Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?

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 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.

Mr. BOND. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have observed the debate over the nomination of Dr. David Satcher over the past couple weeks. It has been a very productive, yet intense, discussion which has raised some critical questions. Today, there is an unmistakable need for a capable individual to fill the position of United States Surgeon General--a position which has been vacant for over three years. Marked increases in smoking and substance abuse by our nation's youth, combined with the continuing plague of disease such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and others, have made it imperative for the nation to have access to advice that is both scientifically accurate and trustworthy. The person who occupies the Surgeon General's Office is our Nation's number one doctor and public health leader. Kids around the country will seek and heed the advice of the Surgeon General, and for this reason alone, thorough scrutiny of Dr. Satcher's qualifications and views is well-placed. Dr. Satcher has proven that he is an effective leader. Under Dr. Satcher's direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, child immunization rates have increased from 52 percent to a record 78 percent. As a result, vaccine-preventable childhood diseases are at record lows. Dr. Satcher also has led CDC's efforts to strengthen our nation's defenses against infectious diseases and food-borne illnesses. These are just a couple of significant results that have been achieved under Dr. Satcher's guidance. Despite Dr. Satcher's remarkable credentials and achievements, there have been some questions raised by my colleagues concerning his positions on partial-birth abortion and gun control. I have known and worked with Dr. Satcher on numerous occasions, especially in the area of birth defects prevention. In fact, I just met with him last week to discuss these grave concerns that have arisen since his nomination. Dr. Satcher has personally assured me that he will rely on science, instead of politics, to influence his decisions--thereby preserving the independence of the Office of the Surgeon General. Let me make it clear. I will continue the battle to ban partial-birth abortion, and have consistently voted to prohibit federal funds for abortion. In addition, I have consistently fought efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms. Dr. Satcher has exemplified the utmost dedication, ability, and professionalism throughout his distinguished career. I am satisfied that he will continue to operate in this manner as Surgeon General of the United States. We may not agree on all issues, but I have the utmost confidence in his character and ability to serve with distinction. Dr. Satcher is a strong choice for this position, and I look forward to witnessing Dr. Satcher's efforts to preserve the independence of this office. With an issue as important as our nation's health, which rises far above partisan politics, I am confident that Dr. Satcher will serve America well.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I welcome the initiative on the part of Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli government to significantly reduce the amount of aid we annually send to Israel. Our countries have a long- standing relationship which has been witness to the maturing of a fledgling democracy in an area intolerant of its presence. In a very real sense, we have supported Israel's right to exist as a nation and we have supported its economic development. I note that Mr. Netanyahu's plan which calls for the complete elimination of $1.2 Billion in economic aid, is testament to the successful implementation of our past years' investment. The funds we provided have not been squandered. The Israeli economy is strong and growing. Mr. Netanyahu is doing the right thing at the right time. We do not need to continue the current level of these funds into the future. However, Mr. President, we must also take care not to undermine the economic stability of this democracy and we must continue to insure its military strength. For those reasons, I support a gradual phasing out of the $1.2 Billion of economic aid and the gradual increase to its military aid by $600 Million. Israel has been and remains a strategic ally, both in the region and as an important partner in developing technologically advanced civilian and defense systems. We must do all in our power to not just merely maintain that relationship, but strengthen it. I firmly believe that a strong Israel is the cornerstone for a stable and peaceful Middle East region. The cost of defending itself has been a tremendous burden on the Israeli economy. The threats to its borders and its people are very real. The Israelis have looked to the United States not only for funding assistance but for the hardware with which to defend itself. I note with pride that the new centerpiece of the Israeli Air Force is none other than the Boeing McDonnell Douglas F-15 I, known as the Stirke Eagle here, and as the Thunder, in Israel. This is the most advanced operational tactical aircraft in the world today. It will increase Israel's security and in turn promote regional stability. This is very much in our interest. Mr. Netanyahu's proposal will solidify our military partnership and bring an end to Israel's status as an economic dependent. Mr. President, as Israel strengthens its economic house, we must remain committed to preserving that house so that it might remain as a democratic beacon in the region. A strong Israel is good for America.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``IRS Reform: What America's Taxpayers Need Now.'' The hearing will be held on February 12, 1998, beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET in three locations: room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.; St. Louis, Missouri; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Description of hearing: Senate Committee on Small Business meets cyberspace; holds first virtual committee hearing on the Internet on proposals to reform the IRS and improve taxpayer rights. For further information, please contact Mark Warren at 224-5175. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would be happy to ask unanimous consent that when my remarks are finished, the Senator from California be recognized.

