[Pages S599-S608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks the floor? Who yields time? The
Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 10 o'clock is evenly
divided.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, it is my intention to open the debate, then yield to
Senator Mack, then Senator Thurmond, and then Senator Kennedy for the
remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I urge the Members of this distinguished body to vote
no on cloture. I do so because I believe that by voting for cloture
today we could do enormous harm.
The technique involved here, somatic cell nuclear transfer, creates
what are called stem cells, which can be used for creation of tissue
which has the same DNA as the person whose tissue it is. Therefore they
are used as important adjuncts in cancer research; they offer

[[Page S600]]

important opportunities to overcome rejection of tissue in third-degree
burns; to solve major problems inherent in juvenile diabetes; for
osteoporosis; for Alzheimers; for Parkinsons disease; and for a host of
other diseases.
Mr. President, there is no need to rush to judgment. No one, I
believe, in this body, supports human cloning. There is a scientific
moratorium on human cloning. The FDA has exercised jurisdiction to
prevent it.
There is no need to rush to judgment. This bill is less than a week
old. There has been no hearing on it. There are no definitions of
critical terms in this bill.
Let me quote what the American Cancer Society has said in a letter
dated February 9:

The American Cancer Society urges you to oppose S. 1601,
legislation that would prohibit the use of somatic cell
nuclear transfer. The American Cancer Society agrees with the
public that human cloning should not proceed at this time.
However, the legislation as drafted would have the perhaps
unintended effect of restricting critical scientific
research. The language could hamper or punish scientists who
contribute to our growing knowledge about cancer.

Last evening I had printed in the Record a huge volume of letters
from virtually every single patient group, 27 Nobel prize winners, and
industry groups--all saying go slow, use caution.
I urge this body to vote no on cloture.
If I may, now, I yield 3 minutes of my time to the distinguished
Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. MACK. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for
yielding this time. I have prepared remarks that I have gone over with
my staff that cover things like it is obvious that there is no medical
or ethical justification for human cloning. We all understand that. We
also know there have been no hearings. We know as well that we have
information from 27 Nobel laureates who say we should not pass this
legislation. We have letters from 71 patient groups and scientific
organizations that say we should not do this.
But let me say to my colleagues that I stand here this morning to
make a special appeal. My father died of cancer. My mother died of
cancer. My brother died of cancer. I was diagnosed with cancer. My wife
was diagnosed with cancer. Our daughter was diagnosed with cancer.
I say to my colleagues, I appeal to you, don't get drawn into this
debate that we should pass this legislation because we want to stand up
and make a statement that we are against cloning. We are all against
human cloning. We are all against human cloning. What I am asking you
to do is to vote no on cloture so we will have an opportunity to hear
from those patient groups that want to represent people like myself,
represent families that have been affected like my family has been
affected. Let us hear from the scientific community that tells us
whether this is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. I don't
make a suggestion here that this is an easy decision to be made. It is
a very difficult one. But that's all the more reason that you should
vote against cloture and allow the process to take place--to have
input, to have discussion, to have understanding. Then we then will be
in a position to try to make a decision about what is the right thing
to do. We just say let the process work. Let there be input.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to support moving
the process forward.
I thank the distinguished Senator from California for yielding.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments.
Indeed, they were very, very moving. I can share my family story,
although it is not as dramatic, Senator, as yours --I lost my husband
to cancer, I lost my mother, my father, my in-law's. So I, in a sense,
share this with the Senator. I know in their last days how important
research is to patients and how willing they are to try new things.
Life is critically important.
I thank the Senator for his comments.
If I may, I allot 3 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of
great international concern. Since February 1997, when Scottish
scientists succeeded in cloning an adult sheep, the world has been
consumed with the issue of cloning. There are great social and ethical
implications of the potential application of this procedure to totally
reproduce human beings. Obviously, there is no acceptable justification
for replicating another human being, and the bill before the Senate, S.
1601, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, would ensure that such a
procedure would never take place in this country. However, I am
concerned that this bill may be written so broadly that it will
restrict future promising research which could lead to improved
treatment or even a cure for many serious illnesses. The Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation informs me that this bill would prohibit promising
stem cell research that could make it possible to produce pancreatic
beta cells that could then be transplanted into a person with diabetes.
As a consequence, many of the horrible complications of this disease,
including kidney failure, blindness, amputation, increased risk of
heart disease and stroke, and premature death, could be eliminated.
Likewise, I am informed by other representatives of the medical
community that this bill could prohibit research into treatment of the
following diseases and ailments: leukemia; sickle cell anemia;
Alzheimers disease; Parkinson's disease; multiple sclerosis; spinal
cord injuries; liver disease; severe burns; muscular dystrophy;
arthritis; and heart disease.
Mr. President, there have been no committee hearings on S. 1601 and,
therefore, no opportunity for the medical community to fully explain
the implications of this legislation. My daughter, Julie, suffers from
diabetes, and I do not want her, or others like her, to be denied the
potential life saving benefits of research that this bill could
restrict. But without the appropriate committee hearings, we do not
fully understand what these benefits may be. This is far too important
an issue for us to rush this bill to the floor without committee
hearings. While we can all agree that to replicate a human being is
immoral, we need to investigate this issue more thoroughly so that we
do not deny our citizens and our loved ones of any possible life saving
research. For this reason, I will not support cloture on the motion to
proceed to S. 1601, and I strongly recommend that this bill be sent to
committee so that the appropriate hearings can be held.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 12 minutes and
30 seconds and the Senator from California has 3 minutes and 45
seconds.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture so that we may proceed to
debate an issue which generates many profound ethical and moral
questions, ones which demand our immediate attention.
Let me be quite clear. This bill does not stop existing scientific
research. I am as concerned as anyone here about the need for research
on a whole range of diseases, things that can be perhaps cured or at
least dealt with by stem cell research, by many other techniques that
are now in progress today. Our bill does not stop any of that research.
Let's be quite clear, our bill does not stop any of that promising
research now underway. The measure places a very narrow ban on the use
of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human embryo. That is what
we are talking about. Everybody said, ``We agree we shouldn't be
creating a human embryo by cloning,'' and that is what this bill does.
Over the past week, we have had a lot of distortion and,
unfortunately, inflamed rhetoric by some of the big special interests,
the likes of which I have not seen in my many years of public service.
We have asked our opponents on numerous occasions, we have sat down
with them, Senator Frist, Senator Gregg, our staffs and I sat down

