Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1397-H1438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2003

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 105 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 105

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit human cloning. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be
in order except those printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured
rule for H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. As an original
cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see it is one of
the first top priorities of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which will permit a thorough
discussion of all of the relevant issues. The first of these issues is
the Greenwood substitute which allows human cloning for medical
purposes.
I personally oppose the Greenwood amendment because it is wrong to
create human embryo farms, even for scientific research.
Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of
medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished
for the benefit of another. Anything other than a total ban on human
cloning would be virtually impossible to enforce.
I understand there is no way to control actual implementation of
these fetuses into a woman's uterus, so cloning of children could still
happen.
The Justice Department submitted testimony explaining that once
countless human embryos are created by

[[Page H1398]]

cloning, there would be no practical way to enforce the prohibition on
transferring such embryos into wombs.
The Committee on Rules, though, recognizes that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's proposal is the leading alternative to the ban on
cloning. And because we are aiming for a fair and thorough debate, we
should make it in order on the House floor.
Human cloning is a deeply troubling issue to me and to most
Americans. Life is a creation, not a commodity.
I also agreed with President Bush when he said that science has set
before us decisions of immense consequence. We can pursue medical
research with a clear sense of moral purpose, or we can travel without
an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret.
Science now presses forward with this issue of human cloning. How we
answer the issue of human cloning will place us on one path or the
other.
I spent a lot of time considering this issue because it is so
complex, and I have decided to once again vote to ban human cloning. It
is simply wrong to clone human beings.
It is wrong to create fully-grown, tailor-made cloned babies, and it
is wrong to clone human embryos to experiment on and destroy them.
Anything other than a ban on human cloning would license the most
ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in human history. Some of us can
still remember how the world was repulsed during and after World War II
by the experiments conducted by the Nazis during the war. How is this
different?
Congress must act now. We can no longer wait for another biotech
company to claim that they have produced cloned children, despite the
fact that laboratory cloning of animals has led to spontaneous
abortions and terrible, terrible abnormalities.
Congress will not face a weightier issue than the ethics of human
cloning, and Congress should not run away from this problem. It is our
job to address such pressing moral dilemmas, and it is our job to do so
in a deliberative way. That is what we will do today.
To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making clear that I
believe human cloning is morally and ethically wrong. Every Member of
this body is opposed to cloning a human being, and the American people
are unified in their opposition to human cloning. Unfortunately, this
debate is not about making it illegal to clone a human being; rather,
it is about outlawing cutting-edge research that could one day save and
improve lives.
The bill we are considering today, the so-called Human Cloning
Prohibition Act of 2003, will jail scientists for conducting
therapeutic research. This bill, if enacted, will close the door to
important research that one day could result in treatments or cures for
such diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. If a drug or
treatment for diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's is developed in
another country using therapeutic cloning, that treatment will not be
available to patients in the United States. Think about it. This bill
would actually deny Americans treatments for debilitating diseases.
That strikes me as not only wrong, but cruel.
It is important to make clear that we are not debating whether or not
Federal funds can be used for stem cell research. The President made
that decision in 2001. Based on that decision, a private company can
conduct stem cell research if it uses its own funds, or companies can
conduct stem cell research with Federal funds if they follow very
strict guidelines. While this bill does not deal with this issue, it is
important to note that stem cells are at the heart of the therapeutic
cloning debate.
Stem cells were only discovered in 1998. The promises for treatments
and cures from stem cell research may not be realized for 15 to 20
years, but the gains will be enormous. The research of today will
result in the cures of tomorrow.
Now, today, scientists say therapeutic cloning is the best way to
produce the stem cells that could lead to breakthrough discoveries.
Through stem cell research, scientists might one day help a person with
a spinal cord injury walk again. How can this body ban this promising
endeavor to end human suffering?
Scientists are so important to this debate. They are the experts, and
this body should listen when they speak.
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of
Sciences so that a group of scientists could advise Congress and the
administration on the complex scientific issues facing our country. Mr.
Speaker, 140 years later, the party of Lincoln brings before this body
legislation that ignores the findings or recommendations of this
respected group of scientists.
The academy, in a February 2002 report, declared that therapeutic
cloning has scientific potential and should be allowed to continue.
Additionally, the National Institutes of Health and 40 Nobel Laureates
attest the value of this important research.
Former President Gerald Ford, a Republican, and former President
Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, also publicly support this research.
So does former First Lady Nancy Reagan. Her husband, former President
Ronald Reagan, suffers from Alzheimer's disease. This research may hold
the key to treating or even curing that disease. But if this bill is
endorsed today, it would deny the Reagans and millions of other
families any benefit from this research. Mrs. Reagan's views should be
heard by this body, and I will read her letter of support into the
Record, a letter she sent to the other Chamber. I want to read it so
that my colleagues can hear her eloquent words.

{time} 1315

She writes, ``As you may know, Ronnie will observe his 92nd birthday
soon. In earlier times, we would have been able to celebrate that day
with great joy and wonderful memories of our life together. Now, while
I can draw strength from these memories, I do it alone, as Ronnie
struggles in a world unknown to me or the scientists who devote their
life to Alzheimer's research. Because of this, I am determined to do
what I can to save other families from this pain. I am writing,
therefore, to offer my support for stem cell research and to tell you
I'm in favor of new legislation to allow the ethical use of therapeutic
cloning.
``Like you, I support a complete ban on reproductive cloning.
However, I believe that embryonic stem cell research under appropriate
guidelines may provide our scientists with many answers that are now
beyond our grasp. There are so many diseases that can be cured, or at
least helped, that we cannot turn our back on this. We have lost so
much time already. I cannot bear to lose any more. Sincerely, Nancy.''
Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better than Mrs. Reagan. Mrs.
Reagan makes a powerful moral argument that we should not put up a
roadblock to close this promising avenue of research.
We talk a lot about morality in this body. For the life of me, I
cannot see how it is moral to look into the eyes of someone suffering
from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's and say, we are going to stand in the
way of something that has the potential to save your life, or to tell
them that even if a breakthrough treatment is available in Europe or
elsewhere, they are not allowed to have it.
This debate is about improving and saving millions of lives in this
country. It is about whether we should jail scientists who are trying
to save the lives of people who suffer from such debilitating diseases
as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and so many other diseases.
Let us do the right thing: Vote for the Greenwood substitute, and if
that fails, vote against the Weldon bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 534
and the rule for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. I thank the
gentleman

[[Page H1399]]

from Florida for his principled leadership on this issue.
The history of cloning is replete with defects, deformity, and death.
Dolly the sheep was the 277th try. By now, everyone knows of the
euthanized death of Dolly. She died on Valentine's Day a couple of
weeks ago at the age of 6, half the normal life expectancy for sheep.
Alan Coleman, a Singapore-based scientist who helped clone Dolly,
said, ``I think it highlights more than ever the foolishness of those
who want to legalize human cloning. In the case of humans, it would be
scandalous to go ahead, given our knowledge about the long-term effects
of cloning.''
If cloning is not safe for animals, how can it be good for humans?
President Reagan said in 1983 that every legislator, every doctor,
every citizen, needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to
affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life or whether to embrace
an ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a
Nation we must choose between the sanctity-of-life ethic and the
quality-of-life ethic.
If we allow the therapeutic cloning of human embryos for
experimentation, we will devalue the entire system of ethics of this
country. We will have endorsed the idea that it is okay to treat human
life like a commodity.
I am not willing to make that choice. I am not willing to say that we
should create a class of human beings to be used as human guinea pigs
and laboratory rats. We have seen that happen before in Nazi Germany
with experiments on concentration camp victims, and in Tuskegee,
Alabama, where our own U.S. Government experimented on African
Americans, infecting them with syphilis in search of a cure.
We find these stories morally abhorrent. But what will history say
about us if we fail to learn the lessons of the past and if we
knowingly do the same thing to tiny little humans again?
The Greenwood substitute would allow the creation of cloned human
embryos as long as the embryo is destroyed within 14 days and never
implanted in the womb. Even that phony restriction is lifted within 10
years of enactment. It will result in the creation of a human embryo.
We need to stop playing word games and admit that serious issues are
at stake here. This vote will determine whether we as a Nation will
affirm the dignity of human life or reject it. Support the Weldon-
Stupak bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a broader, tragic
political agenda to stymie good science with scare tactics. It fails
totally to distinguish between cloning or reproducing human beings--a
frightful prospect that all of us reject--and therapeutic cloning,
which someday could save the lives of millions.
The therapeutic form, the transplanting of a patient's DNA into an
unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells, could cure devastating
diseases. The promise of this technology would be that the patient's
body accepts the cells from transplantation without immuno-suppressant
drugs. These cells are not transplanted into a woman's womb. In what is
deliberate overreaching, this bill bans somatic cell nuclear transfer,
which produces only stem cells, not babies.
First, we Americans were told to use duct tape to seal up our rooms.
Now, with this bill, the Republican leadership places duct tape over
the microscopes of dedicated medical scientists who are leading the
effort to find the cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's,
cancer, spinal cord injuries and cystic fibrosis.
At a time when we are alarmed daily by the possibility of biological
attacks from afar, this bill represents a very real and present
biological attack on the victims of these tragic diseases, diseases
that strike Americans down in a nonpartisan manner. They deserve a
nonpartisan solution.
For most parents, it is traumatic enough to take a child to the
hospital for a tonsillectomy or a broken bone. How cruel that for
lingering diseases that can slowly drain the happiness, the energy, and
the life from a child, one of the best hopes for treatment that we have
would be completely denied by this bill.
I think of the Austin mother who wrote to me about her diabetic five-
year-old. She told of her baby who suffered through 4 to 8 insulin
shots a day. Now, as a toddler, she undergoes 10 to 15 pricks a day to
test her blood sugar. Her mom wrote: ``Our daughter is a lively girl
who is optimistic by nature. We would like to see this horrible disease
cured before her optimism fades.''
Let us not put politics over life-saving science. The restrictions in
this bill are truly unprecedented. It bans private as well as public
research. It says even to the victim of disease, ``if you go abroad,''
where medical science will certainly move if this tragic bill is
adopted, ``you are not only getting treatment, you are getting a jail
term, because you are a criminal under this bill for seeking a cure or
treatment for your disease.''
Restrictive federal regulations already deny sufficient stem cell
lines to conduct essential research. This bill does more than tie the
hands of our best scientists; it steals precious time that victims do
not have; it robs them of hope; it is, for too many, a death sentence.
Those innocent victims are not criminals; this bill is. Do not make
Americans choose between health and their homeland. Vote to end
suffering. Vote for hope. Vote ``no.''
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Human Cloning Prohibition
Act of 2003, H.R. 534, reintroduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). The issue
here is human cloning. The issue has to do with us playing God and
allowing human embryos to be produced.
Make no mistake about it, we are compassionate Americans. We care
about pain and suffering, we care about curing diseases; but at the
cost of creating human life, human embryos?
There is a claim that cancer, diabetes, and other diseases will be
cured. I would go as far as to say in the medical community, with
safeguards against terrorists, we can identify biological weapons. In
my district sits one of the finest anthrax labs in the world that can
already identify these types of dangerous pathogens. We do not need
human cloning to identify those signatures that exist within those
pathogens.
As researchers develop artificial wombs, if you are voting for the
Greenwood substitute, after 10 years it would allow scientists the
legal protection to harvest embryos and to grow human fetuses. It is
essential that, whether for research or reproduction, we not allow
people to create human life.
Join me in voting in favor of final passage of the Weldon-Stupak
bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the
underlying bill. No one in Congress supports cloning a human being, but
we cannot afford to block research into important scientific areas that
may have critical medical benefits to American citizens.
The millions who are currently suffering from diseases that have no
cures, Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord
injuries, and their families, these millions are desperately hoping
that new medical research can provide them relief.
The best hope for many of these people may lie with research into
somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. This process may
allow doctors and scientists to duplicate human stem cells to create
medical therapies for diseases, therapies that will not be rejected by
patients' bodies. This research and these therapies do not require or
result in a cloned human being; but the bill before us would ban that
research and take away hope for millions of Americans, just because of
fear of the unknown.
We can increase understanding of the science involved here and at the
same time provide protections against its untoward use. Congress should
take its time and consider these issues. We should ban human cloning,
as we have, and allow research to go forward. We should set the ethical
parameters for scientific research. That is our job, set these
parameters which will lead to saving lives and restoring health.

[[Page H1400]]

On behalf of those millions who suffer and wait and hope, I urge my
colleagues to vote against the Weldon bill and to vote for the
Greenwood amendment.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of the rule. In doing so, I would like to bring to light one of the
most dangerous consequences of voting for human cloning, both
reproductive and therapeutic. That is the exploitation of women.
Women of lower economic means are particular targets for
exploitation. Advanced Cell Technologies paid $3,500 to $4,000 to each
woman who donated their eggs for the failed human cloning experiments.
Because of the many risks associated with this procedure, it will
mostly be women of little means who will volunteer to sell their eggs.
In order to generate enough cloned embryos to carry out this
research, thousands of eggs will need to be solicited from numerous
women. It takes about 50 eggs to get one viable cloned embryo. Just to
treat the 16 million Parkinson's patients, it is estimated that 800
million human eggs would be needed from a minimum of 80 million women
of childbearing age.
I implore my colleagues to vote for the health and well-being of
women. Please vote for the rule and for the Weldon-Stupak bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bell).
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534 and in
support of the bipartisan substitute.
I lost my mother in 1999, but really I lost her twice. The first time
was when she was suffering from a cruel, mind-altering disease that has
afflicted millions of American families, a disease known as
Parkinson's. For my mom, each of the 10 years she spent fighting
Parkinson's disease was a little more difficult than the one before,
until finally her body just could not fight anymore.
After losing my mother that way, I will do all I can to help find a
cure for diseases like Parkinson's. There are tens of millions of
Americans that feel the same way because of someone they have lost in
their lives, because fighting for a cure is the right thing to do.
I do not know how I am going to explain to my constituents that my
colleagues in the House decided not to allow scientists to use the vast
technology at our disposal to cure their mother's Parkinson's disease
or their grandmother's Alzheimer's or their husband's diabetes, because
that is exactly what stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are
going to do: cure disease and save lives.

{time} 1330

Stem cell research is no different than the discovery of penicillin
or the invention of the Hart pump or the vaccine for polio. It is
simply the next step in modern medicine. When it comes down to it,
American families will be the victims of H.R. 534. The price of this
bill will be the lives of children, grandchildren, the mothers and
fathers that each of us cherishes, all who we were able, but not
willing, to save. And why?
We all oppose human cloning. That is not the issue. That is not what
I am talking about. Let us be perfectly clear. Therapeutic cloning is
in no way, shape or form the same as human cloning. I oppose human
cloning as do most Members of this House. But we are not talking about
simply a ban on human cloning, but a ban on therapeutic cloning as
well, a process where there is no fertilization, no implantation, no
pregnancy and no chance for a child to be produced whatsoever.
Under the proposed bill, therapeutic cloning would be banned and a
research process that takes place in a petri dish would be
criminalized. A process that provides hope, and someday a cure for
millions of Americans, would be criminalized.
So for the millions of us who are all too familiar with the pain and
suffering brought on by diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and
diabetes, for those of us who pray every night that a cure can be
found, my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle should
vote against H.R. 534 and support the bipartisan substitute.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
(Mrs. MUSGRAVE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act. The passage of
this bill is of utmost urgency as scientists in this country and around
the world are making dangerous advances towards the creation of a
cloned human being.
The science of human cloning may be difficult to explain and to
understand to those of us who are not scientists, but its immorality is
not without question. You do not have to be a scientist to know this is
wrong. Whether produced for the intention of human reproduction or for
the purpose of medical research, the fact remains the same: human
cloning is simply wrong. It invariably requires the creation and
killing of numerous human lives in the effort to produce either cloned
cells for the purpose of research or cloned human beings.
Numerous ethical questions arise. Who, for example, would be the
parents of a cloned human being? What rights would they have? And what
about the potential to create human-animal hybrids through the
transferring of human nuclear material into animal eggs? If we open the
door to human cloning, these ethical problems will be unavoidable.
Additionally, cloning cheapens all human life by making it a commodity,
an object to tinker with, to alter, to change to a scientist's preset
specifications. Manipulating the genetic outcomes of human reproduction
render certain people desirable and others not. How then will society
view these people determined less desirable? Are they of less human
value?
In fact, if we do not enact a ban on human cloning, these situations
I have described are just a few of the scenarios we will face in the
near future. As one of the Nation's leading bioethicists, Dr. Leon
Kass, has said, ``We are compelled to decide nothing less than whether
human procreation is going to remain human, whether children are going
to be made to order rather than begotten, and whether we wish to say
yes in principle to the road that leads to the dehumanized hell of
`Brave New World.' ''
The American people have spoken loud and clear on their view on this
issue, as has the scientific community, our President, and this body of
Congress last year. The national consensus is evident. Human cloning
for any reason, whether for research or reproduction, should be
prohibited.
Please join me in voting ``yes'' on the Weldon-Stupak bill and ``no''
on the Greenwood substitute.

National Right to Life

Committee, Inc.,

February 10, 2003.

Congress Resumes Action on Human Cloning Legislation this Week, As
Supporters of Cloning Human Embryos Try to Fool Lawmakers, Journalists,
and the Public with Deceptive ``Egg-Speak''

introduction

Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all
human cloning, as a number of other major nations have
already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary
Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This
bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the
creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same
policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245).
Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing
competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of
human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban
implantation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we
expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced
by Rep. Jim Greeenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal
in 2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill
has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne
Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303.
In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted
inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would
each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument
is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in
more detail below.

president bush's position

[[Page H1401]]

speech, the President said, ``Because no human life should be
started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to
set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all
human cloning.'' In a speech on human cloning last year,
President Bush warned that unless such legislation is
enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be established in the
United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/
print/2002410-4.html)

the situation in congress

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the
Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at
10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the
committee completes its work, the full House could take up
the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the
measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided
bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the
House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively
rejected (249-178) a substitute amendment, the Greenwood-
Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of
human embryos for research (roll call no. 302)
The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the
Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26
cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch-
Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it
has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate
Democrats.
The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP),
which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a
cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-
Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these
committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of
these diametrically conflicting approaches.
The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist
(R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday,
``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself
with the purpose being destruction, and that would include
the so-called research cloning. And remember, research
cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no
demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you
ought to destroy life. . .''
The key differences between the two bills are discussed
below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning
issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the
specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit
have been widely misunderstood.

misconceptions and facts

Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak
legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the
Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.''
Reality: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the
Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in
the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``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.'' [Sec. 2 of the
bill, at (d) in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface
added for emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to
``clone'' new skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are
perfectly okay under the Brownback-Landrieu bill.
Moreover, any cloning method that would produce stem cells
without first producing and killing a human embryo--as
some researchers have claimed that they eventually will be
able to do--is explicitly permitted by this language. In
addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills
place no restrictions on research of any kind on human ova
(``eggs'').
In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-
Feinstein legislation are alike in that they would both
permit cloning involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but
they differ on one profound issue: The Hatch-Feinstein/
Greenwood proposals would allow the use of the somatic cell
nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone human embryos, and
the Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT
to clone human embryos.
Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about
``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the
argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to
clone human embryos.
Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not
involve creating human embryos.
Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a
developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something
that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in
2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to
obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who
clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the
bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the
embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning
researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.
Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current
disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/
Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html.
The cite just one example here, a group of scientists,
ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called
``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for
research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania,
Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth
University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli
of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000
issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,
``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another
term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate
creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also
wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the
creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage
embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.''
In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's
Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy
recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations
regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial
public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful
SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The
product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone,
genetically virtually identical to the individual that was
the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic
clone of the donor.''
The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for
biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to
distinguish between two of the purposes for which human
embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and
``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The
Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is
here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html.
The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because
whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing
embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic
cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been
demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as
discussed below), and the process is certainly not
``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which
is what the argument is about.
Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow
research only on ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.''
Reality: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology
text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg''
is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very
unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23
chromosomes. An ovum has no sex.
As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from
any species that is activated (whether by sexual
fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer,
SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of
that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no
such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg''
or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or
female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred
cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of
cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old
human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public
regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit
that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists
should enlist.
The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term
``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a
technical term for an embryo at an early stage of
development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another
word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos
produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is
what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned
mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one-
celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be
unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo
created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted
in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still
be unfertilized.
Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise
that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning
``reproductive cloning.''
Reality: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the
Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most
Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It
will not become law. But that does not bother many of its
backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because
the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede
enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing
political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation
of human embryos for research.
Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology
industry lobby and its allies, the Hatch-Feinstein bill or
the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is far from
a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the substantial
majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in May 2002 found
that 61 percent of the American people opposed ``cloning of
human embryos for use in medical research'' (34 percent
approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill
is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls,
substantially higher numbers are opposed when it is explained
that the human embryos will die in the research.
The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a
middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction.
The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the
establishment of human embryo farms.
The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been
emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the
House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and

[[Page H1402]]

Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to
Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a
presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not
believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be
treated differently, given that they both require the
creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . .
. the Administration could not support any measure that
purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing
research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that
he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/
ThompsontoBrownback.pdf).
The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement
agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on
implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the
Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The
Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human
embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent
some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no remedy to
apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted here:
www.nrlc,org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf.
Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human
cloning'' or ``ban the cloning of human beings.''
Reality: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human
cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a
uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter
term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are
attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing
a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized
blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (not counting
time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject
to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in
the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being
applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned
human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to
procure an abortion.
It other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but
the survival of human clones, which is a very different
thing.
Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear
transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,''
because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the
species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo
sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later
born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always
a member of the species Ovis aries).
As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a
``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want
to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement
that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human
beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it
amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the
species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (if not, what
species of being is it?)
It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize
cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22
statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to
ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy
life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a
cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added]
The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a
cloned human being is born, she should have the same status
as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently
are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002,
Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the
Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are
busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the
Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human
being would even be the correct term for such an individual
heretofore unknown in nature.''
As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing
Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),
``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her--
won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to
humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will
never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and
walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/
arecloneshuman.html).
Misconception: Those who favor cloning for research would
never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age.
Reality: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to
establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones,
there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology
industry would support such a limitation in a bill it
actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers
are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones.
For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to
giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned
humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development,
even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long
as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB
1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on
Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the
bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/
document/document020303c.asp).
Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from
cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and
from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were
widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so-
called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the
only two animal studies that have claimed to show
``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and H.R. 534,
the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 2 years since we had the Raelian cult before
my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We warned people
back then it was not a question of if cloning would take place. It was
a question of when. The Raelians have proven us right.
Whether or not they can actually clone a human is besides the point.
The point is under current Federal law they can clone a human. We need
to stop this manipulation of human life, and we need to stop it now. We
cannot allow the Greenwood substitute that does allow the cloning of
embryos, yet merely outlaws the implantation. We need to send the
strongest possible message that cloning in any form is unacceptable.
The Weldon-Stupak bill is the only bill that does this. We cannot
afford to treat the issue of human embryo cloning lightly, nor can we
treat it without serious debate and deliberation.
The need for action is clear. Research firms, Advance Cell Technology
of Massachusetts for one, have already begun cloning embryos for
research purposes. Whatever your belief is, pro-life or pro-choice, the
fact is embryos are either the building block of life or human life
itself. We must ask ourselves what will our message be? What makes up
human beings? What is the human spirit? What moves us? What separates
us from animals? That is what is being debated here today.
What message will the United States Congress send? Will it be a
cynical signal that human embryo cloning and destruction is okay,
acceptable, even to be encouraged all in the name of science, or will
it be a message urging caution and care? If we allow this research to
go forward unchecked, what will be next? Allowing parents to choose
what color hair and eyes their baby will have?
We need to consider all aspects of cloning and not just what the
researchers tell us is good. Opposition to our bill has based its
objections on arguments that we will stifle research, discourage free
thinking, put science back in the dark ages. The Weldon-Stupak bill
does nothing of the sort. It allows animal cloning. It allows tissue
cloning. It allows current stem cell research being done on existing
embryos. It allows DNA cloning. How is this stifling research? The fact
is, there is no research being done on cloned human embryos, so how can
we stifle it?
And do you know why there is no research being done? Because the
scientists, the same ones that are coming to our offices, banging on
our doors, begging to be allowed to experiment with human embryos, they
do not even know how. They have experimented for years with cloned
animal embryos with very limited success. These scientists who are
pushing so hard to be allowed a free pass for research on what
constitutes the very essence of what it is to be human do not know what
goes wrong with cloned animal embryos. And the horror stories are too
many to mention here of deformed mice and deformed sheep developing
from cloned embryos.
A prominent researcher working for the bioresearch companies has
admitted scientists do not know how or what happens in cloned embryos
allowing these deformities. In fact, he calls the procedure when an egg
reprograms DNA ``magic.''
Magic? That is hardly a comforting, hard-hitting scientific term, but
it is accurate. It is magic. Opponents of the bill have said embryonic
research is the Holy Grail of science and holds the key to untold
medical wonders. I say to these opponents, show me your miracles. Show
me the wondrous advances done on animal embryonic cloning. But these
opponents cannot show me these advances because they do not exist.
Our ability to delve into the mysteries of life grows exponentially.
All fields of science fuse to enhance our

[[Page H1403]]

ability to go where we have never gone before.
The question is simply: Just because we can do something, does that
mean we should do it? What is a better path to take, one of haste and a
rush to benefits that are at best years away into the future,
entrusting cloned human embryos to scientists who do not know what they
are doing with cloned animal embryos? Or is it one urging caution,
urging a step back, further deliberation?
The human race is not open to experimentation at any level, even the
molecular level. Has the 20th century not shown us of this folly?
Holy Grail? Magic? How about the human soul? Scientists and medical
researchers cannot find it, cannot medically explain it, but writers
write about it. Songwriters sing about it. We believe in it. From the
depths of our souls we know we should ban human cloning. For the sake
of our souls, let us reject the Greenwood substitute and support the
Weldon-Stupak bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the
bill.
The consequence of allowing human cloning would be dire. Human
embryos would be created for the sole purpose of being experimented on
and killed. Cloned humans would likely have serious defects such as
premature aging which may have led to premature death of Dolly, the
cloned sheep. Women could be exploited through the buying and selling
of their eggs for medical research, and children could be manufactured
with specific genetic traits, making them commodities rather than
precious gifts from God.
This bill would prevent those horrifying scenarios from reality. This
legislation would ban reproductive cloning and research cloning, which
both involve creation of human life.
As elected leaders, we have a responsibility to safeguard the future
of humanity by placing clear, ethical limits on medical research. Our
scientists should concentrate on promising avenues which raise no moral
concerns such as adult stem cell research. Allowing human cloning would
only devalue human life and permit women and children to be exploited.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and
H.R. 534.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership and his kindness for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have it right here in my hands, this legislation that
we intend to pass today criminalizes physicians, hospitals, innocent
patients, sick people all over the world who are in need of the relief
from the intellect and the ability that our scientists have to provide
hope over death, life over death, better health over no health at all.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important as we confront the
amazing opportunities of science and technology, as we look to secure
the homeland with advances in science and technology that we call
today's legislation what it is: a condemnation, an outrage on the
outstanding research and abilities of our research scientists and
medical professionals.
Mr. Speaker, if this was legislation to ban human cloning, you would
have a unanimous green light from the Members of this Congress. But now
what we are saying to those who are working in the venues of research
of life and hope, we are suggesting to them that they must be
condemned.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard of no such thing as women selling their
eggs being intimidated to do so, but I do know those who have
Parkinson's disease and other diseases who are suffering and who have
spinal injuries who are suffering now who want us to be able to do the
kind of research that stem cell research allows.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 534 does nothing but criminalize those individuals
who are now in research labs, innocent bright and brilliant Americans
who are trying to find hope for those who are ill. Particularly the
stem cells that the President has allowed some 64 lines does not take
into account the diversity and the different ethnic groups in this
Nation, the diseases that afflict African Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Jewish Americans, where research is needed on particular
stem cell research.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and myself offered an
amendment in the Committee on Rules, and I opposed this rule that would
have provided specifically with the growing of those unique stem cells
that would allow research on all Americans so that we could in fact
provide the hope and life that is necessary. But yet the Committee on
Rules decided in their wisdom to deny such an amendment, so we could
not even debate it on the floor of the House.
It is very interesting to note that a recent Institute of Medicine
study explains that, because the cells lines to researchers are
limited, they do not represent the genetic diversity of the general
population; nor do they represent the diversity of our population.
Diseases that plague minority populations are almost certainly not
represented in the 64 approved stem cells. On the uses of stem cells,
the National Institutes of Health described the medical potential as
enormous.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to give a death sentence to
millions and millions of Americans waiting by their bedsides hoping
beyond hope. We realize that we have been able to give hope to the
aging. We have been able to give hope to those who are suffering from
diseases of which heretofore we could not even imagine a solution, that
we could not have imagined some 50, 70, or 100 years ago to cure.

