[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23714-23716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         MORATORIUM ON CLONING

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am caught in a position similar to 
that of the Senator from Alaska. I support what he put forward on the 
energy bill. It is of utmost urgency. We are so dependent upon 
unreliable sources of energy that we will look back and say we wish we 
had done something when we had a chance to do it. We are not doing it.
  I have put forward the moratorium on cloning. To clarify, where some 
have said this is about stem cells, it is not about stem cells. It is 
about cloning--taking a human individual and creating them by cloning 
technology, similar to what was used with Dolly the sheep. That is not 
stem cells. That is about cloning. It is a moratorium on cloning--a 6-
month timeout. Let's wait a little bit and think about what we are 
actually getting into as the world contemplates this matter. Yet 
technology is diving into it in the United States, as we saw announced 
a week ago the first human clone ever in the world by a Massachusetts 
company.
  Let's think about this. That is why we brought up this issue on this 
procedural vehicle, saying lets get a clear vote on a 6-month 
moratorium. It is not an outright ban on everything for all time. It is 
6 months where we hold hearings, do a thoughtful process. The House 
already has voted on the issue by over a 100-vote margin. They voted to 
ban cloning altogether. The President is pleading for a bill on banning 
cloning altogether. We weren't even going that far. We are saying a 6-
month moratorium while we think about it, instead of letting private 
companies basically decide a huge issue for humanity.
  Right now we are letting private companies decide if they think it is 
OK to clone humans or not by their own privately hired ethics board. Do 
they think it is fine we clone humans or not. They are making the 
decision when this is something that should be in the public purview 
and public domain after thoughtful conversation.
  We are pleading for the time to do that. That is why I put the 
amendment together with the energy bill. We are getting toward the end 
of the session, and we need some discussion and clarity on this issue. 
Where the House has acted and the President is seeking a bill, we are 
in difficulty getting the bill done.
  We are going to look for other vehicles and other ways and means to 
get this moratorium so we can have that pause, that thoughtful bit of 
time when we can contemplate this issue of human cloning. It seems to 
me far superior to say right now: Let's wait for a little bit, rather 
than wait until there are more clones out there and then say: OK, I 
guess it is too late; the decision has already been made for us. That 
is not the way a responsible, deliberative body should act.
  I point out to my colleagues as well that this is a broad-based 
issue. In the House, the vote was broad based. Republicans and 
Democrats voted for the bill. We have sponsors from the left and the 
right of various groups--environmental groups, technology groups--that 
are questioning where some of the technology is taking us. We have 
sponsors forming conservative groups. There is a broad-based group 
supporting a moratorium or even an outright ban on human cloning.
  I know a number of my colleagues have questions and difficulties 
about the issue of genetically modified organisms. I count 12 of my 
colleagues who are opposed to GMOs, genetically modified organisms. 
That is where one takes two different species and crosses them to get a 
hybrid of sorts. They are taking a bit of genetic material from one and 
inserting it into the other. Some of my colleagues have real questions 
about where this is going.
  If some of my colleagues have questions about genetically modified 
organisms in plants and animals, what do they think about a genetically 
modified human? Is that something we want to let drift out there?
  We put a huge number of regulations on agricultural biotech companies 
that are developing genetically modified organisms. Yet if someone 
wants to do that to the human species, fine, go ahead, there is no 
regulation on it. Is that a thoughtful way for a deliberative body to 
work?
  We put limits on what one can do to eggs in other species. One cannot 
destroy a bald eagle egg. There is a Federal penalty for doing that. In 
this legislation, we are talking about creating and destroying. We are 
saying: Fine, go ahead.
  Do we give less weight to the human species than we do an eagle? Is 
that a way for a thoughtful, deliberative body to work? When we have 
this technology rushing, should we not be saying let's really consider 
what this technology is doing and what it means to us and what it means 
to the future of our country and our species?
  This 6-month moratorium seems to me to be a very modest step. I 
pleaded with the Democratic leadership: Let us bring this up on a 
separate stand-alone vote. They have not been willing to do so. This 
body now stands in the way of speaking on this as a country, when many 
other countries, 28 other countries have put forward laws and rules on 
human cloning.
  That is what we are talking about. Others may call it stem cells, but 
this is about human cloning. The issue of stem cells has been dealt 
with by the administration and they have put forward rules and 
regulations. This is about human cloning.
  That is why I sought to put this issue of human cloning on this 
particular amendment because we will not have any other vehicle to 
bring this forward. I am a sponsor of the railroad retirement bill. I 
have signed on to that bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill. I have heard 
from a number of my colleagues and constituents about it. I support the 
bill, but I also think we are at a unique point in human history where 
we need to consider what we are doing about cloning. For that reason, I 
put forward this particular amendment, and I ask my colleagues to 
consider it. I still want to find the time for us to consider this 
issue.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 6 month moratorium 
on human cloning which the Senate is now debating.
  In recent years, science has progressed rapidly. In 1997, Ian Wilmut 
and a team of researchers successfully created an adult cloned sheep, 
Dolly. With the specter of human cloning on the near horizon, the 
Senate nonetheless rejected legislation to ban this act

