[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15203-15229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.

[[Page 15204]]


  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  We all agree that the cloning of human beings should be banned. The 
cloning of individual cells is a different matter. We know that stem 
cells have the potential to cure many diseases, to save millions of 
lives, to enable the paralyzed to walk and feel again, potentially even 
to enable the maimed to grow new arms and legs.
  We also know that nuclear cell transfer, cloning of individual cells, 
may be the best or only way to allow stem cell therapy to work to cure 
diseases, because by using stem cells produced by cloning one of the 
patient's own cells, we can avoid the immunological rejection of the 
stem cells used to treat the disease.
  Why should we prohibit, as this bill does, the cloning of cells? Why 
should we prohibit the research to lead to these kinds of cures? Only 
because of the belief that a blastocyst, a clump of cells not yet even 
an embryo, with no nerves, no feelings, no brain, no heart, is entitled 
to the same rights and protections as a human being; that a blastocyst 
is a human being and cannot be destroyed, even if doing so would save 
the life of a 40-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease.
  I respect that point of view, but I do not share it. A clump of cells 
is not yet a person. It does not have feelings or sensations. If it is 
not implanted, if it is not implanted in a woman's uterus, it will 
never become a person. Yes, this clump of cells, like the sperm and the 
egg, contains a seed of life; but it is not yet a person.
  To anyone wrestling with this issue, I would point them to the 
comments of the distinguished senior Senator from Utah who is very much 
against choice and abortion, who has come out in strong support of stem 
cell research because he recognizes that a blastocyst not implanted in 
a woman's uterus is very different than an embryo that will develop 
into a person.
  If one is pro-choice, one cannot believe a blastocyst is a human 
being. If they did, they would not be for choice. If one is anti-
choice, one may believe, with Senators Hatch and Strom Thurmond, what I 
said a moment ago, that a clump of cells in a petri dish is not the 
same as an embryo in a woman.
  But as a society we have already made this decision. We permit 
abortion. We permit in vitro fertilization, which creates nine or 10 
embryos, of which all but one will be destroyed. We must not say to 
millions of sick or injured human beings, go ahead and die, stay 
paralyzed, because we believe the blastocyst, the clump of cells, is 
more important than you are.
  Let us not go down in history with those bodies in the past who have 
tried to stop scientific research, to stop medical progress. Let us not 
be in a position of saying to Galileo, the sun goes around the world 
and not vice versa. That is what this bill does.
  It is easier to prevent a human being from being cloned, to put 
people in jail if they try to do that. It is not a slippery slope. One 
cannot police the hundreds and thousands of biological labs which can 
produce clones of cells. Much easier to police the cloning of human 
beings. The slippery slope argument does not work.
  Let us not put a stop to medical progress and to human hope.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers, both of whom were on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, show very clearly the difference in 
values that are being enunciated in the two bills before the House 
today.
  On one hand, we hear support for the Greenwood bill, which really 
allows the FDA to license an industry for profit and clone human 
embryos.
  On the other hand, we hear those in favor of the Weldon bill, myself 
included, who say that we ought to ban the cloning of human embryos and 
the experimentation thereon.
  This is a question of values. I would point out that the previous 
speaker, the gentleman from New York, during the Committee on the 
Judiciary debate, said, ``I have no moral compunction about killing 
that embryo for therapeutic or experimental purposes at all.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think those who are interested in values should vote 
against Greenwood and should vote in favor of the Weldon bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, science is a wonderful thing. Who would have 
thought that polio could be cured or men could go to the Moon even a 
century ago?
  But with the power that comes from science, we must also be ethical 
and exercise responsibility. The Nazis tried to create a race of 
supermen through the science of eugenics. They tried to create a 
perfect human being the same way a breeder creates a championship dog. 
That was immoral. We stopped it, and it has not been tried again since.
  Now we have some scientists who want to create cloned human beings, 
some saying a cloned baby could be born as soon as next year. This is a 
frightening and gruesome reality. Mr. Speaker, there is no ethical way 
to clone a human being. If we were to allow it at all, we would have to 
choose between allowing them to grow and be born or killing them, 
letting them die. This is a line we should not cross.
  The simple question is: Is it right or wrong to clone human beings? 
Eighty-eight percent of the American people say it is wrong. The point 
is that even in science, the ends do not justify the means. The Nazis 
may in fact have been able to create a race of healthier and more 
capable Germans if they had been allowed to proceed, but eugenics and 
cloning are both wrong.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman says that this bill, the 
distinction between those of us who support the Greenwood bill or 
support the Weldon bill is a matter of values.
  I agree. Some of us believe that a clump of cells not implanted in a 
woman's uterus, and Senator Hatch agrees, do not have the same moral 
right and value as a person who is suffering from a disease; that it is 
our right and our duty to cure human diseases, to prolong human life. 
We value life.
  A human being is not simply a clump of cells. At some point, that 
clump of cells may develop into a fetus and a human being; but the 
clump of cells at the beginning does not have the same moral value as a 
person. If one believes that, they should vote with us. If they do not, 
then they probably will not.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who had an excellent discussion during 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of values. It is a matter of how much 
one values our ability to end human suffering and to cure disease.
  No one in this House should be so arrogant as to assume that they 
have a monopoly on values, that their side of an argument is the values 
side and the other's is not. This is a matter of how much we value 
saving little children's lives and saving our parents' lives.
  There has been talk on the floor about creating embryo factories. 
Most of that talk I think has been conducted by people who do not 
understand the first thing about this research.
  Here is how one could create an embryo factory. We would get a long 
line of women who line up in a laboratory and say, would you please put 
me through the extraordinarily painful process of superovulation 
because I would like to donate my eggs to science.
  Does anybody think that is going to happen? Of course it is not going 
to happen. We are going to take this research, and this research 
involves a very small handful of cells. In the natural world, every day 
millions of cells, millions of eggs, are fertilized, and they do not 
adhere to the wall of the uterus. They are flushed away. That is how 
God does God's work.
  In in vitro fertilization clinics, every day thousands of eggs are 
fertilized,

[[Page 15205]]

and most of them are discarded. That is the way loving parents build 
families who cannot do it otherwise. No one is here to object to that. 
Thousands of embryos are destroyed.
  We are talking about a handful, a tiny handful of eggs that are 
utilized strictly for the purpose of understanding how cells transform 
themselves from somatic to stem and back to somatic, because when we 
understand that, we will not need any more embryonic material. We will 
not need any cloned eggs. We will have discovered the proteins and the 
growth factors that let us take the DNA of our own bodies to cure that 
which tortures us.
  That is the value that I am here to stand for, because I care about 
those children, and I care about those parents, and I care about those 
loved ones who are suffering.
  I am not prepared as a politician to stand on the floor of the House 
and say, I have a philosophical reason, probably stemmed in my 
religion, that makes me say, you cannot go there, science, because it 
violates my religious belief.

                              {time}  1530

  I think it violates the constitution to take that position.
  And on the question of whether or not we can do stem cell research 
with the Weldon bill in place, I would quote the American Association 
of Medical Colleges. It says, ``H.R. 2505 would have a chilling effect 
on vital areas of research that could prove to be of enormous public 
benefit.'' The Weldon bill would be responsible for having that 
chilling effect on research.
  The Greenwood substitute stops reproductive cloning in its tracks, as 
it ought to be stopped, but allows the research to continue, and I 
would advocate its support.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Kerns), who is an author of the bill.
  Mr. KERNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I come to the floor of this House today to urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. Today 
we take an important step in the process to ban human cloning in the 
United States.
  I commend the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the coauthors, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), because this is a 
bipartisan bill. I also appreciate the support and the efforts of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in recognizing the important nature of this 
issue and making it a priority and moving it to the floor for 
consideration.
  I am very pleased to be an original coauthor of this timely and 
important piece of legislation. As I said earlier today, human cloning 
is not a Republican or a Democrat issue, it is an issue for all of 
mankind. The prospect of cloning a human being raises serious moral, 
ethical, and human health implications. Other countries around the 
globe look to us for leadership, not only on this but on other 
important pressing issues, and I think we have a responsibility to take 
a stand and take a leadership position. That stand should reflect the 
respect for human dignity envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
  Human cloning: what once was said to be impossible could become a 
reality if we do not take action today. I have spent a great deal of 
time back home in Indiana traveling up and down the highways and 
byways, attending county fares, fire departments, little fish fries, 
church suppers; and I can tell my colleagues that overwhelmingly those 
people that I represent in Indiana are concerned at our racing towards 
cloning human beings. They have asked me to help with this effort to 
ban human cloning. I have received calls from all across the country 
from those that are concerned about this issue.
  As we have heard today, most Americans are opposed to the re-creation 
of another human being. I am told overwhelmingly that it is our 
responsibility not only here in this body and at home but around the 
world that we move to enact this ban.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying this: I believe that God created 
us, and I do not believe we should play God. I urge my colleagues to 
support our legislation to ban human cloning.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I, like the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt), want to say right off the bat that none of us believe 
in cloning of human beings. Nobody on either side. We get this values 
argument. None of us believe in that. So stop that.
  The second thing is that we are here today to talk about a political 
issue. This is not a scientific issue. I am a doctor, and we will have 
another doctor get up here and tell us a lot of doctor stuff, but the 
real issue is a political one here.
  We are like the 16th century Spanish king who went to the Pope and 
asked him if it was all right for human beings to drink coffee. The 
coffee bean had been brought from the New World. It had a drug in it 
that made people get kind of excited and it was a great political 
controversy about whether or not it was right to drink coffee. And so 
the Spanish king went to the Pope and said, Pope, is it all right. 
Well, we had that just the other day, and the Pope said, this is not 
right.
  The Pope also told Galileo to quit making those marks in his 
notebook. The Earth is the center of the universe, he said. We all know 
that. The Bible says it. What is it this stuff where you say the sun is 
the center of our universe? That is wrong.
  Now, here we are making a decision like we were the house of 
cardinals on a religious issue when, in fact, scientists are struggling 
to find out how human beings actually work. We have mixed stem cells 
together with cloning all to confuse people. Everybody on this floor 
knows that the best way to stop something is to confuse people, and we 
have had confusion on this issue because basically people want it to be 
a value-laden issue that attracts one group of voters against others. 
That is all this is about, all this confusion.
  This business about a few cells and working and figuring out how we 
can deal with diseases that affect everybody in this room, there is 
nobody who does not know somebody with juvenile diabetes or Alzheimer's 
disease or has had a spinal cord injury and is unable to walk, or who 
has Parkinsonism. There is nobody here. And my dear friends putting 
this bill forward say there is no way, no matter how it happens, that 
we want to help them if it involves a human cell.
  Now, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is going 
to get up here and tell us we have a section in this bill that says 
scientific research is not stopped. Read it. It says we can use monkey 
cells and put them into people who have Alzheimer's, or we can use 
hippopotamus cells and put them into people who have diabetes, but we 
cannot use a human cell. And even more so if the British or the 
Germans, who are more enlightened, do it and we bring it over. If the 
doctor gets the material from Germany or from England or some other 
place and gives it to my colleague's mother, he is subject to 10 years 
in prison and a fine of not less than $1 million running up to twice 
whatever the value of it is.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is upset that 
there is licensing in the amendment, which I will vote for; not because 
I think we need it but because we have to have it as an antidote to 
this awful piece of legislation that is here. But the gentleman from 
Wisconsin says the free enterprise system is here. I thought he 
believed in the free enterprise system. Would the gentleman want that 
bill to say let us give it to the National Institutes of Health to make 
money; make it a government program? No, no, no, he would not want 
that. Well, who is going to manufacture this if it comes some day to 
that point? It says the NIH can license at some point down the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the Greenwood amendment is necessary to 
stop

[[Page 15206]]

this papal event that we are having here today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to clarify the record after this last speech. 
Number one, there is nothing in the Weldon bill that prevents the use 
of adult stem cells or stem cells from live births, including umbilical 
cords and placentas from being used for the research that the gentleman 
describes.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) talked about a Yale 
study. I have the Yale Bulletin Calendar of December 1, 2000 about the 
research on monkeys that were used to cure a spinal cord injury. Those 
were adult stem cells. They would be completely legal under this bill.
  Then we have heard from the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. 
McDermott), who seems to think we are having a religious seance here. 
The fact of the matter is there have been a number of things that are 
in derogation of the free enterprise system that this Congress and the 
people of the country have banned, including slavery. And I think that 
perhaps the time has come to ban the cloning of human embryos.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the distinguished whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I think and I hope that Members will support the Weldon bill and 
oppose the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about making fun of the Pope or making fun 
of the Bible. This is not about politics. It is not even about stem 
cell research. This is about a very real problem in this country, a 
potential problem, and that is cloning human beings. The connotations 
of this debate raise very broad and disturbing questions for our 
society.
  So-called therapeutic cloning crosses a very bright-line ethical 
boundary that should give all of us pause. This technique would reduce 
some human beings to the level of an industrial commodity. Cloning 
treats human embryos, the basic elements of life itself, as a simple 
raw material. This exploitive unholy technique is no better than 
medical strip-mining.
  The preservation of life is what is being lost here. The sanctity and 
precious nature of each and every human life is being obscured in this 
debate. Cloning supporters are trading upon the desperate hopes of 
people who struggle with illness. We should not draw medical solutions 
from the unwholesome well of an ungoverned monstrous science that lacks 
any reasonable consideration for the sanctity of human life.
  Now, some people would doubtlessly argue if we use in vitro 
fertilization to help infertile couples create life, then we ought to 
allow scientists the latitude to manufacture and destroy embryos to 
produce medical treatments. But these are far from the same thing. 
Cloning is different from organ transplantation. Cloning is different 
from in vitro fertility treatments.
  Cloning is an unholy leap backwards because its intellectual lineage 
and justifications are evocative of some of the darkest hours during 
the 20th century. We should not stray down this road because it will 
surely take us to dark and unforeseen destinations.
  Human beings should not be cloned to stock a medical junkyard of 
spare parts for experimentation. That is wrong, unethical, and unworthy 
of an enlightened society.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise to merely point out to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), that he may be over-reliant on adult stem cells as a 
viable alternative to embryonic stem cells, and I would like to explain 
why.
  A National Institute of Health study examined the potential of adult 
and embryonic stem cells for curing disease, and they found that the 
embryonic stem cells have important advantages over adult stem cells. 
The embryonic stem cells can develop into many more different types of 
cells. They can potentially replace any cell in the human body. Adult 
stem cells, however, are not as flexible as embryonic ones. They cannot 
develop into many different types of cells. They cannot be duplicated 
in the same quantities in the laboratory. They are difficult and 
dangerous sometimes to extract from an adult patient. For instance, 
obtaining adult brain stem cells could require life-threatening 
surgery.
  So the NIH found in its study that therapeutic cloning would allow us 
to create stem cell medical treatments that would not be rejected by 
the patient's immune system, because they have the patient's own DNA.
  So for whatever it may be worth, I refer this study to my good 
friend, the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, again 
just to clarify the record.
  I am certain that the study of the gentleman from Michigan is a very 
valuable one. The fact is that it is not in point to this debate. This 
bill does not prevent research on embryonic stem cells. What it does do 
is it prevents research on cloned embryonic stem cells. There is a big 
difference.
  Secondly, once again going back to the adult stem cell research that 
was referred to by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), at 
Yale University, those were adult stem cells. She brought the issue up. 
We did not. Those were adult stem cells. And if they were human stem 
cells, they would not be banned by this bill.

                              {time}  1545

  Now, finally, adult stem cells are already being used successfully 
for therapeutic benefits in humans. This includes treatments associated 
with various types of cancer, to relieve systemic lupus, multiple 
sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, anemias, immunodeficiency disease, and 
restoration of sight through generation of corneas.
  Further, initial clinical trials have begun to repair heart damage 
using the patient's own adult stem cells. Somehow the word is out that 
adult stem cells are no good. I think this very clearly shows that 
adult stem cells are very useful for research, and furthermore, the 
bill does allow research on embryonic stem cells, just not the cloned 
ones.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, here we are in the U.S. Congress talking about 
somatic cell nuclear transfer and I think it is deeply rewarding to see 
how fast Members of Congress can get up to speed on complex, 
complicated issues.
  Let me say that I am strongly, strongly pro-choice. I am also 
strongly in favor of stem cell research. But I view these as very 
separate issues. With all the scientists that I have spoken with, there 
are no laboratories which are currently using a human model for somatic 
cell nuclear transfer. In fact, the NIH rules on stem cell research, 
the same rules that we, as Democrats, have been strongly advocating, 
these rules, III, specific item D, specifically prohibits the 
technology that we are banning today. Research in which human 
pluripotent stem cells are derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer. 
These are the rules that we have been advocating.
  Let me say that ultimately this is not an issue of science or 
biology. Almost exactly 30 years ago in May of 1971 James D. Watson, of 
Watson and Crick DNA fame, said that some day soon we will be able to 
clone human beings. This is too important a decision to be left to 
scientists and the medical specialists. We must play a role in this.
  This is what this Congress is doing today. This is about the limits 
of human wisdom and not about the limits of human technology. The 
question that we must ask ourselves is whether it is proper to create 
potential human life for merely mechanistic purposes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to point out to 
my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, that it was the 
University of Wisconsin where we first isolated embryonic stem cells.
  This bill before us would render their path-breaking research to be 
worthless.