{time} 1345

We know in the early ages of this, of the history of this Nation,
that individuals did not live to see 45 or 50 years old. Now we are
very gratified to know that our population, our mothers and fathers,
our relatives, are living to 75 and 80 and 85 and 90 years old. What a
joy for families across this Nation and around the world.
Mr. Speaker, would we take this legislation that we have today and to
be able to void all of the wonderful research that generated an
extended life so that people might enjoy their families and enjoy the
wonderment of the world, the outstanding new discoveries every day? Now
we want to criminalize our doctors, criminalize our hospitals,
criminalize the sick, criminalize researchers with the passage of H.R.
534.
I oppose very much the legislation, the rule, and I do support the
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair would inform Members
that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 8 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has
18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule, and
as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 534, and I urge my
colleagues to vote against the substitute amendment.
As the President stated just a few weeks ago, ``Because no human life
should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to
set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human
cloning.''
I am certainly very sympathetic to all those who suffer from
incurable or chronic afflictions, and we are all committed to helping
find cures. I understand the good intentions of those who advocate
human cloning in the hope that research on these clones might yield
cures for major illnesses. But for a variety of reasons, both technical
and ethical, I believe it is wrong to pursue this approach.
On the technical level, the evidence suggests that cloned human
embryos are not likely to yield cures for major illnesses. Hopes to the
contrary are just not well founded and they provide false hopes for the
afflicted.
Supporters of human cloning for research purposes have proposed
limitations which they claim will prevent a cloned baby from being
born, but they

[[Page H1404]]

would allow cloned embryos to develop indefinitely, as long as they are
outside of a woman's womb. Where will this end?
The process of transferring a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated
egg produces a human embryo that has the potential to be implanted in
utero and developed to term. In others words, the embryo produced for
the purpose of therapeutic cloning, as some call it, is biologically
indistinguishable from an embryo intended for reproduction. It is a
human life, at a very early stage of development, of course, but
entirely human nevertheless. Thus, creating cloned human embryos for
research purposes means creating human life for the purpose of research
and with the intent of destroying it.
This commodification and exploitation strikes me as a profound
undermining of our society's sense of human dignity, and in doing so,
it undermines our very humanity.
Again, I urge a vote in favor of the rule, against the substitute
amendment, and in favor of H.R. 534.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) how many more speakers she has.
Mrs. MYRICK. At this point, I only have two that are here. I have
some others signed up, but they are not here yet. I only have two more.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that much
of what has been said today in support of this bill has nothing to do
with protecting the country from the ills outlined.
What is somatic cell nuclear transfer? A woman donates an egg, a
patient donates a skin cell. Perhaps the nucleus is removed from the
egg. The DNA from the skin cell is inserted into the egg. The egg is
stimulated to divide into eight cells, and those are the stem cells.
What has been talked about in terms of embryo experimentation is
certainly legal if this bill were to pass and instead of a skin cell
there was a sperm that began that cell division, if we had in vitro
fertilization, we could experiment all we wanted.
So I think where we are going with this proposal is apparently a plan
to outlaw in vitro fertilization in the United States. I think we ought
to be clear about that.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I, in earlier days in my life, used to go out
to junkyards sometimes to find parts for my sports car, go out with
some wrenches, and we would take off a transmission or an alternator or
something like that. And of course, there is nothing wrong with finding
spare parts in a junkyard.
But what we have before us in this debate is the serious possibility
that if we do not direct science properly, that we could end up in some
sort of a brave new world which none of us want to find ourselves in, a
world in which parts of human beings are like parts in a junkyard. And
that may sound a little bit like a science fiction novel or something
like that, but the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 will ensure
that human beings are not treated like old junk cars in some parking
lot.
Therapeutic cloning pledges unique cures for hundreds of illnesses;
yet, this is an empty promise. It has never produced a single cure in
animal models nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials.
In fact, James Thompson, the scientist who discovered embryonic stem
cells, said in reference to therapeutic cloning, ``The poor
availability of human oocytes, the low efficiency of the nuclear
transfer procedure and the long population-doubling time of human
embryonic stem cells make it difficult to envision this becoming a
routine clinical procedure.''
Opening the door to therapeutic cloning will only result in a
slippery slope of unscrupulous science and unenforceable law.
On the other hand, adult stem cells have produced promising medical
results. These stem cells do not require the cloning or destruction of
human embryos and have been successful in many human applications
without the growth of tumors, which is a key defect in the use of
cloned embryos.
Last year, in fact, researchers at the University of Minnesota
announced that they had made a discovery involving an adult human stem
cell that has the potential to develop into many different types of
cells in the human body. What that means is it now seems entirely
possible and reasonable that cells from one of our own, our own body,
can then be coaxed into replacement of organs or tissues that exactly
match our own body that it was taken from.
Using adult stem cells, for example, a man named Dean Grimm of
Charlotte, Iowa, regained his sight after having been blind due to a
chemical accident in 1983. His physician implanted adult stem cells and
also three new corneas. Now after being blind so many years he can see,
and his sons say that since his dad has regained his sight, he and his
siblings cannot get away with a lot of stuff.
A ban on therapeutic cloning will not restrict science, but it will
deter the perversion of scientific research. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of the rule for H.R. 534.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership,
and I thank him for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to
the rule and in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 534.
I am against human reproductive cloning, but I am concerned that the
Weldon bill could exert a devastating impact on future life-saving
research, and I fear that it will bring current research that offers
great promise to cure a whole host of diseases to a grinding halt.
I represent a district that includes many premier medical research
institutions. Top scientists have told me that therapeutic cloning
could lead to cures and new treatments for cancer, heart disease,
diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, and other chronic or fatal
illnesses, and they say that it could alleviate tremendous human
suffering.
In a recent Newsweek article by Dr. Gerald Fischbach, Dean of the
Faculty of Medicine at Columbia University Medical School and former
head of NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes,
he wrote the following about this issue: ``A less obvious, but real,
cost is the damage to the fabric of America's extraordinary culture of
inquiry and technical development in biomedical research. If
revolutionary new therapies are delayed or outlawed, we could be set
back for years, if not decades.''
It is appropriate that policymakers scrutinize cutting-edge science.
We must ensure that research is conducted in a legal and ethical
manner, but the underlying bill goes too far.
A more appropriate approach is the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute, and
that bill will allow potentially life-saving research to proceed while
banning human reproductive cloning.
I know something about the suffering of millions of American families
as their loved ones struggle against disease for which research cloning
may one day offer a treatment or cure. My own father battled against
Parkinson's until he passed away this year, and I cannot in good
conscience tell those families that our society will benefit from an
outright ban on this vital research.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534 and to support the
substitute.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and grateful support for the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act and for the extraordinary efforts of my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), in conceiving of
and promoting this bill over the last several years.
I also urge opposition to the substitute, despite the fact that I
know it is well intended, and my colleagues on the Committee on the
Judiciary, with whom I serve, I know bring great passion and compassion
to these issues.

[[Page H1405]]

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, not to demagogue an issue and not to
vilify those who would differ with me but to offer a gentle but firm
endorsement of a clean ban of human cloning in all of its permutations.
Like virtually everyone in this institution and everyone, as the
previous speaker just said, opposed the idea of reproductive human
cloning. We see it as deeply, morally offensive and objectionable, and
so it is. But I would also offer, in a spirit of humility, Mr. Speaker,
that even that which is called therapeutic cloning or the cloning only
of nascent human life for the purpose of experimentation is also
deeply, morally problematic and that we derive this from two basic
principles from an understanding of the history of Western
civilization.
That first principle is that which has distinguished Western
civilization, with very few exceptions, has been our belief in the
sanctity of human life, in the uniqueness and the preciousness of each
and every individual human being. That has been something
characteristic of Western civilization, and it has caused the laws of
this Nation and the laws of every nation of Western civilization since
its genesis 3,000 years ago to ever back slowly and respectfully away
where human life is in question and where the depriving of human life
is involved.
Against that backdrop, not only does history teach us to back away
from the awesome power of human life, but it also teaches us not to
trust government power; and, in fact, an undeniable truth of history
has been that time and time again, each time government had the power
to intrude itself on human life, that it abused that power and often
trampled on human beings and classes of human beings and races of human
beings.
It is against that spirit and against putting us on that slippery
slope that I believe that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has
the right prescription here, Mr. Speaker, and we should draw a strong
line in the sand, a moral line that says, as we look at human life or
even nascent human life, wherever one determines that life begins, that
we would back slowly and humbly away, ban human cloning for all of its
purposes, ban all development of human life for experimentation and
destruction.

{time} 1400

As the Good Book says, ``I set before you today life and blessings,
death and destruction. Now choose life.'' And it is my hope and
confidence we will do so today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, last May, the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a hearing on human
cloning. The subcommittee was informed that research cloning of humans
was unnecessary due to the exciting medical breakthroughs utilizing
adult stem cells and other ethical avenues of research. We were told
that scientists agree that cloning is dangerous and clones suffer from
countless severe genetic disorders.
The Department of Justice informed us that it would be impossible to
enforce a bill that allowed human cloning for the purpose of research
and not reproduction. And we were warned by Dr. Zavos of Kentucky that
unless a ban on human cloning was enacted, he and other rogue
scientists would soon successfully clone humans.
Despite these warnings, researchers seeking to clone humans for
research make hollow promises and offer false hope that such research
will result in cures for numerous human ailments. The fact is human
cloning is never necessary regardless of its intent, and better ethical
research alternatives do exist.
Nearly every week, for example, new scientific breakthroughs
utilizing adult stem cells are announced. Researchers report that they
have grown an entire organ from adult stem cells. And just this week,
scientists have announced that a type of cell found in blood can be
turned into nearly any cell in the body.
These findings and others like them suggest that every one of us may
carry our own ``repair kit'' that can be used to treat countless
medical disorders and genetic diseases by allowing doctors to regrow
organs and tissues from our own cells. And unlike destructive human
cloning research that remains entirely speculative, adult stem cell
therapies are already currently being used to treat a host of medical
conditions.
There are no guarantees that allowing human cloning for research will
produce cures or that cloned embryos will not be misused for other
purposes. If we now permit the manufacturing of human embryos for human
research, where do we draw the line? Do we only allow cloned embryos to
grow for 5 days before they are destroyed in the process of extracting
their stem cells? What about removing tissue from 5-week-old embryos?
Should we consider harvesting the organs from 5-month-old fetuses? What
will those who support destructive research claim is necessary next to
advance science?
We must finally draw the line and stop the exploitation of all forms
of human life. The science is clear. So is the moral issue. In my
favorite movie, ``Rudy,'' a great scene has the priest telling Rudy
there are two things in life he knows for sure, one is that there is a
God, and, secondly, that he is not God.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Weldon-Stupak
bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of this legislation.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good, fair rule. It allows an honest
debate of the issues. As many of my colleagues know, I am a physician.
I still see patients once a month at the veterans clinic in my
congressional district, and I practiced medicine for 15 years before I
was elected to the House of Representatives. I took care of a lot of
patients with paralysis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's
disease. I saw firsthand on a daily basis the hardship those people and
their families went through.
Indeed, I wanted to share with all my colleagues that my father died
of complications of diabetes disease. I had six uncles. When I was
growing up as a kid, one of my favorite uncles was my Uncle John. He
died of complications of Parkinson's disease. So if there were evidence
to support the position being held by some people in this body and some
people in the scientific community that there was great potential from
therapeutic cloning, I would be the first to admit it. I would be the
first person to acknowledge it. I could not deny it because it would be
evident in the medical literature. But the fact of the matter is, the
evidence is not there.
What we are debating today is the ethical parameters on the whole
issue of regenerative medicine. For decades, doctors have had at their
disposal surgical techniques to help people and make them well. They
have had medications, drugs that they could use to make people well.
And in the past 20 years, they have been making use of something called
regenerative medicine using what is called stem cells. This bill,
contrary to what some people say, does not ban stem cell research. It
does not ban embryo stem cell research. It specifically bans the
creation of cloned human embryos.
We voted on this very issue. We debated this issue on the floor of
this House a year and a half ago. It was July of 2001. The progression
of science is something that we need to include in this debate. I went
through the medical literature just about the last 12 months; and I
have about 88 studies showing adult stem cells in humans and that they
have tremendous potential, that they are actually finding application
in the treatment of 45 different diseases.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could produce a study that shows that
therapeutic cloning in humans has potential, but there is not even one
study. Indeed, I wish I could introduce a study that shows that
therapeutic cloning in animals has potential; but, likewise, there is
not a single study even in animals. It has been tried in mice, and it
has not worked. Therapeutic cloning has never been done.

[[Page H1406]]

We are debating here on the floor of the House therapeutic cloning as
though therapeutic cloning exists, as though it is around the corner.
Let us get realistic here. People are going to come to the floor, and
they are going to suggest that we have to hold out therapeutic cloning
because it is the only hope for these people. We are funding NIH $27
billion a year. We have thousands of researchers all over the Nation
doing all kinds of research using all kinds of modalities, surgeries,
therapies, medications; and this regenerative medicine issue is one
little slice of what researchers are exploring to help these people
with these conditions. We are essentially debating a subsegment of
that. And some people will come down here and hold that up as though it
is the only thing out there.
Let us get realistic. It has never been done. They tried it in mice,
and it was published in ``Cell.'' For those who do not read the
scientific literature, this is one of the most prestigious journals
that cell biologists read. I will quote from the study. It says: ``Our
results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched
cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to
effective transplantation for some disorders.'' They tried therapeutic
cloning in a mouse model of disease and it failed dismally. So not only
can we not produce a study that shows that it works, we can produce
studies that show that it does not work.
I think the time has arrived for us to do the right thing. This is a
moral and ethical decision. We are talking about scientists creating
human embryos for the purpose of exploiting them and destroying them,
and there is no scientific evidence today that this is justifiable.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the studies I referred to
above.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair can inform me how
much it will cost the American taxpayer to reprint the several months
of studies that have just been submitted for the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that
that is not a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time. I very much want to rise and join my
colleagues in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, why would Members of Congress want to turn doctors into
criminals and treat medical researchers like outlaws? With all the
grave issues facing America that continue to go unaddressed by this
body, our broken health care system, a lack of education funding, fears
of Social Security insolvency and a soaring economy, why are we
spending time criminalizing promising medical research and threatening
to send doctors to jail for 10 years?
This bill does not regulate the way that Federal funds are spent on
medical research. It makes medical research or treatments using
therapeutic cloning a Federal crime. The role of our government is to
provide research achievements and to provide incubators for medical and
scientific breakthroughs. It is not our job to criminalize good doctors
or to force leaders in medical research to abandon promising
techniques.
According to the National Institutes of Health, which advises us on a
daily basis, therapeutic cloning could provide treatments for
Parkinson's disease, chronic heart failure, in-stage kidney disease,
liver failure, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, severe burns, spinal
cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes,
lupus, heart damage, cancer, paralyzed limbs, and Lou Gehrig's disease.
There is even the hope this research could lead to entire
transplantable organs.
Forty Nobel laureates, millions of patients, former First Lady Nancy
Reagan, and former President Gerald Ford advocate human cloning. In
fact, just last month, Mrs. Reagan wrote to Senator Hatch, the Chair of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, supporting therapeutic cloning.
Despite the arrogant amendment that only this Committee on Rules
would ever give to anyone, because it is the height of arrogance, this
bill tells us that they want to ban cloning, therapeutic cloning, not
just here but all over the world. My, what a reach we do have.
The promising research that we are trying to stop today will be
driven overseas where therapeutic cloning is not only legal but is
government funded. Other countries will become the world leaders in
these treatments.
As a scientist, and I am, I am profoundly concerned about what I hear
as very bad science on this floor. Sick Americans would not benefit
from the American miracles if they occurred in another country because
the legislation prohibits improving lifesaving medical technology if
the treatment is developed by therapeutic cloning. If scientists
overseas develop a cure for Parkinson's disease using stem cells from
therapeutic cloning, suffering Americans would be banned by their
government from taking advantage of that cure here in the United
States. Imagine that. We want to criminalize almost everybody.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the majority weakens this noble institution
and the deliberative process. It is a shame and a blight on Congress
that we would even bring a bill of this magnitude, affecting the life
and health of millions of Americans, without this bill even going
through the committee procedure.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today in support of this rule and I urge its
passage.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing the right thing here today. It is my
belief, as an OB-GYN physician for over 28 years, with over 5,000
deliveries, that human cloning is not only morally wrong but it is also
a very dangerous practice.
Human cloning for reproduction poses serious risks of producing
children who are stillborn, severely malformed, or disabled. We can
make this assertion because most cloned animals have demonstrated
serious genetic defects. The most high-profile example, of course, is
Dolly the sheep, with the premature aging situation.

{time} 1415

With this knowledge, would we wish to create these hardships for even
one child?
I also oppose cloning embryos for research because it is a very short
bridge to implantation and, thus, reproductive cloning. If we allow
human embryo farms for research, it will become impossible to enforce a
ban on reproductive cloning.
Although I fully support this rule and H.R. 534, I do have concerns
about the bill. The creation and destruction of human life is the most
serious issue that we can face. Therefore, if it is unacceptable to
participate in human cloning within the United States, then we should
extend this ban and prohibit United States researchers from
participating in human cloning outside of the United States as well.
U.S. law when enacted is assumed not to apply to citizens when they are
outside of the United States borders. In other words, there is an
``assumptive nonapplication.'' However, the courts have held when
Congress acts to explicitly apply United States law to citizens acting
outside of our borders, the justice system can prosecute these actions.
H.R. 534 is a good bill, but in the future we should seek to extend
the ban to prohibit United States citizens from performing human
cloning outside of our borders.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the cloning of a human being is wrong, and this body and
the American public should not stand for it. But that is not what this
debate is about. The Weldon bill is misguided, it is unnecessary, and
it is just plain bad policy and it should be defeated. It is misguided
because it will stifle and end research that will undoubtedly improve
and save human lives. Should scientists have given up on finding a cure
for polio merely because they had already developed the iron lung? Of
course not. With all due respect to the

[[Page H1407]]

author of this legislation, there are other physicians, many, and there
are scientists, many, who believe in the promise of therapeutic
cloning. The National Academy of Sciences sees the value in therapeutic
cloning. Forty Nobel laureates all support going forward with
therapeutic cloning.
The Weldon bill is unnecessary because the Food and Drug
Administration has already declared reproductive cloning illegal and
subject to prosecution under current law. Dr. Kathryn Zoon, the
director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the
FDA, wrote in a March 28, 2001, letter that, quote, clinical research
using cloning technology to clone a human being may not proceed without
an investigational new drug application and that, given unresolved
safety questions, the FDA would not permit any such investigation to
proceed.
The letter works. No individual and no group has tried to clone a
human being in the United States for fear of prosecution by the FDA.
But having said that, if this bill were only about banning human
cloning, I would be for it. I think it would pass almost unanimously,
if not unanimously, in this House. But this bill goes much farther than
that. The Weldon bill is bad policy because in my opinion it is cruel.
Remember the words of Nancy Reagan. She wrote, there are so many
diseases that can be cured or at least helped that we can't turn our
back on this. We have lost so much time already. I can't bear to lose
any more.
It is cruel to deny potential cures to people who suffer from
Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. It is cruel to legislate that a
cure for diabetes developed in Great Britain may not be used to cure
diabetes in this country if therapeutic cloning were used to find a
cure to that problem. But that is just what the Weldon bill does.
I would urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood-Deutsch
substitute. If that fails, please defeat the Weldon bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include Dr. Zoon's letter for the Record.
The text of the letter is as follows:

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Food and Drug Administration,
Rockville, MD, March 28, 2001.
Dear: The purpose of this letter is to remind your
organization and its members that the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over clinical research
using cloning technology to clone a human being, and to
inform you of the FDA regulatory process that is required.
You are receiving this letter because of a number of recent
reports in the media describing the use of cloning technology
to clone human beings. As described more fully below, the
appropriate mechanism to pursue such clinical investigation
using cloning technology is the submission of an
investigational new drug application (IND) to FDA's Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Please inform
the members of your organization of the information provided
below.
Clinical research using cloning technology to clone a human
being is subject to FDA regulation under the Public Health
Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Under these statutes and FDA's implementing regulations,
before such research may begin, the sponsor of the research
is required to: submit to FDA an IND describing the proposed
research plan; obtain authorization from a properly
constituted institutional review board (IRB); and obtain a
commitment from the investigators to obtain informed consent
from all human subjects of the research. Such research may
proceed only when an IND is in effect. Since the FDA believes
that there are major unresolved safety questions pertaining
to the use of cloning technology to clone a human being,
until those questions are appropriately addressed in an IND,
FDA would not permit any such investigation to proceed.
FDA may prohibit a sponsor from conducting a study proposed
in an IND application (often referred to as placing the study
on ``clinical hold'') for a variety of reasons. If the Agency
finds that ``human subjects are or would be exposed to an
unreasonable and significant risk of illness or injury,''
that would be sufficient reason to put a study on clinical
hold. Other reasons listed in the regulations include ``the
IND does not contain sufficient information required to
assess the risks to subjects of the proposed studies,'' or
``the clinical investigators are not qualified by reason of
their scientific training and experience to conduct the
investigation.''
The procedures and requirements governing the use of
investigational new drugs, including those for the submission
and review of INDs, are set forth in Title 21 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 312. Additional
responsibilities of the sponsor of an IND include: selecting
qualified investigators and overseeing the conduct of the
investigators; ensuring that the investigations are performed
in accordance with the protocols of the IND; submitting
adverse experience reports and annual reports; and other
duties as outlined in the regulations. The responsibilities
of an investigator include: ensuring that the study is
conducted in accordance with the protocols; obtaining
informed consent from study participants; and ensuring that
an IRB that complies with the requirements of 21 CFR Part 56
reviews and approves the proposed clinical study and the
informed consent form and procedures for obtaining
informed consent, among other requirements specified in
the regulations.
Clinical investigators are encouraged to obtain a copy of
the current ``Information Sheets for IRBs and Clinical
Investigators'' (which contains useful information regarding
clinical investigations) from CBER's Manufacturers Assistance
and Technical Training Branch at 1-800-835-4709. This
document is also available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/oha/irb/
toc.html.
Additional information on how to submit an IND can be found
on CBER's website at: http://www.fda/gov/cber/ind/ind.htm.
Copies of the relevant sections of 21 CFR, including Parts 50
(Protection of Human Subjects), 56 (Institutional Review
Boards), and 312 (Investigational New Drug Application) can
be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr. Information on ways
to communicate with CBER is available for you or members of
the association at: http://www.fda.gov/cber/pubinquire.htm.
We encourage your members to meet with the Agency prior to
submitting any IND application. Such a meeting would be
arranged through the Office of Therapeutics Research and
Review of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
Sincerely yours,

Kathryn C. Zoon,

Director,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). Pursuant to House Resolution
105 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 534.

{time} 1420

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human
cloning, with Mr. Sweeney in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning
Prohibition Act of 2003. This bill criminalizes the act of cloning
humans, importing cloned humans and importing products derived from
cloned humans. It is what is needed, and it is what President Bush has
asked for, a comprehensive ban against cloning people. It has
bipartisan cosponsorship and was reported favorably by the Committee on
the Judiciary on February 12.
Today we are considering more than the moral and ethical issues
raised by human cloning. This vote is about providing moral leadership
for a watching world. We have the largest and most powerful research
community on the face of the earth and we devote more money to research
and development than any other nation in the world. Although many other
nations have already taken steps to ban human cloning, the world is
waiting for the United States to set the moral tone against this
experimentation.
Currently in the United States there are no clear rules or
regulations over privately funded human cloning. Although the FDA has
announced it has the authority to regulate human cloning through the
Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug and

[[Page H1408]]

Cosmetic Act, this authority is unclear and has not been tested. The
fact of the matter is that the FDA cannot stop human cloning, it can
only begin to regulate it. This will be a day late and a dollar short
for a clone that is used for research, harvesting organs, or born
grotesquely deformed.
In November 2001, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in
Worcester, Massachusetts announced that they had cloned the first human
embryo. Others have indicated that they are prepared to utilize
existing technology to clone a human baby. On December 26, 2002,
Clonaid announced the birth of the first cloned human baby. Although
the Clonaid announcement appears to have been a hoax, there are a
growing number of individuals who claim that they can and will clone a
human being. In light of these announcements, it has become imperative
that the Congress act immediately to prevent the cloning of human
embryos from continuing.
Others argue that cloned humans are the key that will unlock the door
to medical achievements in the 21st century. Nothing could be further
from the truth. These miraculous achievements may be found through stem
cell research but not from cloning. Let me be perfectly clear. H.R. 534
does not in any way impede or prohibit stem cell research that does not
require cloned human embryos. This debate is whether or not it should
be legal in the United States to clone human beings. Nothing more and
nothing less.
While H.R. 534 does not prohibit the use of cloning techniques to
produce molecules, tissues, organs, plants, DNA cells other than human
embryos, and animals other than humans, it does prohibit the creation
of cloned embryos. This is absolutely necessary to prevent human
cloning because, as we all know, embryos become people. If scientists
were permitted to clone embryos, they would eventually be stockpiled
and mass marketed. In addition, it would be impossible to enforce a ban
on human reproductive cloning. Let me repeat that. It would be
impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning because once
a cloned human embryo is implanted into a woman's uterus, it can grow
and become a baby. Therefore, any legislative attempt to ban human
cloning must include embryos.
Should human cloning ever prove successful, its potential
applications and expected demands would undoubtedly and ultimately lead
to a worldwide mass market for human clones. Human clones would be used
for medical experimentation, leading to human exploitation under the
good name of medicine. Parents would want the best genes for their
children, creating a market for human designer genes. Again,
governments would have to weigh in and decide questions such as what
rights do human clones hold, who is responsible for them, who will
ensure their health, and what interaction will clones have with their
genealogical parent.
As most people know, Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996. Since that
time, scientists from around the globe have experimentally cloned a
number of monkeys, mice, cows, goats, lambs, bulls and pigs. It took
277 attempts to clone Dolly; 276 failures before success. These later
experiments also produced a very low rate of success, a dismal 3
percent. Now some of the same scientists would like to add people,
human beings, to this experimental list. As it turns out, Dolly the
sheep was also a failure. It just took 6 years to realize it. On
February 14, Dolly the sheep was euthanized as a result of
complications linked to what some geneticists are speculating were
signs of premature aging.
Human cloning is both ethically and morally offensive. It diminishes
the careful balance of humanity that nature has installed in each of
us. I believe we need to send a clear and distinct message to the
watching world that America will not permit human cloning and that it
does not support scientific research into cloning human embryos. This
bill sends this message, by permitting cloning research on human DNA
molecules, cells, tissues, organs, or animals but preventing the
creation of cloned human embryos.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to unequivocally say no to human
cloning by supporting H.R. 534. Stop human cloning and preserve the
integrity of mankind and allow legitimate scientific research to
continue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I, like the authors of H.R. 534, believe that we should
outlaw human cloning. If we wanted to pass a bill that only prohibits
human cloning, it would sail through Congress on a voice vote. But this
bill goes too far. It halts the progress of medical research by banning
somatic cell nuclear transfer for research and medical treatments. This
research has promise for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,
diabetes and others. This bill criminalizes a scientific research
process that takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of
the researcher or the inability of this process to result in the birth
of a cloned child. The penalty for violating these provisions includes
sanctions of a criminal fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years and
a civil penalty of at least $1 million. This would represent an
unprecedented intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific
process.
I think the science teachers of America may be pretty appalled at
what they hear and see on this floor today. I think much that has been
said and will be said reflects a profound ignorance about the science,
about the current role of the FDA in their regulatory practices, but
also Americans need to ask themselves why the proponents of this bill
want to ban this research, and I think the answer is simple: They want
to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country.