[[Page S601]]

and said, ``OK, if we all agree we shouldn't be creating a human embryo
by cloning, how do you want to tighten it up?''
They are not willing to come forward because there are some rogue
scientists, maybe some big drug companies, big biotech companies, who
want to create human embryos by cloning. They think that would be a
great way to be more profitable, to do some research on cloned human
embryos. I think that is where we need to draw the line.
People say we want to have hearings. We have had hearings on the
whole issue last year. We have debated it, and it comes down to the
simple point: Do you want to say no to creating human embryos by
cloning, by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or do you want to say, as my
colleague from California would in her bill, ``Oh, it's fine to create
those human embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer, so long as you
destroy them, so long as you kill those test tube babies before they
are implanted''?
There are a couple problems, very practical problems. Once you start
creating those cloned human embryos, it is a very simple procedure to
implant them. Implantation of embryos is going along in fertility
research now, and it would be impossible to police, to make sure they
didn't start implanting them.
But even if the objectives of the bill of my California colleague
were carried out, it would mean that you would be creating human
embryos by cloning, researching with them, working with them and
destroying them. Do we want to step over that ethical line? I say no.
It is not going to be any clearer 3 months from now, 6 months from
now than it is now. What is going to be different is that in 3 or 6
months, the rogue scientist in Chicago or others may well start the
process of cloning human embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer. That
is why we say it is important to move forward on this bill.
If we bring this bill to the floor, we are happy to listen to and ask
for specific suggestions from those who are concerned about legitimate
research, but we have been advised time and time again that there is no
legitimate research being done now in the biotech industry that uses
somatic cell nuclear transfer to clone and create a human embryo as
part of the research on any of these diseases.
We have heard from patient groups, people who are very much
concerned, as we all are, about cancer, about juvenile diabetes, cystic
fibrosis, Alzheimer's--the whole range of diseases. We can deal with
those diseases. We can deal with the research without cloning a human
embryo.
The approach of my colleagues from California and Massachusetts would
lead us down the slippery slope that would allow the creation of masses
of human embryos as if they were assembly line products, not human
life. How would the Federal Government police the implantation of these
human embryos?
By allowing the creation of cloned test tube babies so long as they
are not implanted, our opponents' bill calls for the creation,
manipulation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes.
I have a letter that I will enter into the Record from Professor Joel
Brind, Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College,
The City University of New York. He addresses the question of stem cell
research. I quote from a portion of it:

Industry opponents also correctly point out that S. 1601
would ban the production of human embryos for research or
other purposes entirely unrelated to the aim of cloning a
human being. And well it should . . . In fact, it is in this
area of research and treatment, to wit, the generation of
stem cells, from which replacement tissues or organs could be
produced for transplantation into the patient from whom the
somatic cell originally came, which is most important to the
biotech industry, for obvious reasons. For reasons just as
obvious to anyone with any moral sense, such practices must
be outlawed, for otherwise, our society would permit the
generation of human beings purely for the purpose of
producing spare parts for others, and thence to be destroyed.
Some may call this a ``slippery slope''--I believe ``sheer
cliff'' would be more accurate.

Mr. President, I will add one other thing. He said:

. . . S. 1601 would, in fact, place real restrictions on
stem cell research. Stem cell researchers would have to
continue to work with somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology in animal systems, in order to learn how to
transcend the need for producing zygotes first. However, this
is no different from restricting cancer research by
prohibiting the injection of cancer cells into human beings
(instead of rats) and then testing potential anticancer drugs
on them. As a civilized society, we do have to live with
meaningful ethical constraints or we end up with the likes of
the Tuskegee experiment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Baruch College,

Department of Natural Sciences,

New York, NY, February 10, 1998.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: This letter is written in support of S. 1601,
which is designed to ban the ``cloning'' of human beings. I
have placed the word ``cloning'' in quotes, because, as
claimed by opponents in the biotech industry, the bill would
technically ban more than cloning, which, precisely defined,
would be limited to use of somatic cells genetically
identical to an existing human being (including an embryo or
fetus). In other words, the bill closes a gaping loophole--to
wit, the use of cells whose DNA has been modified
artificially, or use of a fertilized nucleus--that would
exist in the legislation, were it to be limited to cloning in
its precise, technical sense. That is precisely why S. 1601
is a good bill, because it adequately defines a `bright line'
in the establishment of appropriate standards for stem cell
research.
This `bright line' drawn by S. 1601 is the line between the
generation of a human zygote--i.e., a totipotent one-celled
embryo; the equivalent of a complete human body at the time
of conception--by the in vivo or in vitro union of haploid
sperm and haploid egg, and the generation of a human zygote
by the artificial means known as somatic cell transfer
(`haploid' means half the normal human complement of 46
nuclear chromosomes [DNA], or 23. Only sperm and egg are
haploid, while all other body cells--a.k.a. somatic cells--
have 46 nuclear chromosomes. `Totipotent' means that the one-
celled embryo [zygote] is capable of giving rise to a
completely differentiated human body, i.e., fully formed
human being). In somatic cell transfer, a zygote is
artificially produced by the introduction of a diploid (i.e.,
containing a full set of 46 chromosomes) nucleus from a body
cell or a zygote, into an egg from which the nucleus has been
removed. Thus, the bill clearly prohibits the generation of a
human embryo by the artificial means of somatic cell
transfer, whether the procedure may be strictly defined as
cloning or not. (Note: It may be argued that in vitro
fertilization is also artificial, however it is the
artificial assistance of a natural process. A good analogy
would be the difference between growing ordinary tomatoes in
a greenhouse--artificial assistance--and growing genetically
engineered tomatoes--artificially produced individuals.)
Industry opponents also correctly point out that S. 1601
would ban the production of human embryos for research or
other purposes entirely unrelated to the aim of cloning a
human being. And well it should, for the production of a
zygote is the production of a human being, which would then
be destroyed after use in research, or to generate spare
parts for the treatment of patients suffering from a variety
of ills. In fact, it is this area of research and treatment,
to wit, the generation of stem cells, from which replacement
tissues or organs could be produced for transplantation into
the patient from whom the somatic cell originally came, which
is most important to the biotech industry, for obvious
reasons. For reasons just as obvious to anyone with any moral
sense, such practices must be outlawed, for otherwise, our
society would permit the generation of human beings purely
for the purpose of producing spare parts for others, and
thence to be destroyed. Some may call this a `slippery
slope'--I believe `sheer cliff' would be more accurate.
What then? Does S. 1601 stop the field of stem cell
research, with all its potential for life-saving and life-
extending treatment, in its tracks? In a word, no. In fact
one form of stem cell transplantation--bone marrow
transplatation--has already been in wide use for years. Stem
cells are body cells which are primitive and
undifferentiated, and capable of giving rise to a variety of
differentiated cell types and/or tissues and/or organs. For
example, in a bone marrow transplant, the transplanted cells
give rise, in the recipient's body, to the whole host of
different types of white blood cells, red blood cells and
platelets. Stem cells are thus `pluripotent'--capable of
forming many different types of cells, but not an entire
human being, as would a totipotent cell or zygote. Of course
the most precise way to obtain stem cells, especially if they
are to be modified in order to correct a genetic defect, is
to first generate a whole embryo--such as by somatic cell
transfer--and then let it develop into a multicellular
embryo, and finally harvest the desired stem cells and throw
the rest away. Therefore S. 1601 would in fact place real
restrictions on stem cell research. Stem cell researchers
would have to continue to work with somatic cell nuclear
transfer

