[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 161 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12025-S12027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2505

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the issue of human 
cloning and the need to address it in this Congress this year. I was 
hopeful of getting the majority leader's attention while he was on the 
floor; maybe we will get the attention of the Senator from Nevada about 
addressing the issue this year.
  As the Senator from Pennsylvania was pointing out, we now have the 
first human clone. People are calling it different names. Some are 
calling it an ``activated egg,'' rather than a human embryo or clone. 
U.S. News and World Report doesn't seem to have a problem with calling 
it the first human clone, as most of the newspapers were calling it. It 
is identical to an embryo. It now exists. It lived for a couple of 
days, then died. The technology has been used and exercised.
  It is something about which I have been warning this body for 
months--that we should address this issue before we get to the point in 
time where we are going to see human clones out there. And then we will 
have to wrestle with the question, Is this person or property? Is this 
a person or is it a piece of property that is owned by somebody? What 
do we do with a clone? This is capable of being implanted into a woman 
and of growing to be a full, identifiable person by anybody's 
definition. Now we have the technology being broached.
  We have at the desk H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 
2001 that the House of Representatives passed. The President is calling 
for this body to act upon that. He is saying we should not be waiting 
longer for this.
  It is my intention at the end of my comments to call up H.R. 2505 and 
ask unanimous consent that we immediately proceed to its consideration. 
This is a bill that is here. This is an issue that is right on top of 
us. It needs to be considered. We should deal with it now. We can deal 
with it. We can limit the amount of debate time that we will have on 
the bill. We can limit it to a period of 5 hours. We can limit it to 
two amendments. We can go all of those routes. If the majority leader 
would agree to do that, we can get this issue dealt with.

  Short of that, I submit to my colleagues what we can also do is take 
up this bill, only let's have a human cloning moratorium for 6 months, 
saying we will not allow human cloning of any type under any definition 
for a period of 6 months so Senator Specter

[[Page S12026]]

and others can hold hearings on this topic. Let's stop now before the 
horse gets further out of the barn, before we see living human embryos.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act 
of 2001.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. May I inquire, and respectfully so, of the Senator 
from Nevada, this is an issue that is right on top of us. I have been 
warning this body for months that this day was going to be here. Now it 
is here. We really should take up this issue. We can limit the amount 
of time. We can limit the amount of amendments to it. I ask why we 
can't proceed at least to a moratorium, a 6-month moratorium on human 
cloning.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to respond to my friend without his losing the 
floor.
  Mr. President, this is a very contentious issue. I certainly 
underscore the sincerity of the Senator from Kansas. Everyone knows how 
he feels about this issue. He has expressed it publicly. He has 
expressed it to me privately. I understand the sincerity of Senator 
Brownback on this issue.
  This is an issue about which other people feel just as strongly on 
the other side. I have sat through a number of hearings that had been 
originally led by the Senator from Pennsylvania where this issue first 
came up, and then we have had hearings since then that have been led by 
the Senator from Iowa. They have been probing, extremely good hearings, 
but they have been preliminary in nature in the sense that there is a 
lot more that needs to be done.
  Just 3 weeks ago on the Senate floor this issue came up. At that time 
it was believed there would be a time certain to take it up. There will 
be hearings, it is my understanding, in the Appropriations Committee 
held this Thursday and next Tuesday on this issue. I am sure there will 
be other hearings that will be held prior to the commitment of the 
majority leader as to when we would bring up this issue next year.
  That way we can have a full public debate on the issue with 
legislation being handled the way it should; that is, have unlimited 
amendments. That doesn't mean it would go on forever, but we would have 
amendments that would be offered on legislation that would be pending 
in this regard.
  We just cannot do it. We have a lot of issues that we need to 
address. We have five conference reports on appropriations bills that 
are not completed. We have not acted on a stimulus package. It took up 
an hour on the floor today. We have railroad retirement. We have an 
Agriculture bill. We have port security, about which Senator Hollings 
believes strongly and Senator Graham is waiting in my office to 
discuss--along with other issues--right now. There are lots of issues 
we have to take up.

  I know the Senator from Kansas believes this is the most important 
issue. But without having a better foundation, we are talking about 
waiting a matter of a couple months anyway.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I do not have the floor, but I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to ask a question.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I have a followup, and then I will be happy to yield 
to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. In short, I think it would be extremely difficult on an 
expedited schedule, which is what the Senator wants. This is not an 
issue I believe we can do with two amendments.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could, what about a moratorium? We now have a 
human clone out there. We have people using this technology. What about 
a period of a moratorium, say a 3-month or 6-month moratorium, until we 
can get to the issue, saying let's stop this now before we get human 
clones out there? This body has not spoken about it.
  Mr. REID. I respond as follows: There are people who, as I indicated 
earlier, believe just as fervently on this issue as does the Senator 
from Kansas. They believe that therapeutic cloning is something that 
will lead very quickly to the abolishment of diabetes, Parkinson's 
disease, and other dread diseases. As strongly as he feels about this, 
they feel that a moratorium for 6 months, 2 months, or 2 days is 
preventing science from going ahead and working on cures for these 
diseases. That is how I answer the question. That is the debate we need 
to have.
  The majority leader, Senator Daschle, has said he will bring this up 
next year. We could spend a considerable amount of time on the floor 
listening to the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
both of whom have strong beliefs in this regard.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Nevada for responding. If I 
could reclaim my time briefly, I wish to warn the body, before we take 
this issue back up, we are going to see more of these things announced. 
We are going to see people working on putting animal genetic material 
into the human species. That is going to be announced next. That will 
be the next announcement sometime a month or two down the road. This 
body will not have spoken on it.
  The House has spoken on it. The President has stated: Please give 
this to me. He has asked that. That is why I respectfully put this 
forward. This technology is rapidly moving forward. It is to the point 
that most people are very uncomfortable with human cloning. People 
across the country, 90 percent, are saying: I don't think we ought to 
be going there.
  I am saying at this point in time, before this continues moving 
forward, let's hit the pause button and let's say, wait a minute, until 
we can really thoroughly vet this because, as the Senator from Nevada 
has rightly said, there are a number of people looking at this from 
different sides, questioning this. This is a very technically involved 
subject. I respect all of that. I respect that greatly. Why not, for a 
period of 3 months or 6 months, say, let's just pause here because we 
are entering a threshold period of time that we have not thoroughly 
contemplated as a society, as a people. We should say: Let's wait just 
a little bit before it leaps upon us.
  I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. The problem with the Senator's 
suggestion--and I will ask a question--is that he wants to stop 
everything. I say to my friend that we could probably reach agreement 
pretty quickly around here because I support legislation to ban human 
cloning. I know most people I have spoken to, if not all, agree. Of 
course, that occurs when you use the stem cells and you transfer them 
into a woman's uterus. We can stop that in a minute, but my friend 
would like to stop everything, and that is why I so strongly support 
Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, who have been our 
leaders on this subject.