{time} 1430

This country reflects the diverse religious beliefs found all over
the world. Some, like the authors of this bill, believe that all
cloning is wrong. Others believe that research cloning should be
allowed. These are all legitimate views, but I think it is wrong to use
the political power of one group to criminalize the beliefs of another.
To better understand the real issue involved in this debate, it is
important to understand what research cloning is. Somatic cell nuclear
transfer has six steps: a woman donates an egg; a patient donates a
somatic cell, like a skin cell; the nucleus is removed from the egg;
the nucleus from the patient's skin cell is inserted into the egg; the
egg is then stimulated to induce it to divide; the egg begins to
divide, creating stem cells that are identical to the patient's own
cells.
So we are talking about the creation of cells in a petri dish, not
bringing a child into this world. That is why research cloning is
supported by some of the most ardent pro-life conservatives like
Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack, who said, ``Anyone
who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for
harm done to real live postnatal sentient beings who might be helped by
this research.''
Why is this process important? Scientists believe that these stem
cells are less likely to be rejected after transplant since they have
the same genetic properties as the recipient. They could also help
scientists learn why diseases occur. They also have important
advantages over adult stem cells which cannot develop into as many cell
types and which cannot be generated in the same quantities in the lab.
That is why this bill is opposed by almost every organization
representing patients and researchers, including Juvenile Diabetes
Research Foundation, the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, the
Biotechnology Industry Association, the Society for Women's Health
Research, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and
the Alliance for Aging Research.
I have heard the words that we are going down a ``slippery slope''
used by the proponents of this bill, but in fact the slippery slope is
that being suggested by those who call six cells in a petri dish the
equivalent of me or my mother. If it is murder to use somatic cell
transfer and to create six cells for research purposes, then it must
also be mass murder to have in vitro fertilization and discard the
cells that are not later utilized by the couple using IVF. So the
slippery slope is to eliminate in vitro fertilization in this country.
This debate really boils down to one question: Should an embryonic
stem cell with no central nervous system, no chance of developing into
a fetus have the same rights as a child suffering

[[Page H1409]]

from juvenile diabetes? I do not think so. I urge you not to rob sick
Americans of their hope for a cure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds the Members that it is not in order
to cite the views of sitting Senators.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), our chairman, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the manufacture of cloned human beings alarms an
overwhelming majority of Americans. The theoretical discussion
surrounding the cloning of humans has raised profound ethical and legal
issues. Currently, no clear regulations exist in the United States that
would prevent a private group from attempting to create a human clone.
H.R. 534 would prevent experimental procedures that the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission, the NBAC, called scientifically and
ethically objectionable. The NBAC unanimously concluded that given the
state of science, ``any attempt to create a child using somatic cell
nuclear transfer, whether in the public or private sector, is uncertain
in its outcome, is unacceptably dangerous to the fetus and, therefore,
morally unacceptable.'' In fact, virtually every widely known and
respected organization that has taken a position on reproductive human
cloning flatly opposes the notion because of the extreme ethical and
moral concerns.
Cloning of human beings carries massive risks of producing unhealthy,
abnormal, malformed children. The only way to prevent this from
happening is to adopt the restrictions on human cloning set forth in
H.R. 534. As Professor Bradley of the Notre Dame School of Law
testified last Congress, ``The only effective way to prohibit human
reproductive cloning is to prohibit all human cloning.'' Any other
approach would allow for stockpiles of cloned human embryos to be
produced, bought, and sold without restrictions. Implantation of cloned
embryos, a relatively simple procedure, would inevitably occur.
Attempts to enforce a cloning ban would prove virtually impossible to
monitor. The last time Congress dealt with the issue of human cloning,
an editorial in the Washington Post stated: ``It is unnecessary to be
against abortion rights or to believe human life literally begins at
conception to be deeply alarmed by the notion of scientists purposely
causing conceptions in a context entirely divorced from even the
potential of reproduction.'' The editorial went on to characterize the
creation of embryos solely for research as unconscionable.
It is important to note that research currently being done using
adult stem cells, which I support, is showing great progress. I believe
this relatively new area of research, Mr. Chairman, deserves
appropriate funding and necessary scientific resources to discover its
complete potential. To divert resources from this promising research to
controversial procedures, such as therapeutic cloning, may
inadvertently push an effective cure farther out of reach.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 534, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this dangerous and
ill considered legislation. Rather than protecting the sanctity of
human life, this legislation will needlessly sentence untold
generations of innocent human beings to premature death and lifetimes
of suffering. There is no disagreement that it is immoral to use
cloning to create human beings and that that ought to be prohibited.
The evidence from research involving cloned animals is that such
efforts can result in severe deformities, premature aging and death. It
is wrong to willfully inflict this kind of suffering on people and it
should not be permitted. If this bill prohibited only that kind of
activity, we would have no disagreement and no debate.
It is precisely because we abhor the suffering that would result from
using cloning techniques for human reproduction that it is also clearly
immoral to criminalize using so-called therapeutic cloning, which
scientists call somatic cell nuclear transfer, for medical research and
medical treatment. The fruits of this research promise cures for
Parkinson's disease, chronic heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis,
spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, brain
damage, lupus, combined immunodeficiency, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell
disease, to name just a few.
We will hear that we must make criminal the creation of human life in
order to destroy that human life to produce stem cells. But that
assumes that a one-celled organism or a several-celled embryo is a
human being. If it is, then therapeutic cloning is immoral. If a
several-celled embryo is not a human being, then therapeutic cloning is
not only not immoral but is profoundly moral, as it will be used to
save and prolong human lives.
So what is this bill really about? It would write into our criminal
law a particular religious view that holds that a few cells in a petri
dish are moral equivalents to a fully developed human being or in fact
a human being, and that no benefit to those suffering and dying from
terrible diseases would justify such research, would justify the
destruction of a several-celled embryo.
People are certainly entitled to their religious beliefs, but they
are not entitled to inflict suffering on the sick and death on the ill
and enforce the imposition of their religious beliefs on others using
$1 million fines and 10-year prison sentences. In fact, there are many
other religious perspectives that disagree with the religious
perspective that is the only justification for this bill.
As the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and the Rabbinical
Council of America put it in a letter to President Bush: ``The
potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing
human life from the traditional Jewish perspective. Moreover, our
rabbinic authorities inform us that an isolated fertilized egg does not
enjoy the full status of personhood and its attendant protections.
Thus, if embryonic stem cell research can help us preserve and heal
humans with greater success and does not require or encourage the
destruction of life in the process, it ought to be pursued.'' This
opinion comes from a religious community that does not favor legalized
abortion, which should put to rest the view that this is a debate about
abortion. It is not. It is rather a debate about whether anyone should
be allowed to use our criminal laws to impose their particular
religious view on the vast majority of Americans who may not share that
moral or religious outlook.
Muslim groups, Mormons, some mainline Protestant denominations
including the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (USA)
support stem cell research. It is wrong to cause so much suffering in
the name of protecting the sanctity of human life. It is especially
wrong to use the criminal code to impose that narrowly held view on the
innocent and the vulnerable. It is said that therapeutic cloning has
nothing to do with the therapeutic use of stem cells, but it may very
well be that only embryonic stem cells produced by therapeutic cloning
can overcome the body's immune defenses in order to be able to cure a
disease; and the same people who oppose therapeutic cloning oppose the
use of embryonic stem cells for the same reason: their religious view
that the several-celled embryo from which the embryonic stem cells are
derived is a human being. They are entitled to their belief. They are
not entitled to impose that religious belief on the entire country at
the cost of who-knows-how-many lives.
It is said that allowing therapeutic cloning will inevitably lead to
reproductive cloning, but research and medical practice can be
regulated and can be policed. We have heard today that this is a moral
question. Yes, in part. It is immoral to prohibit medical research and
treatment that can save lives. It is immoral to make it criminal, as
this bill would do, to import a cancer vaccine from a foreign country
if that vaccine was produced through therapeutic cloning in a foreign
country. And it is immorally arrogant, immorally arrogant to think that
only one religious view is valid or moral and that one has the right to
use political

[[Page H1410]]

power to impose that religious view on the rest of the American people
who may hold different religious views. That is what this bill would
do. That is why this is an immoral bill unless amended to apply only to
reproductive cloning.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. As I
recall, when Moses came down from the mountain, he had 10 commandments
with him. One of them said thou shalt not murder and the other said
thou shalt not steal, and I do not think anybody in their right mind
would say that criminal laws saying that murder and theft are criminal
in nature is imposing religious views on anybody. They are both wrong;
they are both criminal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act. This legislation would ban any use of cloning
to create human embryos. In contrast, agreeing with the Greenwood
substitute would permit, indeed would encourage the creation of any
number of human embryos by cloning for the purpose of harvesting their
parts. The substitute even leaves open the door, as artificial womb
technology advances, to growing cloned humans to later stages of fetal
development for the harvesting of their tissues and organs as has
already been done with cloned cows and mice.
As we seek to improve human life, we must always preserve human
dignity, and therefore we must preclude human cloning by stopping it
before it starts. Creating, killing, and harvesting one human being in
the service of others raises significant ethical and moral concerns. As
a society, are we willing to endorse a policy that allows the creation
of human life so that it can then be destroyed? Cloning is a dangerous
assault on human life. It is an affront to human dignity. It is not a
policy that should be supported by the United States Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 534 and oppose the Greenwood
amendment.
I include for the Record this letter from the National Right to Life
group.

National Right to Life Letter,

February 21, 2003.
Re Greenwood embryo-farms substitute amendment vs. Weldon-
Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act.

Dear Member of Congress: On Thursday, February 27, the
House of Representatives will choose between the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), authored by Congressmen
Weldon and Stupak, and a radically different--indeed,
antihetical--substitute amendment to be offered by
Congressman Greenwood. The National Right to Life Committee
(NRLC) supports H.R. 534. Because enactment of the Greenwood
policy would be a giant step in the pro-cloning direction--it
would give the green light to what President Bush called
human ``embryo farms''--NRLC strongly urges you to vote
``no'' on the Greenwood Substitute. The roll call on the
Greenwood Substitute will be included as a key vote in the
NRLC congressional scorecard for 2003.
The Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534), which NRLC supports,
would ban any use of cloning to create human embryos. In
contrast, the Greenwood Substitute would permit (indeed,
would encourage) the creation of any number of human embryos
by cloning for the purpose of harvesting their parts. The
substitute even leaves open the door--as artificial womb
technology advances--to growing cloned humans to later stages
of fetal development for the harvesting of their tissues and
organs, as has already been done with cloned cows and mice.
Supporters of the Greenwood Substitute assert that it would
``ban reproductive cloning,'' but this claim is highly
misleading, because the Greenwood Substitute does not
restrict the actual act of human cloning--the use of somatic
cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to create human embryos. Rather,
the Greenwood Substitute would seek to impede the initiation
of a pregnancy. Thus, the Greenwood Substitute bans not human
cloning but the survival of human clones, which is a very
different matter.
When Mr. Greenwood originally offered his pro-embryo-
farming substitute during consideration of the Weldon-Stupak
bill in 2001, Dr. Charles Krauthammer wrote a powerful
column, ``A Nightmare of a Bill,'' pointing out its radical
implications: www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/Krauthammer
%20on%20Greenwood%20Amendment.pdf
On July 31, 2001, the House rejected the Greenwood
Substitute (roll call No. 302), before approving the Weldon-
Stupak bill by a margin of 265-162 (roll call No. 304).
When language similar to the Greenwood Substitute was
proposed in the Senate, the Bush Administration made it clear
that any such clone-and-kill legislation would face a veto.
(See the letter from HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's to
Senator Sam Brownback, here: http://www.nrlc.org/
killing_embryos/ThompsontoBrownback.pdf)
Moreover, the Justice Department submitted testimony
explaining that once countless human embryos are created by
cloning, there would be no practical way to enforce the
prohibition on transferring such embryos into wombs. The
testimony is here: http://www.nrcl.org/killing_embryos/
Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf.
We would add that in our view, there also would be no
ethical way to enforce such a prohibition, which would amount
to a federal law requiring the death of a class of members of
the species Homo sapiens.
On January 22, President Bush said, ``I also urge the
Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to
destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be
used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28
State of the Union address, the President's call to act
before what he has aptly called human ``embryo farms'' open
for business in the United States.
Some supporters of the Greenwood Substitute claim that it
would allow only ``research on unfertilized eggs,'' and that
cloning does not really create a human embryo. But this is
nonsense. Authorities as diverse as President Clinton's
bioethics panel, NIH, and research that somatic cell nuclear
transfer (SCNT) with human genetic material will create human
embryos--until recently, when they decided to try to hide the
embryo for political purposes. (Here are some quotes from
various pro-cloning and neutral authorities:http://
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/factsheetembryo.html)
The Weldon-Stupak bill does not place any restrictions on
research on human ``eggs,'' unfertilized or otherwise. As any
middle school biology student knows any dictionary will
confirm, a human ``egg'' (ovum) is a gamete cell, possessing
only 23 chromosomes. While an egg cell is produced by the
female, the egg cell itself has no sex. But once one has a
complete nucleus that is activated (whether through sexual
fertilization somatic cell nuclear transfer), then one had a
developing embryo, not an ``egg cell.'' There is no such
thing as a five-day-old or two-week-old ``egg'' that is
developing, has 46 chromosomes, and may as easily be male or
female. That describes only a human embryo. As for the claim
that the Greenwood Substitute would only permit research on
``unfertilized'' embryos, this is just another word trick
aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos produced by
cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is what
cloning is--asexual reproduction, reproduction, without
fertilization by sperm. Every cloned animal in the world was
``unfertilized'' from the one-celled embryo stage, and every
one of them will be ``unfertilized'' on the day they die. And
if a member of the species Homo sapiens is created by
cloning, is implanted in a womb, is born, and lives to be 25
years old, she will still be ``unfertilized.'' But she will
be human.
Some supporters of the Greenwood Substitute claim that the
Welden-Stupak bill DNA. This is false. The Weldon-Stupak bill
(at Section 2, (d)) explicitly allows the use of cloning
techniques to produce cells, tissues, or organs, whenever
this can be done without first creating a human embryo.
Moreover, the Weldon-Stupak bill does not speak to the
separate issue of the use of frozen human embryos, created
through in vitro fertilization, for medical research on stem
cells or for any other research purposes. The restrictions of
the Weldon-Stupak bill apply only to: (1) the use of the
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique, to
produce (2) a human embryo.
Despite the efforts of some to confuse the cloning debate
with the separate issue of stem cell research, even Mr.
Greenwood conceded, during the 2001 debate, ``The gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor
to ban embryonic stem cell research.''
A more detailed critique of the misleading claims that some
are making on behalf of the Greenwood Substitute and the
similar Hatch-Feinstein bill (S. 303) is posted here: http://
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/cloningbackrounder021003.html
In conclusion, NRLC strongly urges that you oppose the
Greenwood Substitute, and support without amendment the
Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534). Thank
you for your consideration of NRLC's perspective on this
critical issue.
Sincerely,

Douglas Johnson,

Legislative Director,
National Right to Life Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).

{time} 1445

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if one is quoting from Moses, one might
note that in the same five books of Moses that contain the Ten
Commandments there is a passage that says if a man smites a woman and
she die, he shall surely die, and if he smites her and her fetus dies,
she shall pay monetary compensation, showing at least the Biblical view
that a fetus at some stage of development is not a person and not
subject to being murdered.

[[Page H1411]]

The heart of this debate is whether you are creating a human being
when you are creating an embryo.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a Member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, 104 years ago today, on February 27, 1899,
the man who would make one of the most important discoveries in modern
medicine was born in the town of West Pembroke, Maine. His name was
Charles H. Best, and he would help identify insulin, the treatment that
has saved the lives of millions of diabetics around the world. Let us
not celebrate Dr. Best's birthday today by voting to block scientific
research that aims to cure diabetes in our lifetime.
The bill before the House is called the Human Cloning Prohibition Act
of 2003. This legislation could also be named the Impede Stem Cell
Research Act of 2003. This proposal would bar the creation of some of
the stem cells that our Nation's top scientists believe could help cure
many devastating diseases.
The National Institutes of Health, for example, has found that stem
cells can be coaxed into producing insulin, offering a possible cure
for diabetes. According to the NIH, stem cells may also help restore
lost function to people who are paralyzed and may strengthen the heart
muscles of people who have had severe heart attacks.
There are several ways to make stem cells. One of the most promising
ways uses a patient's own DNA via a process called therapeutic cloning.
The National Academy of Sciences has found that this approach offers
great potential to obtain stem cells to treat many diseases, including
Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disorders, rheumatoid arthritis.
Countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, have not only
found this research to be promising, but are planning to invest in it.
Not the United States. In the summer of 2001, President Bush told the
American people that he would permit Federal funding of research on 64
existing stem cell lines. Today, the NIH says that just 9 are actually
available to researchers. President Bush's decision did not strike a
fair balance. To the contrary, it has starved promising research to
satisfy an ideological agenda.
The legislation before us would actually criminalize stem cell
research based on therapeutic cloning. Does it make any sense to lock
up scientists who are seeking cures for diseases? Not even a majority
of President Bush's handpicked Ethics Advisory Committee reached the
conclusion that the creation of stem cells through therapeutic cloning
is unethical. Yet this bill would treat scientists trying to save lives
as if they were drug dealers.
There is a far better alternative. We will have before us a
substitute amendment. It would outlaw cloning of human embryos for the
purpose of producing a child. That issue is not in dispute. But the
substitute would not also stop promising microscopic stem cell
research. This substitute strikes a balance that respects both the
sanctity of life and the needs of the living. A similar balance was
struck recently in California law passed to encourage life-saving
research using stem cells.
I urge my colleagues to remember Dr. Best's birthday today. Insulin
transformed medicine over the past century. We should give scientists
the tools and room to make new miracles in the next one.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the chairman
for yielding me time and for his hard work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the bill before us, I am pleased to
see the House quickly acting on this important bill. Today we are
taking an important step in affirming the uniqueness and dignity of
every human being.
Human cloning represents the first footstep into a dark wilderness
from which we may never emerge. University of Chicago Professor Leon
Kass, who is also the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics,
has written that human cloning would be a fateful step toward ``making
man himself simply another one of the man-made things. Human nature
becomes merely the last part of nature to succumb to the technological
project which turns all of nature into raw material at human
disposal.''
The last century and a half is blood-soaked with examples of what
happens when men are subjugated to the will of other men. In our vain
quest for immortality, will we simply regard cloned babies as
meaningless blobs of cells and tissue mass that we can dispose of
without any burden to our conscience?
For those who say we should create embryos for medical research, my
own father suffers from Parkinson's disease. While I recognize the
agony of so many Americans with devastating illnesses and injuries, we
must search for ways to ease their suffering without destroying human
life. We must promote methods of scientific research that increase our
quality of life without forsaking the value of human life in its most
vulnerable form.
Cloning diminishes human reproduction from a loving act between two
parents to a cold exercise of producing parentless children. Life is a
gift. It is not ours to manufacture to our predetermined criteria. I
shudder to think of the consequences of turning the creation into the
creator.
If we allow human cloning to proceed as a mainstream scientific
endeavor, we may soon find out what C.S. Lewis meant when he observed,
``Man's conquest of nature would result in the abolition of man.''
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would note before yielding to my colleague from
California a letter received from the Senior Pastor of the Riverside
Baptist Church and the Legislative Director of the United Church of
Christ, where it is said, ``While it is imperative that we as a Nation
and as a people of faith proceed with caution, it is also important
that we do what we can to alleviate the suffering of others. We believe
that to ban this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.''
I think it is important that we recognize the diversity of religious
viewpoints on when life begins and not impose just one viewpoint on the
country.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter referred to.

February 26, 2003.
Hon. James Greenwood,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Greenwood: As members of the religious
community, we would like to commend you for your leadership
on stem cell research. Your recognition of the great promise
of stem cell research and your support for legislation that
allows therapeutic cloning offer great hope for those
suffering from juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and other
ailments.
This is a difficult issue for all of us, and we understand
the complex decision you face in considering any legislation
that involves human cloning. While it is imperative that we
as a nation and as people of faith proceed with great
caution, it is also important to do what we can to alleviate
the suffering of others. Therefore, we believe that to ban
this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.
Like most, we are opposed to the practice of reproductive
human cloning. A ban on this practice would be both welcome
and appropriate. Therapeutic cloning, however, requires
careful review. We are pleased that you considered this issue
in its entirety and took into account the countless
individuals who could be saved and whose pain could be
alleviated by this medical research. We have a duty to do
what we can to help our fellow man, and you have demonstrated
your commitment to doing so through your leadership on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Hershel Billet,
President, Rabbinical Council of America, New York, NY.
Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell,
Director of Religion, Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua,
NY.
Rev. Dr. Michael Bledsoe,
Senior Pastor, Riverside Baptist Church, Adjunct Professor,
Howard University School of Divinity, Washington, DC.
Rev. Dr. Pat Conover,
Legislative Director, United Church of Christ, Justice and
Witness Ministries, Washington, DC.
Rev. Dr. Charles S. Milligan,

[[Page H1412]]

Ordained Minister, United Church of Christ, Professor
Emeritus, Iliff School of Theology, Theologian in Residence,
Washington Park UCC Church, Denver, CO.
Rev. Dr. George F. Regas,
Rector Emeritus, All Saints Church, Pasadena, CA.
Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman,
Former Senior Minister, Foundry United Methodist Church,
Washington, DC.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to use these 3 minutes to talk about the science
that the substitute, H.R. 801, preserves, and exactly what somatic cell
nuclear transfer is.
The American people are tuned in today and they are listening to this
discussion and they deserve to get some facts.
First, a woman donates an egg cell and a patient donates a skin cell.
The nucleus is removed from the woman's egg cell and in its place the
nucleus from the patient's skin cell is inserted. The egg is then
stimulated to induce it to divide. Once the egg divides, it begins
creating stem cells that are identical to the patient's own cells.
This is regenerative medicine, it is not fertilization. Children are
created by the fertilization of an egg cell by sperm, not by chemical
stimulation.
Stem cell research is research on the most fundamental part of the
human system, cells that can become any other type of cell in the body.
Because of their ability to develop into liver cells, pancreatic cells,
spinal cells, any kind of cell, stem cells are critical to researchers
who are trying to cure a whole host of diseases.
What researchers are focusing on today is how these stem cells become
other types of cells. There are some types of protein or chemicals that
stimulate stem cells to become spinal cells. Scientists just do not
know what proteins or chemicals they are.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning is an important
part of this process because scientists are still learning how to use
the cell from inside the patient's cheek to turn it back into a stem
cell, and then reprogram it to become a liver cell that revitalizes the
liver damaged by cancer. That is what this discussion is about today.
There are two proposals. They both outlaw human cloning. It is
unethical. It is wrong. We all agree to that. But only one bill
preserves science and research to accomplish what I just outlined.
So I urge my colleagues to protect the research. Do not criminalize
scientists. That would be wrong in our great Nation. We can preserve
and protect the sanctity of what we want to protect, to outlaw human
cloning, but we should move ahead and be the America that we have
always been, to embrace research, to embrace innovation and to help
those who are suffering in our country today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute and to
oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, what we just heard seems to indicate that the material
we are talking about is ``just an egg.'' I would like to quote from Dr.
John Gerhart, who is on the other side of this issue, he comes from
Johns Hopkins University, at a press conference that was held yesterday
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the supporters
of his amendment.
Dr. Gerhart said, ``I contend it is an embryo. I don't think anybody
is saying that it is just an egg.''
This follows along with what President Clinton's National Bioethics
Advisory Commission stated in June of 1997. The executive summary says,
``The Commission begins its discussions fully recognizing that any
effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated
egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to
be implanted in utero and developed to term.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act.
People agree that cloning humans is wrong. The recent scare that we
all went through regarding an organization called Clonaid brought
revulsion to everyone who heard the story that there may have been a
cloned embryo implanted into a woman and there may be a child as a
result. People across the globe were upset by this possibility.
The only way for us to avoid this possibility is to completely ban
cloning. Once that clone is created, how do we control what is done
with that embryo? The only effective means to prevent having a cloned
human is to ban cloning.
As for the claims we have heard today as for the need for this
process to cure disease, there is no evidence that therapeutic cloning
has produced a single cure. Not only has it failed in animal research,
it has failed also in human research.
Scientific ethics requires that we draw a line. We draw a line in
research every day as far as science goes. The fear that we could tread
in territory that would create a cloned human being is enough to
prevent us from allowing cloning at all.
We need to maintain these ethical principles that guide scientific
research and inquiries. Frankly, the costs are too high to our society
if we do not do it. We have heard the statistic before that between 95
and 98 percent of cloning in animals fails. This could translate into
countless children who would be products of cloning who would be born
with serious birth defects, debilitating diseases, and shortened,
terrible lives.
Mr. Chairman, the only solution is to support this bill as it is and
to reject the alternative. H.R. 534 is the only way to prevent such
horrible ideas.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I do serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and
confess that I have talked to a number of my colleagues, not a single
one of which has said to me that they believe in human cloning. I think
if there were a bill on the floor that prohibited human cloning, it
would pass 435 to 0.

