[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4682-4725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2003

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

                              H. Res. 105

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured 
rule for H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. As an original 
cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see it is one of 
the first top priorities of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which will permit a thorough 
discussion of all of the relevant issues. The first of these issues is 
the Greenwood substitute which allows human cloning for medical 
purposes.
  I personally oppose the Greenwood amendment because it is wrong to 
create human embryo farms, even for scientific research.
  Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of 
medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished 
for the benefit of another. Anything other than a total ban on human 
cloning would be virtually impossible to enforce.
  I understand there is no way to control actual implementation of 
these fetuses into a woman's uterus, so cloning of children could still 
happen.
  The Justice Department submitted testimony explaining that once 
countless human embryos are created by cloning, there would be no 
practical way to enforce the prohibition on transferring such embryos 
into wombs.
  The Committee on Rules, though, recognizes that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's proposal is the leading alternative to the ban on 
cloning. And because we are aiming for a fair and thorough debate, we 
should make it in order on the House floor.
  Human cloning is a deeply troubling issue to me and to most 
Americans. Life is a creation, not a commodity.
  I also agreed with President Bush when he said that science has set 
before us decisions of immense consequence. We can pursue medical 
research with a clear sense of moral purpose, or we can travel without 
an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret.
  Science now presses forward with this issue of human cloning. How we 
answer the issue of human cloning will place us on one path or the 
other.
  I spent a lot of time considering this issue because it is so 
complex, and I have decided to once again vote to ban human cloning. It 
is simply wrong to clone human beings.
  It is wrong to create fully-grown, tailor-made cloned babies, and it 
is wrong to clone human embryos to experiment on and destroy them. 
Anything other than a ban on human cloning would license the most 
ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in human history. Some of us can 
still remember how the world was repulsed during and after World War II 
by the experiments conducted by the Nazis during the war. How is this 
different?
  Congress must act now. We can no longer wait for another biotech 
company to claim that they have produced cloned children, despite the 
fact that laboratory cloning of animals has led to spontaneous 
abortions and terrible, terrible abnormalities.

[[Page 4683]]

  Congress will not face a weightier issue than the ethics of human 
cloning, and Congress should not run away from this problem. It is our 
job to address such pressing moral dilemmas, and it is our job to do so 
in a deliberative way. That is what we will do today.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making clear that I believe human 
cloning is morally and ethically wrong. Every Member of this body is 
opposed to cloning a human being, and the American people are unified 
in their opposition to human cloning. Unfortunately, this debate is not 
about making it illegal to clone a human being; rather, it is about 
outlawing cutting-edge research that could one day save and improve 
lives.
  The bill we are considering today, the so-called Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2003, will jail scientists for conducting 
therapeutic research. This bill, if enacted, will close the door to 
important research that one day could result in treatments or cures for 
such diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. If a drug or 
treatment for diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's is developed in 
another country using therapeutic cloning, that treatment will not be 
available to patients in the United States. Think about it. This bill 
would actually deny Americans treatments for debilitating diseases. 
That strikes me as not only wrong, but cruel.
  It is important to make clear that we are not debating whether or not 
Federal funds can be used for stem cell research. The President made 
that decision in 2001. Based on that decision, a private company can 
conduct stem cell research if it uses its own funds, or companies can 
conduct stem cell research with Federal funds if they follow very 
strict guidelines. While this bill does not deal with this issue, it is 
important to note that stem cells are at the heart of the therapeutic 
cloning debate.
  Stem cells were only discovered in 1998. The promises for treatments 
and cures from stem cell research may not be realized for 15 to 20 
years, but the gains will be enormous. The research of today will 
result in the cures of tomorrow.
  Now, today, scientists say therapeutic cloning is the best way to 
produce the stem cells that could lead to breakthrough discoveries. 
Through stem cell research, scientists might one day help a person with 
a spinal cord injury walk again. How can this body ban this promising 
endeavor to end human suffering?
  Scientists are so important to this debate. They are the experts, and 
this body should listen when they speak.
  In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of 
Sciences so that a group of scientists could advise Congress and the 
administration on the complex scientific issues facing our country. Mr. 
Speaker, 140 years later, the party of Lincoln brings before this body 
legislation that ignores the findings or recommendations of this 
respected group of scientists.
  The academy, in a February 2002 report, declared that therapeutic 
cloning has scientific potential and should be allowed to continue. 
Additionally, the National Institutes of Health and 40 Nobel Laureates 
attest the value of this important research.
  Former President Gerald Ford, a Republican, and former President 
Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, also publicly support this research.
  So does former First Lady Nancy Reagan. Her husband, former President 
Ronald Reagan, suffers from Alzheimer's disease. This research may hold 
the key to treating or even curing that disease. But if this bill is 
endorsed today, it would deny the Reagans and millions of other 
families any benefit from this research. Mrs. Reagan's views should be 
heard by this body, and I will read her letter of support into the 
Record, a letter she sent to the other Chamber. I want to read it so 
that my colleagues can hear her eloquent words.

                              {time}  1315

  She writes, ``As you may know, Ronnie will observe his 92nd birthday 
soon. In earlier times, we would have been able to celebrate that day 
with great joy and wonderful memories of our life together. Now, while 
I can draw strength from these memories, I do it alone, as Ronnie 
struggles in a world unknown to me or the scientists who devote their 
life to Alzheimer's research. Because of this, I am determined to do 
what I can to save other families from this pain. I am writing, 
therefore, to offer my support for stem cell research and to tell you 
I'm in favor of new legislation to allow the ethical use of therapeutic 
cloning.
  ``Like you, I support a complete ban on reproductive cloning. 
However, I believe that embryonic stem cell research under appropriate 
guidelines may provide our scientists with many answers that are now 
beyond our grasp. There are so many diseases that can be cured, or at 
least helped, that we cannot turn our back on this. We have lost so 
much time already. I cannot bear to lose any more. Sincerely, Nancy.''
  Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better than Mrs. Reagan. Mrs. 
Reagan makes a powerful moral argument that we should not put up a 
roadblock to close this promising avenue of research.
  We talk a lot about morality in this body. For the life of me, I 
cannot see how it is moral to look into the eyes of someone suffering 
from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's and say, we are going to stand in the 
way of something that has the potential to save your life, or to tell 
them that even if a breakthrough treatment is available in Europe or 
elsewhere, they are not allowed to have it.
  This debate is about improving and saving millions of lives in this 
country. It is about whether we should jail scientists who are trying 
to save the lives of people who suffer from such debilitating diseases 
as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and so many other diseases.
  Let us do the right thing: Vote for the Greenwood substitute, and if 
that fails, vote against the Weldon bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 534 
and the rule for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. I thank the 
gentleman from Florida for his principled leadership on this issue.
  The history of cloning is replete with defects, deformity, and death. 
Dolly the sheep was the 277th try. By now, everyone knows of the 
euthanized death of Dolly. She died on Valentine's Day a couple of 
weeks ago at the age of 6, half the normal life expectancy for sheep.
  Alan Coleman, a Singapore-based scientist who helped clone Dolly, 
said, ``I think it highlights more than ever the foolishness of those 
who want to legalize human cloning. In the case of humans, it would be 
scandalous to go ahead, given our knowledge about the long-term effects 
of cloning.''
  If cloning is not safe for animals, how can it be good for humans? 
President Reagan said in 1983 that every legislator, every doctor, 
every citizen, needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to 
affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life or whether to embrace 
an ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a 
Nation we must choose between the sanctity-of-life ethic and the 
quality-of-life ethic.
  If we allow the therapeutic cloning of human embryos for 
experimentation, we will devalue the entire system of ethics of this 
country. We will have endorsed the idea that it is okay to treat human 
life like a commodity.
  I am not willing to make that choice. I am not willing to say that we 
should create a class of human beings to be used as human guinea pigs 
and laboratory rats. We have seen that happen before in Nazi Germany 
with experiments