[[Page 15207]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Speaker received a letter signed by 44 scientific institutions and this 
is what they said:

       This bill bans all use of cloning technology including 
     those for research where a child cannot and will not be 
     created. Therefore, this legislation puts at risk critical 
     biomedical research that is vital to finding the cures for 
     disease and disabilities that affect millions of Americans. 
     Diabetes, cancers, HIV, spinal cord injuries and the like are 
     likely to benefit from the advances achieved by biomedical 
     researchers using therapeutic cloning technology.

  This was signed by the American Academy of Optometry, the American 
Association for Cancer Research, the American Association of American 
Medical Colleges, the Association of Professors of Medicine, the 
Association of Subspecialty Professors, Harvard University, the 
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International, and the Medical 
College of Wisconsin.
  I will take my advice on medicine and research from the scientists, 
not from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 30 seconds.
  The statement that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 
mentioned, did not say why they need to have cloned embryonic stem 
cells. I think we are talking about two different things here.
  What this bill does is, it prohibits research on cloned embryonic 
stem cells, not on uncloned embryonic stem cells.
  If there is a shortage of uncloned embryonic stem cells, I would like 
the people on the other side to let the House know about it. We have 
had not one scintilla of evidence either in this debate or the hearings 
or markup on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify a few 
things about my legislation. It is a pretty short bill. It has four 
pages and I would encourage anybody who has any uncertainty about this 
issue to take the time to read it.
  I specifically want to refer them to section 302(d). It says, under 
Scientific Research, nothing in this section restricts areas of 
scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section.
  What they are talking about there is somatic cell nuclear transfer to 
create an embryo as was used to create Dolly.
  I go on in this section to say, nothing specifically prohibiting, 
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. Basically what 
this means is all the scientific research that is currently going on 
today can continue.
  What cannot continue is what people want to start doing now. It is 
not being done, but they want to start doing it; and that is to create 
cloned human embryos for the purpose of research.
  Now, there are people putting forward this notion that if we were 
able to go ahead with this, all these huge breakthroughs would occur. I 
want to reiterate, I am a doctor. I just saw patients a week ago. I 
have treated all these diseases. I have reviewed the medical 
literature. It is real pie in the sky to say there are going to be all 
these huge breakthroughs.
  I have a letter from a member of the biotech industry, and I just 
want to read some of it. It says, ``I am a biotech scientist and 
founder of a genomic research company. As a scientist and cofounder and 
officer of the Biotechnology Association of Alabama that is an 
affiliate of the Biotechnology Industry Association, BIO, the group 
that is opposing my language,'' he says, ``there is no scientific 
imperative for proceeding with this manipulation of human life, and 
there are no valid or moral justifications for cloning human beings.''
  Mr. Speaker, I can state that is indeed the case.
  I further want to dismiss this notion that has been put forward by 
some of the speakers here in general debate that a cloned human embryo 
is somehow not alive or it is not human. There is just literally no 
basis in science to make that sort of a claim. I did my undergraduate 
degree in biochemistry. I studied cell biology, and I did basic 
research in molecular genetics.
  I have a quote from another scientist that I would be happy to read. 
``There is nothing synthetic about cells used in cloning.'' This is a 
researcher from Princeton. He says, ``An embryo formed from human 
cloning is very much a human embryo.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the scientific research exception is 
meaningless. It allows for research, except that which is not 
specifically prohibited. If Members read section 301 of the bill, it 
prohibits somatic cell nuclear transfer, so any kind of representation 
that research is accepted is incorrect. It is tautological and it is 
bogus.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would answer two things that were said, 
one by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) when the 
gentleman stated that this did not speak at all about cloning, it only 
spoke about stem cell research.
  The point is that it may very well be true that once stem cell 
research is exploited and we know how to cure diseases or give people 
back the use of their arms and legs through stem cells, it may very 
well be true that that can only be done by the use of cloned stem cells 
in order to get around the rejection by the patient of stem cells from 
somebody else. It may be necessary to use the patient's own cloned stem 
cells.
  The second point is in answer to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon) said. The point is, we do not know a lot of things. We do not 
know exactly what scientific research will show. We do not know exactly 
what adult stem cells can do, what embryonic stem cells can do, or 
cloned stem cells can do.
  That is why it is a sentence of death to millions of Americans, to 
ban medical research which is what my colleagues are trying to do with 
this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the base bill and in 
support of the substitute, the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute.
  Generally speaking, there are three types of stem cell research. 
There is adult stem cell research which shows great promise, but with 
limitations in that adult stem cells cannot be differentiated into each 
and every type of cell.
  There is embryonic stem cell work which shows even more promise 
because it does have the ability to be differentiated into a variety of 
stem cell lines for therapy and treatment.
  But perhaps the most promising is embryonic stem cell research that 
employs the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The primary 
benefit of this research and therapy is simple: It is not rejected by 
the patient. What that means for a child who is diabetic, you can use 
that child's own DNA, place it into a fertilized egg, develop Islet 
cells that will help that child produce insulin with the benefit it 
will not be rejected by the child.
  What we are saying, if we allow stem cell research but we prohibit 
the research in this bill, we are saying we will allow stem cell 
research, but only if the patient will reject the therapy. What sense 
does that make when the substitute prohibits cloning for reproduction, 
prohibits the implantation of a fertilized egg with a donated set of 
DNA into a uterus for the purpose of giving birth to a child? That is 
prohibited under both bill and substitute.
  But we need the research. We are losing scientists who are going 
overseas to conduct this research. The base bill even precludes us from 
benefiting from the research done in other countries. This cannot be 
allowed to go on.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important to all of our futures. We must 
preserve this

[[Page 15208]]

vital science research. I urge adoption of the substitute and rejection 
of the base bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber agrees, and we 
have been here for about an hour and three-quarters, everyone in this 
Chamber agrees that we should ban human cloning, period. Everyone. 
There is consensus here.
  Mr. Speaker, both pieces of legislation do that, but there is a 
divergence. The Weldon bill goes further to ban the somatic cell 
nuclear transfer. I would like to focus in response to what has been 
going on in the debate.
  There is no longer a debate about stem cell research. This Congress 
collectively, both the House and the other body and the American people 
have made a decision. Whether the President has made his decision or 
not is irrelevant. The Congress and the American people have made our 
decision that we want to continue embryonic stem cell research. We 
collectively, as Americans, understand that issue, and it will continue 
regardless of what the President decides on this issue. My colleagues 
know that and understand that.
  Let us talk about why there is a serious debate about it, though, and 
why I take it very seriously as well. When you have an egg and a sperm 
joining and the potentiality is to create a new unique human being, 
there are ethical issues involved regarding a transcendental event that 
could occur in the creation of a unique soul. That is what people find 
troubling and should find troubling, and should think about it and 
understand it.
  Yet we understand the other issues and collectively we have made our 
decision that we are willing, that we want to continue with embryonic 
stem cell research because of the issues that we have talked about.

                              {time}  1600

  But let us talk about what somatic nuclear transfer is all about. It 
is not about that sperm and egg joining together. It is not about the 
potentiality to create a unique human being. It is not about a 
transcendental event that could occur. It is not about all those issues 
that some people correctly have struggled with and have come to 
conclusions and significant, serious moral-ethical issues.
  What is going on here? What is going on here is an egg where the DNA 
is taken out, 23 chromosomes taken out from literally trillions of 
cells, trillions of cells, not billions, trillions of cells. Within the 
human body, one cell is taken out and 46 chromosomes are implanted. Not 
to create life, not to create an embryo, but to continue life, to save 
life for literally tens of millions of people, for potentially everyone 
in this Chamber and everyone in the country.
  None of us know who is going to be stricken by one of these horrific 
diseases. No one knows who is going to get Alzheimer's or Parkinson's 
or cancer. It literally could be any of us in this Chamber or anyone 
watching on C-SPAN. It could be any of us. If we think about that, it 
could be any of us who have relatives, loved ones, who have these 
horrific diseases. Yet what this legislation would do would be to stop 
the research, to take one of those trillions of cells in the body, take 
out 46 chromosomes, put it in, so that you could survive, so that 
someone who is a quadriplegic could walk, so that someone who has 
Alzheimer's. We have heard Nancy Reagan speak directly about the stem 
cell research, I think a woman who is universally loved everywhere in 
this country and her husband whom I think is universally loved as well.
  This chart remains up here. I have put it up here, because the 
numbers are 24 million. For diabetes, 15 million people, not just 
numbers; 6 million Alzheimer's, 1 million Parkinson's. People. People. 
People. Individuals.
  Again, I ask my colleagues, this should not be a difficult issue. We 
should reject the bill and approve the substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute and in 
support of the gentleman from Florida's Human Cloning Prohibition Act.
  Members in opposition are using the substitute amendment and are 
trying to confuse the issue with medical research and stem cell 
research. The underlying bill bans cloning human beings. It is 
straightforward and narrowly drawn. It prohibits somatic cell nucleus 
transfer. The underlying bill does nothing to hinder medical research 
and in fact, it specifically permits technology to clone tissue, DNA, 
and non-embryonic cells in humans, and cloning of plants and animals.
  I urge my colleagues not to confuse a straightforward ban on banning 
cloning of human beings, with medical research. H.R. 2505 would 
prohibit human cloned embryos from being used as human guinea pigs. 
Without this legislation, human life could be copied, manufactured in a 
laboratory, in a petri dish. Cloned embryos would be devoid of all 
sense of humanity, treated as objects. 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. In 
the area of human embryo cloning, the end does not justify the means.
  I urge the defeat of the substitute and the adoption of H.R. 2505.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, late last week Washington Post 
columnist Charles Krauthammer called Congressman Greenwood's 
legislative approach to human cloning ``a nightmare of a bill.'' He 
went on to write that the Greenwood substitute ``sanctions, licenses 
and protects the launching of the most ghoulish and dangerous 
enterprise in modern scientific history: the creation of nascent cloned 
human life for the sole purpose of its exploitation and destruction.''
  Charles Krauthammer, Mr. Speaker, nailed it precisely.
  The Greenwood substitute would for the first time in 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 it 
is experimented upon and exploited. For the small inconvenience of 
registering your name and your business address, 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, headless human clones, or 
anything else science might one day allow to be created outside the 
womb; and in the end only failure to kill what you had created would be 
against the law.
  A few moments ago, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) said that 
cloning doesn't result in the creation of a unique human being. That's 
ludicrous. That is exactly what the Weldon bill speaks to. That unique 
human being that would be created if left unfettered and untouched 
would grow, given nourishment and nurturing, into a baby, a toddler 
into an adolescent adulthood and right through the continuum of life. 
That is what we are talking about. Mr. Weldon's bill doesn't preclude 
other potentially legislative processes.
  Mr. Speaker, amazingly the only new crime created by the Greenwood 
amendment is the failure to kill all human lives once they are created. 
Federal law would say that it is permissible to create as many human 
lives as you want to for research just so long as you eventually kill 
them. That, my colleagues, is the stated intent of the Greenwood 
substitute. And Mr. Greenwood's substitute would not even stop the 
birth of a human clone, which it purports to do. Because his approach 
would encourage the creation of cloned human embryo stockpiles and 
cloned human embryo farms, it would make the hard part of human cloning 
completely legal and try to make the relatively easy part, 
implantation, illegal.
  So once these cloned human embryos are stockpiled in a lab, Mr. 
Speaker,

[[Page 15209]]

who, or what is going to stop somebody from implanting one of those 
cloned humans? The Greenwood substitute has no tracking provisions. 
Greenwood would open pandora's box and verification would be a joke.
  The bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker, the Greenwood substitute 
permits the cloning of human life to do anything you would like to for 
research purposes just as long as you kill that human life. Mr. 
Speaker, to implement this debate some Members have taken to the well 
to say that everybody is against human cloning. Oh really? Just because 
we say it's so doesn't make it necessarily so. The simple--and sad--
fact of the matter is that Greenwood is pro-cloning. The Weldon bill, 
the underlying bill, would end human cloning and would prescribe 
certain criminal as well as civil penalties for those who commit that 
offense.
  We are really at a crossroads, Mr. Speaker. This is a major ethical 
issue. And make no mistake about it I want to find cures to the 
devastating disease that afflicts people. I am cochairman of the 
Alzheimer's Caucus. I am cochairman of the Autism Caucus. I chair the 
Veterans Committee and have just today gotten legislation passed to 
help Gulf War Vets. I believe desperately we have got to find cures. 
But creating human embryos for research purposes is unethical, it is 
wrong, and it ought to be made illegal.
  I hope Members will support the Weldon bill and will vote ``no'' on 
the substitute when it is offered.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2505, the 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act and in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch 
substitute.
  I am absolutely opposed to reproductive human cloning. Reproductive 
human cloning is morally wrong and fundamentally opposed to the values 
held by our society. I am sure that every Member in this chamber today 
agrees, that reproductive human cloning should be banned. That 
conclusion is easy to come by Mr. Speaker, however, this debate, 
unfortunately, is not so simple.
  Today we are considering a complex issue, and I share the concerns 
raised by several other Members that the House is rushing to judgment. 
We have had too little time to debate and consider the merits and 
implications that Mr. Weldon's bill and Mr. Greenwood's substitute 
present. The Weldon bill and the Greenwood Substitute ban reproductive 
human cloning and both set criminal penalties for those who violate 
such a ban. But the similarities end there. Mr. Weldon's bill goes too 
far, including banning therapeutic cloning for research or medical 
treatment, while the Greenwood substitute allows an exception regarding 
therapeutic cloning. The Weldon bill would ban all forms of cloning, 
and in essence, stop all research associated with it, just as we are 
beginning to see the first fruits of biomedical research. By supporting 
the Greenwood alternative, we have the opportunity to ban reproductive 
cloning while allowing important research to continue.
  As a member of the Science Committee and as a Representative from the 
Research Triangle Park region, I understand the importance of the 
research that our scientists are conducting. This research has the 
potential to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of North 
Carolinians, Americans, and people throughout the globe who suffer from 
debilitating and degenerative diseases. We are on the verge of a 
significant return on our biomedical research investment. Indeed, our 
scientists may one day solve the mysteries of disease as the result of 
work involving therapeutic cloning technology. We must not allow this 
opportunity to pass by us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, I support banning reproductive human 
cloning, and I will continue to oppose any type of cloning that would 
attempt to intentionally create a human clone. However, I also support 
the important biomedical research that our nation's scientists are 
nobly conducting today. I cannot support a bill that denies those 
scientists, and the people whose lives they are working to improve, a 
chance to find a cure.
  The door of opportunity to cure diseases, that have puzzled us since 
the beginning of medicine is now beginning to open. And while the full 
promise of biomedical research remains many years away from being 
realized, there is that opportunity, that hope, that we can find a cure 
for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord 
injuries, and many other illnesses. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2505 
because it would stifle important research and decrease the potential 
for new life-saving medical treatments. The Greenwood substitute 
strikes a careful balance between banning the immoral and unsafe 
practice of reproductive human cloning, while at the same time 
promoting important biomedical research.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R 2505 and support the Greenwood 
substitute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate has much less to do with 
``cloning'' human beings and everything about denying legitimate and 
important stem cell research. I am concerned that we are getting ahead 
of ourselves. The issue of stem cell research and its various clinical 
applications is incredibly complex and the technology very new. There 
is also the concern that other political issues, such as abortion, are 
really driving this debate. Until we can tame the rhetoric and focus on 
the underlying issues, we should not limit legitimate scientific 
research.
  I will vote for the Greenwood/Deutsch amendment because it was better 
than the underlying bill, not because it represents a good long-term 
policy.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2505 
offered by Mr. Weldon and in support of the alternative bill offered by 
Mr. Greenwood. We must not ban vital research and treatment for 
millions of suffering people. H.R. 2505 will severely limit the 
advancement of medical discovery and vital research.
  There are strong feelings on both sides of this argument. 
Understandably, those on the other side are driven by what they 
describe as the degradation of human life that cloning proposes. I do 
not think that there is a member in this House who does not shudder at 
the shear awesome scope of this research. On the one hand, we fear a 
world where human beings are created in a lab for the sole purpose of 
harvesting their organs, characteristics and other items for the 
benefit of other human beings. On the other hand, we fear foregoing a 
cure for many of the horrible afflictions that face man like diabetes, 
cancer, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's Disease.
  I do know that God has blessed us with the knowledge and the skill to 
do more than just ponder a cure for these afflictions. My concern is 
that with such a ban in place, as envisioned in this bill, there will 
be no opportunity to learn all that God might have us learn. All 
because we acted too quickly to ban research before there was a chance 
to truly ponder the ways to manage and control this research. For 
example, if the above research at some point allows us to create an 
embryo, a cell, a stem cell or any other viable alternative genetic 
material without the use of human genetic material will this provision 
prevent its use? Is that human cloning or creating life?
  I truly believe that prior to an outright ban of this research, 
Congress needs to make further efforts to educate every Member of this 
body. The knowledge that has been provided to us through this research 
is tremendous. We should do everything we can to understand it and 
manage its use. We should not, however, ban its use without careful 
circumspection.
  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 off-track, 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 much 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

[[Page 15210]]