{time} 1500

To me, it is somewhat distressing that this bill has been postured in
much the same political context as the abortion debate around the
question of when life begins and in a way that would make it impossible
to do any kind of cloning, even for research or therapeutic research
purposes. And I think the thing that is so distressing about that is
that every single one of us knows someone who needs the benefit of
science to come up with a therapy, a treatment that could prevent or
stop the progress of a distressing disease; and most of the promise is
in the area that this bill would prohibit.
So I just want to appeal to those people who would like to make this
a political issue, a debate about when life begins, that I think
different religions have different beliefs about that, and different
individuals have different beliefs about that. The thing that I hope we
all agree on is that when research advancements, therapeutic or
otherwise, can make it possible for people to live their lives with
higher quality and for longer periods of time, or to keep them from
dying, we ought to allow that kind of research to progress and not get
into a political debate that serves somebody's political purpose.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of the bill.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to commend him for his leadership on
this very, very important and critical issue.
As I mentioned in the debate on the rule, the science on so-called
therapeutic cloning is going nowhere, so

[[Page H1413]]

why do all of these scientists say that they want to allow embryo
cloning? Why do all of these biotechnology companies say they want to
allow embryo cloning, even though the chairman of Geron, Thomas Okarma,
is quoted on the issue of therapeutic cloning, and he is quoted as
saying, ``The odds favoring success are vanishingly small, and the
costs are daunting. It would take thousands of human eggs on an
assembly line to produce a custom therapy for a single person.''
He goes on to say, ``This process is a nonstarter.''
So if this therapeutic cloning is such a nonstarter as Okarma says,
why do the people in the biotech industries, why do all of these
scientists say we have to allow this, we have to make this legal? What
is the rationale behind all of this?
I will tell my colleagues what they want to do. They want to create
human models of disease. Research scientists today in America, if they
want to do research on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, they buy
mice and they buy rats that have been engineered to manifest that
disease, and what they want to do is they want to create human beings
that are engineered to manifest these diseases.
Now, can we imagine that? They want to have shelves with diseases on
them filled with human embryos and sell them for a profit to research
labs, and that is where we are going with this issue.
Some people get up and ridicule this concept of a slippery slope, but
that is exactly what we are on. Because I will tell my colleagues what
is next. The artificial womb technology is there. It is available to us
today. One can take these embryos and put them in these baths and one
can grow them well beyond the embryonic stage, and that will be the
next thing we will be debating and talking about in this Chamber if the
positions held by some people who want to allow embryo cloning are
allowed to move forward.
These are the same exact arguments that occurred in this House on
fetal tissue research 10 years ago; and people got up and claimed, we
have to allow this, it is the great potential of the future. It turned
out to be an absolute bust. It was a disaster. It went absolutely
nowhere. Therapeutic cloning is going nowhere. It has been a year and a
half since we originally debated this issue. I placed a mountain of
evidence before this body here showing that the adult stem cells are
working out great, the embryo stem cells are going nowhere, the cloned
stem cells are going absolutely nowhere. So why are we still here? Why
are we debating this issue? It is because there are people who want to
create human models of disease that they can sell for a profit. It is
an abomination.
Vote for this bill. Vote against the substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished scientist and
Member of this House.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, as a scientist, I must say extreme conviction
seems to be crowding out understanding here today. I would like to cut
through the scientific rhetoric of this biomedical research technique
and discuss the real progress in this area. But in the limited time
available, let me draw the choice as sharply as possible.
Down one road we see potential therapeutic cloning to help cure
diseases from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's; down the other road we see
unprecedented criminalization of scientific research.
Now, therapeutic cloning is not some far-out technique conducted on
the fringe of the scientific community. These researchers are not
crazed Dr. Frankensteins. They are people like our neighbors, highly
ethical who are working hard to save lives, to relieve suffering, to
improve the quality of life. Let us not make them criminals.
Now, to draw the distinction here, particularly referring to my
colleague's reference to a slippery slope, in vitro fertilization has
been hailed as a miracle of modern science allowing millions of
American couples to conceive. However, by necessity of the in vitro
fertilization procedure, some human embryos are created that will not
be given the chance to develop into babies. Are we to say here today
that we want to outlaw in vitro fertilization? IVF is not only
accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced. It is a God send for
millions of families. Yes, millions of families. Therapeutic cloning is
no more ethically objectionable than IVF.
Now, I asked the proponents of this bill, do you question the ethics
of the parents of those million Americans alive today through the
miracle of IVF? They may, but let us not command their beliefs to
become law.
The majority of my constituents, the majority of Americans, all
scientific researchers I know, agree that human reproductive cloning
would be unsafe, unethical, and should not be allowed. The Greenwood
substitute is every bit as effective as H.R. 534 in keeping scientists
from creating genetic duplicates of people. Regardless of which bill is
passed today, millions of human embryos will be created.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 534, the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act, a bill to ban all types of human
cloning.
I believe human cloning is ethically and morally wrong. It is an
unjust experiment whereby human beings are created and destroyed solely
for the purpose of research. Human beings cannot be treated as material
used for scientific research, and the cloning of human babies turns the
natural procreation process into the simple manufacturing of human
beings.
It has been determined that human cloning is entirely unsafe to
practice on human beings. Most scientists agree that human cloning
poses a serious risk of producing children who are stillborn,
unhealthy, severely malformed, or disabled.
The fact is, in animal cloning trials, 95 to 98 percent of all
cloning attempts have ended in failure, and almost all successfully
cloned animals have genetic abnormalities. In fact, Dolly, the infamous
cloned sheep, died this past Valentine's Day of a lung disease she
acquired before she was even born, and lived only half of the normal
life expectancy for a sheep. Why would we even consider for a moment
that cloning is safe for humans?
I agree with President Bush when he stated no human life should be
started or ended as an object of an experiment.
When debating this issue, we must ask the ethical question: Are we
created in God's image, or are we created in our own? Today, this House
has a unique opportunity to shut the door on this invasive procedure to
women and an affront to humanity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor
of the Weldon bill, to set a precedent for morality and the sanctity of
humanity.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a leader of the New Democrats
and someone who has distinguished himself on the issue of medical
research.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
the leadership that she has shown on this issue as well.
Mr. Chairman, let us be clear again yet today. This is not a fight
about banning human cloning. We all agree cloning for purposes of
creating another human being is wrong and it should be prohibited.
Instead, what we are arguing about is allowing scientific research to
continue that can lead to cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes,
spinal cord injuries. Unfortunately, H.R. 534's approach would take a
Howitzer after a house fly.
What about bone marrow transplants? What about in vitro
fertilization? If we logically extend the argument for H.R. 534, that
is next.
Some of the most advanced and exciting stem cell research in the
world is occurring at the University of Wisconsin. I have had the
opportunity over a few occasions to visit their research department;
and while the research they are doing there itself is exciting, what is
most impressive is how much in tandem the researchers of the science
and the ethics department work.
What most people do not realize on this subject is that therapeutic
stem cell research is already a heavily regulated industry. The FDA has
strict requirements on what they can and cannot do.

[[Page H1414]]

But my main point is this: we need to do this if for no other reason
than to provide leadership for the rest of the world. I am more
comfortable knowing that our country, our researchers, our FDA is
providing oversight and guidance on this discovery which could lead
almost anywhere. Lets make sure that with our leadership, the
discoveries will be used for the betterment of human kind rather than
for nefarious purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the substitute and rejection of H.R.
534.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 534 and speak
against the substitute. I believe that combining a somatic nucleus with
a donor cell is inherently dangerous. It is inhumane to create a life
form that is vulnerable to a host of disabilities and genetic
malformations.
As a doctor, I find it very difficult to support a reckless procedure
whose scientific merits are unsound, at best. Even more pernicious are
the implications that this substitute amendment would have for
humanity. So-called therapeutic cloning is virtually identical to
reproductive cloning.
Human cloning for reproduction will result in high failure rates.
What do those words mean, a high failure rate? They mean that children
will be produced that are stillborn, malformed, and disabled.
The proponents of this substitute would make us think that stem cell
research would be entirely restricted. As a scientist, successful
alternatives such as adult stem cell research and umbilical cord stem
cell research have already been used successfully in human trials. We
must prohibit both human somatic nuclear transfer and research cloning.
The country is looking for us for leadership on this very important
issue. Anything short of a complete prohibition is unacceptable. I urge
my colleagues to vote against the substitute and for H.R. 534.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has led efforts to promote science in
this regard.

{time} 1515

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534
and in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute. H.R. 534 squashes
the hopes of parents and their families who wake up every day hoping
cures to the ailments for which they suffer will have been found.
I speak for Teresa, a mom from my district who urged me to support
ongoing somatic cell nuclear transfer research. She told me about her
13-year-old son, Andrew, with type I diabetes who has to check his
blood sugar level and inject himself with insulin repeatedly throughout
the day and night. ``Even with the most vigilant care, he is bound to
suffer traumatic complications from this horrible disease. No child
should have to deal with a condition like this.''
I speak for my dear friend, Bonnie Wilson, and her daughter,
Jennifer, who also lives every day with juvenile diabetes.
Fortunately, doctors are learning more every day about how to treat
and eventually cure diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Yet, H.R. 534 aims to
take away these research opportunities, and in the end, take hope from
Teresa and Andrew, Bonnie and Jennifer.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address some comments made earlier
in the debate where a vote for this bill was characterized as
eliminating the only hope for the suffering and the dying. I just hope
that that is an insensitive representation, and not based on a true
understanding of the issue.
By voting for this bill, Members are not casting themselves as
scientific Luddites nor moral zealots; they are merely saying there are
alternatives that are existent in the current scientific community that
are relevant to developing the cures and promises that have been held
out by that of embryonic research but not yet fulfilled.
Much of the limitations on embryonic research's success has come from
the results of cellular meiosis. When the cell has divided, those
genetic defaults it would sometimes trigger that were developed to
terminate are artificially preserved, thereby limiting the
effectiveness of the embryonic cell line, which has been touted as the
only hope for medical survivability.
Other than that, placental embryonic and cord blood research has
moved far beyond clinical research, and in fact now there is a
corporation within my own district that is in the process of marketing
products. For example, a corneal implant used after surgery produced
from stem cells, put over the surgical incision, does not have to be
removed because it is incorporated into the body. Stem cells from
placental research inserted after a myocardial infarction has provided
100 percent recovery of heart function. The list goes on and on and on.
By voting for this bill, Members are not religious zealots, not
scientific Luddites, but they are merely saying that the issue of
cloning is entirely different from stem cell research. There are
avenues highly successful, highly provable, and I can take anyone who
cares to see it to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and walk through the halls
of this facility where this research has moved beyond where human
suffering has been responded to and addressed, and offers the hope and
promise that all of us seek with the passage of this bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, today we live in an age of exploding technological
advances. Many of these new technologies offer the potential to improve
the lives of people in the United States and around the world.
But, Mr. Chairman, some of this new technology also has the potential
to do great harm to our people and to our environment. All too often,
these dangers are magnified because the owners of technology are
primarily interested in how much money they can make, rather than the
betterment of society.
We have seen this in the area of genetically modified organisms that
are finding their way into our food supply in the U.S. The legislation
we are considering today concerns an even more important issue; namely,
the cloning of human life itself. While I support stem cell research,
the cloning of a human being for any purpose raises the deepest and
most profound ethical and moral questions: questions about the sanctity
or the uniqueness of each human person; questions about the evil of
eugenics and genetic engineering in humans; and, equally important,
questions about the ownership and use of cloned humans by an
unregulated corporate biotechnology industry motivated almost
exclusively by their quest for venture capital, short-term profits, and
higher stock prices.
The speed with which human cloning technology has developed thus far
has far outpaced our abilities as a society to wrestle with these
questions.
Mr. Chairman, technology should not drive ethics and morality in this
country and on this planet; ethics and morality should frame the
acceptable limits of our use of technology. That is why I strongly
support H.R. 534, which would ban all human cloning.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on
Commerce.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, there are few decisions more difficult than the one we
are making today. If it were simply a debate about human cloning, I
doubt that we would have one vote for it. I think the vote would be 435
to zero.
I think we are all troubled by the recent media reports by the
Raelians about attempting to clone a human being. Human cloning is a
horrifying practice that should be banned, and people like the Raelians
should be stopped.
But this legislation is more than human cloning. There is an exciting
field of research known as therapeutic cloning that can potentially
cure diseases and conditions such as diabetes,

[[Page H1415]]

Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, organ failure, Alzheimer's,
and other life-threatening illnesses. Who of us has not had a
constituent or family member touched by one of these illnesses so that
we would be willing to do whatever research possible to end their
suffering?
We have heard amazing testimony from scientific experts who have made
a compelling case for therapeutic cloning. They tell me that
individuals currently receiving organ transplants may endure toxic
immunosuppressive drugs in order to stay alive; but by cloning tissues
and organs, nerve cells and other cells, we can provide a genetic
duplicate that the body would not reject. If this technology is
developed, we could cure any disease that involves the damage or
deterioration of tissues and cells. There are very few diseases that do
not fall in this category. This is the most promising approach for
millions of Americans whose suffering could end if therapeutic cloning
is allowed. That is why I support the Greenwood substitute.
Many oppose cloning because they believe it is not allowed in their
religious beliefs. The Greenwood substitute prohibits human cloning but
it allows for our God-given intelligence to make our world a healthier
and safer and less painful place.
As Christians, I hope that is our mission and our prayer, to
eliminate human suffering. That is why I hope my colleagues will join
me in supporting the Greenwood substitute and give hope to these
individuals.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this bill. We have taken a
consensus and we all agree that human cloning should be outlawed and
warped it into a vehicle to impose one religious viewpoint on the
scientists of this country. Not only is this wrong, but it will force
scientists to flee our shores, will bring down the veil of ignorance to
our country, and will remove us as having the leading scientific edge
in the world for this biotechnology research.
I urge all Members to vote no.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, during this general debate we have
heard from the opponents of this legislation that scientific research
would come to a screeching halt if a ban on cloning of human embryos is
enacted. There would be no more stem cell research, there would be no
in vitro fertilization, and on and on and on.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill itself in section
302(d) says, and I quote, ``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.''
What this section says is that all of this type of scientific
research that is going on now will be able to continue as long as
cloned human embryos are not used. That is a big difference. If a
scientist wants to create human embryos and peddle them around the
world and around this country to make a profit, that will be
prohibited. But if a scientist wants to do scientific research,
including stem cell research, on material other than cloned human
embryos, which include adult stem cells, then that will be able to
continue to proceed.
This bill draws a line, a very reasonable line, between science and
ethics. That reasonable line is whether a cloned human embryo is used.
Should a cloned human embryo be created and used, yes, this bill
criminalizes it, as it should; but if the research uses any other
material besides cloned human embryos, the criminal penalties of this
bill do not apply, and that research will be able to proceed.
I would hope that the Members of this House will listen to the fine
points of this debate and ignore allegations that have been made that
are not contained in the bill, and pass it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I, like most Americans, am strongly opposed
to human cloning. It is wrong to try to duplicate human beings. But it
is important, as we ban human cloning, that we do not prevent
legitimate scientific research into life-saving therapies that can mean
so much to human life. All of us have friends who suffer from
Alzheimer's, diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's, heart disease, liver
failure, end-stage renal disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis,
burns, multiple sclerosis, brain damage, Lou Gehrig's disease and
lupus. Americans who suffer from these diseases should not be told that
Congress has stopped the search for a cure for their diseases, and that
they will have to move to another country to have any hope.
One of the great achievements of Congress in the last several years
has been to boost NIH funding to accelerate the discovery of cures for
many of these dread diseases. It would be a mistake to put NIH and
other leading research institutions in a legal straight-jacket that
prevented legitimate research.
Unfortunately, although the Weldon bill commendably bans human
cloning, it also cripples scientific research into potentially-life
saving therapies. That is why I am supporting the Greenwood bill, which
bans human cloning without harming other scientific research. The
Greenwood bill actually has tougher punishments for those who violate
its provisions than the Weldon bill does.
There is considerable confusion surrounding this debate. I have been
listening to many people with differing points of view, and read many
articles concerning the bills. One particularly touching conversation
was with a father whose own son has Type I diabetes, and whose
opposition to the human cloning and any related technology is so strong
that he is willing to forego research that could even save his own
son's life. For Middle Tennesseans, the debate is more confused because
Senator Bill Frist, M.D., has surprised the scientific community by
supporting the Weldon bill. It is interesting to note, however, that
Vanderbilt University, the institution where Dr. Frist worked before
entering politics, opposes the Weldon bill and supported the Greenwood
bill. The head of Princeton University, where Dr. Frist received his
training in pre-medical studies, also opposes the Weldon bill and
supports the Greenwood bill.
Having studied this issue closely, I think that the Greenwood bill
hits the target of banning human cloning, without harmful side-effects.
In past congressional debates, such as over research on DNA, Congress
was tempted to pass an overly broad ban, but, fortunately resisted such
temptation. Congress has another such opportunity today: to pass
legislation that achieves the objective of banning human cloning, with
out harming the health care of our people.
Finally, it was unfair to the Republican majority to require a vote
on this bill without having held any committee hearings or received any
testimony on it in this Congress. While it was considered in the
previous Congress, there are many new members who do not have the
benefit of those hearings, and even older member lack of updated
information that is available from the scientific community. It is a
serious mistake for Congress to rush complex legislation through
without any hearings and with minimal debate, especially when it could
have such a profound impact on the health of the American people.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534,
and in support of the Greenwood substitute.
Two years have passed since the House last considered this complex
issue. And in that time, scientists and physicians around the world
have made incredible strides in their efforts to understand and cure
diseases like Alzheimers, diabetes, and cancer. The work our scientists
are doing is truly remarkable and it holds the potential to alleviate
human suffering around the globe. Today, we are considering a bill,
which will leave our sickest patients hopeless at the expense of
politics.
I oppose reproductive human cloning because it is morally wrong. But,
H.R. 534 goes too far. The Weldon bill would stop all research
initiatives that rely on somatic nuclear cell transfers, just as we are
realizing to enormous benefits of this biomedical research. The
Greenwood substitute, in contrast, bans reproductive cloning while
allowing this critical research to continue.
As a representative of the Research Triangle Region of North
Carolina, I understand the importance of the research our scientists
are conducting. It has the potential to save the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people who suffer from a number of debilitating diseases.
The implications of passing H.R. 534 reach far beyond the highly
emotional and contentious debate of whether or not the creation of an
embryo to be used in medical research constitutes human life. This bill
criminalizes medical research that might be the only chance for a cure
for many terrible diseases. While the promise of this biomedical
research remains years away from being perfected and utilized, the
Greenwood substitute allows us to hold on to the hope that we may one
day find

[[Page H1416]]

a cure for leukemia, heart disease, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries,
and a host of other illnesses.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534 and vote for the Greenwood
substitute.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 534, the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. Human cloning is accomplished by
a technique called ``somatic cell nuclear transfer.'' One takes the
nucleus from a body (somatic) cell and transfers it into a female egg
which has its nuclear material removed. Using an electric current or
chemical stimulus, the cloned embryo beings to divide as does a
fertilized embryo. Thus, the product of human cloning would be a human
embryo, regardless of how the embryo will be used.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to human cloning for a variety of reasons.
When animals are cloned, 95-98 percent of the attempts end in failure,
and those that are successful have genetic abnormalities. Most
scientists will agree that human cloning poses a serious risk of
producing children who are stillborn, unhealthy, severely malformed or
disabled. Many opponents of this bill think the cloned embryos will
produce stem cells that can be used to cure a variety of ailments.
However, there are no models in animal cloning in which scientists
derived stem cells to cure the animals. The prospect of creating
clinical treatments from stem cells derived from cloned embryos is
completely speculative.
The attempt to perfect human cloning despite the high risks of injury
would constitute a violation of the fundamental principle of all human
research: DO NO HARM. To proceed on the basis that the eventual
benefits may outweigh the probable harms to woman and child is akin to
the Nazi experiments at Nuremberg. Efforts to create human beings by
cloning shift human reproduction into a manufacturing process in which
children are made in laboratories to preordained specifications and in
multiple copies.
Human cloning also poses a significant risk to women's health. In
order to create human embryos, great quantities of women's eggs will be
needed. To obtain eggs, women will be injected with supervulatory drugs
and then will undergo an invasive procedure. The risks of this
procedure are just starting to be documented. The side effects from
these injections are known to be abdominal pain and nausea, in three to
five percent of cases of hyperstimulation of the ovaries occurs,
causing severe abdominal pain, and on rare occasions surgery is
required which may leave the woman infertile.
Women of lower economic means are particular targets for
exploitation. Women may be paid to donate their eggs for failed human
cloning experiments. But it will not just be a few women who will be
needed. In order to generate enough cloned embryos to carry out
research on the scale that is envisioned, thousands of eggs will need
to be solicited from numerous women. Just to treat 16 million
Parkinson's patients, it is estimated that a minimum of 800 million
human eggs would be needed from a minimum of 80 million of childbearing
age.
I strongly support the development of cell and tissue-based therapies
based on research involving the tissue based on research involving the
cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human
embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.
Already, these scientific methods have enabled researchers to develop
innovative drugs to treat diseases such as breast cancer, and aid in
treatment techniques for injuries, such as cloning skin cells for skin
grafts. The bill I support restricts the use of cloning technology only
on human embryos.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that human life at every stage of biological
development is deserving of respect and protection, regardless of the
circumstances under which that human life was created. That is why I am
supporting H.R. 534 and will oppose Mr. Greenwood's substitute
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R.
534. This legislation involves an important public policy matter and
what many would call cutting edge scientific issue: human cloning.
We have not held hearings in which we discussed the ethics of cloning
and legislation proposals to impose federal control on the cloning
process. Yet, today we will vote on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act
of 2003, H.R. 534.
We all recognize that cloning is a fascinating and promising issue
but is certainly an area that needs to be fully explored. We must
carefully balance society's need for lifesaving scientific research
against numerous moral, ethical, social and scientific issues.
Reproductive cloning is almost universally opposed in Congress and the
majority of Americans are not comfortable with the prospect of a human
clone.
In our rush to ban reproductive cloning, there are some in Congress
who want to close the door on this new research technology, which may
provide critical medical advances. And, one of these innovative areas
is the promise of stem cell research. Stem cell research has the
potential to cure some of the most painful and deadly diseases
afflicting our population.
H.R. 534 would make it next to impossible to use stem cell lines to
research diseases which are more prevalent in people of particular
racial or ethnic groups, for example, diseases such as sickle cell
which afflict African-Americans, thalassemia which disproportionately
affects Asian-Americans, or Tay-Sachs which is prevalent in the Jewish
population.
After Congress considered this issue in the 107th Congress, President
Bush issued an order limiting stem cell research to the approximately
seventy stem cell lines existing as of August 9, 2001. A recent
Institute of Medicine study explained that because the cell lines
available to researchers are limited, they do not represent the genetic
diversity of the general population nor do they represent the diversity
of our population.
Diseases that plague minority populations are almost certainly not
represented in the 64 approved stem cell lines. On the uses of stem
cells, the National Institutes of Health described their medical
potential as enormous.
The legislation before us is so sweeping that it would not only ban
reproductive cloning but all uses of nuclear transfer--also known as
therapeutic cloning--for research or medical treatment.
H.R. 534 goes beyond banning reproductive cloning to banning research
in somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is that the bill would cut
off scientific developments that are granting hope to millions of
Americans who have been told there is no cure for their diseases.
I would note that the legislation's supporters would have us believe
that H.R. 534 has nothing to do with stem cell research and would not
disrupt scientific advances being made in this important and much-
discussed area. I disagree with this argument.
I strongly believe that we should provide an exemption for embryonic
cloning for the purpose of creating a genetically diverse stem cell
line.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, cloning for the purpose of reproduction
is wrong, and I am confident my colleagues agree. I am supporting a
proposal, offered as an amendment to H.R. 534, which clearly outlaws
human reproductive cloning while not closing the door on future
advancements in scientific research which have the potential to find
cures for degenerative and life threatening diseases. This research is
critical to advancing therapies and cures for diseases such as
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes, as well as conditions resulting
from spinal and head injuries.
Most egregious, the underlying bill will halt important research on
cures for these diseases, which kill over 3,000 Americans each year.
The bill goes so far as to even bar the importation of overseas medical
treatments developed using cell cloning techniques. Just because this
type of scientific research does not fit the ultra-conservative views
of some members of this body is no reason to withhold potentially life-
saving treatments from millions of Americans suffering from
debilitating and life threatening diseases. These citizens and their
families deserve better.
This bill is a misplaced application of religious doctrine, imposing
a narrowly held view of science and law on America. We can and should
provide guidelines that prevent reckless experimentation on the
development of humans and prohibit cloning for purposes of human
reproduction, but Congress should not overreach in this area.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I had been present, I
would have voted no on final passage and yes on the Democratic
substitute. I needed to return to my district earlier than planned
because of an urgent matter and because of the weather emergency.
I believe that this measure is simply going too far since it bans all
human cloning. This would lead to a terrible stifling of important
scientific research that could potentially have been conducted to save
the lives of countless human beings who suffer from degenerative and
life-threatening illness.
The bill is so extensive that it would not only ban reproductive
cloning but also therapeutic cloning for research or medical treatment.
Moreover, it would impede research that is designed to help those who
suffer from a variety of disease such as Alzheimer's, diabetes,
Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries.
The bill would make it nearly impossible for our country to benefit
from ongoing stem-cell research. Many people I have spoken with that
are informed on this subject argue that the technology banned by this
bill is vital to any breakthrough in the use of these ``master'' stem
cells. Enactment of this legislation would stop stem cell research in
its tracks and deny Americans the benefit of research that the National
Institutes of Health has described as having ``enormous'' medical
potential in the treatment of any number of life-threatening diseases
and conditions.

