[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                             HUMAN CLONING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MARK E. SOUDER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 20, 2002

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, scientists stunned the world five years ago 
when they announced the creation of the world's first clone, a sheep 
named Dolly. In the short time since, cattle, goats, mice, rabbits and 
a cat have also been cloned. And efforts are now underway in the United 
States and elsewhere to create cloned human beings.
  The President, the public, religious leaders, and many scientists 
have all expressed their disapproval for efforts to conduct human 
cloning, for any reason. And the House of Representatives 
overwhelmingly approved legislation last year to prohibit all human 
cloning.
  Opposition to human cloning is based upon both ethical and scientific 
considerations. All clones have been found to suffer from severe 
abnormalities, premature aging and early death. In addition to these 
problems, cloning also poses significant health risks to the mother of 
a clone and to the women from whom the eggs necessary for cloning are 
harvested.
  These dangers have not, however, deterred some from attempting to 
produce cloned humans.
  Scientists--such as Dr. Panos Zavos, who recently testified before 
the Criminal Justice Subcommittee which I chair--are pursuing cloning 
as a means of producing live human offspring while others seek to 
create cloned human embryos in order to destroy them for scientific 
research with the hopes that such research may potentially yield 
treatments or cures.
  Regardless of the goals of those who are attempting to manufacture 
human clones, the fact is that cloning, for whatever purpose, creates 
human life.
  There is no difference between a cloned human embryo created for 
procreation or for research purposes. Whether or not the newly created 
embryo is implanted with the intent of reproduction or destroyed for 
the purpose of research is irrelevant to the fact that a cloned human 
embryo has been created. Therefore, a prohibition on cloning that is 
limited only to preventing the implantation of a cloned embryo as some 
have suggested in effect legalizes human cloning, and raises additional 
ethical dilemmas.
  A ban that permits embryonic clones to be created but forbids them to 
be implanted in utero legally requires the destruction of human life 
and criminalizes efforts to preserve and protect such life once 
created.
  Under a partial ban that permits the creation of cloned embryos for 
research, human embryos would be manufactured in numerous laboratories 
around the country. Once cloned embryos are available, it would be 
virtually impossible to monitor or control what is done with them.
  Stockpiles of embryonic human clones could be produced, bought and 
sold. Implantation of cloned embryos--an easy procedure--could take 
place out of sight, and not even the most elaborate and intrusive 
regulations and policing could detect or prevent the initiation of a 
clonal pregnancy.
  Scientists agree that once begun, a clonal pregnancy would be 
virtually impossible to detect or differentiate from a routine 
pregnancy. And if detected, what could the government do? Would a woman 
with a clonal pregnancy be forced, or coerced with severe penalties, to 
abort the child?
  Allowing human cloning for research brings us further down the 
slippery slope that devalues the sanctity of human life.
  Not even a year ago, supporters of embryonic stem cell research--
which requires the destruction of a living human embryo--found 
``extremely troubling'' the announcement that embryos were being 
created in order to conduct stem cell research. There was a consensus 
among opponents and supporters of embryonic stem cell research that 
embryos should never be created solely and specifically for research. 
But now that is exactly what proponents of research cloning are 
demanding.
  If we now permit the manufacturing of human embryos for research, 
where do we draw the line? Do we only allow cloned embryos to grow for 
5 days before they are destroyed in the process of extracting their 
stem cells? What about removing tissue from 5-week-old embryos? Should 
we consider harvesting the organs from 5-month-old fetuses? What will 
those who support destructive research next claim is necessary in the 
name of research?
  We must finally draw the line that stops the exploitation of any form 
of human life.
  Cloning, regardless of the intent, reduces human life to a commodity 
that is created and destroyed for convenience. And despite the claims 
to the contrary, there is no evidence that cloning can, or ever will, 
cure diseases. Such statements are purely speculative and pursuing 
cloning merely diverts limited resources away from more promising 
research that is already producing promising results.
  It is clear that a ban that applies only to ``reproductive'' cloning 
is a false ban, which merely creates an illusion that human cloning has 
been prohibited. The fact is that all cloning is reproductive cloning, 
and therefore human cloning for any reason should be banned.
  Dr. Zavos announced his goal of producing a cloned human child by the 
end of this year. Some of his colleagues claim to already have created 
cloned pregnancies. Congress must not act as an accomplice to these 
sinister acts by failing to enact a ban now, before it is too late.