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 
Presidential 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 a 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 
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. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2172, the 
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 and in opposition to H.R. 2505. I 
believe that the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 is the best approach 
to ensure that we will prohibit human cloning, while still maintaining 
our commitment to valuable research that will result in new treatments 
and therapies for many diseases including diabetes and Parkinson's 
Disease.
  I am supporting the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 because I believe 
it includes more protections to ensure that humans are not cloned. For 
instance, this bill requires that all medical researchers must register 
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) before they can 
conduct human somatic cells nuclear transfers. The HHS Secretary would 
also be required to maintain a database and additional information 
about all somatic cell research projects. Second, this bill requires 
that medical researchers must affirmatively attest that they are aware 
of the restrictions on such research and will adhere to such 
restrictions. Third, this bill requires that the HHS Secretary will 
maintain strict confidentiality about such information so that the 
public may only have access to such information if the investigator 
conducting such research provides written authorization for such 
disclosure.
  In addition, this measure would include two explicit penalties for 
those who violate this legislation. First, this bill would impose civil 
penalties of up to $1 million or an amount equal to any gain related to 
this violation for those researchers who fails to register with the HHS 
to conduct such research. Second, researchers would be subject to a 
criminal penalty of ten years if they fail to comply with this act. 
Third, this measure would subject such medical researchers to 
forfeiture of property if they violate this act.
  I believe that the alternative legislation is broadly written and 
will restrict the biomedical research which we all support. As the 
representative for the Texas Medical Center where much of this 
biomedical research is conducted, I believe we must proceed cautiously 
to ensure that no promising therapies are prohibited.
  Under the alternative bill, H.R. 2505, there would be a strict 
prohibition of all importation of human embryos as well as any product 
derived from cloned embryos. However, we already know that the human 
cloning research is being conducted in England and that some of this 
therapeutic cloning research may be available to clinical trials with 
three years for Parkinson's patients. I believe that a strict 
prohibition of importation to such therapies will negative impact such 
patients and restrict access to new treatments which will extend and 
save lives This bill would not only ban reproductive cloning but also 
any therapeutic cloning for research or medical treatment. I am also 
concerned that this measure would make it more difficult to fund 
federal research on stem cell research. As you know, the National 
Institutes of Health has described stem call research as having 
``enormous'' medical potential and we must proceed cautiously to ensure 
that such stem cell research continues.
  I want to be clear. I believe that Congress can and should outlaw 
human cloning to create a child. But a ban on human cloning does not 
need to include a ban on nuclear transfer research. This nuclear 
transfer research will focus only on the study of embryonic development 
and curing disease. We can prohibit the transfer of such embryos to 
humans while still allowing medical researchers to conduct valuable 
medical research. I urge the defeat of H.R. 2505 and urge my colleague 
to support the alternative legislation, H.R. 2172, the Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2001.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Dr. 
Weldon's Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Today scientific advances have 
unleashed a whole host of bio-

[[Page 15211]]

ethical issues that our society must face. Recently we have faced 
controversy over medical research on human subjects, as well as whether 
we should destroy embryos for the purpose of stem cell research. The 
questions posed focus on how far we will allow science to push the 
limits on tampering with human lives. Personally whether it's innocent 
African-Americans at the Tuskegee Institute or unborn human embryos, I 
do not think the government should be allowed to risk lives.
  The debate before us today, however, is completely different in my 
mind. Those who are for and against abortion, even for and against 
embryonic stem cell research, have joined together to say that we 
cannot clone humans. In the words of esteemed columnist Charles 
Krauthammer, the thought of cloning humans--whether for research or 
reproductive purposes--is ghoulish, dangerous, perverse, nightmarsh. I 
do not think the language can be strong enough. Eugenics is an 
abominable practice. We do not have the right to create life in order 
to destroy it. We do not have the right to create life in order to 
tamper with genes.
  It does not take a fan of science-fiction to imagine the scenarios 
that would ensue from legalized cloning--headless humans used as organ 
farms, malformed humans killed because they were viewed as an 
experiment not a person, gene selection to create a supposed inferior 
species to become slaves, societal values used to create a supposed 
superior species. We do not have the right to play God. We may have the 
technology to clone humans, but our sense of morality should prevent us 
from doing it. We should not create life for research purposes. We 
should not pick and choose genes to make up humans.
  I am sorry that our society has drifted so far from our core values 
that we even have to debate this. It is a sad day when Congress has to 
enact legislation in order to prevent man from manipulating human life.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record.

               [From the Washington Post, July 27, 2001]

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

                         A Nightmare of a Bill

       Hadn't we all agreed--we supporters of stem cell research--
     that it was morally okay to destroy a tiny human embryo for 
     its possibly curative stem cells because these embryos from 
     fertility clinics were going to be discarded anyway? Hadn't 
     we also agreed that human embryos should not be created 
     solely for the purpose of being dismembered and then 
     destroyed for the benefit of others?
       Indeed, when Sen. Bill Frist made that brilliant 
     presentation on the floor of the Senate supporting stem cell 
     research, he included among his conditions a total ban on 
     creating human embryos just to be stem cell farms. Why, then, 
     are so many stem cell supporters in Congress lining up behind 
     a supposedly ``anti-cloning bill'' that would, in fact, 
     legalize the creation of cloned human embryos solely for 
     purposes of research and destruction?
       Sound surreal? It is.
       There are two bills in Congress regarding cloning. The 
     Weldon bill bans the creation of cloned human embryos for any 
     purpose, whether for growing them into cloned human children 
     or for using them for research or for their parts and then 
     destroying them.
       The competing Greenwood ``Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001'' 
     prohibits only the creation of a cloned child. It protects 
     and indeed codifies the creation of cloned human embryos for 
     industrial and research purposes.
       Under Greenwood, points out the distinguished bioethicist 
     Leon Kass, ``embryo production is explicitly licensed and 
     treated like drug manufacture.'' It becomes an industry, 
     complete with industrial secrecy protections. Greenwood, he 
     says correctly, should really be called the ``Human Embryo 
     Cloning Registration and Industry Facilitation and Protection 
     Act of 2001.''
       Greenwood is a nightmare and an abomination. First of all, 
     once the industry of cloning human embryos has begun and 
     thousands are being created, grown, bought and sold, who is 
     going to prevent them from being implanted in a woman and 
     developed into a cloned child?
       Even more perversely, when that inevitably occurs, what is 
     the federal government going to do: Force that woman to abort 
     the clone?
       Greenwood sanctions, licenses and protects the launching of 
     the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern 
     scientific history: the creation of nascent cloned human life 
     for the sole purpose of its exploitation and destruction.
       What does one say to stem cell opponents? They warned about 
     the slippery slope. They said: Once you start using discarded 
     embryos, the next step is creating embryos for their parts. 
     Frist and I and others have argued: No, we can draw the line.
       Why should anyone believe us? Even before the president has 
     decided on federal support for stem cell research, we find 
     stem cell supporters and their biotech industry allies trying 
     to pass a bill that would cross that line--not in some 
     slippery-slope future, but right now.
       Apologists for Greenwood will say: Science will march on 
     anyway. Human cloning will be performed. Might as well give 
     in and just regulate it, because a full ban will fail in any 
     event.
       Wrong. Very wrong. Why? Simple: You're a brilliant young 
     scientist graduating from medical school. You have a glowing 
     future in biotechnology, where peer recognition, 
     publications, honors, financial rewards, maybe even a Nobel 
     Prize await you. Where are you going to spend your life? 
     Working on an outlawed procedure? If cloning is outlawed, 
     will you devote yourself to research that cannot see the 
     light of day, that will leave you ostracized and working in 
     shadow, that will render you liable to arrest, prosecution 
     and disgrace?
       True, some will make that choice. Every generation has its 
     Kevorkian. But they will be very small in number. And like 
     Kevorkian, they will not be very bright.
       The movies have it wrong. The mad scientist is no genius. 
     Dr. Frankensteins invariably produce lousy science. What is 
     Kevorkian's great contribution to science? A suicide machine 
     that your average Hitler Youth could have turned out as a 
     summer camp project.
       Of course you cannot stop cloning completely. But make it 
     illegal and you will have robbed it of its most important 
     resource: great young minds. If we act now by passing Weldon, 
     we can retard this monstrosity by decades. Enough time to 
     regain our moral equilibrium--and the recognition that the 
     human embryo, cloned or not, is not to be created for the 
     sole purpose of being poked and prodded, strip-minded for 
     parts and then destroyed.
       If Weldon is stopped, the game is up. If Congress cannot 
     pass the Weldon ban on cloning, then stem cell research 
     itself must not be supported either--because then all the 
     vaunted promises about not permitting the creation of human 
     embryos solely for their exploitation and destruction will 
     have been shown in advance to be a fraud.

  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2505, 
``The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.'' Let me begin my saying 
that I am unequivocally opposed to the cloning of human beings either 
for reproduction or for research. The moral and ethical issues posed by 
human cloning are profound and cannot be ignored in the quest for 
scientific discovery. I intend to support this legislation and will 
vote against the Greenwood amendment.
  Let me be clear. Passage of H.R. 2505 will not stop medical research 
on the promising use of stem cells. This is an exciting area of 
research and I am confident this technology will produce results the 
significance of which we cannot fathom. Stem cell research will 
continue, but it does not have to continue at the expense of our human 
ethics or our religious morals.
  There is not ever a time, in my opinion, where it is proper for 
medical science to wholly create or clone a human being. The ethical 
and moral implications of such an act are staggering, and I believe my 
colleagues understand that. So if we can agree on the human cloning 
issue, we must now address the fears some of my colleagues have 
expressed on the future of stem cell research.
  The scientific objective in today's debate over stem cell research is 
having the ability to produce massive quantities of quality 
transplantable, tissue-matched pluripotent cell that provide extended 
therapeutic benefits without triggering immune rejection in the 
recipient. It has come to my attention that efforts have been underway 
for companies to conduct stem cell research using placentas from live 
births. I have become aware of at least one company that has pioneered 
the recovery of non-adult human pluripotent and multipotent stem cell 
from human afterbirth, traditionally regarded as medical waste.
  Importantly, the pluripotent stem cells discovered in postnatal 
placentas were not heretofore known to be present in human afterbirth, 
and can be collected in abundant quantities via a proprietary recovery 
method. These non-controversial cells are known as ``placental'' and 
``umbilical'' stem cells, because they come from postnatal placentas, 
umbilical cords, and cord blood, from full-term births, and are 
classified separately and distinctly from those stem cells recovered 
from adults and embryos.
  The strength of this option is that it meets both the policy and 
scientific objectives while transcending ethical or moral controversy. 
We can solve the dilemma by building bipartisan coalition and simply 
turning the argument from ``What we oppose'' to ``What we all 
support.''
  What I'm suggesting is a non-controversial, abundant source of high-
quality stem cells that will significantly accelerate the pace at which 
stem cell therapies can be integrated into clinical use. They would 
offer the hope of renewable sources of replacement cells and tissues to 
treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities, including ALS 
(Lou Gehrig's Disease), Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, spinal

[[Page 15212]]

cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, 
rheumatoid arthritis, liver diseases and cancers.
  I would say to all of my colleagues, let's move forward to stop human 
cloning before it starts. Let's move forward with stem cell research 
using a source of stem cells that is both in abundant supply and in 
conformity with our respective ethical and moral beliefs.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, in an old blues song, B.B. King provides some 
sound advice: ``don't make your move too soon.'' Clearly, Congress 
should heed Mr. King's advice on the issue of human cloning and act 
with prudence.
  Based on my own personal, moral and religious views, I firmly believe 
that human cloning should be banned. I sincerely believe that the 
majority of my colleagues agree with me. However, in our zeal to pass a 
ban on human cloning we may be needlessly impeding the legitimate use 
of stem cell research.
  Even more frightening, instead of holding extensive hearings with 
scientists, ethicists and patient groups on how to develop a narrowly 
tailored ban on human cloning, we are rushing to a vote on a bill which 
was heard in one committee, the Judiciary Committee.
  What ever happened to prudence? What ever happened to reasoning 
things out? What ever happened to looking before you leap? What is 
clear from the debate on this floor today is there are serious 
questions and confusion as to whether the Human Cloning Prohibition Act 
will merely ban human cloning or halt life saving stem cell research. 
The fact that there is confusion necessitates further debate and 
discussion, not a vote.
  We must act with caution to ensure the future scientific successes 
which will make this world healthier and more productive while tightly 
regulating those practices which pose a clear threat to the health and 
safety of our citizens.
  Clearly, we are making a move too soon, without facts, without an 
understanding of what the Human Cloning Prohibition Act does, and 
without an understanding of the science involved. I would urge my 
colleagues to not make a move too soon. Let's debate this issue further 
and vote on a bill when the implications of the legislation is clear.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the practice of either embryo 
splitting or nuclear replacement technology, deliberately for the 
purposes of human reproductive cloning, raises serious ethical issues 
we, as policy makers, must address.
  Having participated, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, in 
hearings on the ethics and practice of human cloning, I am pleased to 
support Congressman Weldon and Stupak's bill, H.R. 2505--the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. This bill provides for an absolute 
prohibition on human cloning. The bill bans all forms of adult human 
and embryonic cloning, while not restricting areas of scientific 
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. In fact, the bill 
specifically protects and encourages the cloning of human tissues, so 
long as such procedures do not involve the creation of a cloned human 
embryo.
  The ability to produce an exact genetic replica of a human being, 
alive of deceased, carries with it an incredible responsibility. Beyond 
the fact the scientific community has yet to confirm the safety and 
efficacy of the procedure, human cloning is human experimentation taken 
to the furthest extreme. In fact, the National Bioethics Commission has 
quite clearly stated the creation of a human being by somatic cell 
nuclear transfer is both scientifically and ethically objectionable.
  This is why I have serious reservations with Representative 
Greenwood's bill, H.R. 2172. This bill would prohibit human somatic 
cell nuclear transfer technology with the intent to initiate a 
pregnancy. Of critical importance, however, is the fact that would 
allow somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to clone molecules, DNA, 
cells, tissues; in the practice of in vitro fertilization, the 
administration of fertility-enhancing drugs, or the use of other 
medical procedures to assist a woman in becoming or remaining pregnant; 
or any other activity (including biomedical, microbiological, or 
agricultural research or practices) not expressly prohibited.
  Representative Greenwood's bill purportedly advances the benefits of 
``therapeutic cloning''; that is, the cloning of embryos for the 
purpose of scientific research. While we may hear endless examples of 
how this technology may lead to advanced cancer therapies, solve 
infertility problems, and end juvenile diabetes, in reality, not one 
reputable research organization has provided any hard evidence that 
cloned embryos will provide any such miracles. To date, not one disease 
has been cured, or one treatment developed based on this technology. 
Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that alternatives to this 
procedure already exist. Stem cells, which can be harvested from 
placentas and umbilical cords, even from human fat cells, have yielded 
far more results than embryonic stem cells.
  What is most objectionable to the bill is that it will take us in an 
entirely new and inhumane direction, whereby the United States 
government will be condoning, indeed encouraging, the creation of 
embryos for the purpose of destruction.
  There is nothing humanitarian or compassionate about creating and 
destroying human life for some theoretical, technical benefit that is 
far from established. To create a cloned human embryo solely to harvest 
its cells is just as abhorrent as cloning a human embryo for 
implantation.
  To not provide an outright and complete ban on embryonic cloning 
would set a dangerous precedent. Once the Federal government permits 
such dubious and mischievous research practices, regardless of how 
strict the guidelines and regulations are drawn, human cloning will 
undoubtedly occur.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing scientifically or medically important would be 
lost by banning embryonic cloning. Indeed, at this time, there is no 
clinical, scientific, therapeutic or moral justification for it. I urge 
all House Members to join a vast majority of American citizens and 
members of the scientific community in support of H.R. 2505, the true 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, it is July 31st, the year 2001. Once upon a 
time, the discussions about cloning human beings were about a 
hypothetical point in the future.
  America has not paid too much attention to the scientific, legal, and 
ethical issues surrounding cloning because it was always something so 
far off in the future that it seemed surreal.
  Well, the future is upon us and today we discuss an issue of utmost 
importance in determining what sort of world we live in.
  We all want to secure America's future--to live in a land of 
prosperity, good health, and great opportunity.
  However, our future will very much be shaped by our present decisions 
and fundamental questions about human life and human identity.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of H.R. 2505--the Weldon/Stupak 
bill to enact a true ban on human cloning. I rise in opposition to the 
Greenwood/Deutsch bill which purports to be a ban, but will allow the 
industrial exploitation of human life.
  Mr. Speaker, you and I and every other person on the face of this 
earth have unique features--things that make us not only human, but 
individuals.
  Our fingerprints are like snowflakes--there is not, nor has there 
ever been, an exact replica of another human being.
  Cloning is a whole new world. What is a clone? Whe is close? What is 
the identity of a clone? Who is responsible for the clone? Why would 
clones be brought into existence? Should they become human organ farms, 
created specifically to try to save the life of another human being? 
Would clones have different rights than `natural' human beings? Would 
they be a subservient class of human beings?
  Supporters of the Greenwood Substitute might claim that this is far-
fetched, that their language has no intention of allowing the creation 
of actual cloned living, breathing human beings.
  As columnist Charles Krauthammer puts so eloquently, ``. . . once the 
industry of cloning human embryos has begun and thousands are being 
created, grown, bought and sold, who is going to prevent them from 
being implanted in a woman and developed into a cloned child?''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask at what point do we say NO? At what point do 
we say that we refuse to walk down that slippery slope?
  When do we have the strength to stand up for the wonder of life and 
human experience and say that we will not allow the creation of cloned 
human embryos for industrial exploitation?
  Krauthammer calls the Greenwood bill ``a nightmare and an abomination 
. . .  the launching of the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in 
modern scientific history.''
  Mr. Speaker. I hope we will all be able to look back on this day--
July 31, 2001--and recognize that it was a day in which we affirmed 
human life and rejected those wishing to exploit life in a most 
horrific way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take those words to heart and 
reject the Greenwood substitute and vote in favor of the underlying 
bipartisan bill.
  As we work together in this body to secure the future for America, 
let us march forward on our strongest ideals of hope, democracy,

[[Page 15213]]

and freedom. Let us show the utmost respect for human life and this 
human experience which we all share.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2505, the 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.
  This bill has an amazingly wide range of support. Opponents of the 
bill have tried to portray it as a piece of pro-life legislation, and 
have made it hard for pro-choice members to support it. But anyone who 
has followed the series of cloning hearings has seen some of the most 
unusual alliances in recent political history, including many pro-
choice activists and organizations who see the common sense in banning 
the ghoulish practice of cloning. Even they see that embryo cloning 
will, with virtual certainty, lead to the production of experimental 
human beings.
  Scientists acknowledge the ethical questions cloning raises. As 
recently as the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American 
Medical Association, three bioethicists co-authored a major paper on 
human cloning that freely acknowledged that somatic cell nuclear 
transfer creates human embryos and noted that it raises complex ethical 
questions.
  Some have stated that life begins in the womb, not a petri dish or a 
refrigerator. I believe, however, that human life is created when an 
egg and a sperm meet. The miracle of life cannot be denied, whether it 
begins in a womb or a petri dish. Even scientists and bioethicists 
realize the moral and ethical implications that cloning brings about. 
Twisting this reality is disingenuous.
  Do we really want Uncle Sam cloning human beings? Do we really want 
the federal government to play God in such an undeniable way? I 
certainly don't. The Greenwood substitute is a moral and practical 
disaster, however you look at it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of H.R. 2505 and against the Greenwood substitute and the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following information on 
the subject of Cloning.
                                            National Right to Life


                                               Committee, Inc.