[[Page H1417]]

Additonally, I believe that those who oppose stem cell research on
ethical grounds are simply misunderstanding the issue. Currently, there
are tens of thousands of frozen embryos already in fertility clinics
around the nation, which, if not used for research, will merely be
destroyed. These are cells that are not yet specialized to perform a
specific task, but can take on the character of virtually any cell in
the body. Numerous studies demonstrate that these cells may be capable
of repairing what goes wrong with other cells, and therefore hold the
cure to many horrible diseases and conditions that attack the human
body on the cellular level.
In my view, not to take advantage of this research by yielding to the
excessive influence of our country's powerful conservative activists
would be a terrible mistake. I also do not believe that an all out ban
on human cloning needs to include a ban on nuclear transfer research.
The former brings a new child into the world; the latter is concerned
only with the study of embryonic development and curing disease. In a
word, this bill would prevent vital research from taking place.
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
explain why I am voting against the Human Cloning Prohibition Act
today.
I call to mind a previous case that I think closely resembles today's
actions by this body. I refer to a trial that took place almost 40
years ago; the heresy trial of Galileo in 1633.
Galileo was a scientist who studied the mysteries of the physical
world--he dared to explore that which we did not understand.
Unfortunately, the political leaders at the time were afraid, and
justifiably so. They said that his ideas threatened their religious
beliefs, they were afraid of where the research would lead. They were
right to be afraid--they were wrong to take the actions they did as a
result.
Galileo's persecutors concluded that his research was immoral, and
after his heresy trial he spent the rest of his life under house
arrest. It was not until 1992 that the church lifted its edict of
inquisition against him.
Galileo himself saw no conflict between science and religion. When
asked about his research, he said that ``Holy Scripture and Nature are
both emanation from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy
Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God's commands.' And he
died a devout Catholic.
Like the Roman Catholic Church in Galileo's time, I am scared. I am
afraid of where cloning research may lead. I am afraid of its
applicability in the wrong hands. But I refuse to be a part of a heresy
trial today.
This bill would make it a crime for scientists to pursue reasonable
research, inspired by noble goals and performed by decent people.
Supporters of this misinformed bill argue that this research should
not be pursued. One of the reasons they gave is that there is no
evidence that the research will work as intended. I submit that that is
exactly why it should be pursued. After all, that is the point of
research--to try to understand those things which we do not yet
understand.
I believe that we have some of the greatest minds of our time trying
to find cures for the dozens of diseases that plague us--young and
sold, rich and poor alike. I am unwilling to take away any of their
tools out of fear.
I am unwilling to persecute Galileo. My faith in God is strong and,
perhaps, just as Galileo's research is not described by religious
scholars as ``opening up new windows upon the wonders of God's
creation,'' this research may one day be universally acclaimed--both
for its ability to cure diseases as well as the insight it lends us to
God's creation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I believe that human cloning
is dangerous, unethical and needs to be prohibited. The recent reports
surrounding Clonaid's supposed first successful human baby cloning,
though thus far unverified, provides further impetus for the need to
enact a prohibition of this practice. As such, I strongly support
banning the practice of reproductive cloning, which is the replication
of an individual's genetic material in a new individual.
However, as strong as my opposition is to the process of reproductive
cloning, my support for continued stem cell research to develop cures
for debilitating diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and others, is
equally strong. The process of therapeutic cloning, also known as
somatic cell nuclear transfer, is the transplantation of a patient's
own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells.
Therapeutic cloning does not in any way lead to the creation of viable
human life. However, it does allow for continued research in the area
of stem cells.
Unfortunately as a result of overly broad cloning prohibition
language in H.R. 534, the scientific process of therapeutic cloning is
also prohibited along with reproductive cloning. Also, as my colleague
Mr. Conyers has recently pointed out, H.R. 534 also bans the
importation of lifesaving medicines from other countries if their
production is in anyway derived from nuclear transfer. Because of these
considerations, I will be voting against H.R. 534.
I do, however, strongly support the substitute measure being offered
by Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Deutsch, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Eshoo, and Mr. Kirk.
This measure also bans the process of reproductive cloning, but allows
continued stem cell research, which has shown great promise towards
finding cures for many illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile
diabetes, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, blindness and sickle cell
anemia.
Forty Nobel Laureates, millions of patients, former first-lady Nancy
Reagan who's husband, as we all know, suffers from Alzheimer's disease,
and others, have expressed support for therapeutic cloning. I urge my
colleagues to join me in support of the Greenwood substitute and in
support of banning the unethical process of human cloning, but at the
same time allowing further research into a promising field that could
benefit millions of men, women, and children who suffer from
devastating diseases.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, in our rush to ban human reproductive
cloning, we are at risk of also banning the most promising and exciting
area of biomedical research in the past thirty years. If passed into
law, the overly-broad Human Cloning Prohibition Act would ban not only
human cloning but also a laboratory technique that may enable
scientists to understand the genetic causes of diseases such as cancer
and develop therapies for diseases and disabilities such as diabetes,
Parkinson's Disease, and spinal cord injuries.
No responsible person, patient advocate or scientist supports the
cloning of human beings. Human reproductive cloning is unethical,
should be prohibited, and should be punishable under federal law.
But in banning human cloning, we should not ban a laboratory
technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which can be used to
derive human embryonic stem cells. With such stem cells, our scientists
will gain fundamental insights into cell biology that will lead to new
treatments and cures for a host of diseases and disabilities.
Prohibiting this basic scientific technique will severely hinder U.S.
research. Our scientists have achieved an unparalleled record of
accomplishment by employing new technologies to benefit humankind. New
innovations in scientific discovery have historically been
controversial, but they have proven to save lives and help manage
devastating diseases. An example is the use of recombinant DNA
technology, which provoked considerable alarm and debate in the 1970's,
and has since become the foundation of modern biomedical research and
our biotechnology industry.
In his speech memorializing the crew of the space shuttle Columbia,
President Bush said. ``This cause of exploration and discovery is not
an option we choose; it is a desire written in the human heart. We are
that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation.''
Mr. Chairman, we should be encouraging our scientists to respond to
that desire which is written in their hearts: understanding and ending
the suffering of their fellow human beings. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of the substitute offered by Mr. Greenwood and, if it
fails, against the underlying bill.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, February 27, the House will
take up the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), a
bill to prohibit the creation of human embryos by cloning.
This is the same bill that the House debated on July 31, 2001. On
that occasion, our colleague Mr. Greenwood offered a substitute
amendment that would have permitted the human cloning (the cloning of
human embryos), but attempted to prohibit initiating a pregnancy by
implanting such a cloned human embryo in a womb. The House decisively
rejected the Greenwood Substitute, and then adopted the Weldon-Stupak
bill overwhelmingly, 265-162. Although 64 members of the Democratic
caucus voted to pass the Weldon-Stupak bill, to our disappointment,
Democratic Leader Gephardt voted in opposition.
However, it is noteworthy that when Mr. Gephardt appeared on NBC's
Meet the Press less than three weeks later, on August 19, 2001, he
appeared to have had a change of heart. Although host Tim Russert did
not ask about cloning, Mr. Gephardt volunteered this remarkable
statement: ``Obviously, we don't want cloning. . . . We passed a law
saying no cloning and I think that's the law that we ought to follow.''
The only bill that had been passed pertaining to cloning, of course,
was the Weldon-Stupak bill (the House had emphatically rejected the
pro-cloning Greenwood Substitute). It seemed that Mr. Gephardt was
taking credit for what the House had done, even though he had voted
against it just three weeks earlier. But be that as it may, we
certainly agree with Mr. Gephardt's conclusion that the ban that the
House passed (the Weldon-Stupak bill) is indeed ``the law that we ought
to follow.''
We urge you to oppose the Greenwood Substitute, which would permit
what President

[[Page H1418]]

Bush called cloned human ``embryo farms,'' and to support the Weldon-
Stupak bill, the only bill that would really say ``no cloning.''
The complete transcript of the exchange between Mr. Russert and Mr.
Gephardt follows.

[Excerpt from NBC Meet The Press, August 19, 2001]

Mr. Tim Russert: Let me turn to the issue of stem cell
embryo research. The president decided that we should look at
the stem cells that already exist, but not allow any
development of any new stem cells. You disagree with him.
Why?
Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.): I just--I don't think we
know where this research is going. We don't even know how
many stem cell segments are out there now. He said 60. Some
of the researchers don't even know that there are 60 in place
now. This is an emerging field. Look, if you have somebody in
your family who has Alzheimer's, who has diabetes, who has
cancer, you want to find the answers to these problems. The
researchers believe there may be real answers to many of
these diseases over the next years. We shouldn't limit the
areas that we're going to look at. We ought to see where the
research can go. Obviously, we don't want cloning. Nobody is
for cloning. But we need to use the research that's out there
to get the answers to these diseases. Boy, if you've got
somebody in your family that's really ill, you want to know
the research might find an answer.
Mr. Russert: The public seems to support the president
overwhelmingly. Let me show you the latest USA Today poll.
Sixty percent approve of the president's decision; just 34
percent disagree. And there's a simple question to be asked:
When do you think life begins?
Rep. Gephardt: Well, the Supreme Court said, after the--you
know, somewhere between the first and second trimester.
Mr. Russert: But when do you think?
Rep. Gephardt: I think the Supreme Court probably had it
right. And I think we ought to use the research that can be
done on stem cells to find the answers to these dread
diseases. You know, try . . .
Mr. Russert: Wait, wait, wait. This is important. When you
first came to Congress, you proposed a constitutional
amendment to ban all abortion. And you said on the House
floor, ``Life begins at conception.'' You've now changed your
mind?
Rep. Gephardt: I think that the thing to do here is to
follow the Supreme Court. I think their decision said it very
clearly, and I think that's the policy that ought to be
followed. I think on this stem cell research decision, we've
got to let the research go to where it can, to find the
answers to these problems.
Mr. Russert: Including using the frozen embryos that are
created by in vitro fertilization clinics.
Rep. Gephardt: I think we ought to let the research find
the answers to these problems.
Mr. Russert: So you would use those?
Rep. Gephardt: We passed a law saying no cloning and I
think that's the law that we ought to follow.
Mr. Russert: But these are stem cell embryos created by in
vitro fertilization clinics that are discarded if not used
for research.
Rep. Gephardt: I think we ought to let the research find
the answers to these problems.
____

Congress of the U.S.,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 25, 2003.
Dear Colleague: By now, everyone has heard of the
euthanized death of ``Dolly,'' the infamous cloned sheep. She
died on Valentine's Day 2003 at the age of 6, half the normal
life-expectancy for a sheep.
Alan Coleman, A Singapore-based scientist who helped clone
Dolly said, ``I think it highlights more than ever the
foolishness of those who want to legalize (human) . . .
cloning . . . In the case of humans, it would be scandalous
to go ahead given our knowledge about the long-term affects
of cloning.''
If cloning is not safe for animals, how can it be good for
humans?
I urge you to vote for the Weldon/Stupak ban (H.R. 534) and
vote against the Greenwood substitute.
Cordially,
Joseph R. Pitts,
Member of Congress.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I believe that all embryonic
cloning, whether therapeutic or reproductive, violates moral and
rational bounds.
First, embryonic cloning is unproven. Not a single case of embryonic
cloning in animals has resulted in successful treatment of any disease.
Furthermore, animals created through embryonic cloning have developed
unnaturally and suffered numerous genetic defects.
Second, embryonic cloning is immoral. Every cloned embryo is capable
of developing into an adult. The Greenwood amendment proposes the
artificial creation of life and subsequent destruction thereof. This
cannot be tolerated.
Finally, even in the most conservative of estimates, hundreds of
millions of human eggs would be needed for human cloning. Women,
especially the under-privileged, would be exploited for the sale of
their eggs. We cannot allow human eggs to become a commodity.
We must ban all embryonic cloning. I urge my colleagues to support
the resolution.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following
information from National Right-to-Life:
Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all
human cloning, as a number of other major nations have
already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary
Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This
bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the
creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same
policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245).
Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing
competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of
human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban
implanation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we
expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced
by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal in
2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill has
been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne
Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303.
In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted
inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would
each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument
is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in
more detail below.

president bush's position

President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all
human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In
remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the
Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to
destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be
used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28
State of the Union speech, the President said, ``Because no
human life should be started or ended as the object of an
experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity,
and pass a law against all human cloning.'' In a speech on
human cloning last year, President Bush warned that unless
such legislation is enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be
established in the United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html)

the situation in congress

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the
Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at
10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the
committee completes its work, the full House could take up
the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the
measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided
bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the
House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively
rejected (249-178) as substitute amendment, the Greenwood-
Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of
human embryos for research (roll call no. 302).
The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the
Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26
cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch-
Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it
has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate
Democrats.
The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP),
which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a
cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-
Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these
committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of
these diametrically conflicting approaches.
The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist
(R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday,
``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself
with the purpose being destruction, and that would include
the so-called research cloning. And remember, research,
cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no
demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you
ought to destroy life. . .''
The key differences between the two bills are discussed
below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning
issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the
specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit
have been widely misunderstood.

misconceptions and facts

[[Page H1419]]

in that they would both permit cloning involving merely eggs,
cells, or tissues, but they differ on one proground issue:
The Hatch-Feinstein/Greenwood proposals would allow the use
of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone
human embryos, and the Brownback/Weldon legislation would
forbid the use of SCNT to clone human embryos.
Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about
``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the
argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to
clone human embryos.
Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not
involve creating human embryos.
Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a
developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something
that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in
2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to
obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who
clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the
bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the
embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning
researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.
Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current
disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/
Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html
To cite just one example here, a group of scientists,
ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called
``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for
research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania,
Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth
University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli
of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000
issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,
``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another
term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate
creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also
wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the
creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage
embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.''
In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's
Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy
recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations
regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial
public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful
SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The
product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone,
genetically virtually identical to the individual that was
the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic
clone of the donor.''
The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for
biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to
distinguish between two of the purposes for which human
embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and
``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The
Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is
here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html
The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because
whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing
embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic
cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been
demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as
discussed below), and the process is certainly not
``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which
is what the argument is about.
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow
research only ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.''
REALITY: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology
text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg''
is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very
unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23
chromosomes. An ovum has no sex.
As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from
any species that is activated (whether by sexual
fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer,
SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of
that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no
such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg''
or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or
female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred
cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of
cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old
human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public
regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit
that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists
should enlist.
The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term
``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a
technical term for an embryo at an early stage of
development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another
word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos
produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is
what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned
mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one-
celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be
unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo
created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted
in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still
be unfertilized.
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise
that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning
``reproductive cloning.''
REALITY: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the
Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most
Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It
will not become law. But that does not bother many of its
backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because
the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede
enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing
political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation
of human embryos for research.
Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology
industry lobby and its allies, the policy the Hatch-Feinstein
bill or the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is
far from a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the
substantial majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in
May 2002 found that 61% of the American people opposed
``cloning of human embryos for use in medical research'' (34%
approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill
is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls,
substantially higher numbers are opposed when it explained
that the human embryos will die in the research.
The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a
middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction.
The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the
establishment of human embryo farms.
The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been
emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the
House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and
Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to
Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a
presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not
believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be
treated differently, given that they both require the
creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . .
. the Administration could not support any measure that
purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing
research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that
he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/
ThompsontoBrownback.pdf)
The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement
agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on
implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the
Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The
Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human
embryos are created, there is no practical way to
prevent some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no
remedy to apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted
here: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/
Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human
cloning'' or ``ban the closing of human beings.''
REALITY: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human
cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a
uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter
term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are
attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing
a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized
blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (Not counting
time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject
to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in
the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being
applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned
human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to
procure an abortion.
In other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but
the survival of human clones, which is a very different
thing.
Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear
transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,''
because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the
species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo
sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later
born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always
a member of the species Ovis aries).
As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a
``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want
to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement
that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human
beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it
amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the
species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (If not, what
species of being is it?)
It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize
cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22
statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to
ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy
life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a
cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added]
The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a
cloned human being is born, she should have the same status
as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently
are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002,
Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the
Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are
busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the
Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that

[[Page H1420]]

human being would even be the correct term for such an
individual heretofore unknown in nature.''
As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing
Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),
``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her--
won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to
humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will
never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and
walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/
arecloneshuman.html)
MISCONCEPTION: Those who favor cloning for research would
never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age.
REALITY: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to
establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones,
there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology
industry would support such a limitation in a bill it
actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers
are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones.
For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to
giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned
humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development,
even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long
as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB
1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on
Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the
bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/
document/document020303c.asp)
Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from
cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and
from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were
widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so-
called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the
only two animal studies that have claimed to show
``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, every once in a while, an issue comes along
that makes so much sense and has so much support, it clearly must be
good public policy. The issue before us today, a full and complete ban
on cloning, is just such an issue.
The American people overwhelmingly support banning cloning, a
majority of this House has voted in the past to fully ban cloning, the
Administration supports this ban, and importantly scientists and
doctors and other medical professionals support this ban on cloning.
So what's the hold up?
A lot has been and will be said about ``research cloning'' or
``therapeutic cloning''--but despite all of the semantics and wordplay
the other side uses, the reality remains that this procedure is one
that simply horrifies most Americans. The repercussions if we do not
act today are grave.
Whate we're debating here is the value of human life, pure and
simple. If you want to reduce human life to merely clinical terms,
research elements and other antiseptic talk, then you can vote that way
today. But if you are as horrified I am, as the American people are,
and the medical community is, by the ghastly possibilities that cloning
offers us, then you should support this legislation and a complete,
full, and real ban on cloning.
I comment the gentlemen from Florida (Dave Weldon) and Michigan
(Stupak) for their work, and strongly encourage all of my colleagues to
support the passage of this important bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, these words are from Frederic Bastiat's The
Law. They are prophetic, not only in the way they describe legislators'
attempts to transform society through socialized economic planning, but
also in the analogy to the current moral issue before us today: human
cloning.
Human life begins at conception. This fact is not a matter of faith.
Every contemporary textbook of human embryology teaches that the life
of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. When an
embryo is cloned, a distinct human being is created: if implanted into
a woman's uterus, he or she grows into a human being. Those who deny
the humanity of the ``embryo'' simply deny the facts.
Today we see another instance of the legislator playing God, viewing
himself as Bastiat's farmer or chemist. But human embryos are not just
some ``seeds'' for the ``farmers'' to scatter! I ask those of you
wishing to use taxpayer dollars to fund human cloning: Were you not
once at this very stage of life? Is not each of you a developed embryo?
And to those who view cloning and the accompanying destruction of
humans at the embryonic stage of life as morally acceptable, I ask
this, Are you aware that it took 277 attempts to clone Dolly the sheep,
and when she finally was born, she was defective and died soon after?
We must shudder to think of what this kind of experimentation implies
for humans. Many ignore that a human is not cloned by simply waving a
magic wand--rather, embryos are experimented upon and then discarded
before a human is created via cloning. Many pro-lifers mistakenly
attack the act of cloning, when what they should address is the
discarding of humans at the embryonic stage of development that
precedes the act of cloning.
Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent
human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well
intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to
create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction
of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the
states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that
protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional
amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it
would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the
letter of the law.
In Congress we can either pass an unconstitutional ban on cloning, or
we can abide by the law and not pass the ban, as bureaucrats continue
to have control over human cloning and use of taxpayer funds to destroy
human life. These bureaucrats seem to have no difficulty violating the
consciences of those who recognize cloning experimentation for what it
is. What is to be done? I fear the answer to this question, and its
implications, will continue to haunt us in the months and years to
come, whether or not this federal ban on human cloning passes. Mr.
Speaker, when we last considered this issue I placed the following
statement in the Record and wish to do so once again.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we're being asked to choose
between two options dealing with the controversies
surrounding cloning and stem cell research. As an
obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with
strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem
cell research and human cloning offtrack, dangerous, and
missing some very important points. This debate is one of the
most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral,
religious, legal, and ethical overtones. However, this debate
is as must about process as it is the problem we are trying
to solve.
This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems
like this are made much more complex when we accept the
notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the
solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without
offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility.
Centralized governments' solutions inevitably compound the
problem we're trying to solve. The solution is always found
to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It
requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to
implement the particular program and ignores the unintended
consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we
depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The
assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving
complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding
a quick fix for this difficult problem.
Since federal funding has already been used to promote much
of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one
can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the
same manner. There are many shortcomings of cloning and I
predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have
flowed much more slowly into this research than when the
government/taxpayer does the funding. The notion that one
person, i.e., the President, by issuing a President order can
instantly stop or start major research is frightening.
Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right
thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal
law. Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and
emotional issues is not likely to be found.
The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial
decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing
abortion overseas, I find repugnant. The original concept of
the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and
cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue
of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the
issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done
the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems
are nationalized.
Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would
have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged
emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem
cell research.
There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some
questionable research in an effort to protect what is
perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are
unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and
financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to
pay. Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes
national approach that can later be used to undermine this
original intent. This national approach rules out states from
passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these
issues.
There are some medical questions not yet resolved and
careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use
of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted
fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or
organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic
pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in
research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus
different from an embryo conceived in a dish?
Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound
and I might say best not answered by political demagogues,
executive orders or emotional hype. How do problems like this
get resolved in a free society where

[[Page H1421]]

government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not
easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be
much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority
initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments.
For a free society to function, the moral standards of the
people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and
medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such
as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the
politicians can't make the people more moral in making these
judgments.
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the
people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution
that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty.
Instead, the people's attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme
Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady
erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is
incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the
people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical
approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The
government then takes over and predictably makes things much
worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people.
An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid
answers while the many consequences to come are ignored.
Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the
real victim becomes personal liberty.
What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to
stop all funding of research for cloning and other
controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free
society should be done privately, thus preventing this type
of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of
less funding being available for research, there would
actually be more.
Second, the President should issue no Executive Order
because under the Constitution he does not have the authority
either to promote or stop any particular research nor does
the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of
life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life
or should not participate in its destruction. We should
continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders
would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a
moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be
written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard
for the rest of the nation.
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has
been made much worse by the federal government involved, both
by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal
government's involvement in embryonic research. The problem
may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a
lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more
federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the
most part were made worse by previous government mandates.
If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards
and governments can't impose moral standards, hardly will
this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and
intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being
and stem cell research. Neither option offered today
regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution.
Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 534, the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. Like most Americans, I believe
reproductive cloning of human beings ought to be criminalized. I
support outlawing this practice, which is one of the provisions of this
legislation. But, I cannot support this bill because it would also
severely limit the ability of scientists to conduct advanced cell
research and develop life-saving therapies that could benefit millions
of Americans.
H.R. 534's overly broad language would needlessly outlaw an important
form of advanced cell research, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.
This research holds great promise to radically improve the health of
Americans. This laboratory procedure allows for the development and
harvesting of embryonic stem cells that can potentially repair damaged
organs and tissues. If the donor material of this procedure is from the
patient, the stem cells would be genetically identical to the patient
and thus avoid the problem of immune system rejection that is present
with conventional treatments. According to the National Institutes of
Health, this technology has ``enormous'' medical potential to treat
conditions as varied as Parkinson's disease, chronic heart disease,
Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and spinal injuries.
Unfortunately, this bill's broad language also makes illegal the
importation of any therapies developed in other countries that employ
this advanced cell research technology. This ban against importation
will further deprive our Nation's patients of treatments that could
save their lives.
Support for the continuation of advanced cell research has been
expressed by countless teaching and research institutions, scientists,
and patient advocate groups. Opponents of this research are quick to
offer scenarios of doom and gloom if we allow this research to
continue. Yet, this same group of religious zealots and hapless
naysayers made similar predictions with the development of such
biological advances as in-vitro fertilization and recombinant DNA. The
only ``horrors'' that have occurred from fostering that biological
research has been allowing more than 16,000 otherwise infertile couples
to experience the joys of childbirth and parenthood and the development
of an improved form of insulin for the treatment of diabetes.
While I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534, I also
encourage support of the Greenwood/Deutsch substitute bill that
prohibits the cloning of a human life, but allows for the continuation
of advanced cell research and the unfettered availability of health-
improving products and procedures derived from this research.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today we are having a virtually identical
debate over the virtually identical bill we had in the 107th Congress.
Had I not been required to travel to Oregon for official
representational purposes, I would have voted (1) `aye' on the Scott
amendment to provide for a GAO study to determine whether the
prohibition on human cloning needs to be amended in the future give
newer technologies; (2) `no' on the Stearns amendment forcing our
moralities on other nations; (3) `aye' on the Greenwood amendment in
the nature of a substitute; and (3) `no' on the underlying bill, H.R.
534.
By bringing a bill like this to the floor, the Republican majority
has transformed what could have been a rational debate over the merits
and limits of emerging technologies into a dogmatic infomercial for the
radical-right.
I've consistently opposed human cloning for reproductive purposes.
Under current law the federal government is prohibited from funding
research that involves human cloning. In addition, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has the authority under federal law to prohibit
any attempt to clone humans for reproductive purposes and has acted to
stop such efforts. I support the FDA's actions.
I believe H.R. 534 goes too far. This legislation would not just ban
reproductive cloning, it would create harsh criminal penalties that
would significantly restrict a wide range of scientific research
efforts in related fields.
This legislation would specifically halt scientific efforts aimed at
developing new treatments for those suffering from cancer, diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord and burn
injuries. These diseases and injuries can be extremely debilitating,
costly and dehumanizing for individuals, families and our society. I'm
also concerned with provisions in the bill that would ban American's
from receiving new treatments developed in other countries that have
developed with such research.
If this bill is passed, we're showing the world that our drive for
innovation can be derailed by senseless hysteria. Limiting Americans
access to new treatments and therapies based on fear and ideology is a
backward way to legislate in the twenty-first century.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
measure. The only difference between human cloning to produce a cloned
baby and human cloning for research is whether the cloned embryo is
implanted in the uterus or destroyed. The scientific procedure to
create the clone is the same.
H.R. 534 would prevent cloned human embryos from being used as human
guinea pigs. Without this legislation, human life could be copied,
manufactured in a laboratory, in a petri dish, for the sole purpose of
harvesting cells and then destroying the clone. The mass production of
human clones solely for the purpose of human experimentation demeans us
all.
The simple, most effective way to stop this process is to ban it,
deterring its use. H.R. 534 does nothing to prohibit appropriate
scientific research. It fully permits research that clones molecules,
or DNA, tissues, organs, plants, or non-human animals. So-called
therapeutic cloning has not produced a single cure in animal models for
any disease, nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials.
In the area of human embryo cloning, the ends do not justify the
means.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534,
the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This legislation would ban
reproductive human cloning and prohibit nuclear transplantation to
produce stem cells for medical research. I am sure that most of my
colleagues here today would agree with me and every one of my
constituent scientists with whom I have discussed this matter that we
do not want to allow reproductive cloning. An attempt to duplicate an
individual human raises profound and disturbing moral and bioethical
questions. It is unacceptable for anyone in the public or private
sector to attempt to create a person using somatic cell nuclear
transfer (SCNT) and I believe we must prohibit it. However,
Representative Weldon's proposal before us today, goes too far and also
bans SCNT for therapeutic purposes. This complete ban will close the
door on promising publicly and privately funded research in
regenerative medicine and will end hope for more millions of Americans
suffering from life-threatening diseases.

[[Page H1422]]

The Human Cloning Prohibition Act criminalizes the very biomedical
research that could help researchers find cures for Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis, various cancers, strokes
and spinal cord injuries. Furthermore, H.R. 534 will halt vital
research in my congressional district, throughout Massachusetts and the
Nation. A ban or a moratorium on this research will result in other
countries taking the lead in finding cures to these diseases.
Our colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Greenwood, has worked
to produce what I believe to be a well-balanced, comprehensive
alternative. The Greenwood substitute contains the same language that
Rep. Weldon's legislation uses to ban reproductive cloning. Both ban
scientists from using technology to produce human beings. Unlike the
Weldon proposal, the Greenwood alternative allows strictly regulated,
privately funded SCNT research to move forward. This legislation
requires scientists to register with the federal government before
conducting medical research and requires all research to be conducted
with substantial oversight. The bill would also permit a stem cell
technique that offers significant promise of delivering new treatments
and cures to millions of Americans.
I believe a ban on human cloning does not need to include a ban on
nuclear transfer research. The National Academies and more than 40
Noble laureates agree that this research has the potential to produce
promising contributions to science and medicine. I urge my colleagues
to allow this research to continue, vote no on Weldon and yes on
Greenwood.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
534. Although I am against Human Cloning this bill does more than ban
Human Cloning. It prevents the highest form of medical research in our
society, therapeutic cloning. We owe it to our communities to explore
the options of therapeutic cloning. Those who have lost relatives due
to heart disease, brain damage due to strokes, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, Cancer . . . we owe it to these people to at least explore
the option of therapeutic cloning. I don't want to stop medical
progress and the possibilities that it would allow for new treatments
to diseases where medical progress is continuously being made. Doctors
understand that these diseases cause damage to cells and tissues and
that therapeutic cloning would allow them to explore the option of
replacing these dead cells or tissues. I do not support human cloning
for organ production. I am saying lets leave ourselves options for the
future. Doctors are trying to find medically safe and reliable ways to
help people with disease. I have some of the greatest doctors (at
Cleveland Clinic, University Hospital), in the world in, my district
working with molecules and DNA to find cures for diseases, and this
would limit their abilities to continue to do what it is that they do
best. Save lives.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, ninety percent of all Americans
oppose cloning human beings. And for good reason. The American public
recognizes that cloning raises serious ethical questions. Scientists
have cloned monkeys, cattle, pigs, mice and other animals. Because of
this success, there are a growing number of groups who claim they can,
and will, clone a human being. That prospect should worry us. Cloning
is a manufacturing process--a scientific assembly line--devoid of
procreation. Efforts to improve humanity should never spin out of
control and devalue humanity, which is precisely what human cloning
does.
Our values of faith and family are slowly eroding. Given that fact,
we should be mindful that there are certain ethical lines we should
never cross. One of the dehumanizing effects of the cloning process is
the failure rate. It is extremely high. Those in favor of cloning
humans often downplay that it took 277 stillborn, miscarried or dead
sheep to make one Dolly. And what happens to those who survive?
Attempts to clone human beings could carry massive risks of producing
unhealthy, abnormal, and malformed children.
I favor a total ban on human cloning because if we allow cloning for
any reason, we will be unable to control what is done with cloned
embryos. No one is going to monitor every research laboratory. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 534.
This bill's title claims that it is designed to prohibit human cloning.
The reality is it will do much more: it will stifle crucial medical
research that might someday cure diseases such as Parkinson's,
diabetes, or Alzheimer's. None of us support human cloning. We all see
such a step as ethically reckless and medically unsound. The cloning
and creation of human beings should be banned. But this bill goes much
further. It bans the practice of somatic cell nuclear, which creates
cells, not human beings. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic
cloning as it is also called, represents one of our most promising
avenues of medical research.
That is why I support the bipartisan Greenwood/Deutsch/Degette
amendment that would outlaw human cloning for reproduction without
outlawing medical advancements. This bipartisan alternative provides
severe penalties, including $10 million fines, for violations of the
human cloning ban but allows cell transfer technology to proceed.
Through the creation of stem cells, we may be able to conquer spinal
paralysis, heal burn victims, and cure a wide range of diseases. For
everyone who has helplessly watched a parent succumb to the terrible
cruelty of Alzheimer's or seen a child struggle with diabetes, somatic
cell nuclear transfer holds out the promise of a potential cure.
But this bill would cut off that research and criminalize those
medical advancements. The National Academies of Science examined this
issue and urged lawmakers to forbid human cloning but not to outlaw
nuclear transplantation which could hold the key to treating life-
threatening diseases and injuries. As they complete their medical
training and begin their careers as physicians, we ask our doctors to
take Hippocratic Oath, which involves, the principle, ``first do no
harm.'' As legislators, we should adopt a similar principle: as we
wrestle with these complex scientific questions, let us first do no
harm.
This bill applies a sledge hammer when a scalpel is needed. We can
and should outlaw human cloning without wiping out the promise of a
cure for millions of Americans. I urge you to oppose this bill and to
support the bipartisan Greenwood/Deutsch/Degette alternative. Thank you
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 534 is as follows:

H.R. 534

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 2003''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

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

``CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING

``Sec.
``301. Definitions.
``302. Prohibition on human cloning.

