on the cloning legislation and I thank Senators Bond, 
Frist, Gregg and others for their leadership on this issue. I find it 
unfortunate that our democratic colleagues have chosen to block 
consideration of legislation at this time, even a motion to proceed.

[[Page S446]]

  Clearly, this is an issue that has America's attention. The idea that 
so much progress has been made in the cloning area, and that we have 
doctors or scientists already threatening to clone human beings, is a 
very serious matter from a scientific, medical, moral and ethical 
standpoint. I don't think we can afford to set this issue aside without 
some immediate consideration and some immediate attention.
  I am very pleased that the Senators that are involved on both sides 
of the aisle are obviously very concerned, very thoughtful, and would 
like to get an agreement.
  I am particularly pleased that one of the leaders on our side of the 
aisle is Dr. Bill Frist of Tennessee, one of the Senators who knows the 
most about questions of science. He would never want us to sacrifice 
appropriate advancements in science and medical achievement in any way. 
The difference is he really knows what he's talking about. So, while 
there are some disagreements about how far to go, what would be 
appropriate, what would not be appropriate, a lot of good work has been 
done.
  It seems to me that the thing to do is to go forward. Let's have a 
continued debate in addition to what we have already heard from a half 
dozen or seven Senators or so. Let's have other Senators become 
informed, read the debate we have already had, think about this issue, 
study the bills, and make recommendations. If there are amendments by 
the Senator from California, I think they should be offered. Let's 
debate them and let's think about them.
  This is an issue whose time has come--maybe sooner than we would have 
ever dreamed, and maybe in a lot of ways we had not anticipated this. 
But if we don't act, what could be the result? Do we want to allow the 
possibility of human cloning to go forward? I don't think so. Leaders 
in the scientific and medical communities, and others, have already 
indicated their concerns about that. The President of the United States 
has made it very clear in an early statement that he wanted to make 
sure that this human cloning did not occur. So I urge the Senate--we 
can go forward with deliberate speed, which is always the case, but we 
should go forward and not have this pigeon-holed somewhere in the 
bowels of the building for weeks or months while time and events pass 
us by.

                          ____________________