[[Page 4684]]

on concentration camp victims, and in Tuskegee, Alabama, where our own 
U.S. Government experimented on African Americans, infecting them with 
syphilis in search of a cure.
  We find these stories morally abhorrent. But what will history say 
about us if we fail to learn the lessons of the past and if we 
knowingly do the same thing to tiny little humans again?
  The Greenwood substitute would allow the creation of cloned human 
embryos as long as the embryo is destroyed within 14 days and never 
implanted in the womb. Even that phony restriction is lifted within 10 
years of enactment. It will result in the creation of a human embryo.
  We need to stop playing word games and admit that serious issues are 
at stake here. This vote will determine whether we as a Nation will 
affirm the dignity of human life or reject it. Support the Weldon-
Stupak bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a broader, tragic 
political agenda to stymie good science with scare tactics. It fails 
totally to distinguish between cloning or reproducing human beings--a 
frightful prospect that all of us reject--and therapeutic cloning, 
which someday could save the lives of millions.
  The therapeutic form, the transplanting of a patient's DNA into an 
unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells, could cure devastating 
diseases. The promise of this technology would be that the patient's 
body accepts the cells from transplantation without immuno-suppressant 
drugs. These cells are not transplanted into a woman's womb. In what is 
deliberate overreaching, this bill bans somatic cell nuclear transfer, 
which produces only stem cells, not babies.
  First, we Americans were told to use duct tape to seal up our rooms. 
Now, with this bill, the Republican leadership places duct tape over 
the microscopes of dedicated medical scientists who are leading the 
effort to find the cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, 
cancer, spinal cord injuries and cystic fibrosis.
  At a time when we are alarmed daily by the possibility of biological 
attacks from afar, this bill represents a very real and present 
biological attack on the victims of these tragic diseases, diseases 
that strike Americans down in a nonpartisan manner. They deserve a 
nonpartisan solution.
  For most parents, it is traumatic enough to take a child to the 
hospital for a tonsillectomy or a broken bone. How cruel that for 
lingering diseases that can slowly drain the happiness, the energy, and 
the life from a child, one of the best hopes for treatment that we have 
would be completely denied by this bill.
  I think of the Austin mother who wrote to me about her diabetic five-
year-old. She told of her baby who suffered through 4 to 8 insulin 
shots a day. Now, as a toddler, she undergoes 10 to 15 pricks a day to 
test her blood sugar. Her mom wrote: ``Our daughter is a lively girl 
who is optimistic by nature. We would like to see this horrible disease 
cured before her optimism fades.''
  Let us not put politics over life-saving science. The restrictions in 
this bill are truly unprecedented. It bans private as well as public 
research. It says even to the victim of disease, ``if you go abroad,'' 
where medical science will certainly move if this tragic bill is 
adopted, ``you are not only getting treatment, you are getting a jail 
term, because you are a criminal under this bill for seeking a cure or 
treatment for your disease.''
  Restrictive federal regulations already deny sufficient stem cell 
lines to conduct essential research. This bill does more than tie the 
hands of our best scientists; it steals precious time that victims do 
not have; it robs them of hope; it is, for too many, a death sentence.
  Those innocent victims are not criminals; this bill is. Do not make 
Americans choose between health and their homeland. Vote to end 
suffering. Vote for hope. Vote ``no.''
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Human Cloning Prohibition 
Act of 2003, H.R. 534, reintroduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). The issue 
here is human cloning. The issue has to do with us playing God and 
allowing human embryos to be produced.
  Make no mistake about it, we are compassionate Americans. We care 
about pain and suffering, we care about curing diseases; but at the 
cost of creating human life, human embryos?
  There is a claim that cancer, diabetes, and other diseases will be 
cured. I would go as far as to say in the medical community, with 
safeguards against terrorists, we can identify biological weapons. In 
my district sits one of the finest anthrax labs in the world that can 
already identify these types of dangerous pathogens. We do not need 
human cloning to identify those signatures that exist within those 
pathogens.
  As researchers develop artificial wombs, if you are voting for the 
Greenwood substitute, after 10 years it would allow scientists the 
legal protection to harvest embryos and to grow human fetuses. It is 
essential that, whether for research or reproduction, we not allow 
people to create human life.
  Join me in voting in favor of final passage of the Weldon-Stupak 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the 
underlying bill. No one in Congress supports cloning a human being, but 
we cannot afford to block research into important scientific areas that 
may have critical medical benefits to American citizens.
  The millions who are currently suffering from diseases that have no 
cures, Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord 
injuries, and their families, these millions are desperately hoping 
that new medical research can provide them relief.
  The best hope for many of these people may lie with research into 
somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. This process may 
allow doctors and scientists to duplicate human stem cells to create 
medical therapies for diseases, therapies that will not be rejected by 
patients' bodies. This research and these therapies do not require or 
result in a cloned human being; but the bill before us would ban that 
research and take away hope for millions of Americans, just because of 
fear of the unknown.
  We can increase understanding of the science involved here and at the 
same time provide protections against its untoward use. Congress should 
take its time and consider these issues. We should ban human cloning, 
as we have, and allow research to go forward. We should set the ethical 
parameters for scientific research. That is our job, set these 
parameters which will lead to saving lives and restoring health.
  On behalf of those millions who suffer and wait and hope, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Weldon bill and to vote for the 
Greenwood amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of the rule. In doing so, I would like to bring to light one of the 
most dangerous consequences of voting for human cloning, both 
reproductive and therapeutic. That is the exploitation of women.
  Women of lower economic means are particular targets for 
exploitation. Advanced Cell Technologies paid $3,500 to $4,000 to each 
woman who donated their eggs for the failed human cloning experiments. 
Because of the many risks associated with this procedure, it will 
mostly be women of little means who will volunteer to sell their eggs.
  In order to generate enough cloned embryos to carry out this 
research, thousands of eggs will need to be solicited from numerous 
women. It takes about 50 eggs to get one viable cloned embryo. Just to 
treat the 16 million Parkinson's patients, it is estimated that 800 
million human eggs would be needed from a minimum of 80 million women 
of childbearing age.

