THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S5578]  GPO's PDF
---

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the matter before the Senate at the present time is an amendment offered by my friend, Senator Brownback. I will address the issues raised by that amendment.

   We are considering a question that is of vital importance for every American affected by diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease, or other serious disorders. That question is whether we will permit a type of life-saving medical research to achieve its full potential to heal illnesses and cure disease--or whether we will stop this promising research dead in its tracks and deny its benefits to millions of Americans.

   We all know where Senator BROWNBACK stands on the issue of medical research using the breakthrough new technique of nuclear transplantation. My friend from Kansas wants to ban this research forever. That's the position he has stated time and again in this Chamber and in forums across the country. And that is what the amendment that he offers today will accomplish.

   Members of this body have spent long, serious hours grappling with the complex scientific and ethical issues raised by the issue of human cloning . Senators know the difference between human cloning and medical research. Human cloning produces a human being. Medical research is done in a laboratory dish and produces cells. But these cells can be used by doctors to develop astonishing transplants that will never be rejected by a patient's own body.

   A majority of the Senate opposes any legislation to ban, even temporarily, the lifesaving research on nuclear transplantation that brings such hope to so many of our constituents. In the innocuous guise of an amendment to suspend certain aspects of the patent law, my friend from Kansas is trying to accomplish the goal he has long sought--banning medical research that uses nuclear transplantation.

   The Brownsack amendment does many things. First, it bans patents on any cloned human being. It seems to me that if we want to ban human cloning , then we should ban it--pure

[Page: S5579]  GPO's PDF

   Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and it ought to be illegal. I think that every Member of the Senator would agree on this point.

   Some want to use our opposition to human cloning to advance a more sweeping agenda. In the name of banning cloning , they would place unwarranted restrictions on medical research that could improve and extend countless lives. In a letter to the Congress, 40 Nobel Laureates wrote that these restrictions would ``impede progress against some of the most debilitating diseases known to man.''

   Of course we should reject the offensive idea that human beings could be patented, as the Patent Office already rightly does. But the Brownback amendment goes far belong this commonsense proposal. It is so broadly written as to ban patents on single cells derived from medical laboratory research using cloning techniques. It even bans patents on the processes used to conduct this important medical research.

   Why would my friend from Kansas propose such sweeping bans on patents? He offers this proposal precisely because he knows that if it is enacted, it will eviscerate this research.

   The extraordinary progress in medical research that we have seen in recent years relies on two great motors of innovation: NIH funding and a dynamic private biotechnology sector.

   But when it comes to vital research using nuclear transplantation techniques, one of those motors has already been broken. There are no research grants being given by NIH or any other Federal agency for this research. There never have been, and under this administration, there never will be.

   If we had allowed our Nation's great research universities to conduct extensive nuclear transplanation research, there's no telling what medical miracles we might have seen by now. Perhaps scientists using NIH funds could have already developed replacement cells for little children with diabetes that would never run the risk of tissue rejection. Perhaps those same NIH-funded scientists could have developed new cures for those whose minds and memories slowly ebb away on the tide of Alzheimer's disease.

   Fortunately, we have a robust and dynamic biotechnology industry where new cures are developed and new discoveries made. Because NIH will not fund nuclear transplantation research, every major discovery in this field has come from funds provided by biotechnology companies.

   But the biotechnology industry runs on patents. Abraham Lincoln said that the patent system ``added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.''

   The Brownback amendment would permanently shut off the supply of that fuel. It would accomplish Senator BROWNBACK's long-held goal of banning this medical research entirely. NIH already can't fund it and the Brownback amendment would make sure no biotechnology company would touch it.

   Instead of debating peripheral issues like patents, we should be debating the question that's at the core of this debate, whether we should allow or prohibit a type of medical research that bring hope to millions of Americans simply because it seems new or strange to some people.

