[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 40 (Friday, April 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S2629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                CLONING

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the next few weeks, the Senate will 
debate the important issue of cloning. Using cloning to reproduce a 
child is improper and immoral--and it ought to be illegal. I think that 
every member of the Senate would agree on this point.
  But some want to use our opposition to human cloning to advance a 
more sweeping agenda. In the name of banning cloning, they would place 
unwarranted restrictions on medical research that could improve and 
extend countless lives. In a letter to the Congress this week, 40 Nobel 
Laureates wrote that these restrictions would ``impede progress against 
some of the most debilitating diseases known to man.'' I am saddened 
that the President has endorsed these restrictions to the detriment of 
patients across America.
  Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Diane Feinstein, and I have developed 
legislation that bans human cloning, but allows medical research to go 
forward with strict ethical oversight. I am confident that our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this balanced and 
responsible bipartisan approach--rather than voting to ban an area of 
medical research that holds such great promise.
  We must not let the misplaced fears of today deny patients the cures 
of tomorrow.
  The recent announcement that rogue doctors may have initiated a 
pregnancy through cloning shows how urgently our legislation is needed. 
Such actions should be a crime, and our legislation will make human 
cloning punishable by fines and imprisonment.
  But we must not confuse human cloning with medical research using the 
remarkable new technique of nuclear transfer. One creates a person and 
should be banned. The other saves lives by helping doctors find cures 
for diseases that deprive people of their dignity, their careers or 
even their very lives. We owe it to our fellow citizens to do 
everything we can to encourage this extraordinary research that brings 
such great hope to so many Americans. Medical research using nuclear 
transfer does not reproduce a child or create carbon copies of 
ourselves.
  But this debate isn't about abstract ideas or complex medical terms--
it's about real people who could be helped by this research. Dr. 
Douglas Melton is one of the nation's foremost researchers on diabetes. 
For Dr. Melton, the stakes involved in this research could not be 
higher. His young son, Sam, has juvenile diabetes, and Dr. Melton works 
tirelessly to find a cure for his son's condition.
  One of the most promising areas of research on diabetes involves 
using stem cells to provide the insulin that Sam--and thousands of 
children like him--need to live healthy, active lives.
  But a shadow looms over this research. A patient's body may reject 
the very cells intended to provide a cure. To unlock the potential of 
stem cell research, doctors are trying to reprogram stem cells with a 
patient's own genetic material. Using the breakthrough technique of 
nuclear transfer, each one of us could receive transplants or new cells 
perfectly matched to our own bodies. Can we really tell Sam Melton, and 
the millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, or Parkinson's 
disease or spinal injuries that we won't pursue every opportunity to 
find a cure for their disorders?
  Some have said that this research will put women at risk by 
subjecting them to undue pressures to donate eggs. Our legislation 
addresses this concern by applying to all nuclear transfer research--
whether publicly or privately funded--the same strict ethical standards 
used in research funded by the NIH. These protections guarantee ethical 
review, informed consent, and respect for the privacy of donors.
  Congress has rejected calls to place undue restrictions on medical 
research many times in the past. In the 1970s we debated whether to ban 
the basic techniques of biotechnology. Some of the very same arguments 
that are raised against nuclear transfer research today were raised 
against biotechnology back then. Some said that the medical promise of 
biotechnology was uncertain, and that it would lead to ecological 
catastrophe or genetic monsters.
  Because Congress rejected those arguments then, patients across 
America today can benefit from breakthrough new biotechnology products 
that help dissolve clots in the arteries of stroke victims, fight 
leukemia, and help those with crippling arthritis lead productive 
lives.
  When in vitro fertilization was first developed in the 1980s, it too, 
was bitterly denounced. And once again, there were calls to make this 
medical breakthrough illegal. Because Congress rejected those arguments 
then, thousands of Americans today can experience the joys of 
parenthood through the very techniques that were once so strongly 
opposed.
  Congress was right to place patients over ideology in the past, and 
we should do the same again today.

                          ____________________