[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S788-S789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to 
explain why I voted against cloture on S. 1601, the Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act introduced by Senators Bond, Frist, Lott, and Gregg.
  First of all, I want to state unequivocally that I am against the 
cloning of a human being. Cloning of a human child raises serious moral 
and ethical questions about society's perception of human life. The 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, after a thorough review of the 
ethical and legal issues involved, has recommended that Congress enact 
legislation to prohibit the use of cloning to create a child, and I 
agree that Congress needs to act on this issue.
  We should not, however, rush to enact legislation that could do 
serious harm to other critical medical research. The legislation before 
the Senate today is only eight days old. The Senate Labor Committee and 
Senate Judiciary Committee, which have jurisdiction over this bill, 
have not had the opportunity to hold hearings on this specific 
legislation or the other bills that have recently been introduced, much 
less consider amendments to the language.
  In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration has already 
determined that it has authority and jurisdiction over human cloning 
and has stated that it would act to prohibit any attempt to clone a 
human being. In addition, professional organizations representing more 
than 64,000 scientists have voluntarily imposed upon themselves a five-
year moratorium on human cloning.
  Most importantly, as we take action to ban the cloning of humans, I 
want to be sure that we do not also ban valuable medical research that 
could lead to cures or treatments for the millions of Americans 
suffering from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, organ failure, 
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, severe skin burns, and many 
other diseases that perhaps we haven't even identified yet. Scientists 
do not yet understand exactly how somatic cell nuclear transfer, the 
technique used in cloning Dolly the sheep in Scotland last spring, 
worked.
  But medical researchers believe that this technology can be used to 
generate stem cells to treat disease. For instance, imagine being able 
in the not-so-distant future to repair the damage to the cardiac muscle 
caused by a heart attack. Using stem cell technology, we may be able to 
replace damaged cardiac cells with healthy cells that would then 
differentiate into cardiac muscle. I do not know whether this will 
ultimately prove to work, but I believe we should continue to pursue 
this type of research if it could help to save the lives of millions of 
Americans each year.
  The Nation's scientific community has expressed deep concern that the 
legislation before us, as currently drafted, could halt stem cell 
research and other related research that would not lead to the cloning 
of human beings. Everyone I have talked to agrees that this is a 
complicated and difficult issue. We need to proceed, but we need to do 
so in the careful, considered way that has earned the Senate the 
reputation of the ``world's greatest deliberative body.''
  Mr. President, I ask that a New York Times editorial on this subject 
be printed in the Record.
  The editorial follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 10, 1998]

                     A Slapdash Proposal on Cloning

       The shock caused by the physicist Richard Seed's grandiose 
     intention to clone human beings may be about to cause more 
     damage than anything Dr. Seed could do in the laboratory. 
     Senate Republicans are now rushing to enact a bill that would 
     outlaw cloning a human embryo and, in the process, ban a 
     valuable technique that could potentially cure a wide range 
     of diseases. No wonder a slew of scientific associations and 
     high-tech industry groups are urging more carefully 
     constructed legislation. The sensitive scientific and moral 
     issues involved here require careful handling, not 
     grandstanding by politicians more interested in pandering 
     than in reaching a reasoned solution.

[[Page S789]]

       Congress may ultimately want to impose limits on cloning, a 
     technique that has arrived sooner than expected with the 
     announcement last year that Scottish scientists had cloned a 
     lamb from the cell of an adult sheep. That achievement, if it 
     proves practical in humans, would make it possible to take a 
     cell from an adult and use it to produce a genetically 
     identical twin many years younger than the parent. A national 
     bioethics commission, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical 
     industries and many scientific groups have all called for a 
     moratorium on actually cloning a person until society has 
     time to grapple with the ethical and moral issues.
       But the bill sponsored by the Republican Senators 
     Christopher Bond, William Frist and Judd Gregg does not 
     simply prohibit the use of cloning to produce a human embryo 
     for implantation in the womb. It would also prohibit use of 
     the technique to produce genetically identical tissues in the 
     laboratory to treat diseases or injuries where a person's 
     existing cells are damaged or insufficient. Such ailments 
     include leukemia, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord 
     injury, heart attacks and severe burns, among others.
       The Republicans contend that even these approaches require 
     creating what amounts to an embryo in the laboratory and then 
     experimenting on it to produce the desired tissues. But that 
     is a complex matter of definitions and techniques that 
     requires careful evaluation. The Republican bill and others 
     on the subject have not even gone through committee hearings. 
     When the matter comes up for a floor vote this week, the 
     Senate should postpone action and demand more considered 
     deliberation. It would be a shame if the rush to ban cloning 
     of people ended up crippling biomedical research.

                          ____________________