[[Page 4685]]

  I implore my colleagues to vote for the health and well-being of 
women. Please vote for the rule and for the Weldon-Stupak bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bell).
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534 and in 
support of the bipartisan substitute.
  I lost my mother in 1999, but really I lost her twice. The first time 
was when she was suffering from a cruel, mind-altering disease that has 
afflicted millions of American families, a disease known as 
Parkinson's. For my mom, each of the 10 years she spent fighting 
Parkinson's disease was a little more difficult than the one before, 
until finally her body just could not fight anymore.
  After losing my mother that way, I will do all I can to help find a 
cure for diseases like Parkinson's. There are tens of millions of 
Americans that feel the same way because of someone they have lost in 
their lives, because fighting for a cure is the right thing to do.
  I do not know how I am going to explain to my constituents that my 
colleagues in the House decided not to allow scientists to use the vast 
technology at our disposal to cure their mother's Parkinson's disease 
or their grandmother's Alzheimer's or their husband's diabetes, because 
that is exactly what stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are 
going to do: cure disease and save lives.

                              {time}  1330

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

                                            National Right to Life


                                              Committee, Inc.,

                                                February 10, 2003.

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


                              introduction

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


                       president bush's position

       President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all 
     human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In 
     remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the 
     Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to 
     destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be 
     used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28 
     State of the Union speech, the President said, ``Because no 
     human life should be started or ended as the object of an 
     experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, 
     and pass a law against all human cloning.'' In a speech on 
     human cloning last year, President Bush warned that unless 
     such legislation is enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be 
     established in the United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2002/04/print/2002410-4.html)


                       the situation in congress

       The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the 
     Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at 
     10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the 
     committee completes its work, the full House could take up 
     the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the 
     measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided 
     bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the 
     House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively 
     rejected (249-178) a substitute amendment, the Greenwood-
     Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of 
     human embryos for research (roll call no. 302)
       The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the 
     Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26 
     cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch-
     Feinstein bill

[[Page 4686]]

     (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it has considerable 
     additional support, mostly among Senate Democrats.
       The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), 
     which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a 
     cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-
     Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these 
     committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of 
     these diametrically conflicting approaches.
       The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist 
     (R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday, 
     ``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself 
     with the purpose being destruction, and that would include 
     the so-called research cloning. And remember, research 
     cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no 
     demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you 
     ought to destroy life. . .''
       The key differences between the two bills are discussed 
     below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning 
     issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the 
     specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit 
     have been widely misunderstood.


                        misconceptions and facts

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

[[Page 4687]]

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

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and H.R. 534, 
the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 2 years since we had the Raelian cult before 
my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We warned people 
back then it was not a question of if cloning would take place. It was 
a question of when. The Raelians have proven us right.
  Whether or not they can actually clone a human is besides the point. 
The point is under current Federal law they can clone a human. We need 
to stop this manipulation of human life, and we need to stop it now. We 
cannot allow the Greenwood substitute that does allow the cloning of 
embryos, yet merely outlaws the implantation. We need to send the 
strongest possible message that cloning in any form is unacceptable.
  The Weldon-Stupak bill is the only bill that does this. We cannot 
afford to treat the issue of human embryo cloning lightly, nor can we 
treat it without serious debate and deliberation.
  The need for action is clear. Research firms, Advance Cell Technology 
of Massachusetts for one, have already begun cloning embryos for 
research purposes. Whatever your belief is, pro-life or pro-choice, the 
fact is embryos are either the building block of life or human life 
itself. We must ask ourselves what will our message be? What makes up 
human beings? What is the human spirit? What moves us? What separates 
us from animals? That is what is being debated here today.
  What message will the United States Congress send? Will it be a 
cynical signal that human embryo cloning and destruction is okay, 
acceptable, even to be encouraged all in the name of science, or will 
it be a message urging caution and care? If we allow this research to 
go forward unchecked, what will be next? Allowing parents to choose 
what color hair and eyes their baby will have?
  We need to consider all aspects of cloning and not just what the 
researchers tell us is good. Opposition to our bill has based its 
objections on arguments that we will stifle research, discourage free 
thinking, put science back in the dark ages. The Weldon-Stupak bill 
does nothing of the sort. It allows animal cloning. It allows tissue 
cloning. It allows current stem cell research being done on existing 
embryos. It allows DNA cloning. How is this stifling research? The fact 
is, there is no research being done on cloned human embryos, so how can 
we stifle it?
  And do you know why there is no research being done? Because the 
scientists, the same ones that are coming to our offices, banging on 
our doors, begging to be allowed to experiment with human embryos, they 
do not even know how. They have experimented for years with cloned 
animal embryos with very limited success. These scientists who are 
pushing so hard to be allowed a free pass for research on what 
constitutes the very essence of what it is to be human do not know what 
goes wrong with cloned animal embryos. And the horror stories are too 
many to mention here of deformed mice and deformed sheep developing 
from cloned embryos.
  A prominent researcher working for the bioresearch companies has 
admitted scientists do not know how or what happens in cloned embryos 
allowing these deformities. In fact, he calls the procedure when an egg 
reprograms DNA ``magic.''
  Magic? That is hardly a comforting, hard-hitting scientific term, but 
it is accurate. It is magic. Opponents of the bill have said embryonic 
research is the Holy Grail of science and holds the key to untold 
medical wonders. I say to these opponents, show me your miracles. Show 
me the wondrous advances done on animal embryonic cloning. But these 
opponents cannot show me these advances because they do not exist.
  Our ability to delve into the mysteries of life grows exponentially. 
All fields of science fuse to enhance our ability to go where we have 
never gone before.
  The question is simply: Just because we can do something, does that 
mean we should do it? What is a better path to take, one of haste and a 
rush to benefits that are at best years away into the future, 
entrusting cloned human