Mr. BOND. In light of the objection from the other side of the aisle, I now move to proceed to S. 1601.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 304, S. 1601, regarding human cloning.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished Senator from California how long she will be? We have not had an opportunity for an opening statement. I would like to know how long she proposes to proceed in opposition.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thought before we got into a full-fledged debate saying this is bad, perhaps my colleagues would like to know what it is that we propose to do, speaking for the sponsors of this measure. It is obviously one that is going to take some discussion and debate, and it's very helpful to know some of the objections that are raised to it. Again, for the sake of the Record, let me say what this is. This measure is a very carefully and narrowly targeted provision that places an outright ban on the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer for human cloning purposes. It defines one technique, the technique that was used to create, by cloning, the sheep Dolly and says that you shall not do that for human beings --quite simply. Why is this necessary? Why is it necessary that we move forward on this? Well, frankly, recent reports show that a Chicago-based scientist is prepared to move forward with human cloning experimentation. I think this forces an immediate debate on how far out on a moral cliff we are willing to let science proceed before we as a nation insist on some meaningful constraints. We no longer have the luxury of waiting around for this morally reprehensible act to occur. That scientist is proposing to raise huge sums of money and promise infertile couples that he can clone human beings for them. The time for the debate and action is now. If creating test tube babies by cloning a human embryo is morally, ethically, and practically wrong, as I strongly believe it is, we need to stop it now. To delay it, to filibuster it, to postpone it means that not only this scientist and others who, perhaps, are not holding news conferences, can go forward with a process that I believe the overwhelming majority of American people believe is wrong, as I believe it is. To those who say we have not studied this or debated this, I only say that since we had this story about the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and stories of organizations and individuals pursuing human cloning, they have kept the debate alive. The American public is asking if similar techniques can be used to clone human beings, and they are concerned very deeply whether something which was thought only to be science fiction is now closer to reality. Now, there are some distinguished books that oppose a prohibition on human cloning. They suggest that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle and we cannot stop progress. I suggest that we have come to the point where our technological capability may be outrunning our moral sense. We have, in this body, carried a prohibition against Federal funding of cloning human embryos. We have prohibited the research and experimentation with Federal funding because we thought it was way down the line. We didn't want to see money used. Last year, after the cloning of Dolly the sheep, we held hearings; tremendous amounts of testimony were presented. I personally testified before Senator Frist's subcommittee. This is not a new debate. The reason this debate is important, and the reason that action is important is that now we are faced with scientists of, I believe, questionable judgment, who would go forward with something that is morally reprehensible. This measure is targeted narrowly to one specific process that was used to clone the sheep Dolly. It is the somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human embryo. In addition to prohibiting that, we have, at the urging of my distinguished cosponsor, Senator Frist, provided for a commission to study the ethical implications of related technologies. And I believe we have made it clear that ongoing legitimate activity, short of this one specific process, cleaning out a human embryo and putting in a nuclear cell transfer, and starting the process of differentiation of the cell toward creating a test tube baby is unacceptable. The ethical implications of human cloning are staggering. I believe that we would have the overwhelming understanding and support of the American people that we should never create human life for spare parts, as a replacement for a child who has died, or for unnatural or selfish purposes. How many embryos or babies would we tolerate being created with abnormalities before we perfect human cloning? It took Dr. Wilmut, the Scottish scientist, 276 tries before creating Dolly, and we still do not even know if Dolly is the perfect sheep. For humans, those results are unacceptable--creating tremendously deformed human embryos or human beings. Dr. Ian Wilmut, the lead Scottish scientist who created Dolly, himself stated that he can see no scenario under which it would be ethical to clone human life. And he is right. 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 moral concerns about the deliberate duplication of an individual genome, and that making carbon copies of a human being is repugnant to members of the public. ``Many members of the panel share this view and see no justification for Federal funding of such research.'' I emphatically argue that those statements apply to private sector research as well. That is what we are trying to reach. It is important to note that the legislation is narrowly drafted, and its 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 ban only the technique used to create Dolly. This technique has also been criticized by a representative of the pharmaceutical industry, who in a prepared statement for Members of Congress, dated January 13, 1998, stated: 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 scientific and 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. Well, Mr. President, myself, Senator Frist, Senator Gregg, and others, have met with and consulted with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, researchers, representatives of patient groups, and we have told them what we are proposing to do, and we have listened to them discuss all of the implications. We know that in vitro fertilization, plant and animal cloning, 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. These types of research will continue to thrive, that is clear, because we have targeted our ban so narrowly, and we intend only to prohibit, by cloning, the creation of the human embryo. This is a technique characterized by industry, researchers, theologians, ethicists, and others, as fraught with failures and lacking therapeutic value. This bill, however, does allow