[[Page S602]]

technology in animal systems, in order to learn how to
transcend the need for producing zygotes first. However this
is no different from restricting cancer research by
prohibiting the injection of cancer cells into human beings
(instead of rats) and then testing potential anti-cancer
drugs on them. As a civilized society, we do have to live
with meaningful ethical constraints, or we end up with the
likes of the Tuskegee experiment.
Biotech industry opponents also point out that one form of
somatic cell nuclear transfer has already been used
successfully in the treatment of infertility. In particular,
a zygote produced the natural way--from the union of sperm
and egg--is used to supply a diploid nucleus for transfer
into a normal egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
Who would need such a treatment?--a woman who has a genetic
defect in her mitochondrial, rather than in her nuclear DNA.
The mitochondria are the energy-producing parts of a cell,
and we all inherit them from our mothers (from the non-
nuclear part of the egg). If the mitochondrial DNA is
defective the zygote will not be viable, even if the nuclear
DNA is fine. Hence, transfer of the viable nucleus into a
denucleated egg from a normal donor will result in a viable
zygote. Fine, except that the offspring thus produced now has
two biological mothers, both having provided genetic material
essential for the offspring's survival. The legal nightmares
following the use of this technology are easily envisioned,
and the fact that it has already been done underscores the
need for enacting the present legislation without delay.
I also wish to comment on alternative legislation which
proposes to allow cloning or artificial production of human
embryos, provided they are destroyed and not permitted to be
born or even implanted into a woman's uterus. Such
legislation is worse than no legislation at all. Permitting
the destruction of innocent human life is abhorrent enough--
but to mandate it?
Finally I report the essence of a conversation I had
earlier today with some colleagues, concerning the matter at
hand. They said that the banning of this technology would
only result in its pursuit beyond the borders of the United
States. I replied by asking them to name any foundation
document or scripture for any civilization ever in history,
in which was inscribed as a principle any version of ``If you
can't beat'em, join `em''? I implore you in the strongest
possible terms to resist at every turn this product of
corrupt mentality.
Please feel free to contact me at any time if I may be of
any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Joel Brind, Ph.D.,
Professor, Human Biology and Endocrinology.

Mr. BOND. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Mr. President, I very much regret the fact
that the Senator from Missouri has chosen to mischaracterize both my
position and my bill. I hope we will have a chance in committee to iron
that out. But at this time, I yield the remainder of my time to the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have on this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 3 minutes
and 13 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. President, as the Senator from California has pointed out, we
have someone who doesn't describe our position accurately and then
differs with the position. And that is just what has happened here on
the floor of the U.S. Senate.
First of all, the committee which deals with these issues on public
health has not had 1 day, 1 hour, 1 minute of hearings on this
legislation. The distinguished Senator, Senator Bond, has said,
``Couldn't we sit down and discuss these measures?'' All we are saying
is that a no vote gives us an opportunity to sit down in the committee
and hear from the research organizations and the ethicists to try and
draft legislation that is in the interest of the patients of this
country.
We have challenged those who support this legislation to mention one
major research or patient group that supports their position. All we
hear is about special interest groups that are going to benefit from
this program.
Do we consider the cancer society a special interest group? Do we
consider the American Heart Association, the Parkinsons Action Network
and the Alzheimers Aid Society special interest groups? If they are
special interest groups, we are proud to stand with them. They know
what is at risk. And those who support this legislation have not been
able to bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate reputable researchers who
believe that research towards alleviating human suffering will not be
curtailed by this legislation.
This has been pointed out effectively by the Senator from Florida and
the Senator from South Carolina. This is not a partisan issue. We all
want to have the best in terms of research for our families, for the
American people and for the world.
We are effectively cutting off opportunities to advance biomedical
research if we impose cloture today. Let's give the committees the
opportunity for full, open, informed, balanced judgment and then come
back to the floor of the U.S. Senate and have a debate on this issue.
Don't cut off one of the great opportunities for research in this
country by voting for cloture today. I reserve the remainder of our
time.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to support the underlying bill and
hope that we will be able to proceed with a discussion of the bill
today. No longer can we divorce science from ethical consideration.
Science moves too fast today. We see it, with what has resulted from
Dolly with this cloning procedure. Science and ethics must march hand
in hand.
What does this bill do? No. 1: It prevents cloning of a human being.
It stops people, like Dr. Seed, who have proposed cloning human
individuals dead in their tracks.
No. 2: It creates a commission, 25 people, bipartisan, broadly
representative of the American people, ethicists on board, the very
best scientists on board, social scientists on board and lay people on
board. That commission will consider new technology, will consider
cloning, will consider the next potential great advance that is out
there with that ethical, theological and scientific environment.

