[Pages S318-S325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1597. A bill to establish food safety research, education, and
extension as priorities of the Department of Agriculture, to require
the use of a designated team within the Department of Agriculture to
enable the Department and other Federal agencies to rapidly respond to
food safety emergencies, and to improve food safety through the
development and commercialization of food safety technology; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

THE SAFE FOOD ACTION PLAN ACT

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing companion
legislation to a bill prepared by Congresswoman Debbie Stabenow
entitled the Safe Food Action Plan Act.
The bill adds food safety as a new statutory priority in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's research, education and extension programs.
This should mean that more of the nearly $1.5 billion spent through
existing grant and research programs, including the Fund for Rural
America, will be focused directly on food safety. That's the kind of
awareness that we need, to prevent and combat food supply
contamination.
The bill also creates a Federal Emergency Management Agency-like
approach to dealing with food safety crises. Currently, there are at
least 3 agencies within the Department of Agriculture that have some
responsibility for preventing and controlling outbreaks of food borne
disease, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration and the
Centers for Disease Control. This bill establishes a Food Safety Rapid
Response Team across internal division boundaries within USDA that will
coordinate with other Federal agencies. If outbreaks do occur, the
American people must be confident that the government is prepared to
efficiently handle and limit such public health threats.
This legislation was developed by Congresswoman Stabenow over several
months with input from all parts of the food production and consumption
chain and the Department of Agriculture. It is an excellent complement
to the Administration's enforcement enhancement proposal. The Safe Food
Action Plan is a sensible and cost-effective way to make the Federal
government responsive and responsible.
I hope the Agriculture Committee will seek to move this legislation
as quickly as possible, and I urge my colleagues to consider
cosponsoring this important measure.
______

By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Grams and Mr. Hagel):
S. 1599. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of
human cloning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 1998

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I rise to announce that we are
introducing a measure that places an outright ban on the use of somatic
cell nuclear transfer technology for human cloning purposes. Recent
reports that a Chicago-based scientist is prepared to move forward with
human cloning experimentation forces us to engage in an immediate
debate on how far out on the moral cliff we are willing to let science
proceed before we as a Nation insist on some meaningful constraints.
When the announcement was made last month that these efforts to raise
funds for human cloning were going forward, we stated that we would
move on an emergency basis to deal with this and to express, through
congressional action, a strong sense that this is unacceptable and we
must prohibit it. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished
cosponsors, Senators Frist, Gregg, Lott, Hutchison, Shelby, Nickles,
Lugar, Abraham, Grams, and Hagel.
I believe we no longer have the luxury of waiting around for this
morally reprehensible act to occur in the United States. Less than a
year ago, the cloning of Dolly, the now famous sheep, provoked a debate
of unprecedented proportions, a debate which to this day generates
polar feelings of fascination and fear. We have in this body adopted
prohibition on the use of Federal funds for research on or
experimentation in human cloning. The time has come for us to make that
a flat prohibition and to put our country in league with other
civilized countries, which are saying human cloning is not acceptable
and will not go forward.
Daily news accounts about the successful cloning of animals and
stories of organizations and individuals pursuing human cloning have
kept the debate alive. The American public is asking if similar
techniques can be used to clone humans, and they are concerned whether
something that was once thought only to be science fiction is now
closer to becoming a reality.
Those opposing a prohibition on human cloning suggest that we cannot
put the genie back in the bottle, and that we cannot stop progress. I
suggest that in this case our technological capability may be
outrunning our moral sense.
The ethical implications of human cloning are staggering. We should
never create human life for spare parts, as a replacement for a child
who has died, or for other unnatural and selfish purposes.
How many embryos or babies would we tolerate being created with
abnormalities before we would perfect human cloning? It took Scottish
scientists over 276 tries before they created Dolly, and we still do
not even know if Dolly is the perfect sheep. What would have happened
had those 276 been badly deformed potential humans? For humans, these
results are entirely unacceptable. Dr. Ian Wilmut, the leading Scottish
scientist who created Dolly, himself has stated that he can see no
scenario under which it would be ethical to clone human life. I believe
he is right.
Moreover, in September of 1994, a federal Human Embryo Research Panel
noted that ``allowing society to create genetically identical persons
would devalue human life by undermining the individuality of human
beings.''
Further, the panel concluded that ``there are broad moral concerns
about the deliberate duplication of an individual genome. The notion of
cloning an existing human being or of making carbon copies of an
existing embryo appears repugnant to members of the public. Many
members of the panel share this view and see no justification for
federal funding of such research.''
And I would emphatically argue that those statements apply to private
sector research as well.
It is also important to note that this legislation is narrowly
drafted, and it's sole objective is to ban the use of somatic cell
nuclear transfer for human cloning purposes. We worked overtime to
ensure that this language was specific so that it would only ban this
technique which was used to create Dolly.

[[Page S319]]

This technique has also been criticized by a representative of the
pharmaceutical industry. In a prepared statement for members of
Congress, dated January 13, 1998, the representative said,

While conventional cloning technology has been used
extensively worldwide to meet global medical needs, nuclear
transfer technology is fraught with untold failures for each
partial success, and has major significant ethical issues
associated with it. Furthermore, it has no strong therapeutic
or economic based need driving it at this time. The concept
that it is a viable alternative to infertile parents is cruel
and completely unjustified. I would challenge you not to
confuse the two as the Congress considers its options here.