the important and promising research to continue. I have long been a supporter of biotechnology. I have supported biotechnology efforts. I continue to support everything from human genome mapping to all of the other human research efforts. We have no problems with and support cloning of animals. But there is a bright line between those activities and human cloning, and we must draw that line. There is a line, Mr. President, and that line is clear. You can do all the research you want. You can create organs, you can do all kinds of experimentation. But you should not be able to create a human embryo by cloning, starting a test tube baby. Now, there are some who say that it is all right so long as you don't implant that cloned human embryo, so long as you destroy it. Once you start the process of creating this test tube baby, it is OK to destroy it. As a matter of fact, they would have us believe that we would start all these human embryos, start the cell differentiation, and then wipe them out. Well, I think that raises serious questions with many people, and I am included in that. But it also raise also the prospect that once you start cloning these human embryos--they are very small --they can be transported very easily, picked up and taken from this country to someplace else in the world in large numbers, where there may be no ban on implementation. The difficult science is creating the human embryo. Once you do that, you have opened a whole area. And to say we are just going to prevent them from being implanted so a baby is brought to term, that won't get it because that is too late. I have heard the arguments of those who oppose this bill. And, quite frankly, let me tell you what those arguments are. They are that some scientists would like to be able to create human embryos, play with them, and experiment with them, experiment with a human embryo that is differentiating and starting to grow, and say, ``OK. Time is up. We will toss this one away and we will start playing with another one.'' Once you get into that process, Mr. President, you have stepped over the moral and ethical line. There is a clear line. There is a very clear line. We are ready to have the argument because I believe a significant majority of the Members of this body reflect a significant, overwhelming view of the American people that that is unacceptable. There may be well-intentioned scientists who say we need to play with human embryos and start these embryos growing and let us play with them. They may get something. They may develop some scientific knowledge. But the statements I have already presented show that there is no really legitimate, scientific need, and, in fact, there are grave moral and ethical reasons not to. I strongly hold the belief that all human beings are unique and created by God. And I think billions of people around the world share it. Human cloning, a man's attempt to play God, will change the very meaning of life, of human dignity, and what it is to be human. Are we ready for that? I don't think so. Mr. President, the Washington Post in October of 1994 in an editorial 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 a brand new embryo? But before you get to these questions, there is a simpler one. ``Is there a line that should not be crossed even for scientific, or other gain, and, if so, why is it?" That is the quotation from the Washington Post. In case you missed it, let me give you the first sentence again. ``The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable.'' That is a simple, straightforward statement with which I agree, and I believe when the Members before the body have an opportunity to reflect on it and consider it, they will agree that is right. Let me quote President Bill Clinton, 1994. The subject raises profound ethical and moral questions as well as issues concerning the appropriate allocation of Federal funds. I appreciate the work of the committees that have considered this complex issue, and I understand that advances in in vitro fertilization research and other areas could be derived from such work. However, I do not believe that Federal funds should be used to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes. That is the President. He said don't create human embryos by cloning for research. That is the question. Those who would delay and filibuster want to avoid that question and delay it. I know they are well-intentioned. I know they may have great reservations. They may not agree with that simple moral standard. But there are people out there who want to start that process, who may as we speak be engaged in that process. We have debated whether cloning of human embryos is a good idea. I think there is a clear consensus. We have drafted a narrow bill, a targeted one that I hope we can move forward to enact. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and there are a lot of discussions about a whole range of other options. These are very technical. That is why we set up a commission to review all of these things. What we are targeting right now is the one procedure that has been used with sheep, and could be used, if it is not stopped, to start creating human embryos. For those people who want to create human embryos for research purposes and destroy them or implant them, I say you are going across the line. I don't care what your motives are. I don't care whether it is profitable. I don't care what you think might come out of it. At this point we are saying, ``No, you cannot cross the line.'' Mr. President, that is what this debate is all about. I believe that we may have an opportunity, if discussion continues, to bring this debate to a close. At such time I will be back on this floor to say, if you want to allow the scientific community and some people with different sets of standards and different sets of judgments to go ahead and attempt to create human embryos by cloning by a somatic cell nuclear transfer, go ahead and support the extended discussion. Vote no against cloture. But, by doing so, you are providing a green light. You are saying, go ahead and use this technique that I believe is unacceptable and should be made illegal in this country as it is in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and many of the other developed and leading countries in the world. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from California allowing me to explain what the bill is and what it is not. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think there are others in the Chamber as well. I do not believe that we have any agreement at this time to go back and forth with proponents and opponents. The Senator from California has the floor, and if she wishes to yield I suggest the Senator from New Hampshire has been here for some time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. For a brief comment?