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2001.

     Scientists Say ``Therapeutic Cloning'' Creates a Human Embryo

       President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 
     in its 1997 report Cloning Human Beings, explicitly stated: 
     ``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 National Institutes of Health Human Embryo Research 
     Panel also assumed in its September 27, 1994 Final Report, 
     that cloning results in embryos. In listing research 
     proposals that ``should not be funded for the foreseeable 
     future'' because of ``serious ethical concerns,'' the NIH 
     panel included cloning: ``Such research includes: . . . 
     Studies designed to transplant embryonic or adult nuclei into 
     an enucleated egg, including nuclear cloning, in order to 
     duplicate a genome or to increase the number of embryos with 
     the same genotype, with transfer.''
       A group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology 
     executives advocating ``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--
     confirmed in the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of 
     the American Medical Association that a human embryo is 
     created and destroyed through ``therapeutic cloning'': ``CRNT 
     [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another term for 
     ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate creation and 
     disaggregation of a human embryo.'' ``. . . because 
     therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation 
     ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises 
     complex ethical questions.''
       On September 7, 2000, the European Parliament adopted a 
     resolution on human cloning. The Parliament's press release 
     defined and commented on ``therapeutic cloning'': ``. . . 
     `Therapeutic cloning,' which involves the creation of human 
     embryos purely for research purposes, poses an ethical 
     dilemma and crosses a boundary in research norms.''
       Lee M. Silver, professor of molecular biology and 
     evolutionary biology at Princeton University, argues in his 
     1997 book, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New 
     World. ``Yet there is nothing synthetic about the cells used 
     in cloning. . . . The newly created embryo can only develop 
     inside the womb of a woman in the same way that all embryos 
     and fetuses develop. Cloned children will be full-fledged 
     human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all 
     other members of the species.''
       The President and CEO of the biotechnology firm that 
     recently announced its intentions to clone human embryos for 
     research purposes, Michael D. West, Ph.D. of Advanced Cell 
     Technology, testified before a Senate Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on December 2, 1998: ``In this . . . procedure, 
     body cells from a patient would be fused with an egg cell 
     that has had its nucleus (including the nuclear DNA) removed. 
     This would theoretically allow the production of a 
     blastocyst-staged embryo genetically identical to the 
     patient. . . .''
       Dr. Ian Wilmut of PPL Technologies, leader of the team that 
     cloned Dolly the sheep, describes in the spring 1988 issue of 
     Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics how embryos are used 
     in the process now referred to as ``therapeutic cloning'': 
     ``One potential use for this technique would be to take 
     cells--skin cells, for example--from a human patient who had 
     a genetic disease . . . You take this and get them back to 
     the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an 
     oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you 
     would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated 
     cells, which would retain the ability to colonize the tissues 
     of the patient.''
       As documented in the American Medical News, February 23, 
     1998, University of Colorado human embryologist Jonathan Van 
     Blerkom expressed disbelief that some deny that human cloning 
     produces an embryo, commenting: ``If it's not an embryo, what 
     is it?''
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives 
took an important step in banning the cloning of human embryos. As this 
debate moves forward in Congress, I believe the National Right to Life 
Committee has made some very important points which we need to keep in 
mind:
                                            National Right To Life


                                               Committee, Inc.

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2001.

          Americans Oppose Cloning Human Embryos for Research

       The biotechnology industry is pushing for a deceptive 
     ``cloning ban'' sponsored by James Greenwood. This bill 
     actually permits, protects, and licenses the unlimited 
     creation of cloned human embryos for experimentation as long 
     as those embryos are destroyed before being implanted in a 
     mother's womb. It would more accurately be termed a ``clone 
     and kill'' bill.
       In the past, even major defenders of harmful research on 
     human embryos have rejected the idea of special creation of 
     embryos for research.
       ``The creation of human embryos specifically for research 
     that will destroy them is unconscionable.''--Editorial, 
     ``Embryos: Drawing the Line,'' Washington Post, October 2, 
     1994, C6.
       ``What the NIH must decide is whether to put a seal of 
     approval on . . . creating embryos when necessary through in 
     vitro fertilization, conducting experiments on them and 
     throwing them away when the experiments are finished. . . . 
     The price for this potential progress is to disregard in the 
     case of embryos the basic ethical principal that no human's 
     bodily integrity may be violated involuntarily, no matter how 
     much good may result for others.'' Editorial, ``Life is 
     precious, even in the lab,'' Chicago Tribune, November 30, 
     1994.
       ``. . . We should not be involved in the creation of 
     embryos for research. I completely agree with my colleagues 
     on that score.''--Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 142 Congressional 
     Record at H7343, July 11, 1996.
       ``. . . I do not believe that federal funds should be used 
     to support the creation of human embryos for research 
     purposes, and I have directed that NIH not allocate any 
     resources for such research.''--President Bill Clinton, 
     Statement by the President, December 2, 1994.
       ``We can all be assured that the research at the National 
     Institutes of Health will be conducted with the highest level 
     of integrity. No embryos will be created for research 
     purposes. . . .''--Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), 142 Congressional 
     Record at H7343, July 11, 1996.
       ``. . . The manufacture of embryos for stem cell research . 
     . . may be morally suspect because it violates our desire to 
     accord special standing and status to human conception, 
     procreation, and sexuality.''--Arthur Caplan, Director, 
     University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, Testimony 
     before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, December 
     2, 1998.


                         public opinion speaks

       ``Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to 
     create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical 
     research?'' (International Communications Research Poll, June 
     2001): No--86%, Don't Know/Refused--4.3%, Yes--9.8%.
       ``Do you think scientists should be allowed to clone human 
     beings or don't you think so?'' (Time/CNN Poll, April 30, 
     2001): No--88%, Not Sure--2%, Yes--10%.
       So-called ``therapeutic cloning,'' just like ``reproductive 
     cloning,'' creates a human embryo. These embryos are killed 
     when their stem cells are harvested in the name of ``medical 
     research.''
       ``. . . Any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell 
     nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an 
     embryo, with the

[[Page 15214]]

     apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to 
     term.''--Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of 
     the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville, MD: 
     June 1997, Executive Summary).
       ``We can debate all day whether an embryo is or isn't a 
     person. But it is unquestionably human life, complete with 
     its own unique set of human genes that inform and drive its 
     own development. The idea of the manufacture of such a 
     magnificent thing as a human life purely for the purpose of 
     conducting research is grotesque, at best. Whether or not it 
     is federally funded.''--Editorial, ``Embryo Research is 
     Inhuman,'' Chicago Sun-Times, October 10, 1994, 25.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill, as amended, 
has expired.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 107-172 offered by 
     Mr. Scott:
       Page 4, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. STUDY BY 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 4 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 it considers 
     appropriate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 214, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would provide for a study by the General Accounting 
Office of this issue. That study would include a discussion of new 
developments in medical technology, the need if any for somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, the public attitudes and prevailing ethical views, 
and potential legal implications.
  The developments in stem cell research are proceeding at a very rapid 
pace; and it is difficult for Congress, which moves very slowly, to 
take them into account. This amendment would keep Congress informed of 
the changes in technology and its potential for medical advance. It 
would also keep us advised of any need for technical changes to the 
bill to keep its prohibition on cloning effective and narrowly drawn.
  Furthermore, this is an area where public attitudes and ethical views 
are often confused and uncertain. The study will be helpful in 
summarizing and clarifying those issues.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the issues that we have to deal with have been 
reflected in the questions that have been raised on what the bill 
actually does: the potential for embryonic versus adult cell research, 
and issues such as the impact of the bill which would be in effect in 
the United States on medical treatments which may be available 
everywhere else in the world except in the United States.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is an extremely constructive 
amendment. The gentleman from Virginia offered it during Judiciary 
Committee consideration and withdrew it because of jurisdictional 
concerns. I would hope that the House would adopt this amendment 
because I believe it would put additional information on the table to 
help further clarify this very contentious debate.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 214, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment In the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Greenwood

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House 
     Report 107-172 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 
     2001''.

     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 2001, 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.--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) 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--

[[Page 15215]]

       ``(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 2001.
       ``(e) Right of Action.--This section may not be construed 
     as establishing any private right of action.
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `person' includes governmental entities.
       ``(g)  Sunset.--This section and section 301(bb) 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 
     2001.''.
       (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:
       ``(bb) 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(bb) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 
     years or fined in accordance with title 18, United States 
     Code, or both.''.
       (3) Civil penalty.--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(bb) shall be 
     liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount 
     not to exceed the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000; 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 paragraph (1) of 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 paragraph (1) or (2) of 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(bb), 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 214, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Would it be appropriate for me or permissible under 
the rules for me to yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch)?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the gentleman from 
Florida could control those 15 minutes.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) be permitted to control 15 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire, how would we be 
going in terms of order of speakers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would allow the proponent of the 
amendment to speak first.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. And then to the opponent, and then it will revert back 
and forth?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting to personalize this issue as much 
as I can. One of the things I would ask my colleagues to do is look at 
some of the lists of groups that are supporting the Greenwood-Deutsch 
amendment in opposition to the Weldon bill: the Parkinson's Action 
Network, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Alliance for Aging, 
American Infertility Association, American Liver Foundation, 
International Kidney Cancer Foundation.
  I mention several of these organizations because as I have said, and 
I think what we all acknowledge, that the issue of using embryonic stem 
cell research is over. And why is it over? Because of the 435 Members 
in this Chamber, we have heard from our friends, from our families, 
from our neighbors, from our constituents about real people who are 
suffering real diseases. That suffering is incalculable. None of us 
would want that to happen to anyone. Yet we know it exists and we feel 
pain when we talk to people. Many of us experience that pain ourselves. 
I put up these numbers again to note that the individuals added 
collectively together add up to tens of millions of Americans and to 
hundreds of millions of family Members.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have had a good 2 hours of debate, and it has been encouraging to 
see the extent to which Members of Congress have been able to grapple 
with this very complicated issue.
  Unfortunately, the Members who are speaking are the ones who have 
mastered it. We will have a vote within the hour and unfortunately most 
Members will come here pretty confused about the issue.
  Let me try to simplify the issue once again and ask that we try to 
avoid some of the ad hominem argument that I think is beginning, and 
the hostility, frankly, that is beginning to develop on the floor on 
this issue. This is not a question about who has values and who stands 
for human life and who does not. It is a very legitimate and important 
and historic debate about how it is that we are able to use the DNA 
that God put into our own bodies, use the brain that God gave us to 
think creatively, and to employ this research to save the lives of men, 
women and children in this country and throughout the world and to 
rescue them from terribly debilitating and life-shortening diseases.

                              {time}  1615

  We have an extraordinary opportunity to do this with the research 
technique that does not involve conception. It is an interesting 
question to look at, when is it that people over history have defined 
the onset of life.
  The Catholic Church used to say that it began with quickening, when a 
woman could feel the motion of the fetus in her womb, and that was when 
ensoulment occurred. When scientists discovered how fertilization 
worked, the Church changed its opinion and said life actually begins at 
conception, at fertilization, and for those who adhere to that 
position, they have my utmost respect. I do not think they ought to put 
their position into the statutes of the Federal Government, but they 
certainly should be respected for that belief that they have.
  But now we have moved the goalposts again, and now somehow we are 
supposed to be required to, A, believe

[[Page 15216]]

that ensoulment occurs when a somatic cell taken from someone's skin 
divides in a petri dish, and for those who want to make that leap of 
faith, or leap of whatever it is, belief, they are welcome to do that.
  But to put into the statutes of the Federal Government a prohibition 
against using the state of the art research that is wonderfully 
brilliant, fine and inspired, and noble researchers are trying to 
employ in the laboratory for the very purpose of saving the lives of 
people, to put into law a Federal ban against that, I think, is 
immoral. I think it is wrong, and we should not do it.
  Now, the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute is very simple. All we have 
been trying to do from the very beginning is prohibit reproductive 
cloning. That is all we do. That is all we do, is say thou shalt not 
create new babies using cloning, because it is not safe and it is not 
ethical.
  I said months ago to the leadership of this House, if you want to do 
what we all agree on, we all want to stop that, then we need to shoot a 
silver bullet and a rifle shot and stop that legislatively. We could do 
that.
  I said then but if we get mired down into the stem cell debate, the 
result is predictable. The legislation will go nowhere, this bill when 
it passes the House today will not be taken up in the Senate. I cannot 
believe the Senate is going to get into this issue.
  So what will we have done at the end of the day? We will have done 
nothing. We will not have banned reproductive cloning, because it is 
more interesting to get into this extraordinary metaphysical debate 
whether life does or does not begin when a skin cell divides in a petri 
dish.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute that has been 
offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). 
This substitute is a big mistake for a number of reasons, and it should 
not be supported. Most notably, it would make the prohibition against 
human cloning virtually impossible to enforce, it would foster the 
creation of cloned human embryos through the Department of Health and 
Human Services, and 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 is no mechanism for tracking them.
  In fact, one would logically expect an organization authorized to 
clone 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 embryos, could easily implant any of 
the legally cloned embryos, if they had the opportunity, and a child 
would develop.
  Furthermore, those who do want to clone humans for reproductive 
purposes are very well funded and may have the capability to clone 
embryos. Would they be banned from registering with HHS under this 
amendment, or would they be authorized to create cloned embryos under 
the watchful eye of the Federal Government? If not, what would prevent 
any of these privately funded groups from creating a new organization 
with unknown intentions? If they did attempt human cloning for 
reproductive purposes, who would be held accountable? The lead 
scientists or others, or would the impregnated mother?
  The fact is, any legislative effort to prohibit cloning must allow 
enforcement to occur before a cloned embryo is implanted. Otherwise, it 
is too late, and that is the big deficiency in the Greenwood 
substitute.
  The substitute attempts to draw a distinction between necessary 
scientific research and human cloning by authorizing HHS 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, the crux of this substitute is to invoke a debate on stem cell 
research, a political knuckle ball, and this debate on stem cell 
research is a red herring.
  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, the bill allows for the production of cloned embryos for stem 
cell research. Again, H.R. 2505 does not prohibit stem cell research. 
It does not prohibit stem cell research. Currently private 
organizations are able to conduct unfettered research on embryonic stem 
cells. While this research is ethically and morally controversial, it 
has been heralded, because embryonic stem cells multiply faster and 
live longer in petri dishes than adult stem cells.
  Cloned embryo cells and normal embryo cells provide the same cellular 
tissue for research purposes. However, Mr. Speaker, these embryonic 
stem cells have failed in many clinical tests because they multiply too 
rapidly, causing cysts and cancers. Adult stem cells are the other area 
of stem cell research, which is much less controversial and which has 
been successful in over 45 trials. In fact, adult stem cells have been 
utilized to treat multiple sclerosis, bone marrow disorders, leukemias, 
anemias, and cartilage defects and immuno-deficiency in children.
  Adult stem cells have been extracted from bone marrow, blood, 
skeletal muscle, the gastro-intestinal tract, the placenta, and brain 
tissue, to form bone marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat, 
liver, brain, nerve, blood, heart, skeletal muscle, smooth muscle, 
esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and colon cells. 
H.R. 2505 would not interfere with this work, but it prohibits the 
production of cloned embryos. It is a cloning bill; it is not a stem 
cell research bill.
  Furthermore, H.R. 2505 allows for cloning research on various 
molecules, DNA, cells from other human embryos, tissues, organs, 
plants, animals or animals other than humans. In fact, it allows for 
cloning research on RNA, ribonucleic acid, which has been used in 
genetic therapy.
  Fourth, the substitute prohibits States from adopting laws that 
prohibit or more strictly regulate cloning within their borders. It is 
a Federal preemption. This portion of the substitute raises even more 
ethical concerns which speak for themselves. Try telling my 
constituents they cannot ban human cloning, and I will tell you they 
disagree.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, 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. However, the proponents of human cloning will continue to fight 
for their right to produce human clones in America; and authorizing a 
subsequent ban on human cloning could become even more controversial.
  This is why Members on both sides of the aisle should rise in 
opposition to the substitute, defeat it, and pass H.R. 2505.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
and scholarly gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  First I ask everyone to take a deep breath and step back for a 
moment.
  The House of Representatives is debating a bill that prohibits human 
cloning. I agree that cloning human beings is ethically unacceptable. 
In fact, I think just about everyone will reach this conclusion, which 
leads me to question whether we actually need to legislate something 
that is so common sense.
  Now, let me ask people to imagine the conditions under which Jonas 
Salk developed a vaccine to prevent polio. Presumably, Dr. Salk spent 
many hours in his research laboratory, growing tissue cultures, and 
implanting

