[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1383-H1384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       HUMAN CLONING LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the subject of 
cloning.
  Last year Ian Wilmuth, a scientist in Scotland, announced the cloning 
of a sheep named Dolly; and at that time I came to the floor and 
expressed my concern about the possibility of applying that technique 
to cloning humans. I was certainly in tune with the American people, 
because it turned out over 90 percent of them object to cloning of 
human beings, for various reasons.
  I am in the unusual situation of being one of the few scientists in 
the Congress, and as a scientist I understand the vital role that 
science plays in enhancing the welfare of individuals in society, and I 
am extremely reluctant to place any limits on scientific research. 
However, while the possibilities of scientific experiments may seem 
limitless, there are times when society, through its governmental 
process, can and should place limits on scientific experimentation.
  There are many things which science can do. Most of them should be 
done. Some should not. And it is up to us to decide which should not.
  There are a number of scientific reasons at this point for banning 
human cloning. It took 277 tries to produce Dolly, and it would take 
considerably more than a thousand, I believe, to produce a human clone. 
The dangers associated with that are immense. And in particular, we 
have to worry about the rights of all those failures which resulted in 
discards. If we are cloning sheep and things go bad, no one regrets 
discarding the defective sheep. But if it is a human, we have an 
entirely different situation.
  There are also social and psychological reasons for banning human 
cloning and, above all, there are moral and ethical reasons for a ban. 
However, in spite of the national consensus on banning human cloning 
that I mentioned, the bill that I introduced to do this has come under 
attack, primarily from those who would benefit in various ways, from 
allowing the process to go forward. The Biotechnology Industry 
Organization and the Association for Reproductive Medicine clearly have 
a vested interest in this.
  Let me point out some of the scare tactics that have been used. The 
following was distributed in a letter to all Members of the House of 
Representatives, from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, better 
known as BIO. They state, just to select one phrase, ``We urge you to 
use caution before deciding to cosponsor or support hastily drafted 
legislation which would not only ban human cloning, but would 
inadvertently shut down biomedical research by outlawing basic 
laboratory techniques used for decades.''
  There are several things wrong with that statement. First of all, 
they say the legislation is hastily drafted. That seems to be a phrase 
people always use when they do not like legislation. The bill under 
discussion in the Committee on Commerce has survived several hearings 
over several mouths in the Committee on Science. It has been 
deliberated and modified by the Committee on Science and is certainly 
not hastily drafted. I think it is a good bill.
  Secondly, they say it will inadvertently shut down biomedical 
research. That is absurd, absolutely absurd. The bill that I have 
introduced would not shut down biomedical research. The letter says it 
would do that by outlawing basic laboratory techniques used for 
decades. I would like the industry to show me one such technique used 
for decades which my bill would shut down.
  It is time for the facts to get out. It is time for the Members of 
the House to get the facts and to pay attention to it and not be guided 
by alarmist information distributed by organizations that have a vested 
financial interest in preventing my bill from passing.
  If we look at the bill that came out of the Committee on Science, 
which is now before the Committee on Commerce, and a companion bill 
which will be modified similar to this, we were very careful. We do not 
ban human cloning, first of all, because ``cloning" is not a precise 
term. We defined it in terms of prohibiting human somatic cell nuclear 
transfer. Now, that is a very technical definition, but very narrow and 
very precise.
  Secondly, we specifically outline what is permitted, because I did 
not just want to ban human cloning and leave things up in the air; I 
wanted to be very specific about what was permitted. And this bill 
makes it clear that somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning 
technologies can be used to clone molecules, to clone DNA, clone cells 
other than human embryo cells or tissues, to clone animals; and I plan 
to expand that to include cloning plants as well.
  We are working very hard to come up with a good bill that is fair and 
equitable and that will allow legitimate research to go forward but 
will ban the cloning of human beings in any form and at any stage of 
life. I would appreciate the support of my colleagues.

[[Page H1384]]



                          ____________________