   We offered our opponents on this issue the opportunity for a debate, but they declined that offer. I am saddened by this decision, because I believe that these issues deserve to be debated thoroughly on their own merits, not hastily considered as part of legislation on insurance. I hope that we will have the opportunity for a full debate on the issue of cloning , as I know it is of profound interest to many of our colleagues. It has been my privilege to take part in some of the other great debates we have had over the years on issues raised by the progress of science.

   In the 1970s we debated whether to ban the basic techniques of biotechnology. Some of the very same arguments that are raised against nuclear transplantation research today were raised against biotechnology back then. Some said that it would lead to ecological catastrophe or genetic monsters. Critics told us that the new science of recombinant DNA research was unproven and untested. They said that it might never yield new cures and that its benefits would never materialize.

   We could not know in the 1970s all the incredible advances that recombinant DNA research would bring, not only in medical breakthroughs, but in so many different aspects of our lives. We didn't know then that DNA fingerprinting would one day ensure that criminals are punished and the wrongly imprisoned are released. But that is what is happening today. We did not know then that scientists would learn to put thousands of genes on a tiny chip, so that medicines can be customized for the genetic signature of an individual patient. But that is what is happening today. We did not know any of this in the 1970s. But we did know that recombinant DNA research offered extraordinary promise and that it should not be banned.

   Because Congress rejected those arguments then, patients across America today can benefit from breakthrough new biotechnology products that help dissolve clots in the arteries of stroke victims, fight leukemia, and help those with crippling arthritis lead productive lives.

   When in vitro fertilization was first developed in the 1980s, it too was bitterly denounced. And once again, there were calls to make this medical breakthrough illegal. Because Congress rejected those arguments then, thousands of Americans today can experience the joys of parenthood through the very techniques that were once so strongly opposed.

   Even heart transplants once seemed new or strange. Some denounced the idea of taking a beating heart from the chest of one person and placing it in the body of another.

   But this debate is not about abstract ideas or complex medical terms. It is about real people who could be helped by this research. Dr. Douglas Melton is one of the nation's foremost researchers on diabetes. For Dr. Melton, the stakes involved in this research could not be higher. His young son, Sam, has juvenile diabetes, and Dr. Melton works tirelessly to find a cure for his son's condition.

   One of the most promising areas of research on diabetes involves using stem cells to provide the insulin that Sam, and thousands of children like him, need to live healthy, active lives.

   But a shadow looms over this research. A patient's body may reject the very cells intended to provide a cure. To unlock the potential of stem cell research, doctors are trying to reprogram stem cells with a patient's own genetic material. Using the breakthrough technique of nuclear transplantation, each one of us could receive transplants or new cells perfectly matched to our own bodies. Can we really tell Sam Melton, and the millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, or Parkinson's disease, or spinal injuries that we won't pursue every opportunity to find a cure for their disorders?

   Some who support the Brownback proposal say that the science is still uncertain, that we should delay this research because we can not predict what avenue of scientific inquiry will be the quickest pathway to a breakthrough.

   The Brownback amendment makes certain that breakthrough cures will never see the light of day. If Congress adopts that proposal, we can be certain that doctors will never use this medical research to develop new pancreas cells for diabetics that are perfectly matched to the patient's own body. We can be certain that doctors will never use these techniques for important new insights into the basic mechanisms of Parkinson disease or Alzheimer's disease. We can be certain that patients in every community in every State in the Nation will be denied the hope and the benefits that this research brings.

   That is the kind of certainty the Brownback amendment brings. If you want to accept this false and dangerous certainty, then you should vote for his amendment.

   But if you want to promote life saving medical research, if you want to side with patients, if you want to take a chance on hope, then I urge you to vote for patients, for medicine, for hope and for the bipartisan proposal that I have introduced with Senator

[Page: S5580]  GPO's PDF

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. FEINSTEIN). The Senator from Ohio.

   Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.

   (The remarks of Mr. DeWine and Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2626 are located in today's RECORD under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

   Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KENNEDY). Without objection, it is so ordered.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display