[[Page 15217]]

within those cultures foreign agents to stimulate and ultimately 
prevent polio. How many of us then questioned the scientific techniques 
being used by Dr. Salk, and thousands of other researchers since then 
to discover new medicines and treatments for debilitating illnesses 
that plague our society? Can anyone actually say that the polio vaccine 
is bad because it was developed using tissue samples?
  The problems with the discussions surrounding the human cloning bill 
advanced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) are two-fold. First, it cloaks a worthwhile 
and necessary debate in grossly overblown rhetoric; and, second, it is 
such a broad-brush effort that it would absolutely prohibit potentially 
life-saving therapies that may prevent and cure diseases such as 
Alzheimer's, cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, cardiovascular damage, 
diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. At 5 o'clock I will be meeting with 
a group on Hunter's Syndrome. These various diseases could probably 
very well be researched by NIH and the great universities of this land.
  What we are talking about, in short, is watching cells divide in a 
petri dish. Could this group of cells develop into a human embryo? 
Maybe, but only if implanted in a womb, and then its development is 
questionable.
  The Greenwood bill permits the technology, but ensures that the group 
of cells never develops into anything remotely resembling a human 
being.
  So, let me ask, is this cell group really any different from the 
tissue cultures grown by Dr. Salk? Is this group of cells so special 
that they deserve all of the moral, ethical, and legal protections that 
we afford fully developed, fully functional, and fully cognitive 
emotive human beings?
  Is this group of cells so different and so much more important from 
the frozen fertilized eggs that we are considering using for stem cell 
research that they deserve more proscriptive treatment? Why are we less 
concerned about the sanctity of life with eggs that were harvested and 
fertilized for purposes of creating a human life than in the situation 
where we have neither of these purposes?
  Although I am not convinced that the Greenwood substitute is a 
perfect alternative, it is certainly a superior alternative to an 
approach that would stop any sort of life-affirming therapies to 
advance. I think what has all of us ill at ease is that this technology 
immediately conjures up images of Dr. Frankenstein or the chemist 
fiddling with his or her chemistry set creating solutions and potions 
of unknown characteristics.
  I am not a biological scientist myself. I have been a Dean of 
Graduate Studies and Research. I do know what goes on in universities, 
and in this Nation we have a great number of laboratories, and this 
government has helped fund bright young people. We need to encourage 
them and not limit them.
  Honestly, I cannot say I remember much from my own school biology 
class, and I think a lot of us are in the same way. We were dealing 
with leaves and not molecular objects. Like most people, I find these 
images to be disconcerting. But I want to live in a world in which 
science can be allowed to proceed to find a cure for polio, for 
Alzheimer's, for any host of tragic diseases, and that treatments might 
be possible for any of them. We can only do this by letting the science 
move forward. The Greenwood alternative permits this; Weldon does not.

                              {time}  1630

  Ultimately, the debate and science are too complicated to leave to a 
group of unsophisticated legislators with instruments too blunt to be 
effective. I am concerned that the House leadership has allowed this 
debate to proceed in this hasty, reckless fashion.
  For this reason alone, we should be the first to follow the 
Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. That means, oppose the Weldon 
bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn), I do not think the gentleman has read the bill and I do not 
think he has been listening to the debate.
  This bill does not stop scientific research. This bill does not stop 
stem cell research. This bill stops research in destruction of cloned 
embryonic stem cells, no other stem cells whatsoever.
  I do not think Dr. Salk used cloned material when he developed the 
polio vaccine. Nobody even thought of cloning 45, 50 years ago when Dr. 
Salk was using his research.
  Please, let us talk about what is in the bill and what is in the 
Greenwood substitute, rather than bringing up issues that are 
completely irrelevant to both.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), the coauthor of the bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I rise today in strong support of the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2001, and I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership on this issue.
  We are in the midst of a tremendous new debate, a tremendous new 
policy direction, a tremendous new revolution. 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. A cult has publicly announced its 
intention to begin human cloning for profit. Research firms have 
announced their intentions to clone embryos for research purposes and 
then discard what is not needed. Whatever your beliefs, pro-life, pro-
choice, Democrat or Republican, the fact is embryos are the building 
blocks of human life and human life itself. We must ask ourselves, what 
will our message be here today? What makes us up as human beings? What 
is the human spirit? What moves us? What separates us from animals?
  That is what we are debating here today.
  What message will the United States 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 the color of 
the eyes or the hair of their children, or create super babies? We need 
to consider all aspects of cloning and not just what the researchers 
tell us is good.
  Opposition to the Weldon-Stupak bill has based its objections on 
arguments that we will stifle research, discourage free thinking, put 
science back in the Dark Ages. How ridiculous. 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. All of this is not seen as stifling 
research. The fact is, there is no research being done on cloned human 
embryos, so how can we stifle it?
  Mr. Speaker, do we know why there is no research being done? Because 
scientists, the same ones who are banging on our doors to allow this 
experiment with human embryos, do not know how to. They have 
experimented for years with cloned animal embryos with very limited 
success. These scientists, who were pushing so hard to be allowed a 
free pass for research on what constitutes the very essence of what it 
is to be a human, do not know what goes wrong with cloned animal 
embryos. The horror stories are too many to mention here of deformed 
mice and deformed sheep developing from cloned embryos.
  A prominent researcher working for a bioresearch company has admitted 
scientists do not know how or what happens in cloned embryos allowing 
these deformed embryos. In fact, he calls the procedure when an egg 
reprograms DNA ``magic.'' Magic? That is hardly a comforting or a hard-
hitting scientific term, but it is accurate. It is magic.
  Opponents of our 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

[[Page 15218]]

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 ability to go where we have 
never gone before.
  The question is this: Simply because we can do something, does that 
mean we should do it? What is the better path to take? One of haste and 
a rush into the benefits that are, at best, years in the future, 
entrusting cloned human embryos to scientists who do not know what they 
are doing with cloned animal embryos; or one urging caution, urging a 
step back, urging deliberation?
  The human race is not open for experimentation at any level, even at 
the molecular level. Has not the 20th century history shown us the 
folly of this belief?
  The Holy Grail? The magic? How about the human soul? Scientists and 
medical researchers cannot find it, they 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 soul, reject the substitute and support the 
Weldon-Stupak bill.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood 
substitute and in opposition to H.R. 2505.
  This debate involves research that holds a great deal of promise for 
defeating disease and repairing damaged organs. It also involves a 
great deal of confusion.
  In order to tilt the debate about genetic cell replication research, 
some opponents lump it with Dolly the sheep. No one supports 
reproductive cloning and no one benefits from such confusion, except 
those who hope to spur an overreaction. The Greenwood substitute would 
prohibit reproductive cloning without shutting down valuable research.
  Some argue to prohibit genetic cell replication research because it 
might, in the wrong hands, be turned into reproductive cloning 
research. I cannot support this argument. All research can be misused. 
That is why we regulate research, investigate abuse of subjects, and 
prosecute scientific fraud and misconduct. If researchers give drug 
overdoses in clinical trials, the law requires that they be disbarred 
and punished. If someone were to traffic in organs, the law requires 
they be prosecuted, and if someone were to develop reproductive cloning 
under the Greenwood substitute, they would be prosecuted for a felony. 
The Greenwood ban on reproductive cloning will be every bit as 
effective as the Weldon ban on all research. If someone is deterred by 
one felony penalty, they will be deterred by the other.
  Finally, let me point out that the Greenwood substitute cleans up two 
major drafting mistakes in the Weldon bill, mistakes that, in and of 
themselves, should be enough to make Members oppose the Weldon bill.
  First, as the dissenting views in the committee report note, this 
bill criminalizes some forms of infertility treatments. These are not 
the science fiction clones that people have been talking about today; 
this is a woman and a man who want to have a child using her egg and 
his sperm and some other genetic materials to make up for flaws in one 
or the other; and this bill would make this couple and their doctors 
felons. That is wrong. They do not want Dolly the sheep, they want a 
child of their own.
  Second, the Weldon bill makes criminal all products that are derived 
from this research. This means that if an advance in research leads to 
a new protein or enzyme or chemical, that protein or enzyme or chemical 
cannot be brought into this country, even if it requires no creation of 
new fertilized eggs and is the cure for dreaded diseases. That is 
wrong. It is an overreaction and does not serve any useful end.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood amendment. We should 
clearly define what is wrongdoing, prohibit it, and enforce that 
prohibition, but we should not shut down beneficial work, clinical 
trials, organ transplants, or genetic cell replication because of a 
risk of wrongdoing; and we should not ban some things by the accident 
of bad drafting.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood substitute and in 
opposition to H.R. 2505. This debate involves research that holds a 
great deal of promise for defeating disease and repairing damaged 
organs. It also involves a great deal of confusion.
  Let me try to clear up that confusion by clarifying what we mean by 
``cloning research,'' because the term means different things to 
different people. Some ``cloning'' research involves, for example, 
using genetic material to generate one adult skin cell from another 
adult skin cell. I know of no serious opposition to such research.
  Some ``cloning'' research starts with a human egg cell, inserts a 
donor's complete genetic material into its core, and allows this cell 
to multiply to produce new cells, genetically identical to the donor's 
cells. This is genetic cell replication. These cells can, in theory, be 
transplanted to be used for organ repair or tissue regeneration--
without risk of allergic reaction or rejection. H.R. 2505 would ban 
that--for no good reason.
  Some ``cloning'' research is for reproduction. It starts with the 
human egg and donated genetic material, but it is intended to go 
further, in an effort to create what is essentially a human version of 
Dolly the sheep, a full-scale living replica of the donor of the 
genetic material. I know of no serious support for such research and 
the Greenwood amendment would ban that.
  In order to tilt the debate about genetic cell replication research, 
some opponents lump it with Dolly the sheep. No one supports 
reproductive cloning, and no one benefits from such confusion except 
those who hope to spur an overreaction. The Greenwood amendment would 
prohibit reproductive cloning without shutting down valuable research.
  Some also argue to prohibit genetic cell replication research because 
it might--in the wrong hands--be turned into reproductive cloning 
research. I cannot support this argument.
  Such a prohibition is no more reasonable than to prohibit all 
clinical trials because researchers might give overdoses deliberately. 
It is as much overreaching as prohibiting all organ transplant studies 
because an unscrupulous person might buy or sell organs for profit.
  All research can be misused. That's why we regulate research, 
investigate abuse of subjects, and prosecute scientific fraud and 
misconduct.
  If researchers give drug overdoses in clinical trials, the law 
requires that they be disbarred and punished. If someone were to 
traffick in organs, the law requires that they be prosecuted. And if 
someone were to develop reproductive cloning, under the Greenwood 
amendment, they could be prosecuted for a felony.
  And the Greenwood ban will be every bit as effective as the Weldon 
ban on all research. If someone is deterred by one felony penalty, they 
will be deterred by the other
  Finally, let me point out that the Greenwood amendment cleans up two 
major drafting mistakes in the Weldon bill--mistakes that in and of 
themselves should be enough to make Members oppose the Weldon bill.
  First, as the dissenting views in the Committee Report note, this 
bill criminalizes some forms of infertility treatments. These are not 
the science fiction clones that people have been talking about today; 
this is a woman and a man who want to have a child--using her egg and 
his sperm and some other genetic materials to make up for flaws in one 
or the other. And this bill would make this couple and their doctor 
felons. That's wrong. They only want a healthy child of their own--but 
the Weldon bill would stop that.
  Second, the Weldon bill makes criminal all products that are derived 
from this research. this means that if an advance in research elsewhere 
leads to a new protein or enzyme or chemical, that protein or enzyme or 
chemical cannot be brought into the country--even if it requires no 
creation of new fertilized eggs and is the cure for dreaded diseases. 
That's wrong. It is an over-reaction that does not serve any useful 
end.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood amendment. We should 
clearly define what we believe is wrongdoing, prohibit it, and enforce 
that prohibition. The Greenwood amendment does that.
  But we should not shut down beneficial work--clinical trials, organ 
transplants, or genetic cell replication--because of a risk of

[[Page 15219]]

wrongdoing, and we should not ban some things by the accident of bad 
drafting.
  The Congress should not prohibit potentially life-saving research on 
genetic cell replication because it accords a cell--a special cell, but 
only a cell--the same rights and protections as a person. No one 
supports creating a cloned human being, but we should allow research on 
how cells work to continue.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Stupak) asked for an example of how 
this research is working. Dr. Okarma, who testified at our hearings, 
spoke of how they have taken mice who had damaged hearts, they used 
somatic cell nuclear transfer to take the cells of the mice, turn them 
into pluripotent stem cells, and then into heart cells, and then they 
injected those heart cells into the heart of the mouse. What happened? 
Those cells behaved like heart cells. They pumped blood and kept the 
mouse alive.
  All we are asking for here today is to give the people of the world, 
the people of this country, the same chance that the mouse had.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, John Porter, the former chairman of 
Labor-HHS, asked me to do a terrible thing once. He asked me to chair a 
committee with children with exotic diseases. I had to shut down the 
committee it hurt so much. One little girl said, Congressman, you are 
the only person that can save my life, and that little child died, and 
there are thousands of these children.
  I am 100 percent pro-life, 11 years, but I support stem cell research 
of discarded cells. The concern that all of us have is, if we go along 
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the same thing 
will happen that happened in England. They started with stem cell 
research, then they expanded it to nuclear transfer of the somatic 
cells. Then they went to human cloning, and even a subspecies so that 
they can use body parts.
  Where does it stop? The only way that we can control this research 
through the Federal Government is to make sure that these ethical and 
moral values are adhered to. We have to stop it here.
  Support the Weldon bill, oppose the Greenwood bill.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act is a bill we should not be debating with such brevity 
and haste. Cloning is manifestly not the same issue as stem cell 
research, much less abortion, and 2-minute snippets fail to do justice 
to the complex issues involved.
  I am tempted to vote against both the bill and the substitute on the 
grounds that neither has been sufficiently refined or adequately 
debated. But that could be interpreted as a failure to take seriously 
the ethical issues that cloning raises and the need to block the path 
to reproductive cloning. That is the last thing we should want to do, 
for as Leon Kass and Daniel Callahan have argued in a recent article, 
reproductive cloning would threaten individuality and confuse identity, 
confounding our very definition of personhood, and it would represent a 
giant step toward turning procreation into manufacture.
  I will vote for the Greenwood substitute as the best of the available 
alternatives. We are not certain of the promise of somatic cell nuclear 
transfer, or therapeutic cloning, research for the treatment or cure of 
diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's or stroke. But we 
simply must take the enormous potential for human benefit seriously.
  In moving to head off morally unacceptable reproductive cloning, we 
must take great care not to block research for treatments which have 
great potential for good and could run afoul of the ban included in 
H.R. 2505.
  Critics such as Kass and Callahan argue persuasively that the ban on 
reproductive cloning contained in the Greenwood substitute would be 
difficult to enforce. But would the ban of nuclear transfer contained 
in H.R. 2505 be more easily enforced? As the dissenting views of the 
Committee on the Judiciary report argue,

       If a ban on the surgical procedure of implanting embryos 
     into the uterus is unenforceable, a ban on a procedure that 
     takes place in a petri dish in the privacy of a scientific 
     laboratory is even more so.

  Mr. Speaker, these are very difficult matters. We should not suppose 
that our votes here today, whatever the result, will resolve them. We 
must do the best we can, drawing the moral lines that must be drawn, 
while weighing conscientiously the possible benefits of new lines of 
research for the entire human family.
  I believe the Greenwood substitute is the best among imperfect 
alternatives, and I urge its adoption.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. Pitts. Mr. Speaker, we need to clarify something here. This issue 
is not about what the other side called a group of cells or insoulment 
or a leap of faith; it is about human life at its very beginning.
  This amendment is not a cloning ban. It has a 10-year moratorium in 
it; but, in fact, for the first time this amendment would specifically 
make cloning legal, and it would require that human clones be killed 
after they are made, which is even more unethical.
  Now, some have suggested that cloned embryos are not really embryos 
at all. That is ridiculous. We might as well say that Dolly, who began 
as a cloned sheep embryo, is not really a sheep, even though now she is 
5 years old.
  Even President Clinton's Bioethics Advisory Commission was clear. The 
commission began its discussion fully recognizing that any effort in 
humans to transfer somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, in 
other words, cloning, involves the creation of an embryo. Eighty-eight 
percent of the American people want cloning banned, not merely because 
they believe it is bad science, but because they think it is morally 
wrong.
  Let us stop playing games with words. Reject the Greenwood amendment. 
Support Weldon-Stupak.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National 
Right to Life Committee, Inc., and a copy of a letter written by Mr. 
Douglas Johnson:
                                            National Right to Life


                                              Committee, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.