What does this bill do? This bill does not stop any current research
being done in in vitro fertilization, in stem cells, in
transplantation. And I challenge any scientist, because the scientific
community and the private industry and all say, ``No, we can't stop
science,'' we need to involve that ethical decisionmaking today--I do
challenge any scientist who reads the wording in the bill to send me a
peer-reviewed study that is banned by the wording of this bill. Read
the bill.
Do we eliminate all embryo research? No, only a single technique,
that balance we have achieved between hope and the potential
opportunities for a technique versus the ethical consideration and the
science we have achieved by looking at a single technique.
We don't eliminate all embryo research, just a single technique when
applied to the procedure when it clones a human embryo. That is the
only area.
Do we eliminate all of this technique? Do we eliminate all of this
somatic cell nuclear transfer? Absolutely not. The Dolly experiments
continue. The animal research continues in somatic cell nuclear
transfer.
The only thing we eliminate is the future application when this
technique is used only in the circumstance to create a live cloned
human embryo. All animal research continues today. This is an untested
procedure. It may be harmful. It has not been proven to be safe today.
Shouldn't we be looking at it in animal models instead of taking it to
the human population? That is what this bill does. Slow down. Let's do
that animal research before creating live cloned human embryos.
It is a tough issue. I don't want to slow down science and the
progress of science, but I do think that we, as a society, absolutely
must recognize that not all science can proceed ahead without
consideration by the American people, without consideration of the
ethical implications. All of the hopes that have been mentioned in
terms of curing disease projected into the future, I have those same
hopes, but I also recognize that we can't go totally on uncharted
courses. Science has been abused in the past. We can look back at
Hitler and what Hitler did in the name of science. We have to take
these ethical considerations and put them hand in hand in the progress
of science.
Let me close and simply say, the commission is vital to this
legislation.

[[Page S603]]

We have to have a forum that is not on the Senate floor, that is not
just in the scientific communities, to address these issues. That is
what this commission achieves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. FRIST. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I rise to state my unequivocal
support for a federal ban on human cloning. However, I am uncomfortable
with the hurried pace with which this issue is being considered in the
Senate.
The issue before us is both extremely complex and consequential.
Regulating the very cutting edge of medical science will impact our
fights against nearly every category of disease, including cancer,
heart disease, blindness, Parkinsons and Alzheimers diseases to name
but a few.
The United States must maintain its preeminent position as the
international leader in biotechnological research, but do so while
adhering to the highest moral and ethical standards. Any prohibition of
cloning needs to be very carefully constructed and tested by public
hearing to assure that both of these goals might be fulfilled.
The Food and Drug Administration has claimed authority to regulate
this technology now, eliminating the need for immediate legislative
action. Knowing this, and with lives at stake, I believe all Senators
should have the opportunity to benefit from a thorough public
examination of this proposal.
For these reasons, I will not support cloture on the motion to
consider S. 1601 in hopes that this matter will be further evaluated at
the committee level.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on the
matter of human cloning.
I believe that as the Senate debates this issue that is so
fundamental to the meaning and the essence of what it means to be a
person we must consider very carefully the moral implications
associated with the issue of human cloning.
Certainly there is no moral prohibition, nor could one effectively be
argued, against the cloning of plants or even animals--there is
something fundamentally different. Also, no one is arguing against
tissue research or other important research. The issue today is
strictly limited to the use of technologically feasible methods to
create and manipulate new life through a process of human cloning. And
beyond that, the issue is whether or not it is morally permissible to
clone human beings.
This issue demands the public attention because it implicitly
revolves around the meaning of human dignity and the inalienable rights
that belong to every person.
But before discussing this in particular I think it is necessary to
engage in a discussion on an even more fundamental level.
What is even more fundamental in this discussion is the question of
the place occupied by the birth of a new child in our society.

First it is worth noting that there is a symmetrical quality to the
current debate in our culture. And although the underlying
philosophical premise is the same, the outcomes are radically
different. I believe it is one of the tragedies of our times that in
the midst of a culture which has allowed over 35 million abortions to
be performed over the last twenty-five years, we now desire to create
human life by our own hands. On the one hand, we deny God's creation,
on the other, we seek to create life in our own image and deny God yet
again. This is tragic on both counts.
I personally believe, and 2,000 years of Western tradition support
this belief, that the birth of any child is an unmerited gift from God
to a man and woman. Some in recent years, have given us a notion of a
child as an object merely for the fulfillment of a man and woman's
personal desire. It should be reasserted though that a child is not and
can never be an object merely for the fulfillment of a man and woman's
personal desire. A child is a precious and unmerited gift from God. God
alone gives human life--but human cloning usurps that role. And I do
not believe that we can ever do that.
The creation of new life outside of man and woman is a gross
distortion of the moral natural law.
Human cloning distorts the relationship between man and woman by
negating the necessity of either one in the creation of new life and
consequently also usurps the role of God in the creation of new life.
Fundamentally, it alters the view of the child to the world in such a
way that the child is seen as something which can fulfill the needs of
an individual physically, emotionally or spiritually. This is an
incorrect view and is a gross violation of our duty to protect the
human dignity of each and every person. It reduces a child to a means
to an end and denies them the dignity they deserve to be treated not as
a means but as an end in and of themselves.
And this notion is precisely where the disagreement on this issue
exists between the Administration and the cloning bill before us today.
Some will argue that the issue simply needs to be studied before any
research begins--a notion which does not rest on the supposition of a
child as a gift. This is wrong. There is no research that can ever
justify the willful technological manipulation and creation of human
life through the process of human cloning for the furtherance of
science--or even for the preservation of humanity.
The White House doesn't want a permanent ban--they want a limited
moratorium. This indicates that they believe there may be a use for
this technology as it relates to the issue of human cloning. But no
such use exists. The act of cloning a human being for the purposes of
study, or for the purpose of bringing new life into the world is
intrinsically evil and should be absolutely prohibited.
Also, there is another dimension to this debate which is fraught with
problems and that is the rationale that will develop should cloning be
allowed.
But what few have mentioned in this discourse is that implicit in the
rush to begin cloning human beings is the eugenic rationale that will
ultimately develop in support of it. Already, there are stories--what I
would call horror stories--of people asking for specific genetic
attributes when deciding to participate in in vitro fertilization. And
when we are able to shop for a baby in the same way that we shop for a
car; by whimsically creating new life based solely on our own personal
convenience and satisfying our own personal desire, we effectively say:
``God we do not need You anymore, we can do this ourselves.''
And that is just wrong.
Mr. President, it would be a serious mistake and an abdication of our
duty as responsible legislators to allow the devaluation of human life
that would take place if we allowed for human cloning. There should be
no human cloning. Period.
Mr. President, as we continue to debate this issue I would urge my
colleagues to examine the role of our government in this debate and to
then reach the only conclusion possible: that human cloning seriously
threatens the dignity of human beings and it is our responsibility to
absolutely prohibit human cloning and in so doing decisively end debate
on this issue once and for all.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer some comments on the
cloning legislation that we are now debating.
I think that this has been an important debate, one which should
continue. It is a debate that involves many difficult, troublesome
issues. I come to this debate as a concerned pro-life Senator, who also
has profound questions about the scientific implications of this bill.
I can tell you that scientists from my home state of Utah are
following these discussions very closely.
I am proud that researchers at the University of Utah and the
Huntsman Cancer Center are at the cutting edge of science. It was
scientists at Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City who were co-discoverers
of a gene--the BRCA 1 gene--that causes some types of breast cancer.
Let me share with you a letter that I received from Dr. Ray White,
the Director of the Huntsman Center. I ask for unanimous consent that
the text of this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the letter was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S604]]

