[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4766-H4770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1445
                             HUMAN CLONING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to try in the next 
hour to cover a host of issues that are being hotly debated today in 
this country. I mainly want to focus on the issue of human cloning.
  Next week, the House of Representatives will take up a piece of 
legislation I authored with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak), the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, H.R. 2505. 
This bill cleared the Committee on the Judiciary and is now scheduled 
to be taken up by the House on Tuesday.
  I wanted to talk this afternoon about that bill, about a competing 
piece of legislation that has been introduced by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood), H.R. 2172, focus on some of the differences between these 
two bills in terms of the way they deal with this issue of human 
cloning. And then I would also like to just go over some of the basics 
of sexual reproduction versus cloning reproduction and as well some of 
the issues associated with the stem cell debate, because the issue of 
human cloning and the issue of stem cells do overlap somewhat.
  This chart I have next to me here on my left highlights some of the 
differences between these two bills. I would just like to go over that 
briefly.
  The legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) is H.R. 2172. I 
think theirs is also entitled the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. It 
allows the creation of human embryos through cloning technology to be 
used specifically for research and then for destruction. It allows 
research cloning, but I want to highlight there are no therapies that 
exist today in humans, nor is there an animal model. I say this because 
this form of cloning is referred to as therapeutic cloning. While it 
may be true that someday it may be possible to do this type of cloning 
they are talking about and use it for a therapeutic intervention in a 
patient, there are no known therapies today available for human 
cloning.
  What their bill essentially is is a moratorium on implantation. I 
will get into that in a little bit more detail. Implantation is when 
the embryo actually seats itself in the womb and begins the process of 
further differentiating into a fetus. I say that their bill is a 
moratorium because they have a 10-year sunset on their bill. Their bill 
goes away, would have to be reauthorized in 10 years, and so I think it 
could legitimately be called a moratorium and not a real ban on so-
called reproductive cloning.
  I just want to highlight that all creation of cloned embryos is 
reproductive cloning. To say that their bill is a reproductive cloning 
ban I believe it is

[[Page H4767]]

not really scientifically accurate. Really what it is is an 
implantation ban. The outcome of their bill is that it would create a 
10-year prison sentence if it were enacted into law and up to a $1 
million penalty if there was an attempt to implant a cloned human 
embryo. It would sanction the creation of embryos in the United States. 
It would make it legal.
  There is a lab up in Worcester, Massachusetts, that I understand has 
harvested eggs from female donors specifically for this purpose. The 
Greenwood alternative would essentially give them the green light to go 
ahead.
  What is, I think, potentially tragic about this bill is it would be 
the first time ever a Federal law would mandate the destruction of 
human embryos. Under the provisions of their bill, at least the way I 
read it, the embryos that they would create would have to be destroyed 
in the scientific research process because it makes it a crime to 
actually implant any of those embryos. And it would encourage the 
creation of cloned embryos which I think would increase the likelihood 
of reproductive cloning, the thing they are trying to ban.
  The reason for that is really quite simple. If you are allowing 
laboratories all over America that are doing research in this arena to 
produce large quantities of cloned human embryos, then it would only be 
a matter of time before one of those embryos would be implanted in a 
woman. That would occur within the privacy of the doctor-patient 
relationship. Indeed, if one of those implanted embryos took and the 
woman became pregnant, that pregnancy essentially would be protected by 
the privacy provisions of Roe v. Wade. I think it is a piece of 
legislation that increases the likelihood of occurring exactly what it 
claims to be trying to ban.
  I want to contrast that with the legislation that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I have introduced, H.R. 2505. It bans human 
cloning for any purpose, both the creation of cloned embryos 
and implantation of those to initiate a pregnancy. I think this is the 
most effective way to prevent so-called reproductive cloning, trying to 
actually bring a cloned baby to birth. It does not affect embryo 
research or other cloning techniques.