   Federal panels and Researchers Agree: Human Cloning Creates Human 
                                Embryos

       Dear Member of Congress: At a press conference today, 
     Congressman Greenwood and Congressman Deutsch asserted that 
     the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute amendment to the Weldon-
     Stupak bill (H.R. 2505) would allow ``therapeutic cloning,'' 
     but they asserted that this process would not involve the 
     creation of any human embryos.
       This ``argument,'' if it can be called that, shows a 
     breathtaking lack of candor. For years, federal bio-ethics 
     review bodies have acknowledged that the process of somatic 
     cell nuclear transfer would indeed produce human embryos. For 
     example, President Clinton's handpicked National Bioethics 
     Advisory Commission acknowledged in its 1997 report Cloning 
     Human Beings, ``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.'' [emphasis added]
       Earlier this month, Michael West, the head of the major 
     biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, 
     Massachusetts, told journalists that the firm intends to 
     start cloning ``soon.'' As recently as the December 27, 2000 
     issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 
     three members of the ACT team, including Dr. West, along with 
     bioethicist Ronald Green of Dartmouth University and two 
     other bioethicists, co-authored a major paper on human 
     cloning that freely acknowledged that the method creates 
     human embryos. They wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic 
     cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of 
     blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex 
     ethical questions,'' [emphasis added]
       The attached factsheet includes numerous such admissions 
     from diverse researchers and public bodies. Thus, it is past 
     time for Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Deutsch to drop their 
     disinformation campaign and engage in an honest debate over 
     whether human embryo farms should be allowed in this country. 
     If you oppose the establishment of

[[Page 15220]]

     human embryo farms, vote no on the Greenwood-Deutsch 
     substitute.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Douglas Johnson,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____


Scientists Say ``Therapeutic Cloning'' Creates a Human Embryo--July 26, 
                                  2001

       President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 
     in its 1997 report Cloning Human Beings, explicitly stated:
       ``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 National Institutes of Health Human Embryo Research 
     Panel also assumed in its September 27, 1994 Final Report, 
     that cloning results in embryos. In listing research 
     proposals that ``should not be funded for the foreseeable 
     future'' because of ``serious ethical concerns,'' the NIH 
     panel included cloning:
       ``Such research includes: . . .  Studies designed to 
     transplant embryonic or adult nuclei into an enucleated egg, 
     including nuclear cloning, in order to duplicate a genome or 
     to increase the number of embryos with the same genotype, 
     with transfer.''
       A group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology 
     executives advocating ``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--
     confirmed in the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of 
     the American Medical Association that a human embryo is 
     created and destroyed through ``therapeutic cloning'':
       ``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another 
     term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate 
     creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.''
       ``. . .  because therapeutic cloning requires the creation 
     and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this 
     technique raises complex ethical questions.''
       On September 7, 2000, the European Parliament adopted a 
     resolution on human cloning. The Parliament's press release 
     defined and commented on ``therapeutic cloning'':
       ``. . .  `Therapeutic cloning,' which involves the creation 
     of human embryos purely for research purposes, poses an 
     ethical dilemma and crosses a boundary in research norms.''
       Lee M. Silver, professor of molecular biology and 
     evolutionary biology at Princeton University, argues in his 
     1997 book, Remarking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New 
     World:
       ``Yet there is nothing synthetic about the cells used in 
     cloning. . . . The newly created embryo can only develop 
     inside the womb of a woman in the same way that all embryos 
     and fetuses develop. Cloned children will be full-fledged 
     human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all 
     other members of the species.''
       The President and CEO of the biotechnology firm that 
     recently announced its intentions to clone human embryos for 
     research purposes, Michael D. West, Ph.D. of Advanced Cell 
     Technology, testified before a Senate Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on December 2, 1998:
       ``In this . . .  procedure, body cells from a patient would 
     be fused with an egg cell that has had its nucleus (including 
     the nuclear DNA) removed. This would theoretically allow the 
     production of a blastocyst-staged embryo genetically 
     identical to the patient . . . .''
       Dr. Ian Wilmut of PPL Technologies, leader of the team that 
     cloned Dolly the sheep, describes in the Spring 1998 issue of 
     Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics how embryos are used 
     in the process now referred to as ``therapeutic cloning'':
       ``One potential use for this technique would be to take 
     cells--skin cells, for example--from a human patient who had 
     a genetic disease. . . . You take this and get them back to 
     the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an 
     oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you 
     would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated 
     cells, which would retain the ability to colonize the tissues 
     of the patient.''
       As documented in the American Medical News, February 23, 
     1998, University of Colorado human embryologist Jonathan Van 
     Blerkom expressed disbelief that some deny that human cloning 
     produces an embryo, commenting: ``If it's not an embryo, what 
     is it?''

  Mr. Speaker, I commend to the House the following article written by 
Mr. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee.

                   The Amazing Vanishing Embryo Trick

       It was revealed last week that Advanced Cell Technology 
     (ACT) of Worcester, Massachusetts, a prominent privately 
     owned biotechnology firm, has a plan to mass-produce human 
     embryos. The firm also has a plan to render those same 
     embryos nonexistent.
       ACT is attempting to develop a technique to produce 
     ``cloned human entities,'' who would then be killed in order 
     to harvest their stem cells, as first reported by Washington 
     Post science writer Rick Weiss (July 13).
       As Associated Press biotechnology writer Paul Elias 
     explained in a July 13 report, ``Many scientists consider the 
     [anticipated] results of Advanced Cell's technique to be 
     human embryos, since theoretically, they could be implanted 
     into a womb and grown into a fetus. [ACT chief executive 
     Michael] West himself has used the term `embryo.'''
       But it looks like West and his colleagues will not be 
     saying ``embryo'' in the future. ACT's executives are smart 
     people who anticipated that many outsiders would see their 
     embryo-farm project as an ethnical nightmare. So ACT 
     assembled a special task force of scientists and 
     ``ethicists'' to develop linguistic stealth devices, with 
     which they hope to slip under the public's moral radar.
       As Weiss reported it, ``Before starting, the company 
     created an independent ethics board with nationally 
     recognized scientists and ethicists. . . . The group has 
     debated at length whether there needs to be a new term 
     developed for the embryo-like entity created by cloning. Some 
     believe that since it is not produced by fertilization and is 
     not going to be allowed to develop into a fetus, it would be 
     useful to call the cells something less inflammatory than an 
     embryo.''
       ``Embryo'' is merely a technical term for a human being at 
     the earliest stages of development. Until now, even the most 
     rabid defenders of abortion on demand had not objected to the 
     term ``embryo'' as being `'inflammatory.'' But apparently 
     ACT's experts have concluded that before the corporation 
     actually begins to mass-produce human embryos in order to 
     kill them, it would be prudent to erect a shield of biobabble 
     euphemisms.
       Thus, ``These are not embryos,'' the chair of the ACT 
     ethics advisory board, Dartmouth University religion 
     professor Ronald Green, told the AP. ``They are not the 
     result of fertilization and there is no intent to implant 
     these in women and grow them.''
       Further details on the ACT linguistic-engineering project 
     were provided in an essay by Weiss in the July 15 Washington 
     Post. It disclosed that one member of the ethics panel, 
     Harvard professor Ann Kieffling, favors dubbing the cloned 
     embryo as an ``ovasome,'' which is a blending of words for 
     ``egg'' and ``body.'' But Michael West currently likes 
     ``nuclear transfer-derived blastocyst.''
       Green revealed his own favorite in the New York Times for 
     July 13. ``I'm tending personally to steer toward the term 
     `activated egg,' '' he told reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
       In my mind's eye, I imagine Green at ACT corporate 
     headquarters, somewhere in the marketing department, stroking 
     his beard and peering through a one-way window into a room in 
     which a scientifically selected focus group of non-
     bioethicist citizens have been assembled to test-market 
     ``ovasome,'' ``activated egg,'' ``nuclear transfer-derived 
     blastocyst,'' and other freshly minted euphemisms.
       But setting that image aside, Green's statement to the AP 
     has me seriously confused. He said that the anticipated 
     cloned entities are ``not embryos'' because (1) ``they are 
     not the result of fertilization,'' and (2) ``there is no 
     intent to implant these in women.''
       Let's consider the ``intent'' criteria first. Green seems 
     to suggest that a living and developing embryonic being, who 
     is genetically a member of the species homo sapiens, can 
     somehow be transformed into something else on the basis of 
     the ``intent'' of those who conceived him or her. This seems 
     more akin to magical thinking than to science.
       If ``intent'' is what determines the clone's intrinsic 
     nature, then what if a human clone is created by someone who 
     actually does have ``intent'' to implant him or her in a 
     womb? In that case, would Green consider that particular 
     clone to be a ``embryo'' from the beginning? If so, an ACT 
     scientist hypothetically could create two cloned individuals 
     at the same time, with intent to destroy one and intent to 
     implant the other, but only the latter would be a ``human 
     embryo'' in Green's eyes.
       Or--since ``intent'' may be uncertain, or could change--
     does the magical transformation into an ``embryo'' occur if 
     and when the embryonic entity actually is implanted in a 
     womb?
       It seems, however, that Green may not regard the clone to 
     be a human embryo even after implantation in a womb, because 
     the in-utero clone--although he or she would appear to the 
     layman to be an unborn human child--would still bear the 
     burden of not being ``the result of fertilization.'' Perhaps 
     Green would prefer to refer to such an unborn-baby-like 
     entity as an ``extrapolated activated egg.''
       But what if that clone is actually carried to term and 
     born? Would Green then consider him or her to be a ``human 
     being''? Could be, but I fear that the professor's logic 
     might lead him to perceive a need for a new term for any 
     baby-like entities and grown-up-people-like entities who were 
     not ``the result of fertilization.''
       How about calling them ``activites'' (pronounced ``AC-tiv-
     ites'')? That would link ``activated egg'' with ``vita,'' 
     which is Latin for ``life,'' and it even smuggles in the ACT 
     corporate acronym, I think I'm getting the hang of this.
       Green is a liberal-minded fellow, so I'll bet he would 
     allow such activated human-like

[[Page 15221]]

     entities to vote, obtain Ph.D.s, and maybe even be awarded 
     tenure. But perhaps they would be required to sign their 
     letters ``Ph.D. (act.),'' so that they would not be confused 
     with other tenured entities, such as Professor Green, who are 
     fully fertilized.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress, I hope, will soon ban the drilling for oil in 
the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In the very same week, are we 
really ready to license industry so it can proceed with the manufacture 
of cloned human embryos? Do human embryos count less than the pristine 
wilderness of Alaska, or do they at least have a common claim to 
protection under law from exploitation and destruction?
  We ban the hunting of bald eagles. Communities ban open-air burning. 
We have banned chlorofluorocarbons. We ban PCBs. Congress voted to ban 
drilling in the Great Lakes. A ban on human cloning is a transcendent 
issue which requires no less vigilance.
  The question remains, are we ready to stand up to the corporations, 
which have their eye on human embryos as the next natural resource to 
exploit? I believe that we are up to this challenge. I know my 
colleagues believe that government has to draw a line; that the 
unfettered marketplace has neither morals nor responsibility nor 
accountability when it comes to cloning of human embryos; and that at 
this moment, we have an opportunity for the future of this country and 
for the destiny of our society to take a strong stand to protect human 
dignity and human uniqueness by banning embryonic human cloning.
  I say support the Weldon amendment, the Weldon bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee for yielding time to me. I certainly commend him on his 
command of the issues. I think all those years on the Committee on 
Science have served him well.
  This is a complicated issue; but to distill it down to its simplest 
essence, we have two choices before us: the underlying bill, introduced 
by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and I and 
others, which bans the creation of human embryos, either for the 
purpose of trying to produce a child or for destructive research 
purposes; or the approach being proposed under this substitute, which 
is to essentially sanction and register those people who want to create 
embryos for research purposes, embryos that will ultimately be 
destroyed.
  I would challenge everyone on the critical question of does the 
slippery slope exist. We had a debate in this body several years ago on 
the issue of funding embryonic stem cell research at the NIH. Many 
people rose to speak in support of funding embryonic stem cell 
research. They said some interesting things.
  Here is a quote from our colleague, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi): ``Let me say that I agree with our colleagues who say 
that we should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. 
I completely agree with my colleagues on that score.''
  Here is another quote from the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey): ``We can all be assured that the research at the National 
Institutes of Health will be conducted with the highest level of 
integrity. No embryos will be created for research purposes.''
  Here is a quote from the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson: 
``Lifting this ban would not allow the creation of human embryos solely 
for research purposes.''
  I have other quotes. Yet, that is where we are today. We are having a 
debate on whether we should now create human embryos for research 
purposes.
  We have had a lot of discussion about whether or not these embryos 
are alive, whether they have a soul. The biological fact is, and I say 
this as a scientist and as a physician, that they are indistinguishable 
from a human embryo that has been created by sexual fertilization. 
Indeed, if we look at all the prominent researchers in this area, they 
say that it has the full potential to develop into a human being.
  I think, and rightly so, the majority of Americans, and we have seen 
the numbers, they have been put up here for everyone to see on display 
charts, about 86 percent of Americans say, We do not want to take that 
step. It is one thing to talk about stem cell research using embryos 
that are slated for destruction. It is a whole separate issue to say, 
we are going to now sanction an industry that creates human embryos.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for the work they have 
done on this amendment, which I rise in support of.
  Let me say why, Mr. Speaker. For years, U.S. physicians, researchers, 
and scientists have searched for cures to the diseases that have 
afflicted so many of our families and our friends, and friends of our 
friends. These physicians, these scientists, and these researchers in 
my view are the real, true American heroes of our era.
  As we stand on the brink of finding the cures to diseases that have 
plagued so many, so many millions of Americans, unfortunately, the 
Congress today in my view is on the brink of prohibiting this critical 
research.
  As we debate this bill, scientists in my congressional district in 
the heart of Silicon Valley are using one method of research, 
therapeutic cloning, to make critical breakthroughs that could lead to 
cures for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, even for spinal cord injury. 
Without therapeutic cloning, there is no way to move stem cell 
therapies from the lab to the doctor's office. Stem cell research, as 
most Americans know, is not about destroying lives, but about saving 
them.
  My friends on the other side of this issue keep talking about 
embryos, embryos, embryos, embryos. Well, if one is embryocentric, this 
is not the bill. Neither is the Stupak-Weldon approach about that. The 
only reason they used the word ``embryos'' is to try to do an overlay 
to the debate. This is not about embryos and embryos coming out of stem 
cells. There is not any such thing.
  The Weldon-Stupak bill goes in another direction. It actually places 
an outright ban on this critical work, and it makes the research that 
could cure some of these diseases even illegal.
  Are we going to take these great American heroes, and in fact, Dr. 
Okarma from my district, and throw him in jail? I think not. I think 
that is going too far. It is unconscionable for us not to continue to 
be the merchants of hope in terms of the business that we are in.
  So I think we need to support the Greenwood-Deutsch approach and 
throw out the other. It is a march to folly.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  The letter here is from the Association of American Medical Colleges, 
more than 100 fine medical schools. They back the Deutsch-Greenwood 
bill for the bipartisan effort that it has made.
  Let me just cite a few things: ``As such, we want to urge Mr. 
Greenwood to reject the approach embodied'' in the other form here, and 
``we agree with the American public that the cloning of human beings 
should not proceed.''
  According to the National Institutes of Health, somatic cell nuclear 
transfer technology could provide an invaluable approach on which to 
study how cells become specialized.
  I cited some of those earlier, with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, 
brain and spinal cord. But there are other types of specialized cells 
that could be created to create skin grafts for burn victims, bone 
marrow, stem cells to treat leukemia and other blood diseases; nerve 
stem cells to treat many of the diseases such as multiple sclerosis and 
Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and to repair