In addition, our bill is straightforward and clear. It prevents a
specific technology that is characterized by industry, researchers,
theologians, ethicists, and others as ``fraught with failures and
lacking therapeutic value.'' This bill, however, does allow important
and promising research to continue.
In vitro fertilization research, plant and animal cloning, the
cloning of DNA, cells and tissues, stem cell research, gene therapy
research and other activities taking place at the Human Genome Center
offer great hope in addressing how to prevent, diagnose, and treat many
devastating diseases. And these types of research will continue to
thrive.
I have long been a supporter of biotechnology; however, there is a
bright line between those activities and human cloning. And we must
draw that line.
The belief that all human beings are unique and created by God is
shared by billions of us around the world. Human cloning, or man's
attempt to play God, would change the very meaning of life, of human
dignity, and of what it is to be human. Are we ready for that? Hardly.
I heard a profound statement from a leading bioethicist. He said, ``I
have heard from many who wish they could be cloned, but I have never
heard someone say that they wished they were a clone of someone
else''--because cloning threatens human dignity, of what it means to be
a unique individual.
There is a bright line between those activities--the legitimate
activities and investigations to improve human life, to deal with the
significant diseases that we have that might be ameliorated by
technological research. We have to draw the line between legitimate
research in medicine and human cloning.
Human cloning would devalue human life by undermining the
individuality of human beings. We must show the moral courage and have
the will to say no to human cloning.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1599

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Prohibition
Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

Congress finds that in order to prevent the creation of a
cloned human individual through human somatic cell nuclear
transfer technology, it is right and proper to prohibit the
creation of cloned human embryos that would never have the
opportunity for implantation and that would therefore be
created solely for research that would ultimately lead to
their destruction.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CLONING.

(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 15, the following:

``CHAPTER 16--CLONING

``Sec.
``301. Prohibition on cloning.

``Sec. 301 Prohibition on cloning

``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or
entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate
commerce, to use human somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology.
``(b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or
entity, public or private, to import an embryo produced
through human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology.
``(c) Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any person or entity who is convicted of
violating any provision of this section shall be fined
according to the provisions of this title or sentenced to up
to 10 years in prison, or both.
``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity who is convicted
of violating any provision of this section shall be subject
to, in the case of a violation that involves the derivation
of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not more than an
amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2.
``(d) Definition.--The term `human somatic cell nuclear
transfer technology' means taking the nuclear material of a
human somatic cell and incorporating it into an oocyte from
which the nucleus has been removed or rendered inert and
producing an embryo (including a preimplantation embryo).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 15, the following:

``16. Cloning Sec. 301''...............................................

SEC. 4. COMMISSION TO PROMOTE A NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON
BIOETHICS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Institute of Medicine a commission to be known as the
National Commission to Promote a National Dialogue on
Bioethics (referred to in this section as the
``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 25 members, of whom--
(A) 6 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate;
(B) 6 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate;
(C) 6 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives; and
(D) 6 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives; and
(E) 1, who shall serve as the Chairperson of the
Commission, to be appointed jointly by the Majority Leader of
the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
in consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(2) Requirements.--Each individual described in
subparagraph (A) through (D) of paragraph (1) shall ensure
that members appointed to the Commission are representative
of the fields of law, theology, philosophy or ethics,
medicine, science, and society.
(3) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission
shall be appointed by not later than December 1, 1998.
(4) Terms of appointment.--A member of the Commission
appointed under paragraph (1) shall serve for a term of 3
years. Members may not serve consecutive terms.
(5) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of its
Chairperson or a majority of its members.
(6) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of 13 members of the
Commission.
(7) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled
in the same manner in which the original appointment was made
not later than 30 days after the Commission is given notice
of the vacancy and shall not affect the power of the
remaining members to execute the duties of the Commission.
(8) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall receive
no additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their
service on the Commission.
(9) Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall receive
travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(c) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall provide
an independent forum for broad public participation and
discourse concerning important bioethical issues including
cloning, and provide for a report to Congress concerning the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Commission
concerning Federal policy and possible Congressional action.
(d) Staff and Support Services.--
(1) Staff.--With the approval of the Commission, the
chairperson of the Commission may appoint such personnel as
the chairperson considers appropriate.
(2) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff of the
Commission shall be appointed without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of such title (relating to classification
and General Schedule pay rates).
(3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the
Commission, the chairperson may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
(4) Physical facilities.--The Administrator of the General
Services Administration shall locate suitable office space
for the operation of the Commission. The facilities shall
serve as the headquarters of the Commission and shall include
all necessary equipment and incidentals required for the
proper functioning of the Commission.
(e) Powers of Commission.--
(1) Hearings and other activities.--For the purpose of
carrying out its duties, the Commission may hold such public
hearings and undertake such other activities as the
Commission determines to be necessary to carry out its
duties.
(2) Detail of federal employees.--Upon the request of the
Commission, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to
detail, without reimbursement, any of the personnel of such
agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying
out its duties. Any such detail shall not interrupt or
otherwise affect the civil service status or privileges of
the Federal employee.