  I want to highlight that, but before I do that, I want to just get 
back to this issue here. Why is it so important and why is the Congress 
taking this issue up?
  For one reason, I already said this, there is a lab that wants to 
start producing cloned embryos immediately and using those embryos to 
harvest stem cells for research. But, as well, the attempt to produce 
Dolly the sheep, which most people have heard of, the first mammal that 
was cloned, it took 276 tries to create Dolly the sheep. Many of those 
attempts ended in no pregnancy essentially, a miscarriage, but there 
were many, many sheep that were born with very, very severe birth 
defects.
  Additionally, of all the species that have been cloned so far, and 
this includes cows, goats, mice, all of the animals, the babies that 
are born are very, very large. They have very, very large placentas. 
They are 15, 20, 30, 50 percent above normal birth weight. They have 
very, very enlarged umbilical cords. This is not well understood, but 
clearly if anybody attempts to do this with a human, it would be 
extremely hazardous to the woman who would be trying to give birth to a 
cloned human being. As I said, many were born with very severe birth 
defects when they tried to produce Dolly, particularly heart and lung 
defects.
  So there are many issues here. The health of the mother could be 
threatened in trying to produce a cloned human baby. Additionally, the 
baby that was produced, if it had serious birth defects, who would be 
responsible for the health care of that baby? Who would be responsible 
for paying all those medical bills?
  So it is universally agreed, we need to prohibit this. The best way 
to prohibit it, I believe, is to pass H.R. 2505.
  Let me also add, and there has been, I think, some misinformation or 
disinformation that has been distributed on this issue. Our bill does 
not ban much of the research in this area. Specifically, I want to read 
directly from the bill.
  Section 302(d) of the legislation states that ``nothing in this 
section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically 
prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear 
transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells 
other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other 
than humans.''
  So much of the research that will be done can continue to be done. 
You just cannot produce human embryos. I make this point and I am 
stressing this point for a reason. There are people opposed to our bill 
who are falsely saying that our legislation would essentially shut down 
this whole area of cloning research. That is just not correct. If you 
actually read the legislation, it can proceed.
  So what would be the outcome if our bill becomes law?
  Number one, similar to their bill, it creates a 10-year prison 
sentence and monetary penalties.
  Obviously, as I stated, it prevents the creation of cloned human 
embryos as well as any attempt to try to induce pregnancy.
  I want to also point out that it conforms with the currently existing 
law with many of our European allies.
  There are some people falsely claiming that there are many countries 
where this is legal right now and it will, quote, all go overseas. In 
point of fact, that is not the case. Indeed, I spoke to a group from 
the European Parliament just this week. One of the members sent me a 
letter following our meeting, Dr. Peter Liese, who is a physician like 
myself, an internist like myself. He wrote to me pointing out that in a 
lot of European countries, and I am quoting him, like Germany, Austria, 
Switzerland, Portugal, Ireland, Norway and Poland, any kind of research 
which destroys embryos is prohibited by law.
  In point of fact, the approach to this issue that is being suggested 
by the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), the only 
country in the world where that is currently allowed is the United 
Kingdom, in England. And, indeed, it is a fact that they have come 
under a lot of criticism within the community of Europe because of 
their extremely liberal policy. And even in their country, they have a 
prohibition on doing any experimentation on embryos once the embryo has 
developed the early signs of a nervous system. So they at least have 
some restrictions on what can be done, whereas the Greenwood-Deutsch 
approach would set the United States apart from the rest of the world 
as having the most liberal approach to the creation of human embryos 
through the process of cloning and then essentially mandating that 
these cloned human embryos be destroyed.
  I just want to cover a couple of important points in terms of the 
terminology associated with all this and some important facts as well. 
Embryo stem cells, which I will get into in more detail later, which 
can be used for research as everybody knows, there are no clinical 
applications of embryo stem cells today. We have heard a lot of 
rhetoric about the tremendous potential, quote-unquote, but there are 
no clinical applications using embryo stem cells today.