Huntsman Cancer Institute,

Salt Lake City, UT, February 5, 1998.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: It has been brought to my attention
that there is now pending legislation from the Senate
leadership that would make it a criminal offense to utilize
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. The intent of the
legislation is to prevent the cloning of humans. I agree
completely and whole-heartedly with this intention. It would
be a travesty and tragic ethical transgression to create
cloned human individuals. However, this technology is the
basis for a broad range of studies in biomedical research and
a ban would halt research in many areas that promise major
benefits for mankind.
For example, injection of fetal brain cells is thought to
possibly provide benefits to individuals suffering from
Parkinson's disease. Obtaining such cells from fetal
materials can create its own ethical dilemmas. It would be
far better to be able to reprogram the patient's own cells
for this purpose. Nuclear transfer technology might well
provide ways to accomplish this desired goal without raising
such ethical issues.
It is important and possible to create legislation that
will achieve the desired goal of preventing human cloning. I
urge you to please consider carefully the downstream negative
consequences of an overly broad legislative stroke. By all
means, let us outlaw human cloning. But let us not eliminate
promising pathways of research that could relieve human
suffering.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,
Raymond L. White,
Executive Director.

Mr. HATCH. I agree with Dr. White that we should try to find a way to
ban cloning of human beings but do so in a way that allows, to the
extent ethically proper, valuable research to continue.
In these type of debates many of us value the opinion of my good
friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist. As a physician he
brings a unique perspective to issues of science and medicine. He is
also a co-sponsor of S. 1601, the bill pending before this body.
Let me also share with you a letter I sent to Senator Frist on this
bill. It is a short letter which I ask unanimous consent to insert in
the Record at this point:
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 6, 1998.
Hon. Bill Frist,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: I am following the debate on the human cloning
bill very closely. My interest is twofold: As Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, I have a special responsibility for
considering any legislation such as S. 1601 that creates new
criminal penalties. In addition, my long-standing interest in
biomedical research and ethics compels me to understand a
bill which has such far ranging public health consequences.
As you know, throughout my career, I have always taken a
strong pro-family and pro-life stance, especially those
relating to abortion and human reproduction. I have also
spent considerable efforts to see that the United States
remains the world's leader in biomedical research so that our
citizens may continue to benefit from revolutionary
breakthroughs in science. I know that you share my belief
that we have a responsibility to facilitate the advance of
medical science in a manner that to the greatest extent
possible respects the religious and ethical concerns of a
diverse population.
I believe that there is widespread agreement that the
cloning of human beings is undesirable and should be stopped.
However, in achieving this end we must take care not to cut
off--unwisely and unnecessarily--vitally important avenues of
research. Dr. Raymond L. White, Director of the Huntsman
Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, has voiced his
concern about this matter: ``It is important and possible to
create legislation that will achieve the desired goal of
preventing human cloning. I urge you to please consider
carefully the downstream negative consequences of an overly
broad legislative stroke. By all means, let us outlaw human
cloning. But let us not eliminate promising pathways of
research that could relieve human suffering.''
I am committed to legislation that prevents human cloning
but allows vital research to continue into areas such as
Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, diabetes, and many
cancers. You raised a number of cogent points during our
debate on Thursday. To better understand the operation of S.
1601, I would appreciate it if you can provide your thoughts
on the following:
1. S. 1601 does not define the term ``embryo''. Do you
believe that the initially created single cell product of
somatic cell nuclear transfer is an ``embryo''? Is there
consensus among scientists on this?
2. What is the intent of S. 1601 with respect to allowing,
or disallowing, the creation of a one cell entity through
somatic cell nuclear transfer to be cultured in vitro to
produce tissue intended to treat, cure, diagnose, or mitigate
diseases or other conditions? Specifically, what types of
research and development activities would be permitted or
precluded?
3. S. 1601 does not define the term ``somatic cell.'' Do
you consider fertilized eggs of the type used in
mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy ``somatic cells''? How
are such therapies treated under your interpretation of S.
1601?
4. What research and development activities does S. 1601
preclude or regulate that are currently beyond the
jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration under
current law, including its 1993 and 1997 jurisdictional
statements (58 Fed. Reg. 53248; 62 Fed. Reg. 9721)?
These questions involve novel and difficult issues. I am
certain that other tough questions will surface during the
course of this debate. It is because of your expertise in
these areas that I seek your guidance. Accordingly, I would
greatly appreciate it if you could detail your reasoning in
responding to these inquiries. It would be most helpful if I
could learn your views prior to the cloture vote on Tuesday.
Warmest personal regards,
Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman.

Mr. HATCH. I think that these are some of the important questions and
the type of questions on which we need to have consensus before we
enact legislation:
-- What are the current capabilities of cloning, in animals and
humans? Should we be focusing on banning a technology, or technologies,
or the results of a technology.
-- What should be the status of the asexually-produced totipotent
cells? What is the correct definition of an embryo? For example, is it
the definition used in the Report of the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission--that it is ``the developing organism from the time of
fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the
organism becomes known as a fetus''? Would that definition preclude
human somatic cell transfer technology?
-- What current authority does the government have with respect to
techniques which might lead to cloning human beings and human tissue?
-- Although there is virtual unanimity that cloning of human beings
should be banned at this time, what is the appropriate type of penalty
for any attempt at such an act? Should it be a criminal penalty? If so,
what type? Are the criminal penalties instituted in S. 1601 the
appropriate means of preventing cloned humans?
-- How does the language of this bill affect the ability to do
further research on whether banning somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology would affect the ability of a woman with unviable eggs to
conceive children?
-- Precisely what types of research could--and could not--be
conducted under this bill?
These are important issues that deserve our full attention.
All of us have family, friends and loved ones afflicted by some
terrible disease.
When we think about this bill we need to think about people like
Nancy and Ronald Reagan as they battle against Alzheimers.
We need to think about Mohammed Ali's battle against Parkinsons.
We need to be sure that in locking off human cloning that we don't do
so in a way that throws away the key to many other diseases.
Over the past few days, we have heard very compelling, heartfelt
debate about this issue.
Some have expressed the belief that asexually-produced totipotent
cells are, in fact, an embryo, fully deserving of the protections we
accord to a human life.
Others have averred that these cells are not yet a human embryo, but
rather should be viewed as a very promising tool which science should
be allowed to explore as we continue our quest to cure such devastating
diseases as diabetes, cancer and AIDS.
Both sides hold very strong moral convictions. There are extremely
important implications for both.
This body must explore these fundamental questions. We must consider
the views of our scientific experts, ethicists, religious leaders,
ethicists, and men and women of medicine.
Let me also add I am very troubled that this bill should have been
considered in Committee where many of the fundamental issues we have
been debating can be explored in more depth, especially since S. 1601
amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