``Sec. 301. Definitions

``In this chapter:
``(1) Human cloning.--The term `human cloning' means human
asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear
material from one or more human somatic cells into a
fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has
been removed or inactivated so as to produce a living
organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically
virtually identical to an existing or previously existing
human organism.
``(2) Asexual reproduction.--The term `asexual
reproduction' means reproduction not initiated by the union
of oocyte and sperm.
``(3) Somatic cell.--The term `somatic cell' means a
diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained
or derived from a living or deceased human body at any stage
of development.

``Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning

``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or
entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate
commerce, knowingly--
``(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
``(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human
cloning; or
``(3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced
by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
``(b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or
entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any
purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product
derived from such embryo.
``(c) Penalties.--
``(1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity that violates
this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.
``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity that violates
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 less than $1,000,000
and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the gross
gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than
$1,000,000.
``(d) Scientific Research.--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.''.
(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. Human Cloning..........................................301''.....

[[Page H1423]]

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 108-21. Each amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, debatable for
the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-21.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:

Add at the end of the bill the following:

SEC. 3. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

(a) In General.--The General Accounting Office shall
conduct a study to assess the need (if any) for amendment of
the prohibition on human cloning, as defined in section 301
of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, which
study should include--
(1) a discussion of new developments in medical technology
concerning human cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer,
the need (if any) for somatic cell nuclear transfer to
produce medical advances, current public attitudes and
prevailing ethical views concerning the use of somatic cell
nuclear transfer, and potential legal implications of
research in somatic cell nuclear transfer; and
(2) a review of any technological developments that may
require that technical changes be made to section 2 of this
Act.
(b) Report.--The General Accounting Office shall transmit
to the Congress, within 2 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, a report containing the findings and conclusions
of its study, together with recommendations for any
legislation or administrative actions which in considers
appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 105, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

Modification to Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, at the suggestion of the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Scott of
Virginia:
In the proposed subsection 3(a), insert ``after
consultation with the National Academy of Sciences'' after
``office''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this provides a GAO study of the issue.
This amendment is being presented jointly with Rep. Wu.
We all agree that the cloning technology we are aware of today should
not be used for human reproductive purposes. Yet, we all know that the
nuclear cell transfer process that this bill bans in this country will
continue in other countries in order that the promising developments in
stem-cell research can continue. It is possible that this process can
develop to the point that it could be used to prevent or cure many
dreaded childhood or adult-onset diseases such as Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord
injury, multiple sclerosis, severe burns, or other diseases, disorders,
or conditions.
These developments are proceeding at a very rapid pace. This
amendment would ensure that Congress is informed of developments in the
technology and their potential for medical advances. It would advise us
of any need for technical changes to the bill which would keep its
prohibition on reproductive cloning effective and narrowly drawn, while
allowing any beneficial uses of the technology consistent with the
prohibition.
Furthermore, this is an area where public attitudes and ethical views
are often confused and uncertain, and a GAO study would be helpful in
summarizing and clarifying them before Congress chooses to revisit this
issue. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a constructive addition to the bill,
I am prepared to support it, and urge that the Members adopt it. I
thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 101-21.
No Member being present to offer amendment No. 2, it is now in order
to consider amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute printed in
House Report 108-21.

Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3 in the nature of
a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate amendment No. 3 in the nature
of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mr. Greenwood:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Cloning Prohibition Act of
2003''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST HUMAN CLONING.

(a) In General.--The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``CHAPTER X--HUMAN CLONING

``prohibition against human cloning

``Sec. 1001. (a) Nuclear Transfer Technology.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
``(A) to use or attempt to use human somatic cell nuclear
transfer technology, or the product of such technology, to
initiate a pregnancy or with the intent to initiate a
pregnancy; or
``(B) to ship, mail, transport, or receive the product of
such technology knowing that the product is intended to be
used to initiate a pregnancy.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology' means
transferring the nuclear material of a human somatic cell
into an egg cell from which the nuclear material has been
removed or rendered inert.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be
construed as applying to any of the following:
``(1) The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology
to clone molecules, DNA, cells, or tissues.
``(2) The use of mitochondrial, cytoplasmic, or gene
therapy.
``(3) The use of in vitro fertilization, the administration
of fertility-enhancing drugs, or the use of other medical
procedures (excluding those using human somatic cell nuclear
transfer or the product thereof) to assist a woman in
becoming or remaining pregnant.
``(4) The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology
to clone or otherwise create animals other than humans.
``(5) Any other activity (including biomedical,
microbiological, or agricultural research or practices) not
expressly prohibited in subsection (a).
``(c) Registration.--
``(1) In general.--Each individual who intends to perform
human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology shall, prior
to first performing such technology, register with the
Secretary his or her name and place of business (except that,
in the case of an individual who performed such technology
before the date of the enactment of the Cloning Prohibition
Act of 2003, the individual shall so register not later than
60 days after such date). The Secretary may by regulation
require that the registration provide additional information
regarding the identity and business locations of the
individual, and information on the training and experience of
the individual regarding the performance of such technology.
``(2) Attestation by researcher.--A registration under
paragraph (1) shall include a statement, signed by the
individual submitting the registration, declaring that the
individual is aware of the prohibitions described in
subsection (a) and will not engage in any violation of such
subsection.
``(3) Confidentiality.--Information provided in a
registration under paragraph (1) shall not be disclosed to
the public by the Secretary except to the extent that--
``(A) the individual submitting the registration has in
writing authorized the disclosure; or
``(B) the disclosure does not identify such individual or
any place of business of the individual.
``(d) Applicability of Human Subject Protection
Standards.--

[[Page H1424]]

``(1) In general.--Research involving human somatic cell
nuclear transfer technology shall be conducted in accordance
with parts 50 and 56 of title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, subject to paragraph (2). Individuals whose
cells are used for such research shall be considered human
subjects for purposes of such parts.
``(2) Informed consent.--
``(A) Donor of human cells.--In research involving human
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, human cells may be
used only if, in addition to requirements that apply under
parts 50 and 56 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, the
individual who provides the cells makes a statement in
writing, which is signed by the individual, declaring that--
``(i) the individual donates the cells for purposes of such
research;
``(ii) the individual understands that Federal law
regulates such technology and establishes a crime relating to
the use of the technology to initiate a pregnancy; and
``(iii) the individual does not intend for the cells to be
used to initiate a pregnancy.
``(B) Attestation by researchers.--In research involving
human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, human cells
may be used only if, in addition to requirements that apply
under parts 50 and 56 of title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, the individual with the principal responsibility
for conducting the research makes a statement in writing,
which is signed by the individual, declaring that the consent
of the donor of the cells for the cells to be used in such
research was obtained in accordance with this subsection.
``(e) Preemption of State Law.--This section supersedes any
State or local law that--
``(1) establishes prohibitions, requirements, or
authorizations regarding human somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology that are different than, or in addition to, those
established in subsection (a) or (c); or
``(2) with respect to humans, prohibits or restricts
research regarding or practices constituting--
``(A) somatic cell nuclear transfer;
``(B) mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy; or
``(C) the cloning of molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, or
organs;

except that this subsection does not apply to any State or
local law that was in effect as of the day before the date of
the enactment of the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.
``(f) Right of Action.--This section may not be construed
as establishing any private right of action.
``(g) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`person' includes governmental entities.
``(h) Sunset.--This section and section 301(hh) do not
apply to any activity described in subsection (a) that occurs
on or after the expiration of the 10-year period beginning on
the date of the enactment of the Cloning Prohibition Act of
2003.''.
(b) Prohibited Acts.--
(1) In general.--Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(hh) The violation of section 1001(a), or the failure to
register in accordance with section 1001(c).''.
(2) Criminal penalty.--Section 303(b) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(b)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Notwithstanding subsection (a), any person who
violates section 301(hh) shall be imprisoned not more than 10
years or fined in accordance with title 18, United States
Code, or both.''.
(3) Civil penalties.--Section 303 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(h)(1) Any person who violates section 301(hh) or section
1001(d) shall be liable to the United States for a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed the greater of--
``(A) $10,000,000; or
``(B) an amount equal to the amount of any gross pecuniary
gain derived from such violation multiplied by 2.
``(2) Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (g) apply
with respect to a civil penalty under this subsection to the
same extent and in the same manner as such paragraphs (3)
through (5) apply with respect to a civil penalty under
subsection (g).''.
(4) Forfeiture.--Section 303 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (3), is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Any property, real or personal, derived from or used
to commit a violation of section 301(hh), or any property
traceable to such property, shall be subject to forfeiture to
the United States.''.

SEC. 3. STUDY BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall
request the Institute of Medicine to enter into an agreement
with the Secretary under which such Institute conducts a
study to--
(1) review the current state of knowledge about the
biological properties of stem cells obtained from embryos,
fetal tissues, and adult tissues;
(2) evaluate the current state of knowledge about
biological differences among stem cells obtained from
embryos, fetal tissues, and adult tissues and the
consequences for research and medicine; and
(3) assess what is currently known about the ability of
stem cells to generate neurons, heart, kidney, blood, liver
and other tissues and the potential clinical uses of these
tissues.
(b) Other Entities.--If the Institute of Medicine declines
to conduct the study described in subsection (a), the
Secretary shall enter into an agreement with another
appropriate public or nonprofit private entity to conduct the
study.
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that, not later
than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the study required in subsection (a) is completed and a
report describing the findings made in the study is submitted
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions in the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 105, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a Member opposed each will control 30
minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) will
be recognized to control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GREENWOOD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, do I need to designate a portion of my
time to the minority?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield a portion of his time.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette) will be allowed to control 15 minutes.
There was no objection.

{time} 1530

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a good debate so far. It was a good debate
last year. This is about ethical and moral issues. The proponents of
the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Weldon) bill have argued the ethical
and moral issues against reproductive cloning; and on that issue, my
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Dr. Weldon) and I are in perfect
agreement. It is wrong to create a human being through cloning. It is
probably physically cruel to do that, because of the likelihood of
defect; and it is emotionally, I believe, cruel to do that because no
one should be brought into life as a duplicate of another. Each of us
has the right to be the product of a mother and a father. So we agree
on that.
Now let us deal with the moral and ethical issues that have to do
with somatic nuclear transfer. Because what is at stake is well over a
hundred million Americans today suffering from diseases like
Parkinson's, like Alzheimer's, like cancer, and like diabetes; and as
this chart shows, the millions of people suffering today from those
diseases and the millions more expected to be suffering from those
diseases over the next 10 years.
Now, none of us in this room is an expert on the science of nuclear
cell somatic transfer. But those who are the experts tell us this, that
with this technology simply requires a limited number of eggs donated
by women, denucleated, enucleated. And then the cells, the DNA from
something like a cheek cell placed in that nucleus, electricity is
applied and then the cells divide. Why do scientists want to do that?
They want to do that because we want to observe the miraculous
occurrence inside that egg as those cells become first pluripotent stem
cells and then divide into specialized cells.
Why do they want to do that? They want to do that because they need
to understand the biology and the chemistry as to how that happens. And
when they have understood the biology and the chemistry of that
process, there is no more need for women to donate eggs in order for
the cures for these diseases to come about. Because then doctors in
hospitals around the world will be able to take these patients
suffering from not only these diseases but from juvenile diabetes, from
Alzheimer's, from

[[Page H1425]]

spinal cord injuries, from head injuries, and take the somatic cells
from that patient, combine them with the growth factors that they
identify in this limited amount of research, process healthy cells from
our own bodies and use those healthy cells to cure our diseases, to fix
our injuries, and to reduce human suffering by amounts that we cannot
even imagine.
So the ethical and moral issue here is are we or are we not willing
to allow that science to go forward so that we go through this
transient phase where we use this relatively small number of ova
contributed by willing women to understand how to do this so we can
bring about the cure. Now the argument that is presented by the
exponents of my substitute, which again bans reproductive cloning,
allows this research to continue.
The argument that is proposed is, well, once that cheek cell divides
in an egg in a petri dish, it is a potential human being; and,
therefore, if it is going to be destroyed after it divides a certain
number of times, after the observations are finished that that is
immoral.
Now, if that is the case, if that is what you believe, then we should
ban in vitro fertilization because in vitro fertilization has produced
100,000 embryos in this country right now that will be discarded,
100,000 of them. Far more order of magnitude than will ever be created
through this technology and they are going to be discarded, and that is
apparently okay with the proponents of this legislation because it
brings beautiful little children into the world to couples who
otherwise could not have them.
So that is the trade-off we make. And nobody here is arguing, in
fact, to the contrary. They are preserving the need for in vitro
fertilization, and yet the number of embryos created and destroyed by
in vitro fertilization orders of magnitude is more than we are talking
about here. And if we want to get totally philosophical about this,
every single day millions of eggs are fertilized in the womb that do
not adhere to the uterine walls and are flushed away and somehow that
is the way God does it. That is the way nature does it. And we do not
hear a gnashing of teeth about that by the makers of this amendment
about this bill.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a turning point in our history. This is
a question about whether or not we are going to go forward with the
most promising medicine of our time. The ability to stop the suffering,
to heal the sick, to cure the injured of diseases that have plagued us
for centuries or whether we turn our back on this science in the name
of ethics and morals and kill an opportunity to do something that is
ethically and morally correct, and that is to prevent this suffering.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the debate on whether or not human embryos should be
cloned is one that goes across religious lines, it goes across
philosophical lines, and it goes across political lines; and I
certainly can respect those who come down on the other side of this
piece of legislation. But this amendment in the nature of a substitute
is the equivalent of a political knuckle ball thrown into the debate on
whether or not human embryos should be cloned.
In June of 1997, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory
Committee issued its report entitled ``Cloning Human Beings.'' I
referred to this in the general debate, but I want to refer to this
again because this is the crux of the argument against the Greenwood
substitute. The executive summary of President Clinton's blue ribbon
commission states in part: ``The commission began its discussions fully
recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell
nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo with
the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to
term.''
The whole question around the Greenwood substitute amendment is how
to police the cloned human embryos once they are created. Sure, some of
them may be used for purposes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Greenwood) described in his eloquent opening statement, but others can
be implanted in utero and be developed to term. And what does the
government do in that case when somebody for whatever purpose they want
to announces that they have developed a cloned human being?
This substitute is a big mistake for a number of reasons, and it
should not be supported. Most notably it would make the prohibitions
against human cloning virtually impossible to enforce, as I have just
described. It would foster the creation of cloned human embryos through
the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency of the Federal
Government; and it would trump States that wish to prohibit cloning. As
I have already stated, allowing the creation of cloned embryos by law
would enable anyone to attempt to clone a human being. While most
individuals do not have the scientific capacity to clone human embryos,
once they have been cloned, there has been no mechanism for tracking
them and to determine what use those cloned human embryos are being put
to. In fact, one would logically expect an organization to authorize
the cloned human embryos pursuant to this substitute to be prepared to
produce an abundance of cloned embryos for research. Meanwhile, those
without the capabilities to clone human embryos could easily implant
any one of the legally cloned embryos if they had the opportunity and a
child would develop.
The fact is any legislative effort in order to be effective to
prohibit cloning must allow enforcement to occur before the cloned
embryo is implanted. Otherwise, it is too late, and that is the big
deficiency of the Greenwood substitute. The substitute attempts to draw
a distinction between necessary scientific research in human cloning by
authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services to administer a
quasi-registry, quasi because the embryos are not in the custody of
HHS. They are maintained by private individuals. However, let us be
clear that the crux of this substitute is to invoke a debate on stem
cell research. A political knuckle ball in this debate on stem cell
research is a red herring.
Just read the bill. First, therapeutic cloning does not exist, not
even for experimental tests on animals. Second, the substitute would
require authorized researchers to destroy unused embryos, the first
Federal mandate of its kind and a step that is extremely controversial.
Third, H.R. 534 within its text allows for research using stem cells.
Again, the bill does not prohibit stem cell research, notwithstanding
the allegations by those who are opposed to it.
Currently, private organizations are able to conduct unfettered
research on embryonic stem cells. Further, in August 2001, President
Bush announced that Federal funds could be used for research on
existing stem cell lines. H.R. 534 would do nothing to hinder that
research.
The bill would also not affect research using adult stem cells. Adult
stem cells are the other area of stem cell research which is much less
controversial and which has been successful in over 45 clinical trials.
In fact, adult stem cells have been utilized to treat multiple
sclerosis, bone marrow disorders, leukemia, anemia, and cartilage
defects, and immuno-deficiency in children.
Adult stem cells have been extracted from bone marrow, blood,
skeletal muscle, the gastrointestinal tract, the placenta, and brain
tissue to form bone marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat,
liver, brain, nerve, blood, heart and other cells. H.R. 534 would not
interfere with this work. It would not interfere with this work. But it
prohibits the production of cloned embryos. It is a cloning bill, not a
stem cell research bill.
Fourth, the substitute prohibits States from adopting laws that
prohibit or more strictly regulate cloning within their borders. It is
a Federal preemption. Try telling any of our constituents that they
cannot ban human cloning through their State legislatures and I will
tell you they will disagree.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the substitute contains a 10-year sunset
provision. If this were to be enacted, Congress would have to go
through this debate once again before the sunset occurs. The ethical
and moral objections to human cloning will not change 10 years from now
or 50 years from now or forever. However, the proponents of human
cloning will continue to fight

[[Page H1426]]

for their right to produce human clones in America, and authorizing a
subsequent ban on human cloning could become even more controversial.
That is why Members on both sides of the aisle should rise in
opposition to the substitute, defeat it, and pass H.R. 534.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who has been a leader for several years on this
issue.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, in the April 22, 2001, edition of the
magazine ``Science,'' researcher Irving Weissman and Nobel Laureate
David Baltimore said, ``The wrong action here could close the door to
an important avenue of scientific and clinical discovery.''

{time} 1545

They were talking, of course, about the restrictions on Federal
funding of stem cell research. As Ronald Reagan said, here they go
again.
Everybody agrees that we must ban human cloning and our substitute
does just that, but the difference in this bill is we allow for the
very important somatic nuclear cell transfer technology which is being
developed and which will be the cure for many diseases that affect
millions of people both in the United States and worldwide.
I hear the opponent of our substitute saying, oh, no, stem cell
research will not be hurt, but that could not be farther from the
truth, and here is why. Stem cell research is continuing, but the base
bill will ban the somatic nuclear cell transfer research that we are
talking about. What this research does at this point is it takes
somatic cells, so-called therapeutic cloning techniques, it replaces
the nucleus, and it makes new cells of tissues that will cure diseases
like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. This type of research is
truly the clinical extension of stem cell research because without this
research we will never have islet cells for diabetics. We will never
have the cells for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or nerve damage because
we will not be able to match the patient's tissue.
We are not and we do not support creating embryos for the purpose of
this research. Instead, what happens is researchers use existing
embryos from reproductive clinics, which are going to be disposed of
anyway, and there is no way that this research will be used to clone a
human being, period. It will be a criminal act under our substitute.
I do not think people should demagogue this issue. These are very
difficult ethical and medical issues, but unless we have some control
over the research and unless we ban human cloning, we will not be able
to have cures for all of these very important diseases.
As the co-chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I think we need
to do everything we can to support this important cell research but
also to have strict control. Forty Nobel Laureates agree with this.
More than two thirds of Americans agree with this. Senator Orrin Hatch
and former Senator Connie Mack agree with this. And here is what Nancy
Reagan said in a letter dated January 29 of this year: ``There are so
many diseases that can be cured, we cannot turn our back on this.''
Do not turn your back on all of these procedures.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time, and I again want to commend him for his work in
this area and his eloquent statements on the floor.
I rise in very strong opposition to this substitute, and I encourage
all my colleagues to vote against it and to vote in favor of the
underlying bill.
Let me address, first out, one of the issues that seems to be implied
by some of the discussion that I have heard so far, and that is, these
embryos that are created through somatic cell nuclear transfer process
are somehow not embryos or they are cells or they are cheek cells or
they are stem cells. I am a scientist, a doctor. I am not an expert in
this area, but I know a fair amount about it. I did research in
molecular genetics as an undergraduate. I am a physician.
When a person does somatic cell nuclear transfer they are creating a
human embryo. Indeed, President Clinton's Bioethics Council has said
that, and President Bush's Bioethics Council has said that, a human
embryo resulting from the nuclear transfer process is a human embryo.
It is contrasted from a human embryo created by sexual reproduction,
which is a unique embryo; whereas when we create a human embryo through
somatic cell nuclear transfer, we are essentially creating an identical
duplicate or twin.
So let us do away with that issue here and now. This is very, very
clearly a human embryo. That is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania
wants to allow to be created for research purposes. What will happen if
we do that? What will happen if we go down that route?
I contend that a lot of things will happen that I think are very,
very concerning. Number one, we are going to have a lot of research
labs that will need eggs. Where will they get the eggs? They will have
to get them from women. How do we get eggs from women? Well, we give
them drugs that cause a phenomenon called superovulation. We have to do
periodic ultrasounds to make sure they do not develop ovarian cysts,
and they can get depression from those drugs; and then once the eggs
are ripe, we have to give the woman a general anesthetic to harvest the
eggs. And we will have these research labs that are going to need these
large quantities of eggs, and this is why these biotech executives say
this is a nonstarter in terms of developing so-called therapeutic
cloning. The logistics of this are just unimaginable of how we would
execute something like this.
One important thing I want to say, if we have all of these labs
generating these eggs, we are going to have unscrupulous physicians
implanting one of these in a woman, and we are going to usher in the
very thing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from
Florida say they are against. They say they are against reproductive
cloning, but our own Justice Department says there will be no way to
police this. We will have all of these embryos in all of these labs,
and the only way to prevent it is to stop it from the very, very
beginning.
Might I also just reiterate, adult stem cell research is moving along
very nicely. We have heard some very impassioned comments about
Parkinson's disease. I want to quote from Dennis Turner, who had his
Parkinson's disease treated successfully with adult stem cells. We
cannot even produce one research study in a rat where we can cure
Parkinson's disease with embryo stem cells or cloned stem cells. But I
have got a real live human being here. He says, they were not fetal
cells, they were my cells, so I would not have to take any anti-
rejection medications the rest of my life. Dennis Turner previously
could not even hold a newspaper, and now he is hardly on any medication
at all. The adult stem cells are working great.
I say to my colleagues this alternative, this substitute, is
unnecessary and unethical. We do not want to go down the path of
creating human life for the purpose of exploiting it in the lab and
then destroying it.
Vote no on this substitute. Vote yes on the underlying bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there any objection for the
time yielded by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) to be controlled on the
minority side by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch)?
There was no objection.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to quickly make observations about two contradictions that I
think my friend from Florida made. Number one, he said that our
substitute cannot be enforced. That does not make any sense. If we can
enforce the Weldon law, we can enforce the Greenwood law, and if people
are going to make clones in violation of the law, they are going to do
it under the Weldon law or the Greenwood law. So that is an argument we
should discount immediately.
The second contradiction, which I think is more severe, is that I
heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) talk about we are going
to have shelves of embryos, we are going

[[Page H1427]]

to have embryo farms; we are going to create all of these embryos. He
just told us how extraordinarily difficult it is to get one ovum. We
have to superovulate a woman. It is very difficult. It is painful.
Women are not going to line up to have this procedure.
So there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that we are going to have
this huge multitude of eggs. We are going to be lucky to have enough to
do the research.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and rise in support of the Greenwood substitute because it honors
our tradition of medical science.
Medical achievement is part of America's birthright. In the last 50
years we have won more Nobel prizes than England, Germany, Russia,
France, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Japan and Switzerland combined. Six
out of 10 Nobel prizes in medicine come just to America.
Part of our achievement is due to Congress because we have supported
medical research. Republicans and Democrats joined to double biomedical
research at the National Institutes of Health. But part of our
achievement is also because Congress did not impede research. Unlike
Iran, we follow the guidance of doctors, not doctrines.
America's medical leadership conquered yellow fever, diptheria,
cholera and smallpox and polio; and words like ``gout,'' describing
excess uric acid, or ``consumption,'' describing tuberculosis, were
commonly used by our grandparents but are now aliens outside our
children's vocabulary.
We stand on the edge of new victories. AIDS is no longer a death
sentence in America, and peer-reviewed scientists predict that
Americans are in their last decade of diabetes. In my district, we are
building a human kidney using stem cells, an achievement that would
cause the word ``dialysis'' to drop from the English language.
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will one day make their last stand
against the tide of American research. And think of it: a world without
diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or dialysis.
It is our duty to honor the American tradition of medical science to
hasten the day when these diseases no longer plague our mothers and
fathers. In the Navy, we say, ``Lead, follow, or get out of the way.''
I urge Members to support the Greenwood substitute: Lead, follow or get
out of the way.
The Greenwood language continues America's leadership. Other
countries will continue to follow us, and at the very least, it gets
Congress out of the way of future cures.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state today that I am strongly pro-
choice. I am strongly pro-stem cell research, and I have profound
discomfort in opposing many of my professors who oppose the Weldon-
Stupak bill which I favor, and I urge support of the Weldon-Stupak bill
and reluctantly urge defeat of the substitute bill.
I think that this is a time to pause. It is a time which behooves
caution, that we take some time to let our ethics catch up with our
technology. Our technology has gotten to the point where we are talking
about genetic mixes, mixing of human and animal cells and other
procedures which I think the public has a reasonable, profound
discomfort with.
Many scientists say it is incredibly dangerous to stop any form of
experimentation. I submit to my colleagues that we do stop certain
forms of experimentation. We no longer permit the kinds of experiments
on nonhuman primates which potentially could protect us in vehicle
accidents. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is nothing but a cessation of
certain forms of experimentation, and many scientists were in favor of
the destruction of the last stocks of smallpox virus which would have
stopped experimentation on that virus.
There are times, very rare, but there are times when it behooves
caution to pause, to pull back, and to deeply consider. I differ with
the chairman that perhaps in 5 or 10 years, science and the ethics may
lead us to a different conclusion. But perhaps it leads us to the same
conclusion. We should come back and force Congress to address this
issue in 5 or 10 years.
At this point in time, I rise to support the Weldon-Stupak bill and
in opposition to the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute, and I submit for the
Record an article from the Washington Post, April 11, 2002, on this
subject.

