[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 55 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4173-S4174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Bunning, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Corker, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
        Sessions, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. 
        Voinovich):
  S. 1036. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit 
human cloning; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on bipartisan 
legislation that Senator Landrieu and myself are introducing, the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act. We do this today with 26 other cosponsors. It 
is important to talk about this matter as we set up for the bioethical 
debate which will be taking place after Easter and discuss some of the 
parameters and issues surrounding this topic. We have a continuum of 
discussion points, as this body and the rest of the country and, 
indeed, the world is engaged on the subject.
  There is an ethical way to move forward on stem cell research that is 
producing treatments and applications for human maladies, now in over 
70 areas. The science continues to grow, and it is promising. I have 
held press conferences involving people with spinal cord injuries who 
could not walk and are walking again with the aid of braces. I have 
hosted people at press conferences who are suffering from congestive 
heart failure yet are now able to go up flights of stairs they couldn't 
even imagine previously with treatments utilizing their own adult stem 
cells. I have visited with cancer patients who have been treated with 
cord blood stem cells who are cancer-free now.
  We have new discoveries taking place. For example, in the amniotic 
fluid surrounding the child in the womb exists an abundant supply of 
stem cells that are malleable into many different types of cells. We 
just learned about this breakthrough less than 6 months ago, and there 
are no ethical problems with it whatsoever. It is a beautiful science 
that is developing. In the near future, I believe we are going to see 
these adult stem cell advances taking root and moving forward in a 
glorious fashion: so that people can literally walk again who were not 
able to walk; so that people can literally be cured of heart conditions 
who had no cure and were only hoping for the possibility of a 
transplant; so that people, instead of having a mechanical bladder 
control on their side, are able to have a bladder grown of their own 
adult stem cells around a matrix and a frame that can be inserted back 
in the body that would be functioning again. The science is beautiful.
  The ethical quagmire is significant as well: if we decide the route 
to pursue is to clone human beings; if we decide the route to pursue is 
to treat some humans as property, as a commodity to be researched and 
to be used. Human cloning and treating some humans as property are not 
the way to go.
  What we are seeing from the clear science that has taken place in the 
past and the present is that human embryonic stem cells produce tumors. 
This has occurred in cloning situations and in noncloning embryonic 
stem cell situations. Embryonic stem cells produce tumors. A tumor in 
this situation is a growth of tissue that doesn't fit the intended 
purpose. Scientists are experiencing significant problems in this 
embryonic area. While we are developing treatments and applications 
using adult stem cells, cord blood, and, hopefully in the future, 
amniotic fluid, we are not seeing the same success using human 
embryonic cells.
  The legislation that we put forward today, with 28 sponsors, would 
affirm that the United States places tremendous value on the dignity of 
each and every human life at whatever stage that life is in, from the 
very earliest moments to the very end of life. It would recognize the 
dignity of human life in this country and around the world. We don't 
want to see people recruiting women in a foreign country to give eggs 
on a massive scale for research purposes for the development of human 
clones. This legislation affirms that we stand for human dignity, from 
the very young human embryo to vulnerable women who could be coerced 
into donating eggs at potentially significant health risk to 
themselves. The legislation would make clear that the cloning of human 
persons is not something that we as a society will accept.
  The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is endorsed by 
the President. It will bring the United States into conformity with the 
United Nations, whose General Assembly called on all member states ``to 
prohibit all forms of human cloning'' by a strong 84-to-34 margin. The 
problem with cloning human beings is that it violates the inherent 
dignity of a human being on so many levels. Cloning transgresses our 
heritage's sacred values about what is good and what is true and what 
is beautiful.
  Western civilization is built on the tenet that every human life has 
immeasurable value at every stage. Human beings are ends in themselves. 
It is wrong to use any human purpose as a means to an end. Upon this 
principle are our laws founded. Without this principle, much of our law 
has little basis. That inherent beauty and dignity of each person at 
every phase of life, no matter where they are or who they are, no 
matter what they look like, no matter what their physical condition is, 
they are beautiful and unique. They are sacred. They are a child of a 
loving God, period.
  Human cloning for whatever purpose is wrong because it turns humans 
into commodities or spare parts or even research animals. In recent 
debate, human cloning has been referred to as therapeutic cloning, 
research cloning, or simply SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer. These 
are presented as contrasts to reproductive cloning. But it should be 
noted that ``therapeutic,'' ``research,'' and ``reproductive'' are 
merely adjectives used to describe what is done with a human clone or 
with a cloned human. SCNT is just the scientific description of the 
cloning process. It is like calling a butterfly a lepidoptera--it still 
is a butterfly.
  A CRS report for Congress notes:

       [A] human embryo produced via cloning involves the process 
     called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT the 
     nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus 
     from a mature body cell, such as a skin cell. In cloning, 
     the embryo is created without sexual reproduction.

  That is the CRS report definition of a human clone.
  Stem cell pioneer Dr. James Thomson has said:

       If you create an embryo by [SCNT cloning] and give it to 
     somebody who didn't know where it came from, there would be 
     no test you could do to that embryo to say where it came 
     from. It is what it is. . . .If you try to define it away, 
     you're being disingenuous.

  These quotes note that the SCNT process is cloning.
  With reproductive and therapeutic cloning, human beings are turned 
into commodities or in some cases spare parts to be dissected in the 
laboratory, with the claim that some day they may be administered to 
other humans to

[[Page S4174]]

provide a treatment. Treatments are praiseworthy but not at the expense 
of the destruction of other members of the human family. We all want to 
treat people. I want to find a cure for cancer. However, it is wrong to 
turn humans into a means to an end.
  It is also wrong to exploit women for their eggs. That is the other 
side of the human cloning story. SCNT cloning, as proposed by 
proponents of the technique, would require millions of human eggs. Poor 
and disadvantaged women in particular would be vulnerable to 
exploitation via financial incentives for donation. This is troubling 
because retrieving such eggs violates the dignity of a woman and may 
cause serious harm to her health.
  The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is the only 
effective ban on human cloning. Any other so-called human cloning bans 
outside of this one are bans in name only and, in fact, most of them 
provide for human cloning for research purposes. So, under other bans, 
you can actually create a clone. They won't call it a clone; they will 
call it a product of SCNT. They will say you may create and do research 
on the clone; we just won't let you implant it. What is the clone, 
then, at that point in time? Is it in the human species at that point? 
Is it genetic material at that point in time? Indeed, it is. 
Biologically, it is a human.
  Others would only regulate what could be done with a human clone, 
normally requiring its destruction, but they do nothing to prevent the 
process of human cloning, which inherently violates human dignity. We 
should take a stand against turning young humans into commodities, 
research animals, and spare parts. We should not destroy young human 
lives for research purposes.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to support this human cloning 
prohibition ban.
                                 ______