[[Page S320]]

(3) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the
Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such
technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out its duties.
(4) Use of mails.--The Commission may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be
considered a commission of Congress as described in section
3215 of title 39, United States Code.
(5) Obtaining information.--The Commission may secure
directly from any Federal agency information necessary to
enable it to carry out its duties, if the information may be
disclosed under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head
of such agency shall furnish such information to the
Commission.
(6) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis such
administrative support services as the Commission may
request.
(7) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing
and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from
the Government Printing Office, the Commission shall be
deemed to be a committee of the Congress.
(f) Subcommittees.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish 6
subcommittees, including--
(A) a subcommittee on legal issues;
(B) a subcommittee on theological issues;
(C) a subcommittee on philosophical and ethical issues;
(D) a subcommittee on medical issues;
(E) a subcommittee on scientific issues; and
(F) a subcommittee on social issues.
(2) Membership.--With respect to the issues for which each
subcommittee has been established, each subcommittee shall be
composed of--
(A) 1 expert to be appointed by the members of the
Committee who were appointed under subparagraphs (A) and (C)
of subsection (b)(1);
(B) 1 expert to be appointed by the members of the
Committee who were appointed under subparagraphs (B) and (D)
of subsection (b)(1);
(C) 1 individual operating in the private sector who is
acquainted with the issues but who is not an expert to be
appointed by the members of the Committee who were appointed
under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection (b)(1);
(D) 1 individual operating in the private sector who is
acquainted with the issues but who is not an expert to be
appointed by the members of the Committee who were appointed
under subparagraphs (B) and (D) of subsection (b)(1); and
(E) 4 members of the Commission with relevant expertise.
(3) Meetings.--Meetings of the subcommittees shall be
approved by the Commission.
(g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1999, and annually
thereafter, the Commission shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report which shall
contain a detailed statement of the recommendations,
findings, and conclusions of the Commission.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.

SEC. 5. UNRESTRICTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
shall be construed to restrict areas of scientific research
that are not specifically prohibited by this Act (or
amendments).

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government
should advocate for and join an international effort to
prohibit the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology to produce a human embryo.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now yield to my distinguished colleague
from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to support both the intent and to
underscore the importance of this bill, the Bond-Frist-Gregg bill,
which does address the issue of human cloning. The purpose of this bill
is very straightforward, and that is to prohibit human cloning while at
the same time protecting very important scientific research.
This bill does prohibit human cloning, a topic which has captured the
imagination of not only the American people but really the world over
the past year after the successful experiment by Ian Wilmut, the
Scottish scientist who successfully cloned ``Dolly,'' an adult sheep,
using a new technique, a technique called somatic cell nuclear
transfer. Public sentiment in response immediately registered, and I
think appropriately so, opposition to the application of this specific
technique to human beings. Fears that the ``Dolly'' experiment might
lead to asexual human reproduction nearly drowned out pleas from the
scientific community to protect legitimate cloning research at the
cellular and animal level.
Congress responded to the public fear by enacting a ban on the
Federal funding for any human cloning research at the embryo level, and
the President soon after issued an Executive order forbidding
implantation of a cloned human embryo with the use of Federal funds.
Scientists in the private sector have been left unregulated, but most
research societies, appropriately I believe, adopted a voluntary
moratorium on the use of somatic cell technology for the purpose of
human cloning.
Since no imminent threat of human clones at the time was perceived,
the issue took a back seat to the more visible items before the
Congress and the country, such as balancing the Federal budget. With
the exception of an occasional television show, movie or news report,
cloning pretty much faded from the mental radar screen of most
Americans. But then not too long ago Dr. Seed gave new life to the
whole human cloning debate when he announced in a public way his
intention to use the Wilmut technique to create a cloned human
individual.
At that time it very quickly became apparent to virtually everyone
that without Federal legislation human cloning could, and many feel
would, occur in the private sector without due consideration to the
ethical, social, theological and medical implications of this new and
unproved technique.
Our collective instinct that human individuals should not now be
cloned has its roots in the most basic feelings we have about human
nature. We know that an individual is more than the sum of individual
body parts, more than the sum of the various organs, and we know
instinctively that the human spirit, no matter how hard we try or how
good the science is, cannot be replicated. The science of somatic cell
nuclear transfer is still today imperfect. Wilmut's technique can be
dangerous, we know, to the cloned child. In addition, we have no idea
about the long-term effects of asexual reproduction on the human gene
pool or on the psychosocial structures of our world.
Quite simply, we are not prepared for a human ``Dolly'' experiment.
And our inability to respond adequately to the moral, the ethical and
the theological implications of this technology has highlighted a
serious weakness in the fabric of our social structure. In too many
instances we have allowed ourselves to separate scientific progress
from those ethical conversations. We no longer can divorce the two. Dr.
Seed and others have forced us to confront our deficits and to fashion
timely answers to the timeless question: ``Is there a line that should
not be crossed even for scientific or other gain, and if so, where is
it?'' I have used that line in this Chamber before. It is from a
Washington Post editorial in October of 1994: ``Is there a line that
should not be crossed even for scientific or other gain, and if so,
where is it?''
The debate on this particular bill, and others that address the issue
of cloning, will have to center around that question, where is that
line?
I have a research background. I am a research scientist. I am a
transplant physician. I am committed to the public welfare through that
public service of medicine and science. From that background, I
personally would use four principles that I think must, in my view, be
a part of any legislation as we embark on prohibiting human cloning.
First, legislation must differentiate between human cloning on the one
hand and animal, cellular and molecular and plant cloning on the other.
It is that human dimension we must address and address very
specifically in order not to halt the progress of science in those
other fields.