Not Ready for Human Cloning

(By Bill Frist)

Washington Post.--Can one be an advocate for embryonic stem
cell research while opposing human cloning experimentation?
That's the question facing about 30 U.S. senators who have
not yet taken a position on human cloning legislation to be
brought before the Senate.
But we must first understand the similarities and
distinctions between the two. It's important to understand
that human ``therapeutic'' or ``research'' cloning is an
experimental tool often confused with, but distinct from,
embryonic stem cell research. Only then can we appropriately
dissect a debate on the potential of the science vs. the
restraint defined by ethics and moral concerns.
Most agree that human reproductive cloning, or the cloning
of human beings, should be banned. The contentious issue is
whether this ban should extend to all human cloning,
including human embryo a research cloning experimentation, a
brand-new field. Advocates point to its potential to develop
tissues that will not be rejected by a patient's immune
system. They also argue for human cloning as a source of
genetically diverse stem cells for research. Moreover, they
say such experimentation will further our basic understanding
of biology and life's origins.
But regardless of our religious backgrounds, most of us
remain uncomfortable with the idea of creating cloned human
embryos to be destroyed in an experiment.
As a physician and legislator who struggles with this
inherent tension between scientific progress and ethical
concerns. I focus on two fundamental questions: (1) Does the
scientific potential of human research cloning
experimentation justify the purposeful creation of human
embryos, which must be destroyed in experiments? (2) Does the
promise of human embryonic stem cell research depend on
experimental human research cloning?
At this point in the evolution of this new science, I
cannot justify the purposeful creation and destruction of
human embryos in order to experiment on them, especially when
the promise and success of human embryonic stem cell research
do not depend on experimental research cloning.
President Bush last August outlined a scientifically and
ethically balanced policy that allows federal funding of
embryonic stem cell research for nearly 80 stem cell lines.
This has opened the door to a significant expansion of
embryonic stem cell research. Further, there are no
restrictions on private research using stem cells from the
thousands of embryos left over after in vitro fertilization.
This research, too, is underway. The promise and hope for new
cures is being investigated. And the promise of this research
does not--I repeat, does not--depend on human embryo cloning.
Human cloning would indeed provide another source of stem
cells--this time by asexual reproduction. But a human embryo
still has to be created--then destroyed--to produce these
stem cells. Moreover, very little research cloning
experimentation has been done with animals--a prerequisite to
any demands for such work in humans. Given the early state of
this uncharted new science, the large number of federal cell
lines and the unlimited number available for private
research, I believe a sufficient number and range of cell
lines are available.
As a heart transplant surgeon, I know intimately the
challenges of transplant rejection. But I also know of
multiple promising strategies to address this issue, such as
the development of ``tolerance strategies,'' improved
pharmacologic immunosuppression and the manipulation of cell
surface structure to make cells ``invisible'' to the immune
system--none of which carries the ethical burdens attached to
human cloning.
No one can deny the potential that human cloning holds for
increased scientific understanding. But given the serious
ethical concerns this research raises, the fact that
promising embryonic stem cell research will continue even
under a cloning ban, the lack of significant research in
animal models and the existence of promising alternatives, I
am unable to find a compelling justification for allowing
human cloning today.
The fact that we are even engaged in this debate testifies
to the rapid and encouraging progress of science. For now,
the proper course is to stop short of allowing cloning
research in humans but to enthusiastically embrace the public
and private stem cell research that holds such great hope for
those who suffer from a wide range of disorders and
conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease
and diabetes.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), who, based upon long background and interest in
this area, has been a leader in terms of health care for all Americans.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for
yielding me the time.
I rise today in support of the substitute and in opposition to the
underlying bill.

[[Page H1428]]

There are three major points that need to be made. First, the
substitute bans human cloning in any form, period. It has stiff
criminal and civil penalties imposed on anyone who would attempt human
cloning, and both bills do that.

{time} 1600

One is not diminished with a stronger bill. They both absolutely
provide that.
Second, the underlying bill takes a step that I do not think can be
talked about enough, and that is that it turns scientists and
researchers, who I think are the merchants of hope, into criminals
simply for trying to find cures for our most dreadful diseases.
In the life of our Nation, there have been many times that white-hot
issues have been debated in the Congress. In the mid-1970s, the subject
was recombinant DNA. Today, this procedure is responsible for the
insulin that allows children with juvenile diabetes to live normal
lives. It was such a debate like this one today that took place in the
Congress, and there were Members that stood up and said we cannot do
this, the sky will fall, it is not moral, it is not ethical; and yet we
took the steps to move in that direction.
In the late 1970s, and again in the early 1990s, the subject was in
vitro fertilization. Many Members questioned then, in a very important
debate, how we could allow that process to go forward; and yet today
there are many happy families as a result of it. Today, the opposition
characterizes this in a very unusual way. In my view, it is the
equivalent of book burning, to criminalize scientists and researchers
and ban what they do.
It is important to take note of how these debates have gone forward.
I think the Congress needs to move forward today with scientific
discovery and also affirming life and protecting it. We can do both. I
understand that this is a difficult issue for some Members, but I think
that we need to look at who stands with us in this, the groups that
support H.R. 801. Is Stanford University off its rocker? Is the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists totally wrong in
this? Is the American Gastroenterological Association wrong? How about
the American Infertility Association, the American Medical Association,
the American Society for Cell Biology, the National Health Council, the
Lymphoma Research Foundation, the International Foundation for
Anticancer Drugs?
I could go on and on. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to read the
list that I will ask be placed in the Record and to read it carefully.
Let us ban human cloning, let us support American research and those
that are a part of it.
Mr. Chairman, the list I just referred to is submitted herewith for
the Record.

Groups Supporting H.R. 801--Alliance for Aging Research,
Alpha-1 Foundation, ALS Association, American Association of
Neurological, Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons,
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American
Council on Education, American Foundation for AIDS Research
(amfAR), American Gastroenterological Association, American
Infertility Association, American Medical Association,
American Society for Cell Biology, American Society for
Microbiology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
American Society of Hematology, Association for Women in
Science, Association of American Medical Colleges,
Association of American Universities, Association of
Reproductive Health Professionals, Biotechnology Industry
Organization, California Institute of Technology,
Californians for Cure, Canavan Research Illinois, Cancer
Research and Prevention Foundation, Cedars-Sinai Health
System, Children's Neurobiological Solutions, Christopher
Reeve Paralysis Foundation, Coalition of Patient Advocates
for Skin Disease Research, Columbia University Committee for
the Advancement of Stem Cell Research, Cures Now, Duke
University Medical Center, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS
Foundation, Genetic Alliance, Hadassah, Harvard University,
Hereditary Disease Foundation, Hope for ALS.
International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery
(IFADD), International Longevity Center--USA, International
Psoriasis Community (IPC), Jeffrey Modell Foundation, Johns
Hopkins Medicine, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation,
International Lymphoma Research Foundation, Monash
University, National Association for Biomedical Research,
National Coalition for Cancer Research, National Coalition
for Cancer Survivorship, National Council on Spinal Cord
Injury, National Health Council, National Venture Capital
Association, Parents of Infants and Children with
Kernicterus, Parkinson's Action Network, Parkinson's Disease
Foundation, Project A.L.S., Quest for the Cure,
Research!America, Resolve: The National Infertility
Association, Rett Syndrome Research Foundation, Society for
Women's Health Research, Stanford University, Stem Cell
Research Foundation, Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation,
Tourette's Syndrome Association, Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance,
University of California System, University of Minnesota,
University of Rochester Medical Center, University of
Southern California, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Vanderbilt University and Medical Center, Washington
University in St. Louis, WiCell Research Institution,
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Wisconsin Association
for Biomedical Research and Education.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, on the eve of this debate in July 2001, Washington Post
columnist Charles Krauthammer referred to Mr. Greenwood's legislative
approach to human cloning ``a nightmare of a bill.'' He said, ``Mr.
Greenwood sanctions, licenses, and protects the launching of the most
ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history, the
creation of a nascent cloned human life for the sole purpose of its
exploitation and destruction.''
The majority of the House, like Mr. Krauthammer, rejected the
Greenwood amendment by a vote of 178 to 249. We got it right then, and
I do hope that Members today will vote against the Greenwood
substitute. The Greenwood substitute, Mr. Chairman, would, for the
first time in human history, sanction the creation of human life with
the demand, backed by new Federal criminal and civil sanctions, that
the new life be destroyed after being exploited.
For the small inconvenience of registering your name and your
business address, and filling out a form, you would be licensed to play
God by creating life in your own image or someone else's. You would
have the right to create embryo farms or anything else science might
someday allow to be created outside the womb. And in the end, only
failure to kill that which you had created would be against the law. We
call it, Mr. Chairman, clone and kill. Amazingly, the only new crime
created by the Greenwood amendment is failure to kill all human lives
created. Federal law would say, create as many as you like, so long as
you eventually kill them.
Mr. Chairman, the clear consequence, I believe, of the Greenwood
substitute is that it would not even stop the birth of a human clone,
which it proposes to do with a moratorium. Because his approach would
encourage the creation of cloned embryo stockpiles and cloned embryo
farms, it would make the hard part of human cloning completely legal
and would make the relatively easy part, implantation, illegal.
I strongly support the underlying bill and urge rejection of the
Greenwood substitute.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and ask my friend from New Jersey how we would wind up with a
cloned embryo stockpile? How would that happen?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would just say to my friend, Mr. Chairman,
that once this process is sanctioned and encouraged legally Federal
dollars or other dollars might follow, and embryos will be cloned,
this, I believe over time, human embryo farms, this science, will be
certainly doable. And it is doable. We know that.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and then I will
yield to the gentleman again.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me finish. You asked me a question.
Mr. GREENWOOD. I am reclaiming my time, and then I will yield to the
gentleman again.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But over time there would be the creation of
human embryo farms.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Pennsylvania controls the time.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would love to have a dialogue with the
gentleman, but let us go back and forth a little here.

[[Page H1429]]

The gentleman from New Jersey said over time we would clone eggs. Can
the gentleman explain how you clone an egg? Is the gentleman suggesting
we can take one egg and turn it into multiple eggs?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I
said we would clone cells that would become identical to those that
they were from, whether it be from you or I or anyone else. They would
become an embryo capable of growing, if uninterrupted, into a young
person, into an elderly person, and to a natural death.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time once again, I am not sure, with all
due respect, that my friend from New Jersey understands this process.
You cannot, you cannot, you cannot take one cloned entity and
multiply it. You have to go back and get another egg. The gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon) described how extraordinarily difficult it is
to get one egg. You have to find a woman who is willing to be
superovulated and give up an egg to science. You cannot multiply that
egg into more embryos. You can make one.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman again, can the gentleman
explain the science by which he claims that we are going to wind up
with, as he said, embryo stockpiles, embryo farms? Where do these
thousands of eggs that the gentleman describes in this fictitious
nightmare come from?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for continuing to
yield, Mr. Chairman, and respond that it will happen over time, as
financial inducements are provided. As some of our colleagues pointed
out earlier in the debate, when money is provided, some women may be
induced to sell their eggs; and many thousands, if not tens of
thousands of eggs will be produced over time. There will be a magnet
provided to these women, especially the poorer women, to offer up their
eggs for this kind of operation.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has answered my question,
and I will reclaim my time.
The gentleman proposes in his response to my question that women of
America are going to line up for dollars so they can be superovulated,
and it is the most ridiculous and disrespectful attitude towards women
I can imagine. To think that the gentleman from New Jersey believes
that the women of this country are going to line up for a painful
procedure, and one as intimate as the donation of eggs for money, I
think, is incredible.
The proponents of the Weldon bill would like to paint those of us who
think that this research, this transient period of research so
important for science, as somehow out of the mainstream. The
gentlewoman from California talked about some of the organizations that
stand with us. Let me name some others:
The Alliance for Aging Research, the Alpha-1 Foundation, the ALS
Association, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the
Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Foundation of AIDS
Research, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American
Infertility Association, the American Medical Association, the American
Society for Cell Biology, the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine, the American Society of Hematology, the Association of
American Medical Colleges, the Cancer Research and Prevention
Foundation, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the Children's
Neurobiological Solutions Organization, the Coalition of Patient
Advocates for Skin Disease Research, the Genetic Alliance, Harvard
University, Hope for ALS, Lymphoma Research Foundation, the National
Association for Biomedical Research, the National Coalition for Cancer
Research, the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, the National
Council on Spinal Cord Injury, National Health Council, the Parents of
Infants and Children with Kernicterus, Parkinson's Action Network, the
Parkinson's Disease Foundation, Research America, Tourette's Syndrome
Research Foundation, et cetera.
This is the mainstream of American medicine. This is the mainstream
of American science. This is the intelligentsia of America who actually
understand how this science works, who do not walk around thinking you
can multiply eggs through science and who do not believe women are
going to line up by the tens of thousands for dollars to produce these
fictitious embryo farms.
My colleagues, there is a time in American history where we are
either going to decide to go with the people who understand this stuff
and the people who have compassion in their hearts for these people
with these diseases, or we are going to fall prey to this Luddite anti-
scientific and demagogical approach.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is way off base, and I
can tell my colleagues from my own family experience how far off base
he is.
My mother died of Alzheimer's disease. For the last year and a half
of her life, she did not know who I was, she did not know who my wife
was, she did not know who my sister was, or who my kids were. And to
insinuate that those of us who disagree with the gentleman's amendment
are Luddites and insensitive is flat-out wrong.
Furthermore, my beloved wife, who I have been married to for almost
26 years, has had a spinal cord injury. She has no sensitivity below
her waist. She is a wonderful woman. She has given me two wonderful
children, and we have lived day by day and minute by minute with that
kind of a condition; and she and I are both in favor of what the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is trying to do because there is an
ethical issue and there is a moral issue involved in this, which many
people want to turn their backs on. But in my family we have to live
with it every day and every minute, and we will until death do us part.
Now, the whole issue on this amendment, to get back to my initial
remarks, is the policing of what is done with the cloned embryos that
the Greenwood amendment allows. 99.99 percent of the people that do the
experimentation on cloned embryos may do it in an entirely ethical
manner. But all we need is one unethical person to implant a cloned
embryo in utero and we have a cloned baby. And once that unethical
person plants the cloned embryo in utero and it starts developing as a
fetus, what does that gentleman's amendment do about it? Absolutely
nothing. Are we going to throw somebody in jail for doing that? Are we
going to throw the mother in jail for doing that? No way. The baby is
going to be born, and we are going to have a cloned human being.
Again, Bill Clinton's bioethics panel said: ``The commission began
its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer
a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of
an embryo with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and
developed to term.''

{time} 1615

Your substitute does not deal with this issue at all. That is why it
is fatally flawed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I want to get at this issue of eggs and how are
you going to get them. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has implied that
my concerns about women's donation are unfounded. Let me just
underscore from the start that there are a lot of people on the left
that have a lot of concern about this issue. One of the first people
who came into my office to join forces with me on preparing this
legislation was Judy Norsigian. She is pro-choice. She helped write the
Boston Women's Health Cooperative book, ``Our Bodies, Ourselves.''
Indeed, I think some of the concern about this issue is why I think
seven Democrats, seven or eight Democrats with a perfect voting record
with NARAL, supported my bill in the 107th Congress and it is over this
concern. The gentleman from Pennsylvania implied it's ridiculous, women
aren't going to be lining up. The issue is essentially this. If you are
going to start doing a lot of this experimentation, you are going to
need a lot of eggs because not every egg you put the nucleus in and
then zap it with electricity begins to divide and form an embryo. There
is a fairly high failure rate if you

[[Page H1430]]

actually read the research articles, which I have done. There is a
pretty high failure rate. So you are going to need lots of eggs to
create a few embryos and you are going to need a lot of women to get a
lot of eggs.
And who will donate their eggs? Well, it is going to be women who
will do it for money. It is a painful procedure. Women do this right
now. The fertility clinics frequently deal with women who are older and
their eggs are not very viable and so they pay typically coeds to
donate some of their eggs so that some of these older women can
actually have a baby. It is already going on today. But it is going on
today on a very limited level and it is going on today for what I think
is an ethically and morally appropriate purpose: somebody wants to have
a baby, somebody struggling with infertility. But now we are going to
be talking about creating these eggs for this research.
The research, Mr. Chairman, is going nowhere. I have read the
reports. It is not going to ever lead to any cures. The reason the
biotech industry wants the Greenwood amendment to prevail and does not
want my position to prevail is because they want to create human models
of disease so that we can get away from using rats and mice as our
models for disease. To me, this is a huge issue. You are talking about
creating human embryos, modifying them genetically to preprogram them
with diseases, and then selling them for a profit by the biotech
industry.
I said before, it is an abomination. If you do not think that is an
abomination, I do not know what you think is. To me it is absolutely
ghastly.
Let me just close by again saying all of this research can proceed
with animal models unfettered under the provisions of the bill that the
chairman has brought to the floor. You can continue with animal
research. You can clone DNA. You can clone animals. You can clone
cells. You just cannot create a human embryo under the provision of
this legislation. I think it is the right thing to do. I think that
morally it is the correct thing to do. I would again encourage all of
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute and vote ``yes'' on the
underlying bill.
I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his very eloquent
remarks.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each of us has
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Deutsch) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I know, at least at this table, we have
literally probably about 10 or 12 or 15 Members who would like to
speak. I would at least ask for unanimous consent to offer each side an
additional 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, there
is a snowstorm bearing down on this city. There are numerous Members
who have asked me to speed this debate up so that they can get out of
town and not be marooned here. I would ask the gentleman from Florida
to have compassion on those Members and withdraw his unanimous consent
request. If he persists, I am constrained to object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I hear the possibility of objection so I
withdraw it at this point in time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff), an original cosponsor of the legislation who is very
knowledgeable about this issue.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my remarks to some of the
arguments that have been made by the opposition to the substitute:
first, that other research will adequately substitute for somatic cell
nuclear transfer; second, the policing issue; and third, the moral
issue.
On the first issue, there is no adequate substitute for the science
of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Adult stem cells do not have the same
potential to differentiate. And even if you are talking about embryonic
stem cells, the advantage of the somatic cell nuclear transfer is that
the transfer will bear the DNA of the patient who is being treated and
it will not be rejected by the patient. That is a vital distinction,
because it will not necessitate the use of immunosuppressant drugs. So
there is no adequate substitute for this type of research.
On the second point, that we cannot adequately police this if we
allow this. As a practical matter and speaking as a former prosecutor,
if we want to preclude any possibility of abuse, we not only need to
preclude any kind of stem cell research, we need to ban and close down
every fertility clinic in the country. When has it been the case that
because of the possibility of abuse or criminality we would shut down
important, vital avenues of research? That has never been the policy of
the United States. It is one of the reasons we lead the world in
research and one of the reasons we have to continue to lead.
Finally, on the most difficult question, and that is the moral
question, the question of when life begins. This is not a question that
we can resolve on the House floor. It is something we all bring our
faiths to bear on. But what we can decide is whether we are willing to
use the coercive power of the government to make that decision for
everyone else; whether we are willing to use that coercive power to say
that we will deny people treatment derived from this important science
because some of us have a view of life that life begins with the
fertilization of an egg or with a somatic cell nuclear transfer when
others do not. I would urge my colleagues to deny themselves the
benefit of that research if they choose, but do not deny it to the rest
of the world.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, since the House last
considered a ban on cloning, the National Academy of Sciences and the
President's Council on Bioethics have both issued reports on the
ethical and social questions raised by cloning. H.R. 534 does not
reflect the recommendations of either body.
In moving to head off the morally unacceptable practice of cloning
human beings, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that we must
take great care not to limit the process of somatic cell nuclear
transfer which holds considerable potential for developing new
therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge.
The 17 members of the President's Council on Bioethics were divided
on a final policy recommendation, but even the most conservative
members of the council recommended only a 4-year moratorium on
therapeutic cloning, not an outright ban as the Weldon bill would
mandate.
There is a compelling moral case for therapeutic cloning based on our
obligation to relieve human suffering and to affirm human health and
life. The Greenwood substitute maintains the critical scientific and
moral distinction between reproductive cloning, which we all agree
should be banned, and therapeutic cloning which has tremendous
potential for human benefit.
Vote against H.R. 534 and for the Greenwood substitute.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support
for this substitute amendment. Embryonic stem cell use is necessary in
discovering the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases, to testing new
drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human
volunteers, and to staving off the ravages of disease with the
regeneration of our bodies' essential organs.
Contrary to what opponents have been saying, this substitute does not
give a green light to individuals and companies who perform human
somatic cell nuclear transfer. It requires them to register with the
Food and Drug Administration which will act as an independent oversight
committee. The Greenwood substitute formalizes in law what is already
being practiced across this Nation.
If the underlying bill instead of the substitute passes, it will
represent a

[[Page H1431]]

triumph for ideological special interests over the public interest,
because the public interest is best served when the medical and the
scientific community is free to exercise their professional judgment in
extending and enhancing human life.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Greenwood substitute. We know that the people who have come before us
today have said, and they have said this very clearly, that none of us
supports cloning as a means of human reproduction. But we also know
that drug discoveries often have narrow targets. I believe that my
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), mentioned
the number of organizations that are supporting this. Those who suffer
from unusual illnesses that kill the young seldom have sufficient
numbers to stimulate drug research; but it is this basic research we
are talking about, this basic research into cell reproduction that, if
successful, could benefit large numbers of such diseases, each of which
affects a small number of people.
None of us here would want to look a constituent in the eye and say
that we rejected the possibility of pursuing 21st century science which
might have saved the life of their loved one.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the good doctor from Florida's
legislation, H.R. 534, and against the Greenwood substitute. I also
want to thank my chairman on the Committee on the Judiciary for moving
the legislation through our committee and bringing it here today.
I am very concerned by the language of the substitute and its
ramifications. Leon Kass, the distinguished bioethicist, notes that
under the Greenwood language, embryo production is explicitly licensed
and treated like drug manufacturing. Furthermore, it would establish an
unworkable system of embryos in labs all over the country and puts
Federal law enforcement in charge of making sure that no egg is ever
implanted in a woman's body. Our law enforcement officials simply
cannot carry out the directive.
The language of the base bill is narrowly tailored. Simply, the
language ensures that women are not exploited so their eggs cannot be
mass harvested as commodities for research purposes. And the language
prohibits the creation of cloned human embryos for experimental
research or productive purposes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
substitute and to support this important legislation.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), one of our new Members.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of cloning humans
for reproduction but I do favor the medical research that the Greenwood
substitute would provide. Every day in this country hundreds of
thousands of Americans suffer from the effects of degenerative disease
and spinal cord injuries. As a young attorney I was in a car accident
where I nearly lost my life. Maryland's Emergency Medical Shock Trauma
system saved my life. Medical research saved my life. To this day I
continue to serve as vice chair of the Shock Trauma Board. My work with
shock trauma has put me in contact with a number of people who are
suffering from degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.
My good friend Burt Greenwood from Baltimore has Lou Gehrig's
disease. Every day he fights to stay with us. Every day he hopes that
stem cell research someday will give him a chance. That is why I stand
in support of the Greenwood amendment. We must make continued research
a reality and not just a hope for the families that we represent.
Let me quote Dr. Jeffrey Rothstein, a professor of neurology and the
director for ALS research at Johns Hopkins University:

No responsible scientist wants to clone a human.
Responsible scientists want to continue the research for
cures to degenerative disease. Stem cell research holds the
only hope for thousands of suffering Americans.

{time} 1630

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about human cloning, and
everybody in this Chamber knows that. In fact, both bills ban human
cloning. This debate is about whether there is going to be medical
research that may provide answers to some of the horrible diseases that
afflict people. I want my colleagues to meet little Claire, 3\1/2\, and
Lauren, 5. They have a disease called SMA, spinal muscular atrophy. It
is a genetic disease. Half the kids diagnosed with this die by the time
they are 2 years old. All they want is a chance. They have hope. H.R.
534 takes the chance for a cure away from them. I hope that the people
on the side of H.R. 534 will think about that. All they want is a
chance. Is that too much to ask?
Please, I implore my colleagues here to vote for the Greenwood
substitute and against H.R. 534.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Greenwood substitute and
in opposition to H.R. 534. I join with my colleagues in making one
thing perfectly clear: I am opposed to cloning of humans. I do not
believe there is any justification in replication of a human being.
However, I believe that we in Congress have a responsibility to
carefully craft Federal legislation on cloning that will not outlaw
legitimate medical research that may save or enhance the lives of many.
Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has stated her support of therapeutic
cloning because it offers the best hope for curing Alzheimer's. I am
supporting the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to read a letter that Nancy Reagan wrote to
this Congress on this issue. ``As you may know, Ronnie will observe his
92nd birthday soon. In earlier times we would have been able to
celebrate that day with great joy and wonderful memories of our life
together. Now, while I can draw strength from these memories, I do it
alone, as Ronnie struggles in a world unknown to me or the scientists
who devote their lives to Alzheimer's research. Because of this, I am
determined to do what I can to save other families from this pain. I'm
writing, therefore, to offer my support for stem cell research and to
tell you I'm in favor of new legislation to allow the ethical use of
therapeutic cloning. Like you, I support a complete ban on reproductive
cloning. However, I believe that embryonic stem cell research, under
appropriate guidelines, may provide our scientists with many answers
that are now beyond our grasp. Sincerely, Nancy Reagan.''
Mr. Chairman, there are those families that might not choose to want
to use this research, and my colleagues mentioned, themselves, that
they would not. This bill actually bans the importation of those cures.
I doubt there is a family in America that if Alzheimer's was cured
through this research in Ireland, Japan, Germany that they would not
use it; and I would not ask a Member personally to state what would
happen on the floor if that was the case, but I ask them to look into
their own hearts before they vote about that.
Finally, I would say that that is the issue in front of us today. I
urge the support of the substitute and adoption of the final bill.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It has been a good debate. The gentleman from Wisconsin seemed to
think that I was impugning the opponents of my substitute. I am not. My
point was that contrary to the argument that the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) made that the purpose of this research is strictly
for the exploitation and destruction of human life is wrong, this is
about hope. This is about trying to stop suffering, and we

