[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 161 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12032-S12034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to continue a discussion that began 
in morning business earlier today. That is on the issue of human 
cloning. I had not expected to be talking about this issue during the 
closing days of this session of Congress. But I feel compelled to do so 
in light of Sunday's announcement. That is indeed very troubling for 
everybody as they seek to understand what this is all about after 
Sunday's announcement that a U.S. company is pursuing the purposeful 
creation of cloned human embryos.
  I believe all human cloning for scientific reasons, for ethical 
reasons, and for reasons surrounding the health and safety of women 
should be banned.
  This whole subject of human cloning was the subject of a lot of 
discussion earlier this year. This summer, the House of Representatives 
passed a bill prohibiting the human cloning by a large and overwhelming 
margin. But in light of the events of September 11, much of the 
discussion was put aside. A lot of that changed on Sunday. And now I 
believe it is incumbent upon the Senate to address this critical issue 
before adjourning for the year.
  I urge the majority leader to call up the House bill and to allow the 
Senate to work its will on that bill. We don't have the luxury of time 
that I think many of us thought we had. If we look over the last 
several years--really beginning in 1997, when Scottish researchers 
first captured the attention of the world after they used the process 
called somatic cell nuclear transfer to successfully clone that adult 
sheep by the name of Dolly--since that period of time a lot has 
happened in this particular body. The portrayal of human cloning has 
intrigued our imagination over the last 4 to 5 years. But we all must 
recognize that this is serious business. The idea that cloning human 
beings may be technologically possible challenges our fundamental 
beliefs--whether they be spiritual, or whether they be moral. Those 
people who pay attention to science ask if it is really possible. I 
believe the answer is yes. But what it really causes us to do is to go 
back and challenge our fundamental beliefs on what the appropriate 
limits are or should be of human control over nature.

  I tell you, as a scientist and as someone who has thought a lot about 
end-of-life issues or beginning-of-life issues and disease and health, 
it provokes, in me, a lot of concern in terms of the issues of how much 
to intervene, at what point, what is someone's motive, and can that 
motive be shifted in such a direction that the great promises of 
science can be used to the abuse of what most people would regard as 
their moral sensibilities.
  After the Dolly announcement, we held a series of hearings in the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The first hearing 
focused on science. We had scientists testify. We looked at all types 
of cloning: Animal cloning, human cellular cloning, and the cloning of 
a human embryo, the cloning of human individuals.
  At the second hearing we had ethicists and theological 
representatives come in. We listened to distinguished individuals 
testifying from the Christian faith, the Jewish traditions, the Islamic 
traditions, all relating to human cloning. We also listened to 
philosophers well schooled in biomedical ethics.
  The story went on. The National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC), 
at the request of President Clinton, looked at, studied, and made a 
report on the moral and ethical issues as well as the scientific 
standpoints. NBAC then reported to the President that reproductive 
cloning was unsafe and should be prohibited by Federal law.
  About a year after that, Senator Bond and I, based on our hearings, 
and based on that National Bioethics Advisory Committee report, 
introduced the Human Cloning Prohibition Act along with a number of our 
other colleagues. That bill would have prohibited the use of somatic 
cell nuclear transfer technology to produce a human embryo.
  At the time--and the time today is very different; again, that was in 
1998--the science of issues such as stem cell research, particularly 
embryonic stem cells, was all hypothetical. It was all theoretical. 
This whole field of embryonic stem cell research existed, but only as a 
hope of what might be. No research using embryonic stem cells had 
actually been conducted at the time.
  The overall science of these issues, of cloning and stem cell 
research, was relatively undeveloped and even less understood. The bill 
got caught up in a lot of concerns that it could prevent this whole 
field of embryonic stem cell research from progressing, and the bill 
really fell by the wayside.
  Indeed, almost 2 years would pass between the announcement of Dolly, 
the sheep, in 1997 and the groundbreaking reports on the successful 
isolation of what are called human pluripotent stem cells. It was 2 
years after Dolly.
  Now, more than 2 additional years past, the field of embryonic stem 
cell research has really made great strides, although it is still in 
its infancy, as we are seeing today. Today there are more than 60 
established embryonic stem cell lines worldwide. The research, I 
believe, does show great promise for stem cell research as we look to 
the future.
  We have also learned a lot about adult stem cells. Only recently 
people understood there are two--indeed, there are three--but two main 
types of stem cells: One is adult, and one is embryonic. A lot of our 
traditionally held beliefs about the adult stem cells, the fact that 
they can only go in one direction, have been modified as we have 
studied them scientifically. Now we know they are not restricted to one 
fate or one direction.