The second principle. The legislation must be crafted very
specifically with surgical precision, with laser-like precision,
narrowly, yes, so that we will avoid inadvertently banning other
nontargeted research, research that is critically important to
improving health care for the current generation as well as that next
generation, important research that we must protect in terms of stem
cell research, in vitro fertilization, our search for cures of juvenile
diabetes, our attack on prevention and cure of cancer.
The third principle that I would encourage my colleagues to adopt as
we

[[Page S321]]

embark upon this banning of human cloning is that the legislation must
prevent the specific technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer, the
specific technique, because of its potential to facilitate the mass
production of cloned human embryos that could be created solely for
research and ultimately destroyed.
Fourth, the legislation must include the creation of a new permanent
bipartisan commission that is representative of the American people,
representative of science, representative of our ethical thinking,
representative of theology, so that we can more adequately address in a
sophisticated, mature way, consistent with the science and ethical
thinking of today, the many issues that are going to face us in this
arena of bioethics, this rapidly oncoming onslaught of science, and
very good science as we look to the future. Science is critically
important as we learn better to address the ravages of disease.
Two temptations threaten both science and ethics in the current
environment. On the one hand, we have the pressure on legislators,
often unfamiliar with the specifics of scientific issues, to rush out
and draft laws that could hamper important research efforts if we are
not very careful. And on the other hand, almost in parallel, is this
tendency on the part of some scientists to say, no, we don't need that
type of intervention, that type of oversight of ethics, of laws. Thus
we have science and we have ethics that are almost lost in this
political morass and the public meanwhile stays outside, all too often
frightened, uninvolved, and unengaged.
This cloning debate, I think, maybe for the first time in the history
of this body, forces us to address what is inevitable as we look to the
future, and that is a rapid-fire, one-after-another onslaught of new
scientific technological innovation that has to be assimilated into our
ethical-social fabric.
Thus, this bioethics commission is important to consider these future
innovations as they come forward. Right now there are no fewer than six
legislative proposals that are either on the table or soon to be on the
table on this issue of banning human cloning. These bills range from a
sweeping prohibition of all types of cloning to really some very
symbolic bans. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, the
commission that was appointed by and that reports to President Clinton,
did a good job of trying to assimilate the information on the cloning
under their very short, 90-day deadline last year. But they, as hard as
they tried, were unable to substantively address the ethical issues
surrounding human cloning.
The commission cited at the time that they had inadequate time to
tackle these difficult ethical issues in the context of our pluralistic
society, and they focused primarily on scientific concerns, as well as
the less abstract issue of safety--a really proscribed area of safety,
saying that the technique today is not safe or has not been proven to
be safe. And then they appealed, to us, as Americans--to take this to
the public square, take this out to the people around America and talk
to them and look for the sort of leadership that we need on forming a
national policy on human cloning.
In an effort to follow up on the recommendations of the National
Bioethics Commission, the Senate Labor Committee's Subcommittee on
Public Health and Safety, which I chair, on June 17, 1997, held a
hearing. That hearing was entitled ``Ethics and Theology: A
Continuation of the National Discussion on Human Cloning.'' And we
heard outstanding testimony on all sides of the issue, from Christian,
Islamic and Jewish traditions and from philosophers and theologians,
all well schooled in biomedical ethics. We launched a much broader
public debate with questions about the nature of human individuality,
about family, about social structure. However, the time has now shown
that both a Presidential commission and the U.S. Congress are really
inadequate forums to fully address the diversity, the richness, the
fabric of these bioethical issues and their importance as we look to
the future.
I, therefore, today, through our legislation, propose creation of a
new, permanent, independent national bioethics commission,
representative of the public at large, with the combined participation
of experts in law, ethics, theology, medicine, social science,
philosophy, coupled with interested members of the public. It is my
hope that this public commission, in an environment where it can
capture the diversity of our society today, will forge a new path for
our country in the field of bioethics, in considering new techniques
and new innovation; that they will enable us to have an informed,
ongoing, thoughtful, scientific debate in the public square, without
fear or politics driving our decisions.
In this proposal the majority and minority leaders of Congress would
appoint members of the panel, but no current Member of Congress or
administration political appointee would participate during his or her
term of office. Individuals would serve for 3 years. There would be 24
such members, six subcommittees looking at the various fields that I
have mentioned. Each and every citizen should have an opportunity to
participate in these ongoing bioethical debates.
I anticipate that some may question the role of theology in a public
policy debate. Certainly the President's advisory commission found that
their considerations were incomplete without examining the religious
mores of our culture. Indeed, our Founding Fathers also recognized that
public policy could not be formulated in a theological vacuum. While
they forbade the establishment of a state religion, they simultaneously
affirmed the rights of God-fearing people to make their voices heard in
the public arena. Today, and throughout history, religion has been a
primary source of the beliefs governing these decisions for men and
women of all races, of all creeds.
While these four principles that I outlined earlier start as the
basic foundation, we do need to reach out and receive the input of
others as we embark upon consideration of this piece of legislation.
With these four principles it is my hope that we can build a bipartisan
coalition of support for a ban on human cloning.
I do call upon my colleagues in the scientific community to step
forward and participate in the ongoing debate in good faith. We have
much to gain from your expertise, and the public has much to gain from
your ongoing work.
In recent days, many in the biotechnology community have argued that
the mass production of cloned human embryos for research purposes is
vital to their research efforts. I appeal to them this afternoon to
take one step back and recognize that this legislation does not
prohibit the vast majority of all current embryo and stem cell
research, and acknowledge that there are serious ethical dilemmas
associated with churning out human embryos as if they were products on
an assembly line.

