[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 164 (Friday, November 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12222-S12223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             HUMAN CLONING

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to particularly address the 
issue of human cloning and the part of the bill that puts forth a 6-
month moratorium on human cloning. I brought up before this body 
several times this week a U.S. News & World Report cover story of this 
week about the first human clone. Advanced Cell Technology out of 
Massachusetts is now saying they have cloned the first human being.
  We have to address this issue now or we are going to have to expect 
more stories such as this about the further development of human 
cloning before this body has spoken. The House has spoken and said they 
don't want to have human clones. They put forth a complete ban, and 
passed it by a large bipartisan majority, a 100-vote margin. The 
President said: Let's ban human cloning. We don't want to create humans 
for destructive purposes or for reproductive purposes in this fashion. 
He has asked for banning that. This body has failed to act.
  That is why we are putting forward at this time this request for a 6-
month moratorium: Time out; hold up, so we don't have moratoriums such 
as this while this body takes time to deliberate, hold the committee 
hearings, and do the things it needs to do to consider this issue. We 
are asking for a timeout moratorium for 6 months.
  I want to make several points and cite various groups that are 
supporting the moratorium or even the entire banning of human cloning. 
I want to read some important articles which they have put forward. I 
will make several points over the following days, weeks, and months.
  One point is that research cloning being sponsored by Advanced Cell 
Technology requires eggs to be harvested from a woman. Harvesting eggs 
is an invasive and dangerous procedure. Harvesting eggs from women 
means the use of super-ovulatory drugs, the

[[Page S12223]]

use of which has been linked to higher risks of ovarian cancer. The 
risk is one, a woman can take for a variety of reasons; one of them 
being to help have children. However, women are being asked to incur 
this risk to ``donate'' their eggs solely for money. Women who sell 
their eggs to firms like Advanced Cell Technology will likely 
disproportionately be of women who are already somewhat 
disenfranchised, or of lower income. In fact, it is now known that 
Advanced Cell Technology paid $4,000 to each woman who ``donated'' her 
eggs.

  I would say that is probably more than a donation if you pay $4,000 
for the egg. I suggest if this doesn't qualify as exploitation of the 
disenfranchised for profiteering motives, I am not sure what does.
  This is not just a pro-life or pro-choice debate. It is not that at 
all.
  In fact, pro-choice feminist Judy Norsigian and biologist Stuart 
Newman recently commented in a Boston Globe column,

       Because embryo cloning will compromise women's health, turn 
     their eggs and wombs into commodities, compromise their 
     reproductive autonomy and, with virtual certainty, lead to 
     the production of ``experimental'' human beings, we are 
     convinced that the line must be drawn here.

  That is strong language. Experimental human beings, eggs and wombs 
turned into commodities, and compromising women's health.
  Perhaps that is why this debate is not a debate, as someone 
suggested, on the issue of abortion. And perhaps that is why we have an 
interesting coalition forming of groups that are strongly opposed to 
abortion, groups that strongly support abortion, environmentalists, and 
others. The reason for the broad range of interest is that there is 
truly something about this issue which should concern all of us.
  I would like to read a few of the articles appearing in recent months 
for the benefit of some of my colleagues. The first article is by 
Sophia Kolehmainen of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a pro-
choice group chaired by Claire Nader. Claire is the sister of Ralph 
Nader, the Presidential candidate. She was actively involved in the 
Presidential campaign. This is what their group had to say about human 
cloning. This is the article they put forward. It is entitled ``Human 
Cloning: Brave New Mistake.''

       It would be a mistake to develop and use cloning as a 
     technique to replicate human beings. It is questionable 
     whether and what benefits would be gained from the successful 
     creation of a cloned human being, and whether they would 
     justify the radical impact cloning would have on our society. 
     Cloning is not just another reproductive technology that 
     should be made available to those who choose to use it, but 
     is an unnecessary and dangerous departure from evolutionary 
     processes and social practices that have developed over 
     millions of years. As with many other developments in 
     biotechnology, some scientists and commentators are asking us 
     to accept cloning of humans just because it is technically 
     possible, but there are few good reasons to develop the 
     technology, and many reasons not to develop it.


                           1. safety concerns

       The most frequently stated argument against cloning is 
     based on safety concerns. At this point in the process of 
     experimenting with cloning, such concerns are important. The 
     production of Dolly required at least 276 failed attempts. No 
     one knows why most of these attempts failed and only one 
     succeeded. From a technical viewpoint, cloning presents 
     different obstacles in every species, since embryo 
     implantation, development, and gestation differ among 
     different species. Human cloning therefore could not become a 
     reality without extensive human experimentation. Though 276 
     ``failed'' lambs may be acceptable losses, the ethical 
     implications of any failed or only partially successful human 
     experiments are unacceptable.

  Some of their article I don't necessarily agree with, but I am 
reading through their arguments.

                           2. commodification

       Cloning would encourage the commodification of humans. 
     Though industrialized societies commodify human labor and 
     human lives, the biological commodification involved in human 
     cloning would be of a vastly different order. Cloning would 
     turn procreation into a manufacturing process, where human 
     characteristics become added options and children become 
     objects of deliberate design. Such a process of 
     commodification needs to be actively opposed. It produces no 
     benefits and undermines the very basis of our established 
     notions of human individuality and dignity.


                              3. diversity

       Cloning would also disrespect human diversity in ethnicity 
     and ability. Though it is, in fact, not possible to produce 
     exact copies of animals or people, inherent in cloning is the 
     desire to do so. The process of cloning would necessarily 
     contribute to genetic uniformity by decreasing genetic 
     variety. A society that supported cloning as an acceptable 
     procreative technique would imply that human diversity is not 
     important. Especially in a multicultural nation like the 
     United States, where diversity and difference are at the root 
     of our cultural existence, any procedure that would reduce 
     our acceptance of differences would be dangerous. It is clear 
     from the tensions that exist in our society that we should 
     encourage processes that increase our appreciation for 
     diversity among individuals, not working to remove 
     differences.

  Dr. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, put forward 
a strong statement in opposition to human cloning. This is a pro-choice 
group which put forward a strong statement in opposition to cloning for 
many of the same reasons that I have put forward.
  There are other groups that are putting forward clear and convincing 
reasons why we should not do cloning. For those reasons and many 
others, I ask this body to take up the bill numbered 2505 on Monday, 
and vote for cloture on the moratorium prohibiting human cloning for 6 
months. There is ample reason for us to have a moratorium for 6 months.

  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, is 
recognized.

                          ____________________