[[Page 4688]]

embryos to scientists who do not know what they are doing with cloned 
animal embryos? Or is it one urging caution, urging a step back, 
further deliberation?
  The human race is not open to experimentation at any level, even the 
molecular level. Has the 20th century not shown us of this folly?
  Holy Grail? Magic? How about the human soul? Scientists and medical 
researchers cannot find it, cannot medically explain it, but writers 
write about it. Songwriters sing about it. We believe in it. From the 
depths of our souls we know we should ban human cloning. For the sake 
of our souls, let us reject the Greenwood substitute and support the 
Weldon-Stupak bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
bill.
  The consequence of allowing human cloning would be dire. Human 
embryos would be created for the sole purpose of being experimented on 
and killed. Cloned humans would likely have serious defects such as 
premature aging which may have led to premature death of Dolly, the 
cloned sheep. Women could be exploited through the buying and selling 
of their eggs for medical research, and children could be manufactured 
with specific genetic traits, making them commodities rather than 
precious gifts from God.
  This bill would prevent those horrifying scenarios from reality. This 
legislation would ban reproductive cloning and research cloning, which 
both involve creation of human life.
  As elected leaders, we have a responsibility to safeguard the future 
of humanity by placing clear, ethical limits on medical research. Our 
scientists should concentrate on promising avenues which raise no moral 
concerns such as adult stem cell research. Allowing human cloning would 
only devalue human life and permit women and children to be exploited.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and 
H.R. 534.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership and his kindness for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have it right here in my hands, this legislation that 
we intend to pass today criminalizes physicians, hospitals, innocent 
patients, sick people all over the world who are in need of the relief 
from the intellect and the ability that our scientists have to provide 
hope over death, life over death, better health over no health at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important as we confront the 
amazing opportunities of science and technology, as we look to secure 
the homeland with advances in science and technology that we call 
today's legislation what it is: a condemnation, an outrage on the 
outstanding research and abilities of our research scientists and 
medical professionals.
  Mr. Speaker, if this was legislation to ban human cloning, you would 
have a unanimous green light from the Members of this Congress. But now 
what we are saying to those who are working in the venues of research 
of life and hope, we are suggesting to them that they must be 
condemned.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard of no such thing as women selling their 
eggs being intimidated to do so, but I do know those who have 
Parkinson's disease and other diseases who are suffering and who have 
spinal injuries who are suffering now who want us to be able to do the 
kind of research that stem cell research allows.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 534 does nothing but criminalize those individuals 
who are now in research labs, innocent bright and brilliant Americans 
who are trying to find hope for those who are ill. Particularly the 
stem cells that the President has allowed some 64 lines does not take 
into account the diversity and the different ethnic groups in this 
Nation, the diseases that afflict African Americans, Hispanic 
Americans, Jewish Americans, where research is needed on particular 
stem cell research.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and myself offered an 
amendment in the Committee on Rules, and I opposed this rule that would 
have provided specifically with the growing of those unique stem cells 
that would allow research on all Americans so that we could in fact 
provide the hope and life that is necessary. But yet the Committee on 
Rules decided in their wisdom to deny such an amendment, so we could 
not even debate it on the floor of the House.
  It is very interesting to note that a recent Institute of Medicine 
study explains that, because the cells lines to researchers are 
limited, they do not represent the genetic diversity of the general 
population; nor do they represent the diversity of our population. 
Diseases that plague minority populations are almost certainly not 
represented in the 64 approved stem cells. On the uses of stem cells, 
the National Institutes of Health described the medical potential as 
enormous.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to give a death sentence to 
millions and millions of Americans waiting by their bedsides hoping 
beyond hope. We realize that we have been able to give hope to the 
aging. We have been able to give hope to those who are suffering from 
diseases of which heretofore we could not even imagine a solution, that 
we could not have imagined some 50, 70, or 100 years ago to cure.

                              {time}  1345

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

[[Page 4689]]

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

[[Page 4690]]

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

                              {time}  1400

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

[[Page 4691]]

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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

                              {time}  1415

  With this knowledge, would we wish to create these hardships for even 
one child?
  I also oppose cloning embryos for research because it is a very short 
bridge to implantation and, thus, reproductive cloning. If we allow 
human embryo farms for research, it will become impossible to enforce a 
ban on reproductive cloning.
  Although I fully support this rule and H.R. 534, I do have concerns 
about the bill. The creation and destruction of human life is the most 
serious issue that we can face. Therefore, if it is unacceptable to 
participate in human cloning within the United States, then we should 
extend this ban and prohibit United States researchers from 
participating in human cloning outside of the United States as well. 
U.S. law when enacted is assumed not to apply to citizens when they are 
outside of the United States borders. In other words, there is an 
``assumptive nonapplication.'' However, the courts have held when 
Congress acts to explicitly apply United States law to citizens acting 
outside of our borders, the justice system can prosecute these actions.
  H.R. 534 is a good bill, but in the future we should seek to extend 
the ban to prohibit United States citizens from performing human 
cloning outside of our borders.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 4692]]

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

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

                                              Kathryn C. Zoon,

                                                         Director,
                     Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

                              {time}  1420


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human 
cloning, with Mr. Sweeney in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2003. This bill criminalizes the act of cloning 
humans, importing cloned humans and importing products derived from 
cloned humans. It is what is needed, and it is what President Bush has 
asked for, a comprehensive

[[Page 4693]]