  This past year, the NIH spent $250 million on stem cell research. 
That number, I am quite certain, is going to grow in the future because 
of the promise of stem cell research for therapies for a range of 
diseases. That money will be spent for both adult stem cell and 
embryonic stem cell research.
  I will say that overall stem cell research is in its very early 
stages and there is a lot to learn. I have just outlined what we have 
learned in the last 2 years, and in the 2 years prior to that from the 
time that Dolly was first cloned.
  But what we can say now, with confidence, I believe, is that a ban on 
human cloning--again, we are talking about stem cells and human 
cloning--a ban on human cloning will not be a barrier in any way to the 
aggressive pursuit of embryonic or adult stem cell research. I would 
argue that it is just to the contrary of what some people say, that if 
you ban human cloning in some way it might slow down stem cell 
research.

[[Page S12033]]

  Why do I say that? It comes back to a debate we had on this floor 6 
or 8 months ago when we were talking about stem cells. It is my belief 
that embryonic stem cell research, which I believe has great promise, 
and adult stem cell research can best be conducted in an environment, a 
framework, where you have ethical considerations, moral considerations, 
and a legal framework defined. That way, the American people can trust 
what is being done, what we are investing in, in relation to what the 
scientists are doing.
  I would argue that that legal framework around stem cell research--to 
allow it to progress--demands, as one of its criteria, that we ban the 
cloning of human beings, that we ban human cloning. That is what is 
before us today as we define what America is thinking today. Where do 
the scientists fit in with all this? You will hear different scientists 
saying different things. But I think it is also clear that, 
scientifically, embryonic stem cell research can and will be able to 
proceed aggressively without the use of therapeutic cloning.
  I think it is generally believed that most scientists consider the 
field of human cloning too immature and unknown if the goal is to 
safely attempt to clone a human being. Most scientists will agree it is 
too early. We do not know enough today.
  What about therapeutic cloning? You hear these words. You have 
reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. And with more time we 
will probably get more into that. But conceptually there are two 
different types of cloning.
  Some people say we should ban reproductive cloning but we should 
allow the therapeutic cloning to proceed. I would argue with the 
intent. We have heard people say they want to clone human beings. They 
said they are going to go out and do it. Now the technology, as we saw 
3 days ago, is likely to get there. So they are likely to do it.
  So when you are creating a human embryo, and you say you are going to 
use it just therapeutically, it is just too easy to take that embryo 
and implant it in the womb, and then it is reproductive cloning. And 
there will be more opportunity to talk about the differences there.
  I will say therapeutic cloning is not necessary for rapid scientific 
advancement. The 60-plus stem cell lines out there are sufficient for 
Federal researchers to aggressively move in the direction of productive 
research. Moreover, the idea of therapeutic cloning, intended to combat 
the danger of autoimmune rejection, something I as a transplant surgeon 
am very aware of, carries with it challenges of its own and does not 
necessarily solve the problem of autoimmune rejection.