                              {time}  1500

  They were discovered in 1998, and the issue and debate in Washington 
is on whether or not we should have Federal funding. No attempt has 
been made, nor to my knowledge is it being considered, to make this 
illegal in the United States, embryo stem cell research. The debate we 
are having in this city is whether or not the Federal Government should 
pay for it. It is very similar to the debate as to whether or not the 
Federal Government should pay for abortions.
  It has been a consensus here in this city amongst Democrats and 
Republicans that being that abortion is a very controversial issue, 
that the Federal Government will not fund abortions. This is a very, 
very similar debate.
  It has been felt by many people that doing destructive research on 
human embryos is unethical and immoral. Therefore, perhaps maybe it 
should be made illegal that the Federal Government should not fund it, 
and that is the debate today, should the Federal Government start 
funding this research.

[[Page H4768]]

  I want to point out that adult stem cells, which are being held out 
as a potential alternative to embryo stem cells for research purposes, 
have been successfully used in more than 45 clinical trials. I have 
been following the literature on this recently. The applications have 
been really, really, many. They have been used successfully to 
ameliorate the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, obviously to treat a 
whole bunch of bone marrow disorders, leukemias, anemias, used 
successfully to treat cartilage defects in kids, combined immuno-
deficiency syndrome in kids, and this is going on today, using adult 
stem cells. Actually, it has been going on since the 1980s, and it 
receives all types of Federal funding. There are absolutely no 
restrictions today on adult stem cell research, nor is it considered 
unethical.
  Now, just quickly, there are many types of cloning. You can clone 
cells, and this has been done with skin cells to do skin grafts, to 
create tissues, monoclonal antibodies, recombinate proteins. It has 
been going on since the 1940s. Our legislation will not affect this. 
This will be able to continue. Various types of non-cellular cloning, 
such as cloning DNA, proteins, RNA, which is ribonucleic acid. This has 
been used in genetic therapy. The production
of recombinate insulins, DNA fingerprinting, diagnostic tests for 
forensics, fingerprint testing, parental tests, all have been going on 
since the 1980s. It is not affected by our legislation. People are 
falsely claiming that it will prohibit all forms of cloning. This is 
not true.
  What it does is it makes illegal this procedure right here, and I am 
going to get into this in more detail, somatic cell nuclear transfer. 
This procedure has been around for many, many years, but in 1997 it was 
done to produce Dolly the Sheep. The question today is are we going to 
start cloning human embryos in the United States and in the near 
future.
  Now, this poster I am showing here gets into the basics of how 
cloning is done. On the top here we show normal reproduction, where an 
egg unites with a sperm. Human beings, our cells have 46 chromosomes. 
It is actually 23 pairs of chromosomes in your body's cells, the cells 
of your skin, the cells of your liver.
  The body goes through the process in the ovary and in the testes to 
produce 23 chromosomes in each one of these, so rather than having 23 
pairs, you have the individual chromosomes. Then in the process of 
fertilization, the 23 here unite with the 23 here to produce a new 
human being. This is how each of us gets started, and the diagram shows 
the single cell fertilized egg, a 3 day old embryo shown here, and then 
a 5 to 7 day embryo.
  Now, in the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, what is done is 
you take an egg, and this is what they did with Dolly the Sheep. They 
extracted the nucleus with all of the chromosomes out of the egg. There 
is an alternate technique where you neutralize the nucleus. So you 
create an egg with no genetic material in it.
  Then they went in the case of Dolly, they got this from a duct cell, 
and this just represents any cell in the body, and you extract the 
nucleus out of that cell. Then you take the nucleus and you put it in 
to the egg, and the egg begins to divide and forms an embryo, shown 
here.
  Now, I want to highlight a couple of important points. When you go 
through this process, you create a unique individual, because you are 
reshuffling the chromosomes, and that is how each of us ends up with 
our own personal uniqueness.
  In this situation here, you are creating a genetic duplicate of the 
individual that you have gotten this nucleus out of.
  The other important point is biologically, ethically, morally, there 
is nothing different between this form and this form, other than this 
form is a genetic duplicate of the person you got the nucleus from. 
Indeed, if I were to do this procedure and extract the nucleus from any 
person, the baby that would be created here would be an identical twin 
of the person that you extract the nucleus from.