[[Page 15222]]

spinal cord injury; muscle cell precursors, to treat muscular dystrophy 
and heart disease.
  Mr. Speaker, the president, Jordan J. Cohen, of the Association of 
American Medical Colleges, says, ``We will never see the fulfillment of 
any of these promising areas if we choose to take the perilous path of 
banning outright the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology 
through legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the letter from Dr. Cohen.
  The letter referred to is as follows:
     Hon. Jim Greenwood,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Greenwood: The current opportunities in 
     medical research are unparalleled in our nation's history. To 
     help ensure the fulfillment of thee opportunities, the 
     Association of American Medical Colleges urges Congress to 
     oppose legislation that would prohibit the use of somatic 
     cell nuclear transfer. Such a blanket prohibition would have 
     grave implications for future advances in medical research 
     and human healing.
       As such, we urge you to reject the approach embodied in 
     H.R. 2505, the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.'' 
     H.R. 2505 would have a chilling effect on vital areas of 
     research that could prove to be of enormous public benefit. 
     Instead, we urge you to adopt the approach taken in H.R. 
     2608, the ``Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001,'' introduced by 
     Representatives Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) and Peter Deutsch (D-
     Fla.). This bill would permit potentially life-saving 
     research to continue, but prohibit the use of somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer ``to initiate a pregnancy or with the intent 
     to initiate a pregnancy.''
       We agree with the American public that the cloning of human 
     beings should not proceed. However, it is important to 
     recognize the difference between reproductive cloning and the 
     use of cloning technology that does not create a human being. 
     Non-reproductive cloning technology has potentially important 
     applications in research, medicine and industry, including 
     genetically engineered human cell cultures that would serve 
     as ``therapeutic tissues'' in the treatment of currently 
     intractable human diseases. These uses of somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer technology do not lead to a cloned human 
     being.
       According to the National Institutes of Health, somatic 
     cell nuclear transfer technology could provide an invaluable 
     approach by which to study how cells become specialized, 
     which in turn could provide new understanding of the 
     mechanisms that lead to the development of the abnormal cells 
     responsible for cancers and certain birth defects. Improved 
     understanding of cell specialization may also provide answers 
     to how cells age or are regulated--leading to new insights 
     into the treatment or cure of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's 
     diseases, or other incapacitating degenerative disease of the 
     brain and spinal cord. The technology might also help us 
     understand how to activate certain genes to permit the 
     creation of customized cells for transplantation or grafting. 
     Such cells would be * * * could therefore be transplanted 
     into that donor without fear of immune rejection, the major 
     biological barrier to organ and tissue transplantation at 
     this time.
       Other types of specialized cells could be created to enable 
     skin grafts for burn victims; bone marrow stem cells to treat 
     leukemia and other blood diseases; nerve stem cells to threat 
     neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, 
     amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), 
     Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and to repair spinal 
     cord injuries; muscle cell precursors to treat muscular 
     dystrophy and heart disease; and cartilage-forming cells to 
     reconstruct joints damaged by injury or arthritis. Somatic 
     cell nuclear transfer technology could also be used 
     potentially to accomplish remarkable increases in the 
     efficiency and efficacy of gene therapy by permitting the 
     creation of pure populations of genetically ``corrected'' 
     cells that could then be delivered back into the patient, 
     again with no risk of immune rejection. Indeed, this 
     technology could well lead to the operationalization of gene 
     therapy as a practicable and effective therapeutic modality--
     a goal which to date has proved elusive.
       We will never see the fulfillment of any of these promising 
     areas if we choose to take the perilous path of banning 
     outright the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology 
     through legislation. Thus, the AAMC respectfully urges the 
     Congress to reject H.R. 2505 and adopt H.R. 2608. We thank 
     you for your consideration of this vital issue.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jordan J. Cohen, M.D.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Let me note that I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) has injected what I really believe to be a straw man 
argument when he suggests the issue of insoulment is part of this 
debate. It is not relevant. We are not talking about insoulment. The 
real issue before us is the simple but highly profound issue of whether 
or not it will be legally permissible to create human life for research 
purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, human cloning, if it is not already here, it is 
certainly on the fast track. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter 
of when. It seems to me we have to make sure that these newly created 
human beings are not created for the purpose of exploitation, abuse, 
and destructive experimentation.
  Human life, Mr. Speaker, can survive a few days, a few minutes, a few 
seconds, a few weeks, a few months, a few years, perhaps to old age. We 
need to understand and understand the profound truth that life is a 
continuum.
  Earlier in the debate, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) stated that the scientists would simply stop the process, 
stop the process. Think about those words. What does that mean, stop 
the process? Stop that human life. That is what we are talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember the debate we had some years back in 1996 
when some of our colleagues stood up and pounded the tables before them 
and said, and this is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
``We should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. I 
completely agree with my colleagues on that score.''
  I remember that debate. I was here, as were some of my other 
colleagues. Everyone said they were against the creation of human 
embryos for human research.
  Today, Member after Member gets up and says, I am against human 
cloning. As I said before, just because we say we are does not mean 
that we really are.
  The only bill that stops human cloning is the Weldon-Stupak bill. I 
would respectfully say the bill that is offered by my friend and 
colleague from Pennsylvania will do nothing of the kind. It will 
perhaps stop some implantation but will not stop human cloning. We must 
vote for the underlying bill.
  Let me note that I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) has injected what I really believe to be a straw man 
argument when he suggests the issue of insoulment is part of this 
debate. It is not relevant. We are not talking about insoulment. The 
real issue before us is the simple but highly profound issue of whether 
or not it will be legally permissible to create human life for research 
purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, human cloning, if it is not already here, it is 
certainly on the fast track. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter 
of when. It seems to me we have to make sure that just because science 
possesses the capability to create cloned human beings that it not be 
permitted to carry out such plans, especially when the newly created 
humans would be used for the purpose of exploitation, abuse, and 
destructive experimentation.
  Once created human life, Mr. Speaker, can survive a few seconds, a 
few minutes, a few days, a few weeks, a few months, a few years, 
perhaps many years to old age. We need to understand the profound truth 
that life is a continuum.
  Earlier in the debate, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) stated that research scientists would simply ``stop the 
process,'' so the newly created human life couldn't mature. Think about 
those words--stop the process. What does that mean, stop the process? 
It's a euphemistic way of saying stop the life process--kill it.
  Mr. Speaker, finally I remember the debate we had in 1996 when some 
of our colleagues who routinely vote against the wellbeing of unborn 
children assured us that they would never support creating human 
embryos for experimentation. One colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), said ``We should not be involved in the 
creation of embryos for research. I completely agree with my colleagues 
on that score.''
  Well, not anymore. Now the ever expendable human embryo is to be 
cloned and abused for the benefit of mankind. And that vigorous 
opposition to embryo research by colleagues like Mrs. Pelosi exists no 
more, Such a pity.
  In like manner, members who say they oppose human cloning and then 
vote for Greenwood are either kidding themselves--or us--or both.
  Reject Greenwood.

                              {time}  1700

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would inform the

[[Page 15223]]

gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) that he has 4 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 10 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) has 
6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds just to respond, 
both bills absolutely, positively stop human cloning, period.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I agonized over this, researched it, and know the heartfelt feelings 
on both sides of the issue. I am unequivocally against human cloning, 
but I am for a continuation of the research. And I rise in support of 
the Greenwood-Deutsch amendment because I am convinced that that is the 
only way that research can continue.
  We are on the verge of lifesaving treatments and cures that affect 
our children and our parents, and to stifle this research now would be 
an injustice to so many suffering with juvenile and adult diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other debilitating diseases that claim 
our loved ones every day.
  Some people will say this is not about research; that there is a 
moral and ethical obligation to protect the sanctity of life, and I 
respect that. But the sanctity of life is helped, I think, by allowing 
cutting edge research to move forward that will free diabetic children 
of their hourly ritual of finger pricks, glucose testing, and insulin 
shots; that will allow those paralyzed or suffering from spinal cord 
injuries to walk and resume their normal lives; and that will allow our 
seniors to fulfill their golden years without suffering the effects of 
Alzheimer's.
  So I will cast my vote for Greenwood-Deutsch, which does ban cloning, 
and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time; and I rise in opposition to the Greenwood substitute and for 
the base bill introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The Committee on Commerce held several hearings on cloning, including 
one in the Subcommittee on Health, which I chair. There is no doubt, as 
has already been stated so many times, that this is a difficult issue, 
and it involves many new and complex concepts. However, we should all 
be clear about the controversies related to human cloning. While this 
debate claims to be about therapeutic cloning, which is used to refer 
to cloned human cells not intended to result in a pregnancy, there is a 
fine line between creation and implantation.
  The Committee on Commerce heard testimony from the Geron Corporation. 
They claim to be interested in therapeutic cloning and not implementing 
implanting those embryos into a surrogate mother. I think we all agree 
it would be a disaster to allow the implantation of cloned human 
embryos. Yet, if we allow therapeutic cloning, how can we truly prevent 
illegal implantation? We cannot.
  Several years ago, the world marveled at the creation of Dolly, the 
cloned sheep. What most people did not realize was that it took some 
270 cloning attempts before there was a successful live birth. Many of 
the other attempts resulted in early and grotesque deaths. Imagine 
repeating that scenario with human life. I am confident that none of us 
want that. Human cloning rises to the most essential question of who we 
are and what we might become if we open this Pandora's box.
  Finally, I would like to applaud President Bush more for his strong 
support of this important base legislation. The administration strongly 
supports a ban on human cloning. The statement of the administration 
position reads, and I quote, ``The administration unequivocally is 
opposed to the cloning of human beings either for reproduction or for 
research. The moral and ethical issues posed by human cloning are 
profound and cannot be ignored in the quest for scientific discovery.''
  I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman 
from Michigan; and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 
250 and opposing the substitute.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this 
measure. In fact, I thank all four primary sponsors of the measures 
that are before us today for their concern and for the effective ban on 
cloning of human beings.
  The central issue, it seems to me, that is before us this afternoon 
was brought home to me by a prayer for healing that I heard in a 
service a couple of weeks ago. It goes like this. ``May the source of 
strength who blessed the ones before us help us find the courage to 
make our lives a blessing, and let us say amen.''
  It struck me that giving human beings the potential of using one's 
own DNA, one's own life itself to derive the cure for one's own malady, 
without fear of rejection, without risk of a fruitless national search 
for a match, is the deepest benefit and most profound blessing 
conceivable. We should not waste this deepest of gifts.
  Help us find the courage to make our lives, our life itself, a 
blessing.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, during the Nuremberg war crime trials, the 
Nuremberg Code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians 
and scientists who had conducted biomedical experiments on 
concentration camp prisoners. I bring this to my colleagues' attention 
because part of the code, I think, is applicable to our debate today.
  The code states that any experiment should yield results that are 
``unprocurable by other methods or means of study.'' Because stem cells 
can be obtained from other tissues and fluids of adult subjects without 
harm, perhaps it is unnecessary to perform cell extraction from embryos 
that would result in their death. This would be an argument, I think, 
that would support the Weldon bill; and so I reluctantly, because the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is making a very good and 
strong case, I oppose his amendment.
  In a recent editorial, Ann Coulter talked about the great demand on 
the House floor for solving all problems using aborted fetuses. 
Remember that discussion? We have had that discussion here. And they 
claimed that we had to have experiments on aborted fetuses because they 
were crucial to potential cures for Parkinson's disease. Remember that? 
Well, The New York Times ran a story about a year later about 
experiments where they actually described the results of those 
experiments on Parkinson patients. Not only was there no positive 
effect, but about 15 percent of the patients had nightmarish side 
effects. The unfortunate patients writhed and twisted, jerked their 
heads, flung their arms around, and in the words of one scientist, 
``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex 
and distend,'' and the scientists could not turn them off.
  So I just bring that example that we have been on the floor talking 
about how much we need to take aborted fetuses and study them to bring 
about all these panaceas and cures which never came about.
  Again, this debate comes down to one about life. A human embryo is 
life, and to quote Ann Coulter from an article that appeared in a local 
paper in my district ``So what great advance are we to expect from 
experimentation on human embryos? They don't know. It's just a theory. 
But they definitely need to slaughter the unborn.''
  In other words cloning research creates life--then systematically 
slaughters that life in the effort to find something of which we are 
unsure that exists.
  My colleagues, the Weldon bill does not oppose science and research, 
rather, it opposes what Ms. Coulter termed as ``harvest and 
slaughter.'' I urge you to ponder the consequences--oppose the 
substitute--and vote

[[Page 15224]]

for the Weldon bill. In doing so, you are preventing the reduction of 
human life down to a simple process of planting and harvesting.
  Mr. Speaker, I provide the entire article I referred to above for the 
Record.

                  Research Is Newest `Cure-All' Craze

       I've nearly died waiting, but it can finally be said: The 
     feminists were right about one thing. Some portion of pro-
     life men would be pro-choice if they were capable of getting 
     pregnant. They are the ones who think life begins at 
     conception unless Grandma has Alzheimer's and scientists 
     allege that stem-cell research on human embryos might 
     possibly yield a cure.
       It's either a life or it's not a life, and it's not much of 
     an argument to say the embryo is going to die anyway. What 
     kind of principle is that? Prisoners on death row are going 
     to die anyway, the homeless are going to die anyway, 
     prisoners in Nazi death camps were going to die anyway. Why 
     not start disemboweling prisoners for these elusive 
     ``cures''?
       The last great advance for human experimentation in this 
     country was the federal government's acquiescence to the 
     scientific community's demands for money to experiment on 
     aborted fetuses. Denouncing the ``Christian right'' for 
     opposing the needs of science, Anthony Lewis of the New York 
     Times claimed the experiments were ``crucial to potential 
     cures for Parkinson's disease.''
       Almost exactly a year later, the Times ran a front-page 
     story describing the results of those experiments on 
     Parkinson's patients: Not only was there no positive effect, 
     but about 15 percent of the patients had nightmarsh side 
     effects. The unfortunate patients ``writhe and twist, jerk 
     their heads, fling their arms about.'' In the words of one 
     scientist: ``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and 
     down, their wrists flex and distend.'' And the scientists 
     couldn't ``turn it off.''

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise to possibly restate what has been 
stated throughout this debate.
  Those of us who believe in the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute are not 
proposing or are not proponents of human cloning. What we are 
proponents of are the Bush administration's NIH report entitled Stem 
Cells, done in June of 2001, that acknowledges the importance of 
therapeutic cloning.
  None of us want to ensure that human beings come out of the 
laboratory. In fact, I am very delighted to note that language in the 
legislation that I am supporting, the Greenwood-Deutsch legislation, 
specifically says that it is unlawful to use or attempt to use human 
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology or the product of such 
technology to initiate a pregnancy to create a human being. But what we 
can do is save lives.
  The people that have come into my office, those suffering from 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, neurological paralysis, diabetes, 
stroke, Lou Gehrig's disease, and cancer, and all those who are 
desirous of having babies with in vitro fertilization, the Weldon bill 
questions whether that science can continue. I believe it is important 
to support the substitute, and I would ask my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the chairman of the 
House Republican conference.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater group of people who would benefit 
from human cloning more than Members of the House of Representatives. 
What a Congressman or Congresswoman would not give to have a clone sit 
in a committee hearing while the Member meets with a visiting family 
from back home in the District, or the clone could do a fund-raiser 
while the Congressman leads a town hall meeting back home. But doing 
what is right does not always mean doing what is easy.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to ban all forms of human cloning, and that is 
why I support the Weldon-Stupak bill and oppose the Deutsch-Greenwood 
substitute amendment. This House should not be giving the green light 
to mad scientists to tinker with the gift of life. Life is precious, 
life is sacred, life is not ours to arbitrarily decide who is to live 
and who is to die.
  The ``brave new world'' should not be born in America. Cloning is an 
insult to humanity. It is science gone crazy, like a bad B-movie from 
the 1960s. And as bad as human cloning is, it would lead to even worse 
atrocities, such as eugenics.
  Congress needs to pass a complete ban on human cloning, including 
what some people call therapeutic cloning. Creating life with the 
intent to fiddle with it, then destroy it, is not good. We are going 
down a dangerous road of human manipulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to vote against the 
substitute amendment and for the Weldon-Stupak bill. Dolly the sheep 
should learn to fly before this Congress allows human cloning.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Greenwood-Deutsch amendment that bans the cloning of humans. I am 
concerned that the Weldon bill could negatively impact future research 
and bring current research that offers great promise to a halt.
  I cannot support an all-out ban on this important technology. The 
Weldon bill would not allow therapeutic cloning to go forward. A ban on 
all cloning would have a dramatic impact on research using human 
pluripotent stem cells, and stem cell research really holds the 
greatest promise for cures for some of our most devastating diseases.
  The possibilities of therapeutic cloning should not be barred in the 
United States. This research is being conducted overseas in Great 
Britain and other places. Do we want to become a society where our 
scientists have to move abroad to do their work? This important bill 
allows important groundbreaking, lifesaving research to go forward. We 
should support it. It is in the tradition of our country to support 
research and not send our scientists abroad to conduct it.
  Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post agrees, and I will place in the 
Record an editorial of today against the Weldon amendment and in 
support of the Greenwood-Deutsch amendment.