  Let me just shift very quickly to risk. There are real risks to human 
cloning. Even those people who are not repulsed by creating superhuman 
beings and having people created in their own image and control--this 
whole field of human cloning is almost godlike--even those people, when 
you push them, recognize the frightening risks of human cloning.
  Four years ago, it took about 270 attempts to get Dolly, the sheep. 
Whether it is 200 or 500 or 100, you translate that down to human 
beings, and that means 270 still births, 270 miscarriages, 270 deformed 
births--all because we do not know enough. It is simply not safe.
  I think we should move quickly to prohibit human cloning no matter 
what the stated purpose. We do not act alone. Other nations are also 
struggling in responding to this issue as well. France and Germany have 
developed legislation to prohibit human cloning, and they have called 
upon the United Nations to take up this matter on the international 
level.
  I believe the creation of human embryos purely for research purposes 
alone is the exploitation of human life. I say it, yes, as a pro-life 
Senator, but I think the idea of creating human embryos for the reason 
of just research is an exploitation that even the National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission and newspaper editorial pages, including the 
Washington Post have opposed. Why? Because you ultimately have to 
destroy those embryos.
  There is also another issue about which I hope we will have the 
opportunity to talk. It is actually in an article from November 25 in 
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The heading of the article says: ``Buying 
and Selling of Women's Eggs Raise Fears of Bidding Wars.'' The first 
sentence states:

       Egg donors needed. Healthy women ages 18-32 willing to help 
     infertile couples.

  In another paragraph it says:

       In California, the increasing demand has resulted in a 
     flourishing egg-donation industry that can reward donors with 
     payments equivalent to a semester's tuition at an Ivy League 
     school. Greater demand also has increased prices on the East 
     Coast by several thousand dollars.

  I mention that because clearly if there are individuals or companies 
out there with what inevitably will be a financial incentive to 
obtaining these eggs, the burden is very likely to fall upon women of 
low income.
  The eggs will have to be obtained through a medical procedure. The 
medical procedure has its own risks as well. There are no safeguards 
today for women who would be used as sources of the needed eggs. I 
believe that a failure to prohibit human cloning not only poses a real 
risk to the health and safety of the women but will have the effect of 
turning their bodies into commodities.
  In closing, because of statements by many people around the world who 
have said they are going to clone human beings and the recent 
announcement on Sunday which shows that human cloning is much closer on 
the horizon unless we act, I encourage my colleagues in this body and 
the majority leader, to bring up the House bill and allow us to modify 
that bill, if necessary.
  The bill has already been passed by the House of Representatives. It 
is very similar to the bill Senator Bond and I introduced along with 
others 3 years ago. The House has improved it. They expand the 
definitions and exclusions from the original bill. The only act 
prohibited in that bill is human cloning.
  Our challenge is to move quickly and carefully. We need to move 
quickly to achieve the goal of prohibiting human cloning without--it is 
important to understand--harming the important biomedical research 
which will be allowed to continue. That goal is within our grasp.
  The majority leader has said we will bring up this bill next spring. 
Because of recent incidents, I encourage him to do it as soon as we can 
this year. The risks of delay simply are too great. Our responsibility 
is clear.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 
article I cited be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the St. Louis-Dispatch, Nov. 25, 2001]

     Buying and Selling of Women's Eggs Raise Fears of Bidding Wars

                          (By Michelle Meyer)

       ``Egg donors needed. Healthy women ages 18-32 willing to 
     help infertile couples.''
       Adrienne Smith spotted the ad submitted by the infertilty 
     and Reproductive Medicine Center at Washington University in 
     the Riverfront Times earlier this year. Having read articles 
     about egg donation, she knew that clinics paid several 
     thousand dollars for young women's eggs.
       Smith, 24, works as an administrative assistant and is 
     planning on taking classes to become a certified massage 
     therapist. That money could help pay her tution, so she 
     applied to become a donor.
       The experience went well for Smith. Doctors successfully 
     extracted her eggs and donated them to an infertile couple. 
     Smith will never meet the couple, nor the offspring who might 
     result. But she was paid $2,500 and she also has the 
     satisfaction of knowing that she is helping people who long 
     to become parents.
       Even so, the buying and selling of women's eggs raise 
     troubling issues. With an estimated 6 million U.S. women 
     suffering from infertility, the demand for transplanted eggs 
     is great. Medical ethicists and reproductive specialists fear 
     a bidding war may be in the offing. And that, in turn, could 
     lure women into the program who are ill-suited or unprepared 
     for the rigors of donating their eggs.
       In California, the increasing demand has resulted in a 
     flourishing egg-donation industry that can reward donors with 
     payments equivalent to a semester's tuition at any Ivy League 
     school. Greater demand also has increased prices on the East 
     Coast by several thousand dollars.
       No one can say for sure how many young women are donating 
     eggs in the St. Louis area. What is clear is that sizeable 
     fees paid to donors on the coasts aren't as prevalent in the 
     Midwest.
       But some are already concerned. ``The higher the amount of 
     money, the more danger there is that a woman might take risks

