[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 1998

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to 
commend my colleagues for voting ``no'' this morning on the effort to 
shut down debate and take up S. 1601, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act 
of 1998 without hearings or the benefit of a comprehensive Committee 
review of the bill.
  At the outset, I want to make it clear that I stand with the vast 
majority of Americans who oppose efforts to clone human beings. S. 
1601, however, does much more than that. The bill includes a permanent 
ban on the act of human somatic cell nuclear transfer, which means 
taking the nucleus--which contains DNA--from a mature cell and putting 
it into an egg cell from which the original nucleus has been removed. 
Although the bill defines the product of such a transfer as an embryo, 
it is not actually a fertilized egg, as that term is commonly 
understood. It is an unfertilized egg cell that contains DNA from 
another source. It is true that if this cell were implanted in a 
woman's womb, it could very well develop into a baby. However, the cell 
may also be grown in a laboratory to become skin, nerve, or muscle 
tissue.
  Because of its ban on human somatic cell transfer, there is a strong 
likelihood that S. 1601 would extinguish biomedical research in several 
vital areas. Scientists are examining approaches to treating disease 
that won't depend on drugs, but on stem cells that can differentiate 
into brain, skin, blood, or heart cells. S. 1601 would put an end to 
such research whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer is involved. Thus, 
it would outlaw efforts to create cardiac muscle cells to treat heart 
attack victims and degenerative heart disease; skin cells to treat burn 
victims; spinal cord neuron cells for the treatment of spinal cord 
trauma and paralysis; neural cells to treat those suffering from 
Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and Lou Gehrig's disease; 
blood cells to treat cancer anemia and immunodeficiencies; cells for 
use in genetic therapy to treat 5,000 genetic diseases, including 
cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, schizophrenia, and depression; liver cells 
for the treatment of such diseases as hepatitis and cirrhosis; and 
myriad other cells for use in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention 
of a multitude of serious and life-threatening medical conditions.
  Consider the effect that S. 1601 would have on research related to 
the treatment of diabetes. A diabetes patient has a shortage of 
insulin-producing cells in her pancreas. Somatic cell nuclear transfer 
technology may allow for the transplantation of a large number of 
insulin-producing cells into the diabetic patient that would be 
genetically identical to her. As a result, rejection would not be an 
issue and the patient would be cured. S. 1601 would stifle research 
into this promising approach to the treatment of diabetes.
  Moreover, S. 1601 would prevent doctors from utilizing certain 
treatments that already exist, such as an effective therapy for 
mitochondrial disease, which causes infertility in women.
  In sum, too much is at stake to allow legitimate concerns over human 
cloning to quash the beneficial research and existing treatments 
associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer. Over 120 medical 
research, industry, and patient advocacy organizations have expressed 
the view that S. 1601 would do just that. That is why I am co-sponsor 
of Senator Feinstein and Senator Kennedy's substitute bill, S. 1602. 
This legislation, drafted with the assistance of the National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission (NBAC), the National Institutes of Health, the 
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Biotech Industry 
Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food 
and Drug Administration, imposes a 10-year ban on the implantation of 
the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into a women's uterus. 
While it bans the cloning of human beings for 10 years, the bill does 
not prohibit the cloning of molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, or non-
human animals. It therefore does not restrict important biomedical and 
agricultural research that will improve the quality of life for 
millions of Americans and save the lives of many more.
  S. 1602 requires that in four-and-a-half years the NBAC prepare and 
submit a report on the state of the science of cloning; the ethical and 
social issues related to the potential use of this technology in human 
beings; and the wisdom of extending the prohibition. The bill also 
requires the President to seek cooperation with other countries to 
establish international restrictions similar to those it enumerates.
  Madam President, S. 1601 was brought directly to the floor two days 
after it was introduced without a day of committee hearings or a 
markup. The Senate did the right thing today when it decided that such 
a far-reaching bill with so many implications for the future direction 
of scientific inquiry must be carefully considered in committee. I am 
confident that we will ultimately agree upon a bipartisan approach to 
dealing with the issues raised by cloning technology, one that ensures 
that life-saving medical research will not be threatened. Through its 
action today, the Senate has sent the message that it intends to give 
this complex matter the thoughtful and deliberative consideration it 
deserves.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________