  Now, this is the world's most famous clone, Dolly the Sheep. And just 
to reiterate how it was done, you had a female sheep, they extracted an 
egg from that sheep. They removed the genes, the nucleus out of that 
sheep, and created an egg that had no nuclear material in it.
  In the case of Dolly, they got her nucleus from another sheep's udder 
and they put it in that egg. They cultured the embryo for a while, and 
once they were assured it was growing properly, they inserted it into 
the womb of a surrogate mother, essentially a third sheep, and, bingo, 
you get a clone.
  Now, this diagram just shows the normal process in the human where an 
egg is produced from the ovary. High up in the fallopian tube is where 
the fertilization occurs. You get cell division, first into a two cell 
stage of embryo development, then a four cell stage, and then it goes 
to an eight cell stage called an uncompacted morula, and then that body 
of cells shrinks down to a compacted eight cell morula, and then you 
get further differentiation into an embryo. This is what we call 
implantation, when it actually adheres to the lining of the womb begins 
to actually differentiate into a fetus.
  This diagram just shows the continuation of that process. This is a 
four week old embryo, a six week old embryo. It is in this stage here 
where they want to extract embryonic stem cells to do a lot of the stem 
cell research. Once the baby is born, if you extract cells from the 
baby or the umbilical cord blood, or from an adult person, and use stem 
cells from either of these sources, that is called adult stem cells. 
There is no destruction of the person when you extract stem cells 
there. But when you extract stem cells here, you essentially destroy 
the embryo. That is why it is called destructive embryonic stem cell 
research.
  Now, the reason myself and many others are very optimistic that adult 
stem cell research, which is much less ethically and morally 
controversial than destructive embryonic stem cell research, is because 
we have been able to get bone marrow cells to differentiate into bone 
marrow adult stem cells.
  These are adult stem cells extracted from the bone marrow to form 
more marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat, liver, brain or 
nerve cells, other blood cells, heart tissue, essentially all tissues 
from bone marrow.
  They have been able to extract adult stem cells from peripheral blood 
in your circulation and been able to get those differentiate into bone 
marrow, blood cells, nerves.
  They have extracted stem cells from skeletal muscle and got them to 
differentiate into more skeletal muscle, smooth muscle, bone, 
cartilage, fat, heart tissue.
  They have extracted adult stem cells from the gastro-intestinal tract 
and successfully been able to get them to differentiate into esophagus, 
stomach, small intestine and large intestine or colon cells.
  Placental stem cells, adult stem cells in the placenta, have 
successfully been differentiated into bone, cartilage, muscle, nerve, 
bone marrow, tendon and blood vessel.
  They have actually extracted stem cells from brain tissue and been 
able to get them to differentiate into all of these types of cells.
  I say this just to simply make a point. There are lots of people 
claiming that destructive embryo stem cells research is so critically 
important, we have to do it. Adult stem cells research is very, very 
promising. Indeed, I believe it is much more promising, because 
embryonic stem cells, if they were implanted somebody to treat them, 
would be rejected by the immune system of a patient who received those 
cells, whereas if you extract adult stem cells from the patient 
themselves, from their marrow or from their peripheral blood, then 
there are no tissue rejection issues. So not only are you overcoming 
the ethical and moral concerns, but you are as well overcoming an 
important scientific concern.
  Now, advocates for embryonic stem cells argue that the embryonic stem 
cells multiply much more and you can get them to grow much, much more 
in tissue culture. That indeed is true. The adult stem cells do not 
duplicate as often. They do not live as long in the lab as the 
embryonic stem cells have successfully done. And while on the surface 
that may sound good, a lot of the research with embryonic stem cells 
show when you implant them in animals, you get the same phenomena; the

[[Page H4769]]

cells continue to grow, and they essentially form tumors. So the very 
argument that researchers are putting forward that these cells are more 
robust and they grow and grow and grow, is actually a significant 
clinical problem if you are ever going to use them in treating patients 
with disease.