[[Page H1432]]

have a choice to make here between fear and hope, and I encourage my
colleagues to support hope. Support the Greenwood-Deutsch amendment and
vote ``no'' on the Weldon bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of the bill.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman for
his work in this area, and I thank him for yielding me this time.
The Greenwood substitute purports to be a ban on human cloning. It is
a moratorium on human cloning. It is a 10-year prohibition that
sunsets; and it allows unfettered, essentially, the creation of human
embryos in the lab for the purpose of research; and then it requires
their destruction, essentially, through a process called somatic cell
nuclear transfer or human cloning.
We have never gone in this direction before where we are actually
talking about creating human embryos in the lab for exploiting them and
destroying them. There have been a few labs in different places in the
country that have tried to do this. One successfully. There are
fertility clinics that have so-called excess embryos, and some of them
have made those embryos available for stem cell research. This bill
does not affect that. That would be permissible to move forward.
The question before us is, is the Greenwood substitute a real ban on
human cloning? I contend it is not. It would still allow the creation
of clones in the lab in embryonic form, and I believe very strongly
that it will usher in what the supporters of the substitute claim that
they do not want to see and that is reproductive cloning, because we
will have all of these labs generating these embryos and eventually one
of them or more will find its way into unscrupulous hands, will be
implanted, and will result in reproductive cloning.
Might I also add that there are some people who want to allow this
research to move forward so that they can some day be able to do
reproductive cloning. At a hearing we had on this issue, I had Dr.
Brian Cohen testify before the committee, and he repeatedly said, ``We
are opposed to reproductive cloning at this time.'' He kept saying ``at
this time.'' And I finally asked him, ``What do you mean by 'at this
time'?'' And he is the executive director, or the president, of the
American Society for Reproductive Medicine; and then he went on to
basically say that if they can work through all of the problems with
cloning that they would some day like to be able to do it. And what
will happen, what will be next with that? I contend that the age of
eugenics will have arrived. There will be people who will then want to
manipulate these embryos for the purpose of creating a human with
preintended specifications, specifying size, height, weight, athletic
performance, intellectual capabilities; and it will open a Pandora's
box of frightful potentialities that I feel that we as a civilization
do not want to open up, and therefore I strongly encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the substitute
and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I have come before you today to share my
strong opposition to H.R. 534 and to ask my colleagues to vote for the
Greenwood substitute. It is very important to me personally that we
take a serious look at the issue of banning technology for the
inherently different uses of creating embryos for both therapeutic
cloning and reproduction cloning.
First, this issue does not conflict with religious faith. One leading
scientist provides this description of cloning technology: ``Because
there are no body cells of any kind, and the cells have not yet
individualized they are not a person yet, by definition. Saying that a
preimplantation embryo is a human being and arguing that therapeutic
cloning is, therefore, unethical is simply not based on fact.''
Therapeutic cloning and stem cell research have the potential to
bring us exciting new treatments and possible cures for many of our
most debilitating diseases and injuries including Parkinson's,
diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord
injuries. The list goes on. The number of Americans suffering from
these afflictions--and indeed the number of those who will potentially
reap the benefits--is estimated to be over 100 million. Mr. Speaker,
and as someone with Parkinson's Disease, I am one of those millions.
Critics of therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research say
that there has been little progress and these techniques offer only
pipe dreams to those who are sick or dying. I ask my colleagues why
this fledgling science which is in its infancy should be banned before
further developments and progress can be made.
Opponents to therapeutic cloning say that the possible evils
associated with creating cloned human beings are so great that we need
to ban the technology itself, that is a slippery slope. This is simply
not the case, and the Greenwood substitute institutes severe criminal
penalties for anyone involved in implanting a cloned embryo in a
women's uterus.
In fact, the only slippery slope in this debate--the fate of embryos,
which may be applied then to embryos created for in vitro
fertilization, that are created with a possibility of being discarded
is at stake. As a society, we have accepted and even embraced the
science of in vitro fertilization. Deciding that we should more to a
society in which embryos should never be created with the knowledge
that they would be discarded would not only affect the importance
research of embryonic stem cells but also affect the millions of
Americans who gain hope of bearing their own children by in virto
fertilization.
Regeneration medicine provides hope for millions of Americans. It is
the future of medicine for so many of our citizens who suffer every
day. It holds hope for my life. Let us leave science and medical
technology to our medical technology to our medical researchers and use
our time to focus on this Nation's real problems. I urge my colleagues
to vote for the Greenwood substitute, H.R. 801, and vote against
H.R.534.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 534
and in strong support for the Greenwood/Deutsch/DeGette/Eshoo/Kirk
substitute. The United States has long been the leader in medical
research and biotechnology. Biotechnological advances have the
potential to transform the way we treat many debilitating diseases.
One promising way that biotechnology is changing our lives is through
the potential of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.
Therapeutic cloning is not cloning in the sense most people use the
term, namely using technology to create a person who is a genetically
identical copy of someone else. That type of cloning is reproductive
cloning and is rightfully subject to a ban. The Greenwood Substitute
would do just that.
In addition, the Greenwood Substitute would also permit therapeutic
cloning. The potential therapies that may be developed from therapeutic
cloning are significant. Therapeutic cloning will help researchers
pursue stem cell therapies that could impact the lives of millions of
Americans suffering from many of our most devastating illnesses,
including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS, heart disease,
cancer, and spinal cord injury. Further, this technology offers hope to
the more than 1 million American children who suffer from juvenile
diabetes because of the potential to turn these cells into insulin-
producing cells.
We have entered the 21st Century and are on the verge of breakthrough
biomedical discoveries that could save millions of lives. H.R. 534
would halt vital research that has the potential to revolutionize the
biotech industry. Stopping this research in its tracks puts the United
States at a clear and immediate disadvantage. Other nations such as
Britain, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, all of which currently
have laws allowing therapeutic cloning from designated sources,
continue to advance the technology. Molecular and cellular biologists
committed to this research have already begun to look abroad, and they
take with them lucrative investments from the biotech industry. Other
scientists have dropped the cause all together, wasting precious time
in the development of life-saving procedures that will someday help
millions of people.
Back home in Wisconsin, I have had the privilege of meeting with Dr.
James Thomson, a developmental biologist at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, who has contributed greatly to stem cell research.
Three years ago he became the first person to isolate stem cells from
human embryos. He has not taken on this work lightly, he has thought
carefully about the ethical implications of his research. For Dr.
Thompson, the moral questions about embryo experimentation were not
difficult to resolve; he concluded that research was the ``better
ethical choice.''
Because embryonic stem cells have the potential to grow into any cell
or tissue in the human body, scientists say they hold great potential
for repairing damaged tissues or organs. But to extract them requires
that the embryo be destroyed, therefore, every year since 1995,
Congress has attached language to its appropriations legislation to ban
taxpayer financing of the work.
This ban requires that Dr. Thomson work into different laboratories,
one of them in secret. He works primarily out of the university's
primate center. This is his federally financed laboratory where he
studies stem cells derived from the embryos of rhesus monkeys and
marmosets.

[[Page H1433]]

When he conducts research on human cells, he must, however, move to
an entirely different laboratory. This one is paid for by WiCell
Research Institute, a corporation set up as a subsidiary of the
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the nonprofit group that holds
the patent to Dr. Thomson's work. The location of this lab has never
been disclosed to ensure the safety of the workers.
Freedom of research has led to the development of over 117 biotech
products that have helped more than 250 million people worldwide. In
addition, the biotech industry generated $28.5 billion in revenues in
2001, an increase of more than 350 percent in just ten years. Further,
employment within the sector more than doubled in the same time period.
The United States has an obligation to demonstrate our continued
leadership in this arena and we can only do so with the support of our
government. We cannot afford the loss of resources that a chilled
scientific climate will bring. We should not cede our leadership, or
our industry, to other nations.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Weldon bill. Support
responsible research, vote yes on the Greenwood Substitute.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, the issue of human cloning is one
that understandably causes grave concern and often heated opposition.
But we in our position as leaders have the responsibility not only to
ensure that this developing and promising technology that can
revolutionize the art of healing, is not used for nefarious purposes,
but to also educate and inform the public on the issue.
Today I rise in support of H.R. 801, the Greenwood-Deutsch Cloning
Prohibition Act of 2003, because it makes the critical distinctions and
provides the hope that the people of this country are looking for. We
don't ever want to clone human beings, but we do want to use the
technology termed, ``human somatic cell transfer'' as the vital tool it
is, to allow scientists to fully develop the wonderful promise of stem
cell research.
I applaud my colleagues for their leadership in bringing this
alternative bill forward. It should be the primary, and really the one
bill before us today.
As a physician I look forward to the day when we can cure diseases
such as sickle cell disease, make the quadriplegic walk again, and
successfully treat or reverse so many other diseases for which this was
still an impossible dream I was in practice.
To pass H.R. 534 would not only cost our nation its standing as the
world leader in health technology, but passing that base bill would
kill this dream, and with it the hope of life and health for countless
of our constituents.
Let's not do that, vote instead for the Greenwood/Deutsch/DeGette/
Eschoo substitute.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
extreme opposition to the cloning of human beings. At no time do I
think it will be acceptable for science to go down that path. As
Members of Congress, we need to impose very strict penalties to prevent
scientists from making the jump from doing important research to
playing God.
But as a nurse, I remember a debate very similar to this one, the
debate over researching DNA. In the 1970s, we in the healthcare
community were very excited over the research being conducted by
scientists on human beings actual biological makeup. However, many
others believed then that we were headed towards creating Frankenstein
or Aldolphus Huxley's ``Brave New World.''
The DNA technology debate also focused on regenerative medicine based
on stem cell and nuclear transfer biology. DNA involves splicing the
gene for a desired protein into bacterial, yeast or other mammalian
cells, which then manufacture protein. To accomplish this, scientists
had to develop incredibly powerful techniques for managing the
mechanisms to cellular biology. Society had to decide whether to allow
their continued development and if so, how to regulate and manage these
techniques.
Mr. Chairman, the research continued, and millions of patients and
their families have benefited. Today, it is used to produce human
therapeutic proteins to treat or prevent a wider array of diseases and
conditions. DNA products include: Human Insulin for diabetics;
Herceptin for patients with breast cancer; Epogen for patients with
kidney disease; Enbrel to hel patients with rheumatoid arthritis; and
Pulmozyne that has prevented childhood deaths from cystic fibrosis.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to submit for the Record a
list of 66 other DNA products that are approved by the FDA. These
products have helped ten of millions of patients worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, today's, Greenwood Amendment takes care of both of my
concerns on this issue. First and foremost, if defines human somatic
cell nuclear transfer with the intent to initiate a pregnancy as a
criminal act subject to criminal and civil penalties. These penalties
include: Imprisonment of up to 10 years; Civil penalties up to $10
million (or two times the pecuniary gain from cloning); and it provides
for forfeiture of equipment, other property, and any monetary gains
from cloning human beings. In addition, it requires all individuals who
plan to perform human somatic cell nuclear transfer to register with
the FDA. And finally it requires all research be conducted with the
Institutional Review Board's oversight.
The Greenwood Amendment also addresses my concern about restrictions
on therapeutic cloning by allowing this important research to proceed.
The goal of therapeutic cloning is to treat or cure patients with life
threatening diseases by creating tailor made, genetically identical
cells that the patient's body will not reject. In other words, this
procedure could allow patients to be cured using their own DNA.
In that process the nucleus is removed from a donated unfertilized
egg and replaced with the patient's own cells, like skin, heart, or
nerve cell. These types of cells are called somatic cells. These
unfertilized egg cells are stored in a perti dish to become a source of
stem cells that can be used to treat life-threatening medical
conditions. These cells are not transplanted into a womb and no sperm
is used in this procedure.
The National Scientists Academy believes that therapeutic cloning or
somatic cell nuclear transplant technology could lead to dramatic new
treatments and cures for currently noncurable diseases and medical
conditions including cancer, diabetes, parkinson's, spinal cord
injuries, heart disease, ALS and many others. We need to find these
cures today and this research may be the key to unlock the cure.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood Amendment
and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

[[Page H1434]]

RECOMBINANT DNA PRODUCTS APPROVED THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Company Indication Year approved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actimmune (interferon gamma-1b).. Genetech Inc. and Treatment of chronic ganulomatous disease; treatment of 1990
InterMune Pharmaceuticals severe malignant ostepetrosis. 2000
Inc..
Activas (alteplase)/CathfloTM Genentech Inc............. Treatment of acute myocamprdial infarction (heart 1987
Activase. attack); acute massive pulmonary embolism; acute 1990
ischemic stroke within first three hours of systom 1996
onset; restoration of function to central venous 2001
access devices (Cathflo Activase).
AranespTM (darbepoietin alfa)..... Amgen..................... Treatment of anemia asociated with chronic renal 2001
failure.
Avonex (interferon beta 1-alpha). Biogen.................... Treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.... 1996
BeneFixTM (coagulation factor IX). Genetics Institute Treatment of hemophilia B.............................. 1997
(subsidiary of American
Home Products).
Betaseron (interferon beta 1-b).. Berlex Laboratories and Treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.... 1993
Chiron Corp.
BioclateTM (antihemophilic factor) Centeon................... Treatment of hemophilia A; perioperative management of 1993
patients with hemophilia A.
BioTropinTM (human growth hormone) Bio-Technology General Treatment of human growth hormone deficiency in 1995
Corp. children.
Campath (alemtuzumab, recombinant Ilex Oncology Inc., Treatment of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B- 2001
monoclonal antibody). Millennium CLL) in patients who have been treated with alkylating
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and agents and who have failed fludarabine therapy.
Berlex Laboratories Inc.
Cerezyme (alglucerase)........... Genzyme................... Treatment of Type 1 Gaucher's disease.................. 1991
1994
Enbrel (etanercept).............. Immunex Corporation....... Treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid 1998
arthritis in patients who have had an inadequate 1999
response to one or more disease-modifying 2000
antirheumatic drugs; treatment of polyarticular course
juvenile rheumatoid arthritis; treatment as a first-
line therapy for moderate to severe active rheumatoid
arthritis.
Engerix-B, (hepatitis B vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline........... Hepatitis B vaccine; adults with chronic hepatitis C 1989; 1998
recombinant). infection.
Epogen (epoietin alfa)........... Amgen..................... Treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal 1989; 1999
failure and anemia in zidovudine-treated HIV patients;
pediatric use.
FollistimTM (folitropin beta for Organon................... Recombinant follicie-stimulating hormone for treatment 1997
injection). of infertility.
Geno Tropin (semorelin).......... Pharmacia................. Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children; 1995; 1997
growth hormone deficiency in adults.
Geref (semorelin)................ Serono Laboratories....... Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children with 1997
growth failure.
Gonal-F (folicle-stimulating Serono Laboratories....... Treatment of infertility in women not due to primary 1998; 2000
hormone). ovarian failure; treatment of infertility in men and
women.
Helixate (antihemophilic factor). Aventis................... Factor VIII for treatment of hemophilia A; second- 1994; 2000
generation factor VIII formulated with sucrose for
treatment of hemophilia A.
Herceptin (trastuzumab, Genentech Inc............. Treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer 1998
recombinant monoclonal antibody). whose tumors overexpress the HER2 receptor.
Humalog (human insulin).......... Eli Lilly and Company..... Treatment of diabetes.................................. 1996
Humatrope (somatotropin)......... Eli Lilly and Company..... Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children; 1996; 1997
somatotropin deficiency syndrome in adults.
Humulin (insulin)................ Eli Lilly and Company..... Treatment of diabetes.................................. 1982
Infergen (interferon alfacon-1).. Amgen..................... Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in patients 18 1997; 1999
years or older with compensated liver disease who have
anti-HCV serum antibodies and/or the presence of HCV
RNA; subsequent treatment of HCV-infected patients who
have tolerated an initial course of interferon therapy.
Intron A (alpha interferon)...... Schering-Plough Treatment of hairy cell leukemia; gential warts; AIDS- 1986; 1988; 1988; 1991; 1996;
Corporation. related Kaposi's sarcoma; non-A, non-B malignant 1997; 1997; 1998
melanoma; extended therapy for follicular lymphoma in
conjunction with chemotherapy; treatment of hepatitis
B in pediatric patients.
KineretTM (anakinra).............. Amgen Inc................. Treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid 2001
arthritis in patients 18 or older who have failed one
or more disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.
Kogenate FS (antihemophilic Bayer Corporation......... Factor VII for treatment hemophilia A; second- 1989; 2000
factor). generation factor VII formulated with sucrose for
treatment of hemophilia A.
Lantus (insulin glargine)........ Aventis................... Biosynthetic basal insulin for adult and pediatric 2000
patients with type 2 diabetes.
Leukine (granulocyte macrophage Immunex Corporation....... Treatment of autologous bone marrow transplantation; 1991; 1995; 1995; 1995; 1996
colony stimulating factor). treatment of white blood cell toxicities following
induction chemotherapy in older patients with acute
myelogenous leukemia; for use following allogenic bone
marrow transplantation from HLA-matched related
donors; for use mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor
cells and for use after PBPC transplantation.
Norditropin (somatropin)......... Novo Nordisk.............. Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children..... 1995
Novolin (human insulin).......... Novo Nordisk.............. Treatment of diabetes.................................. 1982
NovoLog (insulin aspart)......... Novo Nordisk.............. Insulin analog for adults with diabetes mellitus....... 2000
NovoSeven (coagulation factor Novo Nordisk.............. Treatment of bleeding episodes in hemophilia A or B 1999
VIIa). patients with inhibitors to factor VIII or factor IX.
Nutropin DepotTM (somatropin, Genentech Inc. and Long-acting dosage form of recombinant growth hormone 1999
injectable suspension). Alkermes Inc.. (one or two doses permonth) for pediatric growth
bormone deficiency.
Nutropin/Nutropin AQ Genentech Inc............. Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children; 1993; 1994; 1996; 1996; 1999
(somatropin). growth hormone deficiency in adults; growth failure
associated with chronic renal insufficiency prior to
kidney transplantation; short stature associated with
Turner Syndrome; to improve spine bone mineral density
observed in childhood-onset adult growth hormone-
deficent patients and to increase serum alkaline
phosphatase.
LYMrixTM (OspA)................... SmithKline Beecham Prevention of Lyme disease............................. 1998
Biologicals.
MylotargTM (gemtuzumab ozogamicin) Celltech Chiroscience and Human antibody linked to calicheamicin 2000
Wyeth-Ayerst (American (chemotherapeutic) for treatment of CD33 positive
Home Products acute myeloid leukemia in patients 60 and older in
Corporation). first relapse who are not considered candidates for
cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Natrecor (nesiritide)............ Scios Inc................. Treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart 2001
failure who have syspnea at rest or with minimal
activity.
Neumega (oprelvekin)............. Genetics Institute Prevention of severe chemotherapy-induced 1997
(American Home Products thromboctopenia in cancer patients.
Corporation).
Nuepogen (filgastim)............. Amgen..................... Treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia; bone 1991; 1994; 1994; 1995; 1998
marrow transplant accompanied neutropenia; severe
chronic neutropenia; autologous bone marrow transplant
engraftment or failure; mobilization of autologous
PBPCs after chemotherapy.
Ovidre (human chorionic Serono Laboratories....... Treatment of infertility in women...................... 2000
gonadotropin).
PEG-Intron TM (pegylated version Enzon Inc. and Schering- Treatment of chronic hepatitis C; combination therapy 2001
of recombinant interferon alfa- Plough. with Rebetol of treatment of hepatitis C in patients
2b). with compensated liver disease.
Procrit (epoietin alfa)......... Ortho Biotech Inc......... Treatment of anemia in AZT-treated HIV patients; anemia 1990; 1993; 1996
in cancer patients on chemotherapy; for use in anemic
patients scheduled to undergo elective noncardiac,
nonvascular surgery.
Proleukin IL-2 (aldesleukin).... Chiron Corporation........ Treatment of kidney carcinoma; treatment of metastastic 1992; 1998
melanoma.
Protropin (somatrem)............ Genentech Inc............. Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children..... 1985
Pulmozyme (dornase alfa)........ Genentech Inc............. Treatment of mild to moderate cystic fibrosis; advanced 1993; 1996; 1998
cystic fibrosis; pediatric use in infants three months
to 2 years and children 2 to 4 years old.
Rebetron TM (combination of Schering-Plough Combination therapy for treatment of chronic hepatitis 1998
ribavirin and alpha interferon). Corporation. C in patients with compensated liver disease who have
relapsed following alpha interferon treatment;
treatment of chronic hepatitis C in patients with
compensated liver disease previously untreated with
alpha interferon therapy.
Recombinate rAHF (antihemophilic Baxter Healthcare Blood-clotting factor VIII for the treatment of 1992
factor). Corporation. hemophilia A.
Recombivax-HB (hepatitis B Merck & Company Inc....... Hepatitis B vaccine for adolescents and high-risk 1987; 1987; 1989; 1993
vaccine). infants; adults; dialysis patients; pediatrics.
DeFacto (antihemophilic factor). Genetics Institute Control and prevention of hemophilia A and short-term 2000
(American Home Products prophylaxis to reduce bleeding episodes.
Corporation).
Refludan (lepirudin)............ Hoechst Marion Roussel.... For anticoagulation in patients with heparin-induced 1998
thrombocyto-penia.
Regranex Gel (gel becaplermin).. Ortho-McNeil and Chiron Platelet-derived growth factor treatment of diabetic 1997
Corporation. foot ulcers.
Remicade TM (infliximab).......... Centocor Inc.............. Short-term management of moderately to severely active 1998; 1999
Crohn's disease, including those patients with
fistulae; treatment of patients with rheumatoid
arthritis who have had inadequate response to
methotrexate alone.
ReoPro TM (abciximab)............. Centocor and Eli Lilly and Reduction of acute blood-clot-related complications for 1994; 1997
Company. high-risk angioplasty patients; reduction of acute
blood clot complications for all patients undergoing
any coronary intervention; treatment of unstable
angina not responding to conventional medical therapy
when percutaneous coronary Iitervention is planned
within 24 hours.
Retavase TM (reteplase)........... Centocor Inc.............. Management of acute myocardial infarction in adults 1996
(thrombolytic).
Rituxan TM (rituximab)............ IDEC Pharmaceuticals and Treatment of relapsed or refactory low-grade or 1997
Genentech Inc.. follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma.
Roferon-A (interferon alfa-2a).. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc..... Treatment of hairy cell leukemia; AIDS-related Kaposi's 1986; 1988; 1995; 1995
sarcoma; chronic phase Philadelphia chromosome
positive chronic myelogenous leukemia; hepatitis C.
Saizen (human growth hormone).... Serono Laboratories....... Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children..... 1996
Serostim (human growth hormone).. Serono Laboratories....... Treatment of cachexia (AIDS-easting)................... 1996
Simulect (basiliximab)........... Novartis Pharmaceutical Prevention of acute rejection episodes in kidney 1998; 2001
Corporation and Ligand transplant recipients; use in renal transplantation in
Pharmaceuticals Inc.. combination with triple immunosuppressive therapy; use
in pediatric renal transplantation and use of an IV
bolus injection.

[[Page H1435]]

SYNAGIS TM (palivizumab).......... MedImmune Inc............. Prevention of serious lower respiratory tract disease 1998
caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in
pediatric patients at high risk of RSV disease.
Thyrogen (thyrotropin alfa)...... Genzyme................... Adjunctive diagnostic tool for serum thyroglobulin 1998
testing with or without radioiodine imaging in the
follow-up of patients with thyroid cancer.
TNKase TM (tenecteplase).......... Genentech Inc............. Treatment of acute myocardial infarction............... 2000
Twinrix (hepatitis A and SmithKline Beecham Immunization against hepatitis A and B viruses......... 2001
hepatitis B [recombinant] Biologicals.
vaccine).
Xigris TM (drotecogin alfa, Eli Lilly and Company..... Treatment of severe, life-threatening sepsis........... 2001
recombinant).
Zenapax (daclizumab)............ Hoffmann-La Roche Inc..... Prevention of kidney transplant rejection.............. 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H1436]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 231, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 37]

AYES--174

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--231

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanders
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Filner

NOT VOTING--28

Ackerman
Baca
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Carson (IN)
Combest
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ford
Gallegly
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hyde
Lipinski
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Ortiz
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Waters
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest) (during the vote). The Chair
will remind Members that there are 2 minutes left to this vote.

{time} 1658

Messrs. HILL, SOUDER, BOOZMAN, EVERETT and TURNER of Ohio changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 37,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

{time} 1700

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gilchrest, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 534)
to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning,
pursuant to House Resolution 105, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would it be true that the quicker the Members take
their seats and calm down, the quicker we can vote and get to the
airport?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. LOFGREN. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, line 24, strike the close quotation mark and the
period that follows.
Page 4, after line 24, insert the following:

``(e) Exemption of Medical Treatment.--The prohibitions of
this section do not apply to the shipping, receipt, or
importation of any product derived from an embryo (including
pluripotent stem cells) designed for use in medical treatment
for or to cure Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease,
diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, multiple
sclerosis, severe burns, or other diseases, disorders, or
conditions, provided that the product of such use is not
utilized to initiate a pregnancy and is not intended to be
utilized to initiate a pregnancy and is unable to develop
into a full human being. Nothing in this subsection shall
exempt any product from any applicable regulatory
approval.''.

[[Page H1437]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her
motion.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I first yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), my colleague on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, who among us could tell a person suffering
from cancer or Alzheimer's disease, you cannot import the cure that
would save your life, and if you do, you will face a 10-year prison
sentence? Who could face their families and tell them they could not
have the cure because the stem cell treatment that would have saved
their loved ones' lives was derived from therapeutic cloning?
The wondrous promise held out by the advances in embryonic stem cell
research is that we will one day be able to diminish human suffering,
heal, treat and, yes, save lives.
If you support this bill, and a cure is discovered outside the United
States for a devastating disease, would you deny life to our fellow
Americans?
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit and against
H.R. 534.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill not only ties the hands of our
medical researchers; it prevents Americans from utilizing cures
developed in other countries. There is no doubt that if this bill
becomes law, we will lose our most talented medical researchers. They
will flock to other countries that continue to allow therapeutic
cloning; and hopefully, one day, they will help to develop cures to
some of the worst diseases known to humankind.
What happens when a British researcher develops a cure for
Alzheimer's or is able to regenerate insulin-producing cells in
children with juvenile diabetes or learns how to generate nervous
system cells that can restore spinal cord function after paralysis?
Sick Americans should have access to these cures. But H.R. 534 prevents
the importation of any products derived from somatic cell nuclear
transfer. It would make it a crime for a terminally-ill person to
receive medical care in America if the cure was developed using this
science abroad.
That is both unnecessary and unfair. The motion to recommit is
simple. It will ensure that cures developed in other countries are
available to Americans suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's,
diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, MS, severe burns,
and other diseases.
If cures to these debilitating diseases are found, Congress should
not stand in the way or require its citizens to travel to other
countries to benefit from them.
There have been lots of argument today about a slippery slope. There
is no slippery slope in this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I have been deeply troubled by many of the arguments I
have heard today. I am troubled that some Members think they have the
right to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans. I am troubled
that in return, some of the most vulnerable members of society, like
children suffering from juvenile diabetes, would be forced potentially
to give up their best hope for a cure.
This country is a democracy; it is not a theocracy. I understand that
some Members of this House have religious beliefs that are guiding
them. My advice to them would be, if you object to the cures that are
developed using this technology of therapeutic cloning, fine, do not
use the cure. But do not try and deny other Americans cures to deadly
diseases because of your own religious beliefs. That is simply an
improper role for Congress to take.
Therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with cloning a child. There is
no fertilization with sperm, there is no implantation into the uterus,
there is no pregnancy, there is no child.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a scientific method where
researchers create new stem cells in a petri dish. To listen to some of
the debate today, one would see that there would be a picture painted
that very tiny babies in test tubes are being the subject of this
research. That is completely false. These are eight cells on a petri
dish that can give lifesaving cures to Americans and others throughout
the world who are suffering horrendous diseases.
I think we ought to take the advice of Senator Hatch and former First
Lady Nancy Reagan who wrote, ``The embryonic stem cell research, under
appropriate guidelines, may provide our scientists with many answers
that are now beyond our grasp. There are so many diseases that can be
cured, or at least helped, that we can't turn our backs on this.''
Do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who might be able
to benefit from cures made abroad.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this merely moves offshore what this bill bans in the
United States. What it will do is create a huge financial incentive for
those people and companies in foreign countries to take advantage of
Americans. I do not think that we should be giving foreign companies
that kind of financial advantage. If it is wrong to do here, we should
prohibit the importation of these materials.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to
clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum
time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 237, not voting 33, as follows:

[Roll No. 38]

AYES--164

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--237

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss

[[Page H1438]]

Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--33

Ackerman
Baca
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Carson (IN)
Combest
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hyde
Lipinski
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McInnis
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Ney
Ortiz
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Waters
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1725

Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 38, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 155, not voting 38, as follows:

[Roll No. 39]

YEAS--241

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanders
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)

NAYS--155

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--38

Ackerman
Baca
Barton (TX)
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Carson (IN)
Combest
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hyde
Lipinski
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Ney
Oberstar
Ortiz
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Loretta
Serrano
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Vitter
Waters
Young (FL)
The SPEAKER (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.

{time} 1732

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently absent for rollcall vote
39. Were I present, I would have voted ``aye'' in support of H.R. 534,
the Human Cloning Prohibition Act.
Stated against:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 39, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''

____________________