Let us have no more hedging about what is and what is not an embryo.
Biologically it is clear. Proponents of embryo research have always
been quite open that they are seeking to do embryo research because the
embryo is biologically unique. So I say to those in the research
community, this legislation does not threaten your ongoing embryo
research. It does not limit your ability to experiment with stem cells,
with gene therapy, with in vitro fertilization. Help us stop Dr. Seed
dead in his tracks. Keep this issue focused on human cloning and join
our efforts to create a new commission to deal with these issues on an
ongoing basis.
The Washington Post, in 1994 said:

The creation of human embryos specifically for research
that will destroy them is unconscionable. . .. Viewed from
one angle this issue can be made to yield endless
complexities. What about the suffering of individuals and
infertile couples who might be helped by embryo research?
What about the status of the brand new embryo? But before you
get to these questions [the Post says] there is a simpler
one.

It is the question I read a few minutes ago at the beginning of my
statement and I will read it again. It is:

Is there a line that should not be crossed, even for
scientific or other gain, and if so, where is it?

As the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine has said in the
past:

Knowledge, although important, may be less important to a
decent society than the way it is obtained.

This is where the debate will be over the next several days. I
believe that an

[[Page S322]]

honest ban on human cloning must begin at the level of the activation
of the embryo, not later at some point, at the time of implantation. Is
the Federal Government capable of preventing a woman from implanting an
embryo derived from her own genetic makeup into her own womb? Is it
wise to perfect our cloning techniques on embryos when we forbid their
implantation? Yes, I think we need to start the ban at the time of the
activation of the embryo.
In closing, it is clearly vital that our public debate and reflection
on scientific developments keep pace with and even anticipate and
prepare us for this, really, rush of new scientific knowledge that is
coming toward us each and every day. The moral and ethical dilemmas
that are inherent in the cloning of human beings may well be our
greatest test to date. We don't simply seek knowledge, but we seek the
wisdom to apply that knowledge. As with each of those mind-boggling
advances of the last century, we know that there is the potential both
for good and evil. Our task as legislators is to reflect the public
trust, to define the role of the Federal Government in harnessing this
technology for the good. Our task as citizens is to exercise
responsible stewardship of the precious gift of life.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 1600. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive
in the case of multiemployer plans the section 415 limit on benefits to
the participant's average compensation for his high 3 years; to the
Committee on Finance.

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE LEGISLATION

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code
limits annual pension benefits from multiemployer plans to the average
of the three highest consecutive years of income while a worker was
covered by the plan. The bill I am introducing today will exempt
multiemployer pension plans from the income-based limitations imposed
by Section 415.
Section 415 was enacted in an effort to prevent the ``gaming'' which
occasionally occurred in single employer pension plans. Such gaming
occurred when an employee's salary was significantly increased the year
before retirement in order to increase that employee's retirement
benefits. Single employer plans, unlike multiemployer plans, are
generally based upon an employee's salary prior to retirement.
Reportedly, from time-to-time, such gaming did occur in single employer
plans.
Multiemployer plans, conversely, are generally based on the number of
years an employee has worked, plus the collectively-bargained-for
dollar amount of contributions made into the plan. Therefore, such
gaming generally did not occur in multiemployer plans. Section, 415,
however, does not distinguish between multiemployer plans and single
employer plans. Instead, section 415 assumes the salaries of all
workers increase steadily over the course of their employment. In fact
however, for many workers, particularly those that belong to
multiemployer pension plans, there is no such steady increase in
earnings. Rather, the salaries of these workers tend to fluctuate over
the course of their employment. Because of these fluctuations, the
three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan
participants are not necessarily consecutive.
Congress recognized this inequity and in 1996, as part of the Small
Business and Jobs Protection Act (Pub. L. 104-188), exempted public
employee pension plans from Section 415. This exemption, however, was
not extended to private sector employees covered by multiemployer
pension plans. The bill I have introduced today exempts multiemployer
pension plans, single employer plans would still be subject to Section
415 limitations.
Congressman Peter J. Visclosky introduced similar legislation in
April 1997 in the House of Representatives. His bill has bipartisan
support in the House. I hope that my bill will receive similar support
here in the Senate. Private sector employees, who are covered by
multiemployer pension plans, should receive the same treatment as
public sector employees. My bill will alleviate the disparity which now
exists.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1600

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415
LIMIT ON BENEFITS.

Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special limitation rule for
governmental plans) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``and multiemployer
plans'' after ``governmental plans''; and
(2) by inserting ``or a multiemployer plan (as defined in
section 414(f))'' after ``governmental plan (as defined in
section 414(d))''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to plan years
beginning after December 31, 1997.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 1602. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit
any attempt to clone a human being using somatic cell nuclear transfer
and to prohibit the use of Federal funds for such purposes, to provide
for further review of the ethical and scientific issues associated with
the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer in human beings, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the prohibition on cloning of human being act of 1998

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Kennedy and I are
introducing legislation that would prohibit, for a period of ten years,
any person from attempting to clone a human being using somatic cell
nuclear transfer technology.
The reason for this legislation is simple: the cloning of a human
being today remains scientifically dangerous, morally unacceptable, and
ethically flawed.
Let me be clear about the intent of this legislation right at the
outset: I am opposed to human cloning. I do not believe it is, or will
ever be, morally acceptable to clone human beings.
This legislation was carefully drafted so that it would not prevent
or interfere with vital biomedical research into cancer and other
diseases, birth defects, infertility, and the mass production of drugs
and vaccines.
The Bill authorizes the continuation of the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission, and requires the Commission to report to the
President and the Congress in 4\1/2\ years and 9\1/2\ years on the
science and ethical issues associated with this technology.
The Commission's reports to Congress will also include a
recommendation as to whether the moratorium should be continued beyond
the ten years set by this legislation.

technology outpaces public policy

The successful cloning of a sheep in Scotland last year, using a
procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, was hailed as an
amazing scientific success.
But it also ignited a fierce international debate about the potential
use of this technique to clone human beings, and the ethical, legal and
religious questions raised by such a possibility.
Chicago-area physicist Dr. Richard Seed stirred that debate into full
force last month when he told the media that he intends to clone human
beings.
He said that there were ten clinics in the United States interested
in offering cloning services and that he believes the demand will be
for over 200,000 cases per year, according to the American Medical
News.
Setting aside the fact that Dr. Seed's claims are somewhat
implausible at the moment given the rudimentary state of cloning
technology, he did hit a nerve.
This is a classic example, in my view, of how the lightening speed
with which we are able to develop new technologies can sometimes get
ahead of society's ability to handle these advances.
I do not believe that, today, we know enough to permit human cloning,
or to make a permanent determination about the use of this technology.
But, when writing laws that would have such an enormous impact on an
entire field of science--science that includes the development of
lifesaving

[[Page S323]]

new therapies for disease, the prevention of birth defects, and
fertility--Congress has a responsibility to be prudent and judicious in
drafting legislation.

In preparing this legislation, Senator Kennedy and I, and our staffs,
met with representatives from: The National Bioethics Advisory
Commission; The National Institutes of Health; The American Society for
Reproductive Medicine; The Biotech Industry Association; The Department
of Health and Human Services; The Food and Drug Administration.
Included in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission were members
of the religious and medical ethics communities.
This bill is carefully drafted to prohibit attempts to clone a human
being, while not impeding other important research involving somatic
cell nuclear transfer technology, and the cloning of cells, tissues,
DNA and animals.

procedure is unsafe

One compelling reason to prohibit attempts to clone human beings at
this time is the fact that the technology is so new that it is unsafe
even in animals.
Dolly, the famous cloned sheep, was the only success out of 277
attempts, and the procedure has not been repeated successfully
(although there are reports of the pending birth of at least one calf
using the same cloning procedure).
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission concluded that attempting
to use this process to clone humans would involve unacceptable risks to
the fetus or potential children, possibly resulting in multiple
miscarriages, developmental abnormalities, and unknown risks to the
mother.
Even if and when concerns about safety are resolved, the ethical
concerns of cloning humans still remain.
This 10-year moratorium will allow us the time to study and debate
this issue fully--which we as a society need to do because the science
is not going to go away, and we will have to have a greater
understanding of it to make informed decisions on its use.

must not impede other important research

The term ``cloning'' is used by scientists to describe various
techniques that involve duplication of biological material, both animal
and human.
A blanket ban on cloning, or on use of the nuclear cell transplant
technique to clone, would be too broad, and would deprive the United
States--and the world--of invaluable biological research.
The cloning technique that was used to produce Dolly, somatic cell
nuclear transfer, was an extension of experiments carried out over 40
years to facilitate understanding of how development of an animal from
a single fertilized egg is carried out.
The agricultural industry has been using nuclear transplantation
research to try to improve livestock breeding.
Biotechnology companies are exploring ways to use cloning to improve
the production of therapeutic drugs.
And health researchers are hoping that a greater understanding of
nuclear transplantation cloning can lead to new treatment for human
disease.

cancer

A report issued by the National Institutes of Health, dated January
29, indicates that cloned tissue culture cells have allowed scientists
to test potential chemotherapies on cancerous cells, to study the
cellular events leading to cancer, and to mass-produce drugs and
vaccines.

diabetes

Cloning technology, using somatic cell nuclear transfer, could teach
scientists how to augment the insulin-producing cells in diabetics
using cells from their own bodies.
Not only could cloning technology revolutionize the treatment for
diabetes--it could potentially provide a cure for this debilitating
disease.