[[Page S605]]

This is obviously an important debate, one which must be continued,
and therefore I will vote ``yes'' on the motion to invoke cloture.
As we attempt to advance the public health, we must do so in a way
that protects human life. I think we must work to craft legislation
that achieves both of these goals.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I intend to vote for cloture on the motion
to proceed to Senator Frist's bill this morning because I believe it is
imperative that we move the debate on human cloning forward. The
lightening pace of scientific and medical advances, while holding
immeasurable promise, often leaves society unprepared to answer the
moral and ethical questions that follow. The technology used to clone
``Dolly'' the now famous Scottish sheep, somatic cell nuclear transfer,
clearly should not be used to clone a human child; this is neither a
moral nor medically ethical procedure. Yet it is clear that the scope
of possibility for this new technology has not been fully explored. It
may hold the potential to develop new lifesaving therapies for diseases
that have historically plagued mankind. Can we close the door on new
opportunities to heal cancer patients, those afflicted with Alzheimers,
or burn victims?
Few of us in this body have background in science, medicine, or
medical ethics. Yet we are being asked to make decisions that have
tremendous consequences for the lives of every American. We are being
asked to examine some of our fundamental beliefs about life and the
ethical use of science. We must be exceedingly cautious before
legislating in an area we admittedly know little about.
I commend Senator Frist for his leadership in bringing this issue
before the Senate. I hope that we can reach consensus; that prohibiting
the use of somatic cell nuclear technology to produce a human child and
promoting responsible biomedical research are not mutually exclusive
goals. But we cannot do so unless we thoughtfully debate the issue; we
cannot ignore it.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in February 1997, scientists in Scotland
were successful in producing a cloned sheep, named ``Dolly.'' This
incredible event shocked the world and led to the realization that, at
some point, cloning human beings might also be on the horizon. Shortly
after the announcement about Dolly, my concern about the ethical and
moral implications of cloning human beings led me to cosponsor Senator
Bond's bill, S. 368, that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for
research on human cloning. I believe that, with the notable exception
of Dr. Richard Seed, who has announced to the world his intention of
cloning a human being, there is broad agreement that cloning humans is
unacceptable on many grounds.
But, the successful cloning of ``Dolly'' has prompted scientists to
ponder other potential uses of somatic cell nuclear technology, the
technique used to create Dolly. Scientists believe that research using
this technique might hold promise for a whole host of devastating human
diseases. For this reason many in the scientific community are urging
Congress to move cautiously in this area, lest overly broad legislation
have unintended consequences. Care in its crafting is, therefore,
imperative.
Given the concerns raised by the scientific community and patient
groups, it is therefore prudent that we proceed with caution and only
after thorough consideration of the ramifications that may follow if we
were to enact S. 1601, the bill before us today. This bill has received
not one hour of hearing before the appropriate committee. Who can say
with any comfort what the impact may be on important research aimed at
dread diseases? Doesn't important and potentially far reaching
legislation such as this at least warrant hearings before we proceed?
This legislation could have unintended and detrimental consequences.
Let us now get down to hard work and take the time necessary to
determine how to go about banning the cloning of human beings in a
clear and precise way that will avoid the unwanted consequence of also
banning important research intended to alleviate the pain and suffering
of victims of Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, and many types of
dreadful cancers.
I will vote against invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S.
1601, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. While I wish to register
strong opposition to cloning a human being, I also believe that
bringing this recently-introduced legislation to the Senate floor for
consideration without hearings by the appropriate Senate committee,
including testimony from expert witnesses is a mistake.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senators Bond and Frist
are to be commended in introducing the underlying legislation to ban
human cloning and the creation of human embryos. Congress must make
unmistakably clear that human life is too precious and valuable to be
cheapened by a medical procedure which replicates human beings.
Millions of Americans believe that human cloning is inconsistent with
the moral responsibility that is incumbent upon modern medical
technology. Put simply, so-called medical ``advances'' are not advances
at all unless the dignity and sanctity of all human life are preserved.
It is meaningful, I think, that the Senate's only physician has
sponsored this bill. I appreciate Senator Frist's willingness to offer
his medical expertise to the American people by setting the record
straight about the travesty of human cloning.
Mr. President, the overwhelming consensus among professionals in the
medical industry confirms that human cloning is unethical and immoral.
NIH Director Harold Vamus stated that he personally agrees with
numerous polls evidencing the public's opinion that cloning human
beings is ``repugnant.''
Indeed, Mr. President, the American people are outraged by the hubris
of a fringe element of the medical community wishing to pursue human
cloning--and they are demanding action. In fact, some states have
already introduced similar legislation to the one before us that would
ban human cloning.
Perhaps this debate over human cloning was inevitable because, for
too long, our society has failed to stand on the principle that all
life has value. Nowhere has the lack of respect for human life been
more evident than in the Supreme Court's tragic Roe v. Wade decision in
1973--the infamous case; which established that unborn children are
expendable for reasons of convenience and social policy. Roe v. Wade
presaged an era where science, technology and medicine are no longer
confined to work within the moral boundaries erased by that ill-fated
decision made twenty-five years ago.
I'm sure most Americans were alarmed, as I was, when the Chicago
physicist, Richard Seed, expressed his reasoning for wanting to clone a
human being. Mr. Seed, states that he believes mankind should reach the
level of supremacy as our Creator. Mark my words, a society that
permits modern medicine to sacrifice human dignity for the sole purpose
of such self-glorification will not survive its own arrogance.
Those having doubts need only to consult their history books.
Evidence of this can be seen throughout the course of history. It is
instructive to read the book of Genesis and the account about a group
from Babylon who became so enamored by technology that they believed
they could build a structure, the infamous Tower of Babel, that would
reach into heaven. The Lord punished the arrogance of this civilization
and disrupted their foolish work.
Some may say this is a story of irrelevance, but I believe it serves
as a reminder of the ramifications to come if modern medicine is
allowed to exceed beyond the moral boundaries and human limitations set
by God. We should not be in the business of taking away life or
creating life unnaturally.
So, Mr. President, it is extremely important that the Senate pass
this legislation to outlaw human cloning. In doing so, the Senate will
heed the American people's belief that this objectionable procedure is
a dangerous precedent and a morally abhorrent use of medical
technology.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1601, a bill that
would end the cloning of human beings. I urge my colleagues to support
and cosponsor this legislation.
Many opponents of the bill will label its supporters as anti-
technology, anti-science--seeking to return to the dark