  What we are saying is, we should allow stem cell research to continue 
to bring our people cures to these diseases that plague them. I do not 
know about in your State--and I am sure it is reflected in my State--
but if you ask people: Who is touched by Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, 
spinal cord injuries, diabetes and juvenile diabetes, who is touched by 
these diseases, who fears these diseases, one will find it is almost 
every individual.
  We all agree to ban human cloning. That is not the problem. But my 
friend is taking an extreme position which will shut down the applied 
research into possible cures for these diseases. Therefore, there is 
strong opposition to the position of my friend. If he were to march 
down with us and ban human cloning, the implantation of the nucleus 
into a woman, then we would walk down the road together. But we think 
stopping everything is unfair.
  Does my friend understand the debate in that sense? I hope he 
understands we are with him on banning human cloning but not stopping 
stem cell research to cure diseases.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can reclaim my time, I ask unanimous consent for 
an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will not object but since I have been here 
40 minutes, I would like to get in the queue. I ask unanimous consent 
that following the remarks of the Senator from Kansas, I be permitted 
my time in morning business.
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to do 
so,

[[Page S12027]]

I would like 1 minute when the Senator from Kansas finishes to make a 
comment or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I can respond to my colleague from 
California, I am happy to work with her on the definition of human 
cloning. I object to her categorization that I am opposed to all 
research and just stop. That is not my position. I have strongly 
supported adult stem cell research. I do not know if you can put a 
dollar amount in the funding line that I would not agree with because I 
think it is very promising research, and I am strongly supportive of 
that research.
  I object as well to the Senator's categorization that you take stem 
cells and put them in a woman's uterus. You do not do that. What I am 
talking about is an embryo that can be put into a uterus, actually form 
a living human being by everybody's definition. The Senator may have a 
different definition of when an embryo is a life.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will go for that definition that you cannot place a 
humanly cloned embryo into a woman's uterus. I would go for it. I 
understand my friend supports in vitro fertilization. I do, too. We 
would not deal with that. If it is, in fact, a cloned embryo, 
absolutely I would walk down the aisle with you on that in a moment, in 
a heartbeat.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. What about a cloned embryo period, once it is created?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say we would stop it at the implantation stage.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. What about a cloned embryo, period?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would oppose a cloned embryo being implanted so you 
have a human being at the end of 9 months.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can reclaim my time--I do not want to be rude--
herein lies the key, the rub of the issue: Some say you can create a 
cloned embryo and not implant it, with which I agree. I do not think we 
should implant that embryo.
  Mrs. BOXER. We agree on that then.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. What about the status of the cloned embryo, that is in 
its genetic material identical to one that is created naturally? 
Whether it is created by man or created by God, they are the same 
entities; they are identical. Therefore, do we say the status of one is 
different from the status of the other? Herein again lies my point.
  Mrs. BOXER. How far back do you want to go?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can reclaim my time, before we move forward on 
this, should we not pause at this point in time and say: Let's stop 
here; let's stop everything here for a few months and see where we are 
going with the future of humanity? The next step will be genetic 
material from outside the human species into the human species. That is 
going to be one of the next cover stories, and we will still be here 
saying: I am not sure about this definition; I am not sure about that.
  Do we want to burst that upon humanity and allow that to take place 
in our country? By our inaction, we will. I plead with my colleagues, 
let us work on this now and pause the whole issue for a short period of 
time so we can consider it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 1 minute.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think this last brief exchange points 
up the complexity of the issue as to what we are dealing with.
  When Senator Brownback comments about what may occur next, they are 
matters of enormous concern. I do not like cloning in any form, and it 
may be when we have the debate and when we have the hearings, if the 
bill is not going to be called up--I was not prepared to propose 
Senator Brownback call up the bill. I am prepared to debate this, and 
Senator Brownback may persuade me and may persuade others.
  I do think it is a more orderly process to give the scientific 
community an opportunity to present their case, but if Senator 
Brownback will get the procedures to have a vote now and a debate and 
really explore the matter--the sole purpose I have made in this 
presentation is to raise a distinction between reproductive cloning and 
what others have called therapeutic cloning, which, as I understand it, 
is not cloning at all. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for bringing 
this important subject before the Senate. It is evident from what we 
have heard that this subject requires a great deal of further debate.

                          ____________________