[[Page S12034]]

     that she might not ordinarily take for the sake of the 
     money,'' says Rebecca Dresser, professor of law and ethics in 
     medicine at Washington University and a member of American 
     Society of Reproductive Medicine. ``The huge financial 
     incentive increases the incentive to conceal health issues 
     both to her own health and that of her offspring.''
       The business of matching egg donors and infertile couples 
     is largely unregulated with well-established medical 
     institutions--like Washington University--and independent 
     brokers involved. Some solicit and match donors 
     discreetly. Others aren't shy about touting their prices 
     to donors and bragging to infertile couples that their 
     donors are some of the best looking and most intelligent 
     people around.
       Attracted by the promise of big money, potential donors may 
     be unaware of the demands of egg extraction.


                          retrieving the eggs

       For egg donor Smith, that meant injecting herself daily 
     with ovarian stimulation shots, visiting the doctor's office 
     a half dozen times and enduring an uncomfortable bloating of 
     her abdomen that prevented her from wearing her regular 
     clothing. At the end of the process, a doctor administered a 
     mild anesthesia and poked Smith's ovaries with a long needle, 
     extracting the eggs that had ripened inside of her.
       Awaiting the final procedure, Smith read an article about 
     infertility and began to cry. ``I realized there is no amount 
     of money that can compensate you for what you are doing,'' 
     Smith said. ``I sat there reading about these people who were 
     so excited by the chance to actually have a child. Helping 
     people is very important to me. I hope and pray that a 
     pregnancy came out of it.''
       The egg retrieval took less than 45 minutes, and within an 
     hour, Smith was awake and ready to go home. Like most women, 
     Smith experienced mild abdominal discomfort and soreness for 
     several days. Immediately following the retrieval, her eggs 
     were fertilized with the recipient husband's sperm and 
     implanted into the wife's womb.
       ``Egg donors needed. $3,500. Must be 21-34.''
       Surrogate Parenting Center of Texas placed this simple, 
     straightforward ad on the back page of a recent Riverfront 
     Times. It is representative of many ads targeting readers in 
     that age range. Many appear in college newspapers, including 
     those at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, Washington 
     University and St. Louis University.
       ``We had a lot of ads (requesting donors) run last year,'' 
     says Nick Bowman, editor of the UMSL's newspaper, The 
     Current. ``But since my regime as editor this year, we 
     haven't seen as many.
       Many ads appeal to a donor's sense of compassion. Dr. 
     Ronald Wilbois of the Infertility and IVF Center of St. Louis 
     says, ``There is no mention of monetary compensation in our 
     ads, although some people in town have done that. I think you 
     get into this big problem of clinics competing with each 
     other if you do that. Plus, we don't want money to be the big 
     draw. We have found that women who do it for the money are 
     not real reliable as a group.''
       The IVF Center performs six to eight donor egg retrieval 
     procedures a month, and unlike several clinics in the area, 
     doesn't have a waiting list for eggs, according to Wilbois. 
     But he admits that it can be difficult to find ``good'' 
     donors.
       Many women do not pass the stringent physical and medical 
     screening required. Donors are required to submit complete 
     medical and family histories, as well as pass various screens 
     for infectious diseases and medical or genetic disorders. 
     About 10 percent find that their eggs are not viable.