ban against cloning people. It has bipartisan cosponsorship and was 
reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on February 12.
  Today we are considering more than the moral and ethical issues 
raised by human cloning. This vote is about providing moral leadership 
for a watching world. We have the largest and most powerful research 
community on the face of the earth and we devote more money to research 
and development than any other nation in the world. Although many other 
nations have already taken steps to ban human cloning, the world is 
waiting for the United States to set the moral tone against this 
experimentation.
  Currently in the United States there are no clear rules or 
regulations over privately funded human cloning. Although the FDA has 
announced it has the authority to regulate human cloning through the 
Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, this 
authority is unclear and has not been tested. The fact of the matter is 
that the FDA cannot stop human cloning, it can only begin to regulate 
it. This will be a day late and a dollar short for a clone that is used 
for research, harvesting organs, or born grotesquely deformed.
  In November 2001, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in 
Worcester, Massachusetts announced that they had cloned the first human 
embryo. Others have indicated that they are prepared to utilize 
existing technology to clone a human baby. On December 26, 2002, 
Clonaid announced the birth of the first cloned human baby. Although 
the Clonaid announcement appears to have been a hoax, there are a 
growing number of individuals who claim that they can and will clone a 
human being. In light of these announcements, it has become imperative 
that the Congress act immediately to prevent the cloning of human 
embryos from continuing.
  Others argue that cloned humans are the key that will unlock the door 
to medical achievements in the 21st century. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. These miraculous achievements may be found through stem 
cell research but not from cloning. Let me be perfectly clear. H.R. 534 
does not in any way impede or prohibit stem cell research that does not 
require cloned human embryos. This debate is whether or not it should 
be legal in the United States to clone human beings. Nothing more and 
nothing less.
  While H.R. 534 does not prohibit the use of cloning techniques to 
produce molecules, tissues, organs, plants, DNA cells other than human 
embryos, and animals other than humans, it does prohibit the creation 
of cloned embryos. This is absolutely necessary to prevent human 
cloning because, as we all know, embryos become people. If scientists 
were permitted to clone embryos, they would eventually be stockpiled 
and mass marketed. In addition, it would be impossible to enforce a ban 
on human reproductive cloning. Let me repeat that. It would be 
impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning because once 
a cloned human embryo is implanted into a woman's uterus, it can grow 
and become a baby. Therefore, any legislative attempt to ban human 
cloning must include embryos.
  Should human cloning ever prove successful, its potential 
applications and expected demands would undoubtedly and ultimately lead 
to a worldwide mass market for human clones. Human clones would be used 
for medical experimentation, leading to human exploitation under the 
good name of medicine. Parents would want the best genes for their 
children, creating a market for human designer genes. Again, 
governments would have to weigh in and decide questions such as what 
rights do human clones hold, who is responsible for them, who will 
ensure their health, and what interaction will clones have with their 
genealogical parent.
  As most people know, Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996. Since that 
time, scientists from around the globe have experimentally cloned a 
number of monkeys, mice, cows, goats, lambs, bulls and pigs. It took 
277 attempts to clone Dolly; 276 failures before success. These later 
experiments also produced a very low rate of success, a dismal 3 
percent. Now some of the same scientists would like to add people, 
human beings, to this experimental list. As it turns out, Dolly the 
sheep was also a failure. It just took 6 years to realize it. On 
February 14, Dolly the sheep was euthanized as a result of 
complications linked to what some geneticists are speculating were 
signs of premature aging.
  Human cloning is both ethically and morally offensive. It diminishes 
the careful balance of humanity that nature has installed in each of 
us. I believe we need to send a clear and distinct message to the 
watching world that America will not permit human cloning and that it 
does not support scientific research into cloning human embryos. This 
bill sends this message, by permitting cloning research on human DNA 
molecules, cells, tissues, organs, or animals but preventing the 
creation of cloned human embryos.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to unequivocally say no to human 
cloning by supporting H.R. 534. Stop human cloning and preserve the 
integrity of mankind and allow legitimate scientific research to 
continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like the authors of H.R. 534, believe that we should 
outlaw human cloning. If we wanted to pass a bill that only prohibits 
human cloning, it would sail through Congress on a voice vote. But this 
bill goes too far. It halts the progress of medical research by banning 
somatic cell nuclear transfer for research and medical treatments. This 
research has promise for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
diabetes and others. This bill criminalizes a scientific research 
process that takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of 
the researcher or the inability of this process to result in the birth 
of a cloned child. The penalty for violating these provisions includes 
sanctions of a criminal fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years and 
a civil penalty of at least $1 million. This would represent an 
unprecedented intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific 
process.
  I think the science teachers of America may be pretty appalled at 
what they hear and see on this floor today. I think much that has been 
said and will be said reflects a profound ignorance about the science, 
about the current role of the FDA in their regulatory practices, but 
also Americans need to ask themselves why the proponents of this bill 
want to ban this research, and I think the answer is simple: They want 
to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country.

                              {time}  1430

  This country reflects the diverse religious beliefs found all over 
the world. Some, like the authors of this bill, believe that all 
cloning is wrong. Others believe that research cloning should be 
allowed. These are all legitimate views, but I think it is wrong to use 
the political power of one group to criminalize the beliefs of another.
  To better understand the real issue involved in this debate, it is 
important to understand what research cloning is. Somatic cell nuclear 
transfer has six steps: a woman donates an egg; a patient donates a 
somatic cell, like a skin cell; the nucleus is removed from the egg; 
the nucleus from the patient's skin cell is inserted into the egg; the 
egg is then stimulated to induce it to divide; the egg begins to 
divide, creating stem cells that are identical to the patient's own 
cells.
  So we are talking about the creation of cells in a petri dish, not 
bringing a child into this world. That is why research cloning is 
supported by some of the most ardent pro-life conservatives like 
Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack, who said, ``Anyone 
who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for 
harm done to real live postnatal sentient beings who might be helped by 
this research.''
  Why is this process important? Scientists believe that these stem 
cells are less likely to be rejected after transplant since they have 
the same genetic properties as the recipient.

[[Page 4694]]