[[Page S606]]

days of ages past. Such opponents have conveniently seized on a notion
that to ban this emerging technological procedure is to despise all
science and progress.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Just 80 days ago, two of the
primary sponsors of this bill--Senators Frist and Gregg--and I
completed three years of intense work on the FDA Modernization Act,
whose sole purpose was to advance the health of patients by supporting
and promoting the extraordinary, life-saving work of high-technology
biotech companies and drug firms. It is too convenient--indeed, it is
dishonest--for opponents to charge supporters of this cloning bill with
being anti-science, anti-patient.
Indeed, we who believe human life to be one of the greatest gifts
from our Creator, do not fear the development of science and technology
that protects and improves that life. We know only too well of the
advances in medicine and vaccines that have dramatically reduced infant
deaths. We have held hearings in which extraordinary PET technology can
reveal the workings of the prenatal and postnatal brain. We have
constituent companies whose fetal bladder stents now save the lives of
women and their children, when death used to be a certainty.
But to admire, promote, and legislate on behalf of patient-friendly
technology, and scientific achievement does not require that we
sacrifice all principle or that we abandon caution in the face of
serious questions about a particular technology.
Few will disagree that cloning presents this country with one of the
most disturbing and tantalizing scientific developments in recent time.
At once, it presents us with the opportunity to duplicate,
triplicate, infinitely replicate the best that the world has to offer;
and it presents the threat of too much of a good thing--the loss of
individuality and the end of the security and utility inherent in
diversity. Indeed, the child is now created in our own image and not
God's. It becomes a product of the will and not the receipt of gift.
Who can predict the emotional, the psychological, or the spiritual
consequences of such a technolgy?
Cloning technology, so new to the human experience, indeed considered
just ten or fifteen years ago to be practically and scientifically
unachievable, has received only scant attention from the most
distinguished, thoughtful, and expert-laden institutions in our
society. Even today, cloning of humans is still considered only a
remote possibility by means as yet untested and only barely imaginable.
Because it differs so dramatically from in vitro fertilization and
other methods of reproduction, we can scarcely begin to set forth some
of the practical consequences: a reduction in genetic diversity, long
considered essential to the species; an increase in deformities in the
child. The possibilities are numerous and unexplored.
Proponents of cloning argue that in the face of these possibilities,
caution is required. But while cloning proponents call for caution that
protects experimentation, the better course is caution that protects
the developing human embryos that are inevitably created by such
technology.
How in good conscience can we wait for the practical and ethical
complications of cloning to develop--to wait for Dr. Richard Seed to
use methods that unavoidably involve the destruction of living human
embryos?
Perhaps in the meantime research on animal cloning will result in the
cloning technology that can be used to develop human cell lines or
tissue that is not derived from a developing human embryo or does not
result first in the creation of such an embryo. Again, until that day,
caution is required--caution in defense of life.
S. 1601 ensures that the least among us receive our full recognition
and protection as members of human society. I urge passage of S. 1601.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to make it absolutely clear: I
oppose the cloning of human beings. But, I am voting against cloture on
the motion to proceed to the cloning bill because the bill and the
issues the bill raises are not that simple.
I am voting against cloture because there has not been sufficient
discussion; there have not been sufficient hearings; there has not been
sufficient consideration of what is a very complicated scientific
issue. Legislation is supposed to be the end result of a process; not
the beginning of it. This bill, Mr. President, is far too premature.
Yes, hearings were held last year after it was announced that Dolly
the sheep was a clone. But, those were generic hearings on the issue of
cloning. And, the bill before us is not--I repeat, not--a result of
those hearings. This was a bill that was introduced a week ago, has
never been the subject of a hearing, and has never been considered by a
committee.
Are the definitions adequate? Or, are they over broad? In the name of
preventing the cloning of a human being, are we hindering medical
research that might help in the battle against cancer and other
diseases? Or, in the name of allowing scientific research, are we
opening the door to rogue scientists who will then find it easier to
clone a human?
These are all very legitimate questions that need answers. In the
end, there may be significant differences over what the answers should
be. But, the problem here today, Mr. President, is that we are not
ready to be debating answers to these policy questions because we have
not had a thorough discussion of the questions and the implications.
With the pace of scientific advancement--scientific knowledge is now
doubling about every five years--more and more of these extremely
complicated bioethical issues are likely to come before the Congress in
years to come. Let's not set a precedent here today that we will deal
with them willy-nilly--by simply taking a position and voting without
having given thoughtful consideration to the issues involved.
We need to act to ban the cloning of humans. But, before we act, we
need more hearings and more discussion on how best to accomplish that.
Therefore, I am voting against cloture on the motion to proceed.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to suggest that we should not
be rushing to consider a bill that may do far more than ban human
cloning permanently. The Lott-Bond cloning bill was only introduced
last Tuesday and has been available for review for a very short period
of time. The identical bill that was introduced by Senator Bond was
referred to the Judiciary Committee and yet we have had no Judiciary
committee hearings on this topic to examine exactly what this bill
does. Is the bill really written to accomplish its goal of banning the
duplication of humans via this new technology? Or does it go much
further than its stated goal? I don't think that many of us here on the
floor of the Senate (myself included) are well equipped to make that
determination without hearing from experts in the field including
scientists, bioethicists, theologians and others qualified to give us
advice on this very important matter.
It is also not clear as to why we are rushing to consider this bill
given that the FDA has already announced that it has authority over
this area. In fact I have a letter here in my hand from the FDA that
explains that before any human cloning would be allowed to proceed, FDA
would need proof that the technology was safe. FDA will prohibit any
sponsor of a clinical study from developing this technology if ``it is
likely to expose human subjects to unreasonable and significant risk of
illness or injury'' or ``the clinical investigator was not qualified by
reason of their scientific training and experience to conduct the
investigation.'' The letter goes on to say that ``In the case of
attempts to create a human being using cloning technology, there are
major unresolved safety questions. Until those questions are
appropriately addressed, the Agency would not permit any such
investigation to proceed.''
The National Bioethics Advisory Committee recommended a five year
moratorium on the use of this technology to create a human being. Due
to the time limit that they were under, the committee was unable to
focus on the issues beyond safety. They concluded that, at this time,
the technology was unsafe for use for the purpose of cloning a human
being. They did not address the many ethical issues involved with the
use of this technology. The committee believed that these issues were
too complex to be dealt with in such a short period of