[[Page 23715]]

based largely on 2 arguments, that anti-cloning legislation would stop 
stem cell research, and that the science was not advanced enough to 
clone human beings.
  Three years later, history and science have proven these arguments 
false. Not only are a few scientists moving forward to clone humans, 
but we also now know conclusively that a human cloning ban will not 
halt research that could lead to cures for chronic and debilitating 
illnesses, including promising embryonic stem cell research which I 
support.
  The President has called for a ban on human cloning, and the House of 
Representatives has passed legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan 
margin. Now, it is up to the Senate.
  The case against human cloning is compelling and comprehensive. But I 
understand the concerns some of my colleagues have expressed about 
moving too hastily in this manner, and I therefore believe that the 
responsible course of action stands before us today: A temporary 
moratorium on human cloning that will give the Senate the time it needs 
to diligently consider this issue while ensuring that events do not 
overtake us.
  Let us act now to assure that next year's debate occurs in an 
environment where science has not moved ahead of the public interest. 
Let us give ourselves 6 months to deal carefully and responsibly with a 
matter of profound importance.
  The risks of not acting to halt cloning far outweigh any concerns 
about impeding scientific progress. Cloning--and all its dangers--are 
upon us. Any possible medical advantage through cloning is far off at 
best. In fact, such advantages are theoretical only.
  Last week, a Massachusetts company claimed to have cloned a human 
embryo. Moreover, Dr. Severino Antinori has in recent weeks reiterated 
his plan to produce cloned embryos by the end of the year, with the 
intent of impregnating up to 200 women.
  The problem is simple. Failure to prohibit human cloning now speeds 
the day that a human being will be cloned. If that idea troubles you, I 
submit that you must support the moratorium.
  Why must we prohibit all human cloning? We need to ban it to prevent 
the cloning and birth of a human. We need to prohibit it to safeguard 
the health of the women who will be directly exploited as a side effect 
of the procedure. And we need to prevent it for the sake of research 
ethics.
  I know these issues can be confusing. Cloning issues intersect with 
stem cell research issues. It is complicated. One of my colleagues 
asked me: If I support embryonic stem cell research, can I be opposed 
to cloning? The short answer is ``yes.''
  Human cloning is the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a 
human embryo genetically identical to a living or dead individual. The 
terms that are often thrown about, ``reproductive or therapeutic,'' 
refer only to whether this is intended to create a new person or for 
research. The act of cloning, however, is the same in both cases.
  There is near universal abhorrence to human reproductive cloning. 
Scientifically, consensus exists that it is unsafe. More significantly, 
the ethical and moral implications of cloning for ``replacing'' a lost 
loved one; re-creating persons with special attributes; developing a 
source of transplantable organs are highly troubling to all of us. 
Unfortunately, there are scientists working actively to achieve those 
ends.
  Ultimately, if one wishes to prohibit human ``reproductive cloning,'' 
it is necessary to prohibit all human cloning. Once cloned embryos 
exist, despite the best intentions to the contrary, there will be no 
way to prevent a cloned embryo from being implanted in a woman. Once 
that starts, there is no way to stop it.
  We would not know when a cloned embryo is growing in a woman's 
uterus. Even if we know about such a pregnancy, we would not be able to 
stop it. We would not know until reproductive cloning experiments lead 
to spontaneous miscarriages, still births, or severely deformed babies. 
If this sounds alarmist, consider the fact that Scottish scientists had 
more than 270 failed pregnancies before they produced the cloned sheep, 
Dolly.
  Some maintain that even placing a short hold on human cloning will 
halt research necessary to help sick, diseased, and injured persons. 
These claims are not supported by the facts.
  They also say that therapeutic cloning is necessary to develop 
medical treatments through embryonic stem cell research that will not 
be rejected by the body's auto-immune response system. But this is by 
no means certain.
  I strongly support embryonic stem cell research. As both a supporter 
and a scientist, I can tell you that this field remains in its earliest 
stages of basic research. At a hearing on stem cell research this fall, 
Secretary Thompson noted that clinical applications are years away. It 
is simply not the case that a ban on human cloning, particularly the 
temporary moratorium we are discussing today, would in any way harm the 
progress of stem cell research.
  Perhaps someday a credible case will be made on the need for 
``cloned'' tissue. But that day, if it ever comes, will be far in the 
future.
  The justifications to ban human cloning are strong. I have only 
touched on one of the reasons today, and we will have ample time in the 
coming months to further develop and explore these arguments, just as 
we will have ample time to see the clear difference between cloning and 
stem cell research and understand that promising stem cell research 
can, and will, go forward without human cloning.
  But today's vote is even more simple than all of that. It is a vote 
to say ``slow down,'' and let us as a Senate have time to adequately 
investigate and debate this issue. It is a vote to ensure that the 
science does not race ahead without the input of the public interest. I 
urge my colleagues to support the moratorium on human cloning. The 
moratorium will give us breathing space to study a complex and 
profoundly important matter. Additional time gives us the best chance 
of doing the right thing. In the meantime, we must take all possible 
steps to do no harm.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Lott amendment 
to the railroad retirement bill. In addition to other provisions, this 
amendment would enact a moratorium on a scientific process which holds 
the potential to save millions of human lives. I cannot support such a 
provision.
  The final chapter of the Lott amendment deals with an issue that cuts 
to the core of our moral and ethical beliefs: human cloning.
  I share the deep concerns that my colleagues and millions of 
Americans have with the prospect of cloning human beings. These 
concerns were born in 1997, when scientists in Great Britain announced 
that they had successfully cloned a sheep. They were stoked again last 
week, when a biotechnology company in Massachusetts announced that it 
had taken the first steps towards producing human embryos through 
cloning.
  Let me be perfectly clear on this issue. I am adamantly opposed to 
any scientific project aimed at creating a clone of a human being. The 
implications of human reproductive cloning are morally repugnant. I do 
not know of a single respected scientist, ethicist, or religious leader 
who disagrees with me on this point.
  The Lott amendment would impose a 6-month moratorium on this type of 
reproductive cloning, and I am fully supportive of this effort.
  Unfortunately, the Lott amendment would also place a moratorium on a 
scientific procedure called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This process 
is closely related to the subject of stem cell research, which we heard 
so much about this summer. As you know, stem calls have the unique 
potential to grow into any tissue or organ in the body. Because of this 
property, stem cells may finally offer scientists the tools they need 
to cure diseases that have plagued humankind for centuries.
  I strongly support scientific research into stem cells. I was 
heartened this summer, when President Bush and a bipartisan group of 
senators joined me in this support.