They could also help scientists learn why diseases occur. They also 
have important advantages over adult stem cells which cannot develop 
into as many cell types and which cannot be generated in the same 
quantities in the lab. That is why this bill is opposed by almost every 
organization representing patients and researchers, including Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation, the Cancer Research and Prevention 
Foundation, the Biotechnology Industry Association, the Society for 
Women's Health Research, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical 
Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research.
  I have heard the words that we are going down a ``slippery slope'' 
used by the proponents of this bill, but in fact the slippery slope is 
that being suggested by those who call six cells in a petri dish the 
equivalent of me or my mother. If it is murder to use somatic cell 
transfer and to create six cells for research purposes, then it must 
also be mass murder to have in vitro fertilization and discard the 
cells that are not later utilized by the couple using IVF. So the 
slippery slope is to eliminate in vitro fertilization in this country.
  This debate really boils down to one question: Should an embryonic 
stem cell with no central nervous system, no chance of developing into 
a fetus have the same rights as a child suffering from juvenile 
diabetes? I do not think so. I urge you not to rob sick Americans of 
their hope for a cure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds the Members that it is not in order 
to cite the views of sitting Senators.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), our chairman, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the manufacture of cloned human beings alarms an 
overwhelming majority of Americans. The theoretical discussion 
surrounding the cloning of humans has raised profound ethical and legal 
issues. Currently, no clear regulations exist in the United States that 
would prevent a private group from attempting to create a human clone. 
H.R. 534 would prevent experimental procedures that the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission, the NBAC, called scientifically and 
ethically objectionable. The NBAC unanimously concluded that given the 
state of science, ``any attempt to create a child using somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, whether in the public or private sector, is uncertain 
in its outcome, is unacceptably dangerous to the fetus and, therefore, 
morally unacceptable.'' In fact, virtually every widely known and 
respected organization that has taken a position on reproductive human 
cloning flatly opposes the notion because of the extreme ethical and 
moral concerns.
  Cloning of human beings carries massive risks of producing unhealthy, 
abnormal, malformed children. The only way to prevent this from 
happening is to adopt the restrictions on human cloning set forth in 
H.R. 534. As Professor Bradley of the Notre Dame School of Law 
testified last Congress, ``The only effective way to prohibit human 
reproductive cloning is to prohibit all human cloning.'' Any other 
approach would allow for stockpiles of cloned human embryos to be 
produced, bought, and sold without restrictions. Implantation of cloned 
embryos, a relatively simple procedure, would inevitably occur. 
Attempts to enforce a cloning ban would prove virtually impossible to 
monitor. The last time Congress dealt with the issue of human cloning, 
an editorial in the Washington Post stated: ``It is unnecessary to be 
against abortion rights or to believe human life literally begins at 
conception to be deeply alarmed by the notion of scientists purposely 
causing conceptions in a context entirely divorced from even the 
potential of reproduction.'' The editorial went on to characterize the 
creation of embryos solely for research as unconscionable.
  It is important to note that research currently being done using 
adult stem cells, which I support, is showing great progress. I believe 
this relatively new area of research, Mr. Chairman, deserves 
appropriate funding and necessary scientific resources to discover its 
complete potential. To divert resources from this promising research to 
controversial procedures, such as therapeutic cloning, may 
inadvertently push an effective cure farther out of reach.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 534, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this dangerous and 
ill considered legislation. Rather than protecting the sanctity of 
human life, this legislation will needlessly sentence untold 
generations of innocent human beings to premature death and lifetimes 
of suffering. There is no disagreement that it is immoral to use 
cloning to create human beings and that that ought to be prohibited. 
The evidence from research involving cloned animals is that such 
efforts can result in severe deformities, premature aging and death. It 
is wrong to willfully inflict this kind of suffering on people and it 
should not be permitted. If this bill prohibited only that kind of 
activity, we would have no disagreement and no debate.
  It is precisely because we abhor the suffering that would result from 
using cloning techniques for human reproduction that it is also clearly 
immoral to criminalize using so-called therapeutic cloning, which 
scientists call somatic cell nuclear transfer, for medical research and 
medical treatment. The fruits of this research promise cures for 
Parkinson's disease, chronic heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, 
spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, brain 
damage, lupus, combined immunodeficiency, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell 
disease, to name just a few.
  We will hear that we must make criminal the creation of human life in 
order to destroy that human life to produce stem cells. But that 
assumes that a one-celled organism or a several-celled embryo is a 
human being. If it is, then therapeutic cloning is immoral. If a 
several-celled embryo is not a human being, then therapeutic cloning is 
not only not immoral but is profoundly moral, as it will be used to 
save and prolong human lives.
  So what is this bill really about? It would write into our criminal 
law a particular religious view that holds that a few cells in a petri 
dish are moral equivalents to a fully developed human being or in fact 
a human being, and that no benefit to those suffering and dying from 
terrible diseases would justify such research, would justify the 
destruction of a several-celled embryo.
  People are certainly entitled to their religious beliefs, but they 
are not entitled to inflict suffering on the sick and death on the ill 
and enforce the imposition of their religious beliefs on others using 
$1 million fines and 10-year prison sentences. In fact, there are many 
other religious perspectives that disagree with the religious 
perspective that is the only justification for this bill.
  As the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and the Rabbinical 
Council of America put it in a letter to President Bush: ``The 
potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing 
human life from the traditional Jewish perspective. Moreover, our 
rabbinic authorities inform us that an isolated fertilized egg does not 
enjoy the full status of personhood and its attendant protections. 
Thus, if embryonic stem cell research can help us preserve and heal 
humans with greater success and does not require or encourage the 
destruction of life in the process, it ought to be pursued.'' This 
opinion comes from a religious community that does not favor legalized 
abortion, which should put to rest the view that this is a debate about 
abortion. It is not. It is rather a debate about whether anyone should 
be allowed to use our criminal laws to impose their particular 
religious view on the vast majority of Americans who may not share that 
moral or religious outlook.
  Muslim groups, Mormons, some mainline Protestant denominations 
including the United Church of Christ

[[Page 4695]]

and the Presbyterian Church (USA) support stem cell research. It is 
wrong to cause so much suffering in the name of protecting the sanctity 
of human life. It is especially wrong to use the criminal code to 
impose that narrowly held view on the innocent and the vulnerable. It 
is said that therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with the therapeutic 
use of stem cells, but it may very well be that only embryonic stem 
cells produced by therapeutic cloning can overcome the body's immune 
defenses in order to be able to cure a disease; and the same people who 
oppose therapeutic cloning oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for 
the same reason: their religious view that the several-celled embryo 
from which the embryonic stem cells are derived is a human being. They 
are entitled to their belief. They are not entitled to impose that 
religious belief on the entire country at the cost of who-knows-how-
many lives.
  It is said that allowing therapeutic cloning will inevitably lead to 
reproductive cloning, but research and medical practice can be 
regulated and can be policed. We have heard today that this is a moral 
question. Yes, in part. It is immoral to prohibit medical research and 
treatment that can save lives. It is immoral to make it criminal, as 
this bill would do, to import a cancer vaccine from a foreign country 
if that vaccine was produced through therapeutic cloning in a foreign 
country. And it is immorally arrogant, immorally arrogant to think that 
only one religious view is valid or moral and that one has the right to 
use political power to impose that religious view on the rest of the 
American people who may hold different religious views. That is what 
this bill would do. That is why this is an immoral bill unless amended 
to apply only to reproductive cloning.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. As I 
recall, when Moses came down from the mountain, he had 10 commandments 
with him. One of them said thou shalt not murder and the other said 
thou shalt not steal, and I do not think anybody in their right mind 
would say that criminal laws saying that murder and theft are criminal 
in nature is imposing religious views on anybody. They are both wrong; 
they are both criminal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act. This legislation would ban any use of cloning 
to create human embryos. In contrast, agreeing with the Greenwood 
substitute would permit, indeed would encourage the creation of any 
number of human embryos by cloning for the purpose of harvesting their 
parts. The substitute even leaves open the door, as artificial womb 
technology advances, to growing cloned humans to later stages of fetal 
development for the harvesting of their tissues and organs as has 
already been done with cloned cows and mice.
  As we seek to improve human life, we must always preserve human 
dignity, and therefore we must preclude human cloning by stopping it 
before it starts. Creating, killing, and harvesting one human being in 
the service of others raises significant ethical and moral concerns. As 
a society, are we willing to endorse a policy that allows the creation 
of human life so that it can then be destroyed? Cloning is a dangerous 
assault on human life. It is an affront to human dignity. It is not a 
policy that should be supported by the United States Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 534 and oppose the Greenwood 
amendment.
  I include for the Record this letter from the National Right to Life 
group.