               [From the Washington Post, July 31, 2001]

                            Cloning Overkill

       In the rush that precedes August recess, the House of 
     Representatives has found time to schedule a vote today on a 
     bill to ban human cloning. Hardly anyone dissents from the 
     proposition that cloning a human being is a bad idea; large 
     ethical questions about human identity aside, the state of 
     cloning technology in animals at present ensures that all but 
     3 percent to 5 percent are born with fatal or horrendously 
     disabling defects. But the bill to ban all human cloning, 
     proposed by Rep. David Weldon (R-Fla.), goes well beyond any 
     consensus society has yet reached. It levies heavy criminal 
     penalties not only on the actual cloning of a human baby, 
     termed ``reproductive'' cloning, but also on any scientific 
     or medical use of the underlying technique--which many 
     support as holding valuable potential for the treatment of 
     disease.
       The bill's prohibitions go well beyond those under debate 
     for the separate though related research involving human 
     embryonic stem cells. At issue is not the withholding of 
     federal funding from research some find morally troubling; 
     rather, the Weldon bill would criminalize the field of 
     cloning entirely. Such a ban would have ripple effects across 
     the cutting edge of medical research. A complete cloning ban 
     could block many possible clinical applications of stem cell 
     research, and could curb even the usefulness of the adult 
     stem cell research many conservatives claim to favor. 
     (Without the ability to ``reprogram'' an adult stem cell, 
     which can be done by the cloning technique, adult stem cells' 
     use may remain limited.) The bill bans the import from abroad 
     of any materials ``derived'' from the cellular cloning 
     technique; that could block not only tissues but even 
     medicines derived from such research in other countries.
       A competing bill likely to be offered as an amendment bans 
     reproductive cloning but creates a complex system for 
     regulating so-called ``therapeutic'' cloning, registering and 
     licensing experimenters to make sure that none would implant 
     a cloned embryo into the womb. A House committee split 
     closely on the question of whether to ban therapeutic along 
     with reproductive cloning, with Republican supporters of the 
     Weldon bill voting down amendments that would have carved out 
     some room for stem cell therapies.
       The prospect of human cloning is a cause for real concern, 
     but it is not an imminent

[[Page 15225]]

     danger. There is still time and good cause for discussion 
     over whether some limited and therapeutic use of cloned 
     embryos is justified. The Weldon bill is a blunt instrument 
     that rules out such possibilities. prematurely, and in doing 
     so, goes too far . Congress should wait.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, 
and since I have the right to close, I will reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I only have one speaker remaining. I would 
inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania how many speakers he has 
remaining.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have 4 minutes which I will use in my 
closing.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2-\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch 
substitute and commend them for bringing this alternative to the floor.
  During the debate on stem cell research 5 years ago, I made it clear 
that opponents of stem cell research who claim that it requires the 
creation of embryos were mistaken, and I agreed with them that Federal 
funds should not be used for that purpose. Today we debating a much 
broader ban on therapeutic cloning.
  The context is much different. We have learned a great deal about the 
promise of stem cell research and gene therapy over the past 5 years, 
and I am opposed to any ban on therapeutic cloning. I just wanted to 
make the record clear because some quotes were taken out of context 
about where some of us who had participated in that debate were on this 
subject.
  It is true that embryonic stem cell research can go forward without 
therapeutic cloning. However, the ability of patients to benefit from 
stem cell research would be negatively impacted if such a ban were 
enacted.
  Once we learn how to make embryonic stem cells differentiate, for 
example, into brain tissue for people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's 
disease, we must be sure that the body will not reject these stem cells 
when they are implanted.
  We are empowering the body to clone itself, to heal itself. It is a 
very real concern because transplanted organs or tissues are rejected 
when the body identifies them as foreign. We all know that.
  In a report on stem cell research released by the National Institutes 
of Health last month, the NIH describes therapeutic cloning's potential 
to create stem cell tissue with an immunological profile that exactly 
matches the patient. This customized therapy would dramatically reduce 
the risk of rejection.
  I am opposed to cloning of humans. How many of us have said that 
today over and over again? Many of my colleagues have already mentioned 
the chilling possibilities created by the idea of designer children 
with genetically engineered traits. That is ridiculous. That is not 
what this debate is about.
  Both the Weldon-Stupak bill and the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute 
agree on this point. The cloning of humans is not the issue at hand. 
Therapeutic cloning does not and cannot create a child.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Institutes of Health and Science hold the 
biblical power of a cure for us. Where we see scientific opportunity 
and based on high ethical standards, I believe we have a moral 
responsibility to have the science proceed, again under the highest 
ethical standards.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute 
because it prohibits human cloning, but maintains the opportunity for 
patients to benefit from therapeutic cloning that could lead to cures 
for Parkinson's disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries and diabetes. I 
urge my colleagues to support the substitute.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has debated this issue for 
nearly 3 hours today. It has been a good debate. Again, as has been 
said, it is impressive how many Members have become knowledgeable about 
this subject. It is time to summarize that debate. Let us think about 
where it is we agree and where it is we fundamentally disagree.
  We all agree that we want to ban reproductive cloning, that it is not 
safe, it is not ethical to bring a child into this world as a replica 
of someone else. A child deserves to be the unique product of a mother 
and father and should not be created by cloning. We agree. It is 
unanimous.
  We all agree that stem cell research holds promise. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor to ban 
embryonic stem cell research. He did not do that on purpose, because it 
would not fly with the American people. The American people understand 
that stem cell research holds enormous potential. I do not think we 
have heard disagreement about that on the floor today.
  The question seems to be, and it has been reiterated repeatedly, is 
it ethical and should it be legal to create in a petri dish an embryo, 
or in a petri dish to allow the process of human cell division to 
begin?
  Interestingly enough, that is not part of this bill either. The 
Weldon bill does not say one cannot create a embryo, that it should be 
illegal. Why is that? Because the American people would never stand for 
that because it would be the end of in vitro fertilization.
  We are not here to say we will never create an embryo. People have 
said it, but they did not mean it because nobody has brought to the 
floor a bill to ban in vitro fertilization. There are too many Members 
of this body who have benefited from it.
  So we say it is okay to create embryos because there are couples in 
this country and around the world who have not been blessed with a 
child born of their relationship in the normal way. So they are able to 
avail themselves of this wonderful technology where we can create their 
child for them, in vitro in a petri dish, implanted in the woman and 
out comes a beautiful child. So many families in this country are now 
blessed by beautiful children who are now brought into the world in 
this way. It started in a petri dish. What a magnificent thing for 
mankind to do.
  Children get sick and when those same children find themselves 
stalked with a disease that fills them with pain, that wracks their 
bodies, that tortures their parents with the predictability that they 
will watch their children slowly suffer and die. These same children 
whose lives had begun in petri dishes, who were created by in vitro 
fertilization, get sick.
  Now the question is, would we stop the research in petri dishes in 
laboratories that would save their lives, these same children, that 
would end their suffering, that would bring miracle cures to them and 
bless their families with the continued miracle of their own children? 
That is what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and his supporters 
would have us do today.
  Over and over again it has been said, I am not against stem cell 
research. I think a majority of Members of this House are not opposed 
to stem cell research. They have told me that. I have talked to pretty 
strong pro-lifers who say, I am going to vote, if I have to, for stem 
cell research. What they do not understand is that stem cell research, 
whether it is done with embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells, needs 
somatic nuclear cell transfer research to make it work.
  What do Members think is done with a stem cell from an embryo? It 
needs to be made into the kind of cell that cures these children, and 
somatic nuclear transfer technology is needed to do it; and if Members 
kill this substitute, they kill that hope. Please do not do that.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, after 3 hours of debate, I am glad that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has finally cleared up one of the 
principal items we have been debating. He said the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor to ban stem cell 
research.
  He is right. The Weldon bill does not ban stem cell research. It does 
not ban it on adult stem cells, it does not ban

[[Page 15226]]

it on embryonic stem cells, it bans it on cloned stem cells.
  This bill is a cloning bill. The substitute amendment is not. It will 
allow the creation of cloned embryos to be regulated and sold, and once 
a cloned embryo is implanted into the uterus of a woman and develops 
into a child, there really is not anything anybody can do about it. So 
the Weldon substitute has a loophole a mile wide to allow the creation 
of cloned human beings because they cannot keep track of the cloned 
embryos that the Weldon bill attempts to regulate. That is the fatal 
flaw of the Greenwood substitute.
  We heard quotes from three of our colleagues 5 years ago when we were 
debating a Labor-Health and Human Services bill. I have those quotes in 
front of me. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, ``I 
agree with our colleagues who say we should not be involved in the 
creation of embryos for research.''
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said, ``No embryos will be 
created for research purposes.''
  And the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, ``Lifting 
this ban would not allow for the creation of human embryos solely for 
research purposes.''
  They were right 5 years ago. We should not be using cloned human 
embryos for research purposes. I ask Members to vote with them the way 
they voted 5 years ago and to adhere to that position, because if we do 
allow cloned human embryos to be used for research purposes, some of 
them will eventually become human beings.
  Mr. Speaker, the way to stop the slippery slope, going down this road 
into the ethical and moral abyss, is to reject the loophole-filled 
Greenwood substitute and pass the Weldon bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, finally we have a reasonable approach to 
prohibiting human cloning without prohibiting the ability to conduct 
valuable medical research.
  Although H.R. 2505 bans reproductive cloning, it goes too far by 
banning necessary therapeutic research which could grant new hope to 
patients who have been told there is no cure for their illnesses. We 
all agree that reproductive cloning, cloning to produce a pregnancy, 
should be prohibited. But, in prohibiting reproductive cloning, we must 
not exclude valuable research cloning that could lead to significant 
medical advances.
  The Greenwood/Deutsch Substitute Amendment narrows the prohibition 
and focuses on actions which would result in a cloned child by limiting 
the prohibition to cloning to initiate or the intent to initiate a 
pregnancy. This would ensure that the cloning of humans is prohibited, 
while the use of cloning for medical purposes is preserved. The 
substitute also protects state laws on human cloning that have been 
enacted prior to the passage of this legislation.
  The Greenwood/Deutsch Substitute includes a registration provision 
for performing a human somatic cell nuclear transfer, so that the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services is able to monitor the use of 
the technology and enforce the prohibition against reproductive 
cloning.
  In addition, this substitute would contain a sunset provision as 
recommended by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. According to 
their report, this provision is essential because it guarantees that 
Congress will return to this issue and reconsider it in light of new 
scientific advancements.
  Finally, the Greenwood/Deutsch substitute includes a study by the 
Institute of Medicine to review, evaluate, and assess the current state 
of knowledge regarding therapeutic cloning.
  Join me in supporting this logical approach to cloning technology. 
This substitute takes a narrower approach by simply prohibiting the use 
or attempted use of DNA transfer technology with intent to initiate a 
pregnancy. Adopting the Greenwood/Deutsch alternative preserves the 
scientific use of the embryonic stem cells and at the same time 
prevents the unsafe practice of human cloning.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2608, the 
Greenwood-Deutsch Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, and in opposition to 
H.R. 2505.
  Cloning technology has been the subject of heated debate since 1997, 
when news of the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep rocked the 
scientific community. The resulting ethical discussions have raised 
many important questions of scientific development. Perhaps the most 
important discussions have centered on the lengths to which science can 
and should go in the future. What remained true throughout the debate, 
however, is that the vast majority of the American public vehemently 
opposes the creation of cloned human beings. The Greenwood-Deutsch bill 
respects that feeling to the utmost.
  H.R. 2608 would criminalize reproductive cloning of human beings 
while simultaneously protecting the rights of scientists to perform 
somatic cell nuclear transfer. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a 
technology that holds great promise for medicine by permitting the 
creation of stem cells that are genetically identical to the donor. 
This is valuable because many of the potential medical therapies 
involving stem cells could be stymied when the immune systems of 
therapy recipients reject the transferred tissue. Using cloning 
technology to create stem cells could circumvent this problem. Newly 
cloned nerve cells, for example, could be used to treat patients with 
neural degeneration without concern for rejection because the cells 
would be genetically identical to those already in the brain.
  Opponents of this technology repeatedly claim that any therapies 
involving cloning are merely hypothetical. In this they are absolutely 
correct. These treatments are hypothetical today, but therapies for 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and a myriad of other diseases will only 
remain so if this research is banned, as it is in H.R. 2505, the 
underlying bill.
  In addition to preventing this promising research, the underlying 
bill would prohibit the importation of the products of clonal research, 
Such a ban would force the scientific community to turn its back on 
therapies developed abroad. It would deny the American people promising 
new therapies available elsewhere for which there may be no alternate 
treatment.
  At some point in our lives, most of us will be touched in some way by 
Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, spinal cord injury, Juvenile 
Diabetes, and other maladies for which this technology holds promise. 
How can we stand in the way of scientific research that has the 
potential to cure these afflictions? I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute, and against the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to House Resolution 
214, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  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 Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 178, 
nays 249, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               YEAS--178

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone

[[Page 15227]]


     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--249

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hastings (FL)
     Hutchinson
     Jones (OH)
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1749

  Mr. SKEEN and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. FORD, REYES, THOMAS, and ROSS changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on 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.


               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 am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Ms. Lofgren moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2505, to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment: Page 4, after line 10, insert the following 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Exemption for Medical Treatments.--Nothing in this 
     section shall prohibit the use of human somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer in connection with the development or application of 
     treatments designed to address 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. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall exempt any product from any 
     applicable regulatory approval.

  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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we close the debate on this research issue, there 
were several Members of the House in opposition to the Greenwood 
amendment who said that we dare not allow for the possibility of 
research, there was a slippery slope; that if we allowed research to 
occur, inevitably there would be those who would then go ahead and 
clone a human being, which all of us oppose.
  I think that that is a fallacious argument. It is a defective 
argument, because what that argument says is people will violate the 
law. Well, if that is why we cannot stand up for research today, if the 
worry is that if we allow for research, that some will violate the law 
that we passed prohibiting the cloning of human beings, then we would 
have to go and prohibit the selling of petri dishes and other 
scientific equipment.
  No, that is a defective argument. The real issue is whether or not 
the House of Representatives intends to allow stem cell research, the 
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology.
  We received in the Committee on the Judiciary a letter from a person 
who is the Director of the Ethics Institute, the Chair of the 
Department of Religion at Dartmouth College. This person was the 
founding director of the Office of Genome Ethics at the NIH National 
Human Genome Research Institute, a past president of the Society of 
Christian Ethics, the largest association of religious ethicists.
  This is what he told us: ``I wish to draw your attention to the 
devastating implications for medical science of H.R. 2505. As written, 
the bill would prohibit several research directions of possibly great 
medical benefit. Nuclear transfer for cell replacement would permit us 
to produce immunologically compatible cell lines for tissue repair. 
There is no intention on the part of those researching this technology 
to clone a person. Using this technology, a child suffering from 
diabetes could receive a replacement set of insulin producing cells. 
These would not be rejected by the child because they would be produced 
via a nuclear transfer procedure from the child's own body cells. 
Neither would the implantation of these cells require the use of 
dangerous immuno-suppression drugs. Using this same technology, 
paralyzed individuals might receive a graft of nervous system cells 
that would restore spinal cord function. Burn victims could receive 
their own skin tissue back for wound healing, and so on.''
  Dr. Green goes on to say, ``As presently drafted, H.R. 2505 will shut 
down this research in this country. This would represent an 
unparalleled loss to biomedical research, and for no good reason. H.R. 
2505, if it is passed in its present form, the United States will turn 
its back on thousands or millions of sufferers of severe diseases. It 
will become a research backwater in one of science's most promising 
areas.''
  He goes on to ask that we amend the bill, and that is what this 
motion to recommit would do. It would allow for an exemption from the 
bill for medical treatments.
  The NIH has been discussed a lot to today, and they produced a primer 
on stem cell research in May of last year. They point out on page 4 of 
their primer that the transplant of healthy heart muscle could provide 
new hope for patients with chronic heart disease whose

[[Page 15228]]

hearts can no longer pump adequately. The hope is to develop heart 
muscles from human pluripotent stem cells.
  The problem is, while this research shows extraordinary promise, 
there is much to be done before we can realize these innovations. 
First, we must do basic research, says the NIH, to understand the 
cellular events that lead to cell specialization in humans. But, 
second, before we can use these cells for transplantation, we must 
overcome the well-known problem of immune rejection, because human 
pluripotent stem cells would be genetically no different than the 
recipient. Future research needs to focus on this, and the use of 
somatic cell nuclear transfer is the way to overcome this tissue 
incompatibility.
  Some have talked about their religious beliefs today, and that is 
fine. We all have religious beliefs. But I ask Members to look at this 
chart. We have a cell that is fused, they become totipotent cells, a 
blastocyst, and then a handful of cells, undifferentiated, no organs, 
no nerves, a handful of cells that is put in a petri dish and becomes 
cultured to pluripotent stem cells.

                              {time}  1800

  Now, some have asked me to consider that this clump of cells in the 
petri dish deserves more respect than human beings needing the therapy 
that will be derived from those cultured cells.
  My father is 82 years old. He suffers from heart disease and 
pulmonary disorder. He lived through the Depression, he volunteered for 
World War II. Do not ask me to put a clump of cells ahead of my dad's 
health.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit allows for the production of 
cloned embryos for the development of treatments designed to address a 
number of diseases. We just voted this down. This is a reworded 
Greenwood substitute amendment.
  The motion to recommit would allow the practice of creating human 
embryos solely for the purpose of destroying them for experimentation. 
This approach to prohibit human cloning would be ineffective and 
unenforceable.
  Once cloned embryos were produced and available in laboratories, it 
would be virtually impossible to control what is done with them. 
Stockpiles of cloned embryos would be produced, bought and sold without 
anyone knowing about it. Implantation of cloned embryos into a woman's 
uterus, a relatively easy procedure, would take place out of sight. At 
that point, governmental attempts to enforce a reproductive cloning ban 
would prove impossible to police or regulate.
  Creating cloned human children necessarily begins by producing cloned 
human embryos. If we want to prevent the latter, we should prevent the 
former.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) says that cloned 
embryos are necessary to prevent rejection during transplantation for 
diseases. That is not what the testimony before the Committee on the 
Judiciary says. Dr. Leon Kass, professor of bioethics at the University 
of Chicago, said that the clone is not an exact copy of the nucleus 
donor, and that its antigens, therefore, would provoke an immune 
reaction when transplanted and there still would be the problem of 
immunological rejection that cloning is said to be indispensable for 
solving. So the very argument in her amendment was refuted by Professor 
Kass's testimony.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2505, by banning human cloning at any stage of 
development, provides the most effective protection from the dangers of 
abuse inherent in this rapidly developing field. By preventing the 
cloning of human embryos, there can be no possibility of cloning a 
human being.
  The bill specifically states that nothing shall restrict areas of 
scientific research not specifically prohibited by this bill, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a cloning bill; it is not a stem cell 
research bill. The scientific research is already preserved by H.R. 
2505, which is the only real proposal before us that will prevent human 
cloning.
  Oppose the motion to recommit; pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion to recommit.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). 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. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for an electronic vote on final 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 251, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 303]

                               AYES--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--251

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston

[[Page 15229]]


     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Hastings (FL)
     Hutchinson
     Jones (OH)
     Lipinski
     McKinney
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1821

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. ROTHMAN and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 265, 
noes 162, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                               AYES--265

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--162

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hastings (FL)
     Hutchinson
     Jones (OH)
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1830

  Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________