[[Page S607]]

time. Therefore, it is still necessary to allow time for discussion
about the ethical use or need for a specific ban on the use of this
technology.
To date, we have excluded Patient groups, physicians, scientists and
other interested parties from the discussion of how this particular
bill should be drafted. Yet it is these very patients whose future hope
for cures may be cut off by a bill if it is improperly drafted.
I find it extremely troubling that we are rushing to consider a bill
that every patient advocacy group, doctor, or scientist that has
contacted my office has either urged us not to pass or has asked us to
consider in a more deliberative manner. Organizations such as: The
American Heart Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation
International, the American Association for Cancer Research, the
American Society for Human Genetics, the American Academy of Allergy,
Asthma and Immunology, the Association of American Medical Colleges,
the American Pediatric Society, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the
National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Parkinson's Action Network, the
AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Pediatrics and 27 Science
Nobel Laureates. These organizations and individuals are dedicated to
finding cures for diseases. They are not advocates for unethical
research. They are mainstream organizations committed to finding cures
for such diseases as heart disease, strokes, spinal cord injuries,
birth defects, asthma, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis. These are
diseases that afflict millions of Americans. Biomedical research may be
some patients with these illnesses only hope.

For some, new technologies as yet undeveloped may be their only hope.
For instance, some of my colleagues may have heard the story of Travis
Roy. Travis is now a 21 yr old college student at Boston University.
Travis grew up in Maine and was an avid ice hockey player.
Unfortunately for Travis during his first collegiate hockey game 3
years ago, 11 seconds in to the game, he collided with the wall and
suffered a spinal chord injury that has left him paralyzed with only a
small amount of movement in his right hand. Travis has written a book
about his experiences and his fight for recovery. For people like
Travis that have had their spinal chords severely injured they look to
new research that might help them regenerate their damaged tissue. As
Travis so agonizingly stated recently: ``All I want to be able to do is
to hug my mother.''
Researchers hope that they may be able to generate what are known as
``stem cells,'' that is cells that can give rise to lots of other
cells, using the technology that the Lott-Bond cloning bill seeks to
ban. With continuing research, those cells might be used to repair
injured spinal cords or damaged livers or kidneys or hearts.
Stem cell research could provide: cardiac muscle cells to treat heart
attack victims and degenerative heart disease; skin cells to treat burn
victims; neural cells for treating those suffering from
neurodegenerative diseases; blood cells to treat cancer anemia and
immunodeficiencies; neural cells to treat Parkinson's Huntington's and
ALS. The generation of stem cell lines using an unfertilized egg as a
host is far removed from the act of creating embryos for research or
creating a fetus for organ parts. In fact, it is the exact opposite
giving an avenue for therapies that involve the culturing of single
cells from adult cells. Some of these therapies would actually result
in fetal tissue no longer being necessary for the treatment of many
neurodegenerative diseases. Others might give hope to parents that
conceive children that have genetic diseases, so that they are not
faced with the agonizing choice between terminating a pregnancy or
giving birth to a severely disabled child.
I think that many of us do not really know what the full scope for
this technology really is. It is possible that this technology may be
used in a life enhancing, life promoting manner.

We should have a full hearings process with opportunities to hear
from specialists in medical genetics, researchers at NIH and other
institutions. We should listen to what the medical community has to say
on treatment options. We should also hear from patient advocacy groups
and all others that may have expertise in this area or be affected by
the legislation at hand. Likewise, the area of assistive reproductive
technology has become incredibly complex and we should listen to
bioethicists and religious leaders and their opinions which we surely
value. Again, I wonder why we are rushing here. What about the
committee hearing process is the Republican leadership afraid of that?
Some may argue that the announcement by the Chicago Physicist,
Richard Seed of his intention to start cloning necessitates a rapid
response. However, Dr. Seed has no training in medical procedures nor
in biology. He does not have a lab for this purpose. He does not have
the venture capital and in fact his home was recently foreclosed by the
Bank. Thus to suggest that he will be cloning anything soon, seems
outlandish at best. By the FDA's stated criteria of an investigator
needing to demonstrate expertise, Dr. Seed would clearly fail and thus
would be prohibited by FDA from proceeding.
One person's far-fetched claims should not propel us into passing
legislation that has not been adequately reviewed. As J. Benjamin
Younger, Executive Director of the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine has said: ``We must work together to ensure that in our effort
to make human cloning illegal, we do not sentence millions of people to
needless suffering because research and progress into their illness
cannot proceed.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have too
much respect for my friend and colleague from Tennessee to let the
comparison with Hitler and science be used on the floor of the U.S.
Senate in reference to our position on this particular issue without
comment.
Our position has been embraced by virtually every major research
group in this country. This vote isn't about a ban on the cloning of
human beings. We have agreed on that principle. This vote is about
preserving opportunities for major advances in biomedical research in
this country. I hope the Senate will vote ``no'' on cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri controls 20 seconds.
Mr. BOND. I yield that time to myself.
Mr. President, unfortunately, the misinformation about this bill has
our opponents saying that human cloning bans will hurt research. Show
me one mainstream scientist who is currently creating cloned human
embryos to fight these ailments. It is not happening. It should never
happen.
Science has given us partial-birth abortions and Dr. Kevorkian's
assisted suicide. We should say no to these scientific advances and no
to the cloning of human embryos. If you vote against cloture, you are
saying yes to human cloning.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 1601, regarding human cloning.
Trent Lott, Christopher S. Bond, Bill Frist, Spencer
Abraham, Michael B. Enzi, James Inhofe, Slade Gorton,
Sam Brownback, Don Nickles, Chuck Hagel, Rick Santorum,
Judd Gregg, Rod Grams, Larry E. Craig, Jesse Helms, and
Jon Kyl.

Call Of The Roll

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been
waived.

Vote

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 1601, the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.

[[Page S608]]

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES: I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bryan), is
absent due to illness.
I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), is absent
attending a funeral.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Bryan), would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson

NAYS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Bryan
Levin
Reid
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are
54. Three-fifths of the Senators not having voted in the affirmative,
the motion is rejected.

____________________