                              {time}  1515

  They are going to have to somehow get these cells to stop 
duplicating. Otherwise, they will form tumors or cancers in the 
patients that they are putting them into. Indeed, it is my personal 
opinion that embryonic stem cell research will never, never turn out to 
have the kind of clinical applications that people are claiming that it 
will.
  Indeed, I believe that the future is in adult stem cells for all the 
reasons I just outlined. There is genetic compatibility; there will not 
be tissue rejections for patients; there are not the problems with them 
duplicating over and over again so we will not have the concerns about 
them forming tumors; and, as well, obviously, there are no ethical or 
moral objections on the part of the public.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to assert that our legislation does not get 
into this issue of embryonic stem cell research. Heretofore, embryonic 
research has always centered on the issue of these embryos that are in 
the freezers in the IVF clinics that are so-called excess embryos that 
are so-called destined for destruction. Now, some people, myself 
included, argue that that is not necessarily the case.
  The reason these embryos are in the freezers is because the fertility 
experts that keep them there have a lot of their patients come back 
years after they have had a baby by IVF technology and they say they 
want to have another baby, so that is why the embryos are in the 
freezer in the first place. As well, there are people that want to 
adopt these embryos out.
  There is the adoption agency in California, Snowflake, that is 
actually doing this. I had the opportunity to see three babies that 
were born through this technology of adopting embryos.
  But the debate has always been centered on those embryos in the 
freezers and that they are destined for destruction, supposedly, and, 
therefore, it is ethically and morally okay to use them in research 
protocols that essentially destroy them. But human cloning, as it is 
currently contrived and being proposed, takes us as a Nation in a whole 
new ghastly and horrible direction, and that is in one of creating 
embryos for destruction, for destructive research purposes. The 
morality and the ethics of this I think are totally different.
  We have never as a Nation ventured into this area before where we are 
saying we are going to create embryos now purely for research purposes 
to be destroyed. We have that before us today. We have it before us 
now. It will be before this body, the House of Representatives, next 
week.
  We will have two alternatives. Members of this body can choose the 
direction that is supported by me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), which is to say we are not going to go in that direction. We 
are not going to have human cloning, the creation of embryos, human 
life at its earliest stages, specifically just for research purposes 
and for destruction. We are going to say no to that procedure. As well, 
we are going to say no to allowing those embryos to be implanted in a 
woman for the purpose of generating a pregnancy, a baby, a human being.
  Members of the body will have a choice, though. They will have 
another bill before them. The bill I spoke of at the beginning of this 
Special Order, the Greenwood-Deutsche bill, H.R. 2172, and their bill 
specifically allows the creation of human embryos through cloning 
technology to be used specifically for research purposes and 
destruction.
  Our bill says, no, we do not want to move in that direction. It is 
not necessary. It is morally and ethically wrong, and it will 
ultimately, if we move in the direction that they are proposing, it 
will ultimately take us to the place where we are creating embryos in 
such quantities that eventually we will have attempts made at creating 
babies, creating human clones. Or, the body can choose to support and 
approve H.R. 2505, the bill that I believe very, very strongly is the 
morally and ethically correct way to go.
  I believe this is a critical juncture for our Nation. The whole arena 
of biotechnology is exploding. We have had the human genome project, 
and we are moving very, very rapidly to a place where there can be many 
new breakthroughs in science and technology. Many of these are very, 
very good, but some of these I believe are extremely dangerous, 
extremely hazardous, and are morally and ethically wrong.
  To say that we as a Nation are going to allow, permit, even encourage 
the creation of embryos, human embryos for destructive research 
purposes I think is extremely, extremely bad policy. It would put the 
United States in a position where it would have the most liberal policy 
on this issue in the world. Our bill I think puts us in the right 
direction where we are saying we are going to allow the good science to 
proceed, but we are not going to take this ghastly or grizzly step.
  Now, before I close, I want to say one additional very important 
thing, and my colleagues are going to hear this from some people, that 
if we do this, if we pass this bill, if this bill is signed into law 
and, by the way, it has received the support of the Bush 
administration, they have indicated that they will support the bill of 
myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), that this 
technology will just somehow go overseas and the cloning will proceed 
there. In response to that I want to say a couple of important things.
  Number one, I think we have a moral and ethical obligation to do what 
is right within our own borders. To say that something bad is going to 
happen overseas, therefore we should not bother making it illegal here 
is absurd. I mean, nobody would suggest repealing our laws against 
slavery just because slavery currently exists in the Sudan. That would 
be, of course, reprehensible. Nobody in their right mind would propose 
that.
  So I think the obverse certainly applies, that we would never want to 
say, no, we do not want to pass good legislation to make something that 
is morally and ethically wrong, you would never want to do that because 
it may happen somewhere else. I think that is a totally unjustifiable 
argument.
  Another important point in this arena is this: I think the world does 
look up to the United States, and I think if we can pass a strong bill 
in this arena other countries will follow suit. Certainly, they will be 
encouraged to do so.
  An important provision of our bill which I did not mention is the 
prohibition on importation. There are some people who would like to 
repeal this provision and essentially allow the creation of clones 
overseas and in the Bahamas, Mexico, whatever country, and then the 
stem cells or whatever material people are wanting to extract from 
those clones, part of their destruction could then be brought back into 
the United States. I thought this was an unacceptable situation so we 
have language in the bill barring the importation of clones or products 
from clones.
  Lastly, I want to just cover a few important points.
  I have talked a lot about the morality and ethics of this; and they 
will say, well, you cannot legislate morality. We hear that all the 
time. I would counter that everything we do in this body is rooted in 
morality and ethics.
  We were debating earlier today the housing bill. Well, why do we have 
a housing program? Well, we have a housing program because when all of 
that got started during the New Deal there were a lot of people who 
thought it was morally and ethically wrong to have millions of 
Americans who were living well living next to people in squalor, 
without homes, with substandard housing, and so we began those 
programs.
  We have the Social Security program, I believe, because most people 
feel it is morally and ethically wrong to allow senior citizens who do 
not have the ability to save during their working lifetime to live in 
abject poverty.
  All of our laws, laws against murder and rape, are rooted in morality 
and ethics. This is just one more example. It is ethically and morally 
wrong.
  Finally, let me close by just saying to all of my colleagues in the 
House, and I have heard this from some Members, why are we getting into 
this issue? As I stated at the outset, we are