                                National Right to Life Letter,

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

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

[[Page 4696]]

     cloning techniques to produce cells, tissues, or organs, 
     whenever this can be done without first creating a human 
     embryo.
       Moreover, the Weldon-Stupak bill does not speak to the 
     separate issue of the use of frozen human embryos, created 
     through in vitro fertilization, for medical research on stem 
     cells or for any other research purposes. The restrictions of 
     the Weldon-Stupak bill apply only to: (1) the use of the 
     somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique, to 
     produce (2) a human embryo.
       Despite the efforts of some to confuse the cloning debate 
     with the separate issue of stem cell research, even Mr. 
     Greenwood conceded, during the 2001 debate, ``The gentleman 
     from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor 
     to ban embryonic stem cell research.''
       A more detailed critique of the misleading claims that some 
     are making on behalf of the Greenwood Substitute and the 
     similar Hatch-Feinstein bill (S. 303) is posted here: http://
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/cloningbackrounder021003.html
       In conclusion, NRLC strongly urges that you oppose the 
     Greenwood Substitute, and support without amendment the 
     Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534). Thank 
     you for your consideration of NRLC's perspective on this 
     critical issue.
           Sincerely,

                                              Douglas Johnson,

                                             Legislative Director,
                                 National Right to Life Committee.

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

                              {time}  1445

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


[[Page 4697]]


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

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

[[Page 4698]]

  Mr. Chairman, the only solution is to support this bill as it is and 
to reject the alternative. H.R. 534 is the only way to prevent such 
horrible ideas.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and 
confess that I have talked to a number of my colleagues, not a single 
one of which has said to me that they believe in human cloning. I think 
if there were a bill on the floor that prohibited human cloning, it 
would pass 435 to 0.

                              {time}  1500

  To me, it is somewhat distressing that this bill has been postured in 
much the same political context as the abortion debate around the 
question of when life begins and in a way that would make it impossible 
to do any kind of cloning, even for research or therapeutic research 
purposes. And I think the thing that is so distressing about that is 
that every single one of us knows someone who needs the benefit of 
science to come up with a therapy, a treatment that could prevent or 
stop the progress of a distressing disease; and most of the promise is 
in the area that this bill would prohibit.
  So I just want to appeal to those people who would like to make this 
a political issue, a debate about when life begins, that I think 
different religions have different beliefs about that, and different 
individuals have different beliefs about that. The thing that I hope we 
all agree on is that when research advancements, therapeutic or 
otherwise, can make it possible for people to live their lives with 
higher quality and for longer periods of time, or to keep them from 
dying, we ought to allow that kind of research to progress and not get 
into a political debate that serves somebody's political purpose.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of the bill.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to commend him for his leadership on 
this very, very important and critical issue.
  As I mentioned in the debate on the rule, the science on so-called 
therapeutic cloning is going nowhere, so why do all of these scientists 
say that they want to allow embryo cloning? Why do all of these 
biotechnology companies say they want to allow embryo cloning, even 
though the chairman of Geron, Thomas Okarma, is quoted on the issue of 
therapeutic cloning, and he is quoted as saying, ``The odds favoring 
success are vanishingly small, and the costs are daunting. It would 
take thousands of human eggs on an assembly line to produce a custom 
therapy for a single person.''
  He goes on to say, ``This process is a nonstarter.''
  So if this therapeutic cloning is such a nonstarter as Okarma says, 
why do the people in the biotech industries, why do all of these 
scientists say we have to allow this, we have to make this legal? What 
is the rationale behind all of this?
  I will tell my colleagues what they want to do. They want to create 
human models of disease. Research scientists today in America, if they 
want to do research on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, they buy 
mice and they buy rats that have been engineered to manifest that 
disease, and what they want to do is they want to create human beings 
that are engineered to manifest these diseases.
  Now, can we imagine that? They want to have shelves with diseases on 
them filled with human embryos and sell them for a profit to research 
labs, and that is where we are going with this issue.
  Some people get up and ridicule this concept of a slippery slope, but 
that is exactly what we are on. Because I will tell my colleagues what 
is next. The artificial womb technology is there. It is available to us 
today. One can take these embryos and put them in these baths and one 
can grow them well beyond the embryonic stage, and that will be the 
next thing we will be debating and talking about in this Chamber if the 
positions held by some people who want to allow embryo cloning are 
allowed to move forward.
  These are the same exact arguments that occurred in this House on 
fetal tissue research 10 years ago; and people got up and claimed, we 
have to allow this, it is the great potential of the future. It turned 
out to be an absolute bust. It was a disaster. It went absolutely 
nowhere. Therapeutic cloning is going nowhere. It has been a year and a 
half since we originally debated this issue. I placed a mountain of 
evidence before this body here showing that the adult stem cells are 
working out great, the embryo stem cells are going nowhere, the cloned 
stem cells are going absolutely nowhere. So why are we still here? Why 
are we debating this issue? It is because there are people who want to 
create human models of disease that they can sell for a profit. It is 
an abomination.
  Vote for this bill. Vote against the substitute.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished scientist and 
Member of this House.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, as a scientist, I must say extreme conviction 
seems to be crowding out understanding here today. I would like to cut 
through the scientific rhetoric of this biomedical research technique 
and discuss the real progress in this area. But in the limited time 
available, let me draw the choice as sharply as possible.
  Down one road we see potential therapeutic cloning to help cure 
diseases from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's; down the other road we see 
unprecedented criminalization of scientific research.
  Now, therapeutic cloning is not some far-out technique conducted on 
the fringe of the scientific community. These researchers are not 
crazed Dr. Frankensteins. They are people like our neighbors, highly 
ethical who are working hard to save lives, to relieve suffering, to 
improve the quality of life. Let us not make them criminals.
  Now, to draw the distinction here, particularly referring to my 
colleague's reference to a slippery slope, in vitro fertilization has 
been hailed as a miracle of modern science allowing millions of 
American couples to conceive. However, by necessity of the in vitro 
fertilization procedure, some human embryos are created that will not 
be given the chance to develop into babies. Are we to say here today 
that we want to outlaw in vitro fertilization? IVF is not only 
accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced. It is a God send for 
millions of families. Yes, millions of families. Therapeutic cloning is 
no more ethically objectionable than IVF.
  Now, I asked the proponents of this bill, do you question the ethics 
of the parents of those million Americans alive today through the 
miracle of IVF? They may, but let us not command their beliefs to 
become law.
  The majority of my constituents, the majority of Americans, all 
scientific researchers I know, agree that human reproductive cloning 
would be unsafe, unethical, and should not be allowed. The Greenwood 
substitute is every bit as effective as H.R. 534 in keeping scientists 
from creating genetic duplicates of people. Regardless of which bill is 
passed today, millions of human embryos will be created.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 534, the 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act, a bill to ban all types of human 
cloning.
  I believe human cloning is ethically and morally wrong. It is an 
unjust experiment whereby human beings are created and destroyed solely 
for the purpose of research. Human beings cannot be treated as material 
used for scientific research, and the cloning of human babies turns the 
natural procreation process into the simple manufacturing of human 
beings.
  It has been determined that human cloning is entirely unsafe to 
practice