[[Page 23716]]

  But while stem cell research offers promising possibilities, it faces 
many obstacles. One of these obstacles is the problem of rejection. If 
the stem cells used to treat diseases contain genetic material that is 
different from the genetic material of the patient, they may be 
rejected by the patient's body--in much the same manner as organs that 
are transplanted from one human being to another are often rejected.
  Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a technique that may allow 
scientists to bypass this obstacle. In this process, stem cells are 
created using genetic material from a patient's own body. Because these 
new stem cells are genetically identical to a patient's own body, they 
would not be rejected.
  This technique promises to speed up research into the treatment of 
crippling diseases like juvenile diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's and 
Parkinson's. I would venture to guess that all Americans have had 
friends or family who have struggled with these devastating diseases; 
and millions of Americans would benefit by medical research that might 
one day eradicate them.
  But the Lott amendment would stop this research in its tracks. It 
would bring a halt to research aimed at promoting life and relieving 
unspeakable suffering. For this reason, I cannot support this 
legislation--no matter how well-intentioned it is.
  A reasonable alternative to the Lott amendment would be to make the 
reproductive cloning of a human being a criminal offense, subject to 
severe penalties. Such a solution would prevent the cloning of human 
beings without standing in the way of promising research aimed at 
promoting human life.

                          ____________________