[[Page H4770]]

getting into the issue because we have to get into the issue. There is 
a company in Massachusetts that is preparing to begin the process of 
creating human embryos. As I understand it, they have harvested eggs 
from women donors, they have the eggs, they want to do the sematic cell 
nuclear transfer technology, begin creating clones, and then extracting 
from those embryos stem cells for research purposes and then destroying 
those cloned embryos.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the time is now. We need to speak on this issue as a 
body. The Congress needs to speak on it, the President needs to speak 
on it, and I believe we should stand with the vast majority of 
Americans. A poll that I have seen shows that 86 percent of the 
American people feel that it is wrong to create embryos specifically to 
be used for research purposes and then destroyed. Eighty-six percent of 
the American people feel that this is the wrong thing to do.
  Let me just add again, and I have said this earlier, I know there are 
many people, particularly many pro-life people, several of the 
Republican senators I know have gotten up in that body and spoken on 
this issue, that feel that we should allow the destructive embryo 
research on these excess embryos in the freezers in the IVF clinics, 
so-called excess embryos. This bill does not address that issue. If 
this bill becomes law, that research could proceed and, indeed, that 
research actually can proceed in this country today. The debate is 
exclusively over whether or not the Federal Government should fund that 
research.
  So I think we are headed as a body to a very, very critical point. 
Medical technology has been evolving rapidly in the United States for 
years and years and years, and we are at a precipice. We are at the 
edge of a tremendous decision. I think the right decision is to pass 
this bill, H.R. 2505, the Weldon-Stupak Cloning Prohibition Act of 
2001. It is supported by the President of the United States; and the 
Senate, the other body, hopefully, will take the bill up and pass it as 
well.

                          ____________________