skin grafts

Somatic cell nuclear transfer might also be used in the future to
create skin grafts for people who are severely burned.
In severe burn cases, many times there is not enough healthy skin on
the victim to perform a skin graft, so doctors are forced to use skin
from cadavers or skin cells grown in tissue culture.
In both cases, the skin is genetically different from the burn
victim, and while it provides material for emergency grafting, this
skin is ultimately rejected and the patient must undergo numerous
grafting.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning could allow skin to be
generated from virtually any of the burn victim's cells, which would be
genetically identical and therefore should not be rejected.
The life-saving possibilities for this technology are enormous:
The creation of nerve stem cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases
such as multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, and to help repair injuries of the spinal cord.
Bone marrow stem cells, for the treatment of leukemia, sickle cell or
other blood diseases.
Liver cells to treat liver damage.
Muscle cells to treat muscular dystrophy and heart disease.
Cartilage-forming cells to reconstruct joints damaged by injury or
arthritis.
The cloning of cells in culture has reduced the use of live animals
in research and has allowed studies of human cells that could not be
done otherwise.
As scientists from NIH clearly warn, without future research
exploring this cloning technology, these and other potential life-
saving possibilities will be unrealized.
NIH scientists also make clear that all of these possibilities can be
accomplished without using this technology to create, or attempt to
create, a human being.
A letter signed by more than 50 medical and patient organizations
sent to Members of Congress last week warning very clearly of the
danger in drafting legislation to ban cloning.
In the letter they say:

Poorly crafted legislation to ban the cloning of human
beings may put at risk biomedical research, such as the use
of cloning techniques on human cells, genes and tissues,
which is vital to finding the cures to the diseases and
ailments which our organizations champion.

the differences with the president's proposal

The bill we are introducing today is very similar to the President's
bill which he sent to Congress on June 10, 1997. But it differs from
the President's in five important aspects.
First, it adds additional provisions to prevent anyone from cloning
or even attempting to clone a human being. In addition to the outright
prohibition on cloning a human being, the bill prohibits the use of
Federal funds for such a purpose. Furthermore, the bill prohibits
shipping the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer in interstate or
foreign commerce for the purpose of attempting to clone a human being.
This provision will ensure that no one may attempt to evade the law by
shipping the product of somatic nuclear cell transfer overseas for the
purpose of cloning a human being.
Second, it stiffens already tough penalties in the President's bill
to deter any attempt at cloning a human being. The bill provides a
penalty of $1,000,000 or three times the gross gain or loss from such a
violation, whichever is greater. In addition, the bill provides that
any property used in an attempt to violate the act, as well as any
property traceable to such an attempted violation, will be forfeited.
Furthermore, the Attorney General, who is solely empowered to enforce
the act, is granted the power of injunction to immediately enjoin
violations.
Third, the bill preempts state laws that prohibit or restrict
research regarding, or practices of, somatic cell nuclear transfer,
mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy, or the cloning of molecules, DNA,
cells, tissues, organs, plants, animals, or humans.
This provision is important because I believe we need a consistent
national policy and we should discourage the practice of ``forum
shopping'' from state to state for lenient laws.

This bill is not intended to preempt state laws such as California
Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 12, Section 367g, and California Business
and Professions Code Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 12, Section 2260,
which require that physicians and other medical personnel obtain signed
written consent from patients before sperm, ova, or embryos are used
for any purpose other than reimplantation in the same patient or in
their spouse, and require that any use

[[Page S324]]

of sperm, ova, or embryos of donors comply with the written intent of
the donor.
The California statues were passed in order to address serious
allegations by at least 60 California families, that medical personnel
at fertility clinics at the University of California at Irvine and the
University of California at San Diego transferred donors' sperm, ova,
or embryos to researchers or implanted them in other women, without
donors' knowledge or consent. These allegations raise grave concerns
about serious violations of personal integrity and privacy. This
legislation is in no way intended to preempt or interfere in any way
with these California statutes, or with related statutes that would
have a similar effect.
Fourth, the bill we are introducing urges the President to cooperate
with foreign countries to enforce restrictions on human cloning. Other
countries are moving to ban human cloning and we should join them so
that scientists cannot evade our laws by moving their operations
offshore.
Finally, our bill establishes a 10-year ban, as opposed to the 5-year
ban in the President's recommended legislation.
It is conceivable that there could be incredible scientific
breakthroughs with cloning technology over the next 3 to 5 years.
But developing a legal and moral framework for understanding of the
potential use and abuse of this technology will take much longer.
This legislation sunsets after 10 years, during which time the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission must keep Congress and the
President informed on the status of the science, its potential uses for
society, and make recommendations on whether to continue the
prohibition.
Congress can extend the ban temporarily or permanently at any time
during or after the ten year period if it so chooses.

conclusion

Creating life outside of the normal reproductive process has
challenged many of our basic beliefs--never more so than with the
notion of cloning a human being.
It is important that we as a society engage in a rigorous public
debate to fully understand the science, the dangers, the potential
benefits, and the moral and legal implications of this technology.
Throughout history, science has empowered humankind to achieve things
never before believed possible. Our challenge is to harness this power
without losing control over our own lives, or the moral compass that
guides us.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the
letter to which I referred.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

February 2, 1998.