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have to say that it is very enlightening to listen to my two distinguished colleagues debate this very important matter. Were it not for the schedule of the Senate, I far prefer to be enlightened and edified by these two great leaders of our time. Unfortunately, I believe the time has come for us to move on with other business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee.

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. 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.

Mr. BOND

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. 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.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the crisis in Iraq has been created because of the appalling behavior of a man bent on defying the legitimate directives he agreed to as the defeated leader of a ruthless and rogue army. For months, if not years, Saddam Hussein has been developing and hiding the very weapons he explicitly vowed to excise from his country's arsenal. These are weapons which he has demonstrated the will to use and which, in a slightly more sophisticated delivery system, may threaten the entire world. He has starved his people in order to gain sympathy from a compassionate world community, he has gassed his own citizens to silence their cries for freedom, he has ruthlessly attacked his neighbors, massacring thousands through chemical warfare, and he has threatened to incinerate an entire people of a neighboring sovereign nation. This crisis needs to be ingrained into our psyche as a case study of how a bellicose and unrepentant government can circumvent its obligations to the world community and world peace, and avoid the reasonable consequences for those actions. Even more so, this is an object lesson of how our ``allies'' will respond to such behavior. They seem willing to curry favor with a dictator by compromising and redefining critical enforcement procedures. Compromise? What is there to compromise? Saddam has broken his covenant with the world. We know it. The world knows it, and our collective governments have been ineffectual in dealing with him. To the President and the leaders of the other nations of the world, I ask three very basic questions and give you three very basic ``heartland of America'' responses. First, has Saddam honored his commitment to the world in freely and openly ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction? No. Second, will he? Not if we don't have the courage to force him, with extreme prejudice to his military, if necessary. And third, is he more dangerous today than yesterday because of a basic weakness and willingness to compromise something which should be enforced without compromise? And that answer is, yes he is more dangerous. We have wasted critical time. We have allowed Saddam the opportunity to develop the very things he has sworn not to and the very things we swore we wouldn't permit. The current situation must not continue. We must and I believe we can, convince a nervous and wary cadre of allied nations to stand up for what is right and what is demanded to preserve the stability of the world. But if not Mr. President we may have to go it alone or with but a few courageous colleagues from the league of nations. I am sure we will support the President's decision for decisive action, whatever it may be. Therefore, I join with the majority and minority leaders of this great body and ask that they would consider adding me to the list of co-sponsors of their concurrent resolution number 71 concerning the current crisis in Iraq.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Missouri State Representative Bonnie Sue Cooper for her outstanding contributions to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). As last year's Chairwoman, Bonnie Sue set a new leadership standard that will be a challenge for all future Chairpersons. ALEC is the largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators in the country. After serving as Vice-Chairwoman for two years, Bonnie Sue was voted Chairwoman for the 1997 term. According to Arkansas Speaker of the House Bobby Hogue, ``In the year Bonnie Sue has been Chairman there has been progress on every front at ALEC. It has strengthened its policy making operations and raised its profile among both legislators and the private sector.'' Speaker Hogue replaced Bonnie Sue as Chairman. Bonnie Sue has been an incredible leader, not only in the State of Missouri, but also at a National level. I enjoy seeing leadership of Bonnie Sue's caliber and know that there are only bigger things to come for her. I congratulate Representative Cooper on another outstanding year and wish her success in the future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Steven Miller whose dedication to Missouri athletics has earned him a place in the Missouri State Track and Cross Country Coaches Hall of Fame. For more than 20 years Coach Miller has strived to make his Francis Howell High School team in St. Charles, Missouri one of the best. Under Coach Miller's guidance, The Francis Howell track team has won 22 out of 39 Conference titles and the Cross Country team has won 10 out of 18. Even more impressive are the individual accomplishments by his former athletes. Coach Miller has coached one pole vaulter who proceeded to the 1996 Summer Olympics, a woman distance runner who became a two-time NCAA Division I All-American, more than 50 athletes who have become coaches, 14 state champions and a girl's cross country team who won the state championship in 1987. High school athletics is an area that I believe helps to teach very important values to young people and it is always encouraging to learn of a coach with the drive and commitment to excellence shown by coach Miller. Coaches, athletes and parents at Francis Howell High School are fortunate to have such an inspirational role model and educator. I congratulate Coach Miller for his hard work and success. Additionally, I commend his undying energy throughout his many years of coaching and wish him continued success at Francis Howell High School.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a tremendous accomplishment by the Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church and Reverend Frank L Selkirk III, Ph.D. As of December 31, 1997, the Church has raised enough money, from members and the Kansas City, Missouri, community to pay their mortgage. The Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church Family will commemorate this achievement with a ``Mortgage Burning Ceremony'' on January 18. The hard work and perseverance of all the members at Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church will begin to show in 1998 when money becomes available for new programs and possible expansion. I congratulate Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church for their hard work and success. Additionally, I commend staff and members for their spirit and energy throughout their many years of existence and wish them continued success in enriching the Kansas City community for years to come.