[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 79 (Friday, June 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5578-S5580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                CLONING

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the matter before the Senate at the 
present time is an amendment offered by my friend, Senator Brownback. I 
will address the issues raised by that amendment.
  We are considering a question that is of vital importance for every 
American affected by diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease, or other 
serious disorders. That question is whether we will permit a type of 
life-saving medical research to achieve its full potential to heal 
illnesses and cure disease--or whether we will stop this promising 
research dead in its tracks and deny its benefits to millions of 
Americans.
  We all know where Senator Brownback stands on the issue of medical 
research using the breakthrough new technique of nuclear 
transplantation. My friend from Kansas wants to ban this research 
forever. That's the position he has stated time and again in this 
Chamber and in forums across the country. And that is what the 
amendment that he offers today will accomplish.
  Members of this body have spent long, serious hours grappling with 
the complex scientific and ethical issues raised by the issue of human 
cloning. Senators know the difference between human cloning and medical 
research. Human cloning produces a human being. Medical research is 
done in a laboratory dish and produces cells. But these cells can be 
used by doctors to develop astonishing transplants that will never be 
rejected by a patient's own body.
  A majority of the Senate opposes any legislation to ban, even 
temporarily, the lifesaving research on nuclear transplantation that 
brings such hope to so many of our constituents. In the innocuous guise 
of an amendment to suspend certain aspects of the patent law, my friend 
from Kansas is trying to accomplish the goal he has long sought--
banning medical research that uses nuclear transplantation.
  The Brownsack amendment does many things. First, it bans patents on 
any cloned human being. It seems to me that if we want to ban human 
cloning, then we should ban it--pure

[[Page S5579]]

and sample. I introduced legislation with Senator Arlen Specter, 
Senator Feinstein, and Senator Hatch to ban human cloning in a 
straightforward way. Our legislation makes human cloning a crime 
punishable by 10 years in prison and substantial fines. That's the way 
to prohibit cloning.
  Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and it 
ought to be illegal. I think that every Member of the Senator would 
agree on this point.
  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, 40 Nobel Laureates 
wrote that these restrictions would ``impede progress against some of 
the most debilitating diseases known to man.''
  Of course we should reject the offensive idea that human beings could 
be patented, as the Patent Office already rightly does. But the 
Brownback amendment goes far belong this commonsense proposal. It is so 
broadly written as to ban patents on single cells derived from medical 
laboratory research using cloning techniques. It even bans patents on 
the processes used to conduct this important medical research.
  Why would my friend from Kansas propose such sweeping bans on 
patents? He offers this proposal precisely because he knows that if it 
is enacted, it will eviscerate this research.
  The extraordinary progress in medical research that we have seen in 
recent years relies on two great motors of innovation: NIH funding and 
a dynamic private biotechnology sector.
  But when it comes to vital research using nuclear transplantation 
techniques, one of those motors has already been broken. There are no 
research grants being given by NIH or any other Federal agency for this 
research. There never have been, and under this administration, there 
never will be.
  If we had allowed our Nation's great research universities to conduct 
extensive nuclear transplanation research, there's no telling what 
medical miracles we might have seen by now. Perhaps scientists using 
NIH funds could have already developed replacement cells for little 
children with diabetes that would never run the risk of tissue 
rejection. Perhaps those same NIH-funded scientists could have 
developed new cures for those whose minds and memories slowly ebb away 
on the tide of Alzheimer's disease.
  Fortunately, we have a robust and dynamic biotechnology industry 
where new cures are developed and new discoveries made. Because NIH 
will not fund nuclear transplantation research, every major discovery 
in this field has come from funds provided by biotechnology companies.
  But the biotechnology industry runs on patents. Abraham Lincoln said 
that the patent system ``added the fuel of interest to the fire of 
genius.''
  The Brownback amendment would permanently shut off the supply of that 
fuel. It would accomplish Senator Brownback's long-held goal of banning 
this medical research entirely. NIH already can't fund it and the 
Brownback amendment would make sure no biotechnology company would 
touch it.
  Instead of debating peripheral issues like patents, we should be 
debating the question that's at the core of this debate, whether we 
should allow or prohibit a type of medical research that bring hope to 
millions of Americans simply because it seems new or strange to some 
people.
  We offered our opponents on this issue the opportunity for a debate, 
but they declined that offer. I am saddened by this decision, because I 
believe that these issues deserve to be debated thoroughly on their own 
merits, not hastily considered as part of legislation on insurance. I 
hope that we will have the opportunity for a full debate on the issue 
of cloning, as I know it is of profound interest to many of our 
colleagues. It has been my privilege to take part in some of the other 
great debates we have had over the years on issues raised by the 
progress of science.
  In the 1970s we debated whether to ban the basic techniques of 
biotechnology. Some of the very same arguments that are raised against 
nuclear transplantation research today were raised against 
biotechnology back then. Some said that it would lead to ecological 
catastrophe or genetic monsters. Critics told us that the new science 
of recombinant DNA research was unproven and untested. They said that 
it might never yield new cures and that its benefits would never 
materialize.
  We could not know in the 1970s all the incredible advances that 
recombinant DNA research would bring, not only in medical 
breakthroughs, but in so many different aspects of our lives. We didn't 
know then that DNA fingerprinting would one day ensure that criminals 
are punished and the wrongly imprisoned are released. But that is what 
is happening today. We did not know then that scientists would learn to 
put thousands of genes on a tiny chip, so that medicines can be 
customized for the genetic signature of an individual patient. But that 
is what is happening today. We did not know any of this in the 1970s. 
But we did know that recombinant DNA research offered extraordinary 
promise and that it should not be banned.
  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.
  Even heart transplants once seemed new or strange. Some denounced the 
idea of taking a beating heart from the chest of one person and placing 
it in the body of another.
  But this debate is not about abstract ideas or complex medical terms. 
It is 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 transplantation, 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 who support the Brownback proposal say that the science is still 
uncertain, that we should delay this research because we can not 
predict what avenue of scientific inquiry will be the quickest pathway 
to a breakthrough.
  The Brownback amendment makes certain that breakthrough cures will 
never see the light of day. If Congress adopts that proposal, we can be 
certain that doctors will never use this medical research to develop 
new pancreas cells for diabetics that are perfectly matched to the 
patient's own body. We can be certain that doctors will never use these 
techniques for important new insights into the basic mechanisms of 
Parkinson disease or Alzheimer's disease. We can be certain that 
patients in every community in every State in the Nation will be denied 
the hope and the benefits that this research brings.
  That is the kind of certainty the Brownback amendment brings. If you 
want to accept this false and dangerous certainty, then you should vote 
for his amendment.
  But if you want to promote life saving medical research, if you want 
to side with patients, if you want to take a chance on hope, then I 
urge you to vote for patients, for medicine, for hope and for the 
bipartisan proposal that I have introduced with Senator

[[Page S5580]]

Specter, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and many other colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeWine and Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2626 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________