Regarding: Legislation to Ban Cloning of Human Beings

Dear Member: We are writing to express our concern about
legislation pending in the Congress to ban the cloning of
entire human beings.
Let us be clear. We oppose the cloning of a human being. We
see no ethical or medical justification for the cloning of a
human being and agree with the conclusions of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) that it is unacceptable
at this time for anyone in the public or private sector,
whether in a research or clinical setting, to create a human
child using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. We
recognize that this application of the technology raises
fundamental ethical and social issues. This technology is not
currently safe to use in humans.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Federation of
American Societies of Experimental Biology have all stated
that their members will not seek to clone a human being.
These three associations include essentially every researcher
or practitioner in the United States who has the scientific
capability to clone a human being.
We agree with NBAC in its report on cloning that: ``It is
notoriously difficult to draft legislation at any particular
moment that can serve to both exploit and govern the rapid
and unpredictable advances of science.'' Poorly crafted
legislation to ban the cloning of human beings may put at
risk biomedical research, such as the use of cloning
techniques on human cells, genes and tissues, which is vital
to finding the cures to the diseases and ailments which our
organizations champion. Cancer, diabetes, allergies, asthma,
HIV/AIDS, eye diseases, spinal cord injuries, Guillain-Barre
syndrome, Gaucher disease, stroke, cystic fibrosis, kidney
cancer, Alzheimer's disease, tuberous sclerosis, tourette
syndrome, alcoholism, autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis,
Parkinson's disease, infertility, heart disease, diseases of
aging, ataxia telangiectasia and many other types of research
will benefit from the advances achieved by biomedical
researchers.
We urge the Congress to proceed with extreme caution and
adhere to the ethical standard for physicians, ``first do no
harm.'' We believe that there are two distinct issues here,
cloning of a human being and the healing which comes from
biomedical research. Congress must be sure that any
legislation which it considers does no harm to biomedical
research which can heal those with deadly and debilitating
diseases.
Please keep patients' concerns in mind as you proceed in
analyzing this very complicated issue.
Sincerely,
AIDS Action Council; Allergy and Asthma Network/Mothers
of Asthmatics, Inc.; Alliance for Aging Research;
Alzheimer Aid Society; American Academy of Optometry;
American Academy of Pediatrics; American Association
for Cancer Education; American Association for Cancer
Research; American Autoimmune Related Diseases
Association; American College of Cardiology; American
College of Medical Genetics; American Diabetes
Association; American Heart Association; American
Paralysis Association; American Pediatric Society.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine; American
Uveitis Society; Americans for Medical Progress;
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department
Chairmen; Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses;
Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America; A-T Children's
Project; Cancer Research Foundation of America; Cancer
Care, Inc.; Cancervive; Candlelighter's Childhood
Cancer Foundation; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation;
Foundation for Biomedical Research; Guillain-Barre
Syndrome Foundation International; International
Patient Advocacy Association.
Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation International; Kent Waldrep
National Paralysis Foundation; Log Cabin AIDS Policy
Institute; National Alliance for Eye and Vision
Research; National Alliance of Breast Cancer
Organizations (NABCO); National Association for
Biomedical Research; National Campaign to End
Neurological Disorders; National Coalition for Cancer
Research; National Foundation for Cancer Research;
National Gaucher Foundation; National Kidney Cancer
Association; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National
Patient Advocate Foundation; National Stroke
Association.
National Tuberous Sclerosis Association; Oncology Nurses
Association; Outpatient Ophthalmic Surgery Society,
Inc.; Parkinson's Action Network; Radiation Research
Society; Research! America; Research Society on
Alcoholism; RESOLVE; Roswell Park Cancer Institute;
Society for Pediatric Research; Tourette Syndrome
Association, Inc.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several months ago, the world learned of
one of the most astounding developments in modern biology: the cloning
of a sheep named Dolly. This extraordinary scientific achievement
awakened widespread concern about the possibility of a brave new world,
where human beings would be cloned and where individuals would seek to
achieve a kind of immortality by reproducing themselves. There is
widespread agreement among scientists, ethicists, and ordinary
Americans that production of human beings by cloning should be
prohibited, at least until the possibilities and pitfalls of this
scientific procedure are better understood.
The President reacted rapidly to this scientific advance and the
unprecedented issues it raised by asking the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission to study the issue and make recommendations. The
Commission recommended that creation of human beings by cloning should
be banned for several years, and the Administration has submitted
legislation to implement this recommendation.
The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I are introducing today
will assure the American public that reproducing human beings by
cloning will be prohibited. It largely follows the President's
legislation and the Recommendations of the Commission. It makes it
illegal to produce human beings by cloning and establishes strict
penalties for those who try to do so. In addition, it prohibits anyone
from beginning the cloning process in this

[[Page S325]]

country and carrying out the implantation step in another country.
But just as important as what the bill does is what it does not do.
It does not seek to use public concern about cloning to establish a
back door ban on research into human development.
A prohibition that goes too far could outlaw needed research on the
prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer.
It could outlaw needed research on fertility, to help birth defects,
and hereditary diseases.
It could outlaw needed research on the cure of spinal cord injuries.
All of these various kinds of research have broad support in Congress
and the country. Yet a blunderbuss ban on human development research
could easily interfere with this important and life-saving research, or
even halt it altogether.
In addition, the FDA has jurisdiction over human cloning and will act
vigorously to shut down any clinic that operates without FDA approval.
The FDA must find that human cloning is safe and effective. Given the
current state of the science, the DFA would almost certainly decide
that a human cloning procedure is not safe at the current time. The FDA
approval process is not a permanent ban on human cloning, but it
effectively bans the procedures for the near future.
The American Medical Association and over forty national medical
organizations and research groups have voiced support for the kind of
research that is urgently needed to continue the progress we are making
against a wide range of diseases. Benjamin Younger, the 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 legislation we are introducing today will do what the American
people want--ban the production of human beings by cloning. It strikes
the proper balance between assuring that human beings will not be
reproduced through cloning and allowing needed research to continue. I
hope that Congress will act promptly to enact this legislation.

____________________