                        the internet connection

       The Internet has become a resource for couples seeking egg 
     donors. Web sites provide a quick database that has replaced 
     time-consuming paper files. Some sites include photos of 
     young women, as well as personal information such as IQ 
     level, high schook grade point average and physical 
     measurements.
       Dawn T. Hunt is an egg broker in California who helps to 
     pair infertile couples with donors. Her company, Fertility 
     Alternatives Inc., posts pictures of young women interested 
     in donating, including some from St. Louis. The Web site, 
     www.geocities.com/fertilityalternatives/oocyte.html, 
     classifies some of the women as ``exceptional donors,'' those 
     with above-average intelligence, academic achievements or 
     physical attractiveness.
       One ``exceptional'' donor, a young woman referred to as 
     Rachel M., is a graduate of Washington University residing in 
     the St. Louis area. Rachel is 23 with short blonde hair and a 
     doll-like round face who scored 1430 on her SAT and earned a 
     3.66 GPA in graduate school. Individuals wanting to make a 
     baby with Rachel's eggs can expect to pay $8,000, although 
     that fee is negotiable. Hunt will get part of that money.
       ``I found a lot of my people wanted attractive donors with 
     proven intelligence . . . so I gave it to them,'' Hunt said. 
     ``My clientele feels guilty about (placing so much importance 
     on physical attractiveness) but if it were me. I would 
     probably want an attractive donor.''
       The ethical debate over the sale of human eggs heightened 
     after ``Ron's Angels'' appeared on the Internet in 1999. Ron 
     Harris, a California fashion photographer, posted pictures 
     of models on his site in an effort to create an auction 
     for the eggs of beautiful women. Reportedly, bids for 
     model's eggs soared as high as $42,000.
       Last year, members of the American Society for Reproductive 
     Medicine suggested that compensation up to $5,000 is 
     appropriate for the donation of eggs but that anything above 
     $10,000 is inappropriate.
       But those are merely guidelines. Currently, every state 
     except Louisiana allows for the sale of human eggs. And no 
     states have enacted legislation aimed at capping fees or 
     regulating egg donation.
       Educators worry that students may be ill-prepared to weigh 
     the costs and benefits of selling their eggs.
       ``I think college students would be vulnerable to this kind 
     of solicitation because of the extreme financial incentive,'' 
     said Judith Gibbons, a professor of psychology at St. Louis 
     University who specializes in issues of early adulthood. 
     ``When I ask college students about their major concerns, 
     financial worries are always on top of the list. But I would 
     never want to take their autonomy away from them because they 
     are adults and can make their own decisions.''
       Dresser, the Washington University professor, fears that 
     young people may regret their decisions later in life. ``When 
     they are that young they may not fully appreciate that there 
     may be some risks to their future fertility,'' she said. ``Of 
     course, it is only speculation at this point because we don't 
     know if there is a danger to future fertility. Egg donation 
     has only been going on for a few years, so we haven't been 
     able to follow these women over time.''
       Smith said that while trying to decide whether to become a 
     donor, she wrestled with the idea of possibly having a child 
     in the world and not knowing him or her. Although the thought 
     bothered her, she decided to go ahead anyway.
       Dr. Sherman Silber of the Infertility Center of St. Louis 
     refuses to solicit donors with ads. ``I felt that was abusive 
     to women. I don't like the idea of targeting a young 19- or 
     20-year-old girl who needs money.''
       But if all goes well, the process can be fulfilling for 
     everyone involved.
       Tonya Weisheyer, 23, of Winfield, has donated her eggs 
     twice and is now acting as a surrogate mother. For her first 
     donation, Weisheyer donated to a couple in Boston and flew 
     there for her egg retrieval, although she did not meet the 
     prospective parents. Two weeks after her donation, Weisheyer 
     got a call from the couple's lawyer informing her that the 
     wife was pregnant.
       After the donation, the couple sent Weisheyer a large 
     bouquet of flowers and gift certificates to Toys `R' Us for 
     Weisheyer's three children, ``I was in tears,'' Weisheyer 
     said. ``Just hearing they were pregnant was enough for me. 
     Just to know that I had helped them to accomplish their 
     dream. I was on cloud nine all day.''

  Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 15 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________