[[Page 4699]]

on human beings. Most scientists agree that human cloning poses a 
serious risk of producing children who are stillborn, unhealthy, 
severely malformed, or disabled.
  The fact is, in animal cloning trials, 95 to 98 percent of all 
cloning attempts have ended in failure, and almost all successfully 
cloned animals have genetic abnormalities. In fact, Dolly, the infamous 
cloned sheep, died this past Valentine's Day of a lung disease she 
acquired before she was even born, and lived only half of the normal 
life expectancy for a sheep. Why would we even consider for a moment 
that cloning is safe for humans?
  I agree with President Bush when he stated no human life should be 
started or ended as an object of an experiment.
  When debating this issue, we must ask the ethical question: Are we 
created in God's image, or are we created in our own? Today, this House 
has a unique opportunity to shut the door on this invasive procedure to 
women and an affront to humanity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the Weldon bill, to set a precedent for morality and the sanctity of 
humanity.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a leader of the New Democrats 
and someone who has distinguished himself on the issue of medical 
research.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
the leadership that she has shown on this issue as well.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be clear again yet today. This is not a fight 
about banning human cloning. We all agree cloning for purposes of 
creating another human being is wrong and it should be prohibited.
  Instead, what we are arguing about is allowing scientific research to 
continue that can lead to cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, 
spinal cord injuries. Unfortunately, H.R. 534's approach would take a 
Howitzer after a house fly.
  What about bone marrow transplants? What about in vitro 
fertilization? If we logically extend the argument for H.R. 534, that 
is next.
  Some of the most advanced and exciting stem cell research in the 
world is occurring at the University of Wisconsin. I have had the 
opportunity over a few occasions to visit their research department; 
and while the research they are doing there itself is exciting, what is 
most impressive is how much in tandem the researchers of the science 
and the ethics department work.
  What most people do not realize on this subject is that therapeutic 
stem cell research is already a heavily regulated industry. The FDA has 
strict requirements on what they can and cannot do.
  But my main point is this: we need to do this if for no other reason 
than to provide leadership for the rest of the world. I am more 
comfortable knowing that our country, our researchers, our FDA is 
providing oversight and guidance on this discovery which could lead 
almost anywhere. Lets make sure that with our leadership, the 
discoveries will be used for the betterment of human kind rather than 
for nefarious purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the substitute and rejection of H.R. 
534.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 534 and speak 
against the substitute. I believe that combining a somatic nucleus with 
a donor cell is inherently dangerous. It is inhumane to create a life 
form that is vulnerable to a host of disabilities and genetic 
malformations.
  As a doctor, I find it very difficult to support a reckless procedure 
whose scientific merits are unsound, at best. Even more pernicious are 
the implications that this substitute amendment would have for 
humanity. So-called therapeutic cloning is virtually identical to 
reproductive cloning.
  Human cloning for reproduction will result in high failure rates. 
What do those words mean, a high failure rate? They mean that children 
will be produced that are stillborn, malformed, and disabled.
  The proponents of this substitute would make us think that stem cell 
research would be entirely restricted. As a scientist, successful 
alternatives such as adult stem cell research and umbilical cord stem 
cell research have already been used successfully in human trials. We 
must prohibit both human somatic nuclear transfer and research cloning.
  The country is looking for us for leadership on this very important 
issue. Anything short of a complete prohibition is unacceptable. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the substitute and for H.R. 534.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has led efforts to promote science in 
this regard.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534 
and in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute. H.R. 534 squashes 
the hopes of parents and their families who wake up every day hoping 
cures to the ailments for which they suffer will have been found.
  I speak for Teresa, a mom from my district who urged me to support 
ongoing somatic cell nuclear transfer research. She told me about her 
13-year-old son, Andrew, with type I diabetes who has to check his 
blood sugar level and inject himself with insulin repeatedly throughout 
the day and night. ``Even with the most vigilant care, he is bound to 
suffer traumatic complications from this horrible disease. No child 
should have to deal with a condition like this.''
  I speak for my dear friend, Bonnie Wilson, and her daughter, 
Jennifer, who also lives every day with juvenile diabetes.
  Fortunately, doctors are learning more every day about how to treat 
and eventually cure diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Yet, H.R. 534 aims to 
take away these research opportunities, and in the end, take hope from 
Teresa and Andrew, Bonnie and Jennifer.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address some comments made earlier 
in the debate where a vote for this bill was characterized as 
eliminating the only hope for the suffering and the dying. I just hope 
that that is an insensitive representation, and not based on a true 
understanding of the issue.
  By voting for this bill, Members are not casting themselves as 
scientific Luddites nor moral zealots; they are merely saying there are 
alternatives that are existent in the current scientific community that 
are relevant to developing the cures and promises that have been held 
out by that of embryonic research but not yet fulfilled.
  Much of the limitations on embryonic research's success has come from 
the results of cellular meiosis. When the cell has divided, those 
genetic defaults it would sometimes trigger that were developed to 
terminate are artificially preserved, thereby limiting the 
effectiveness of the embryonic cell line, which has been touted as the 
only hope for medical survivability.
  Other than that, placental embryonic and cord blood research has 
moved far beyond clinical research, and in fact now there is a 
corporation within my own district that is in the process of marketing 
products. For example, a corneal implant used after surgery produced 
from stem cells, put over the surgical incision, does not have to be 
removed because it is incorporated into the body. Stem cells from 
placental research inserted after a myocardial infarction has provided 
100 percent recovery of heart function. The list goes on and on and on.
  By voting for this bill, Members are not religious zealots, not 
scientific Luddites, but they are merely saying that the issue of 
cloning is entirely different from stem cell research. There are 
avenues highly successful, highly provable, and I can take anyone who 
cares to see it to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and walk through the halls 
of this facility where this research has moved beyond where human 
suffering has been responded to and addressed,

[[Page 4700]]

and offers the hope and promise that all of us seek with the passage of 
this bill.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, today we live in an age of exploding technological 
advances. Many of these new technologies offer the potential to improve 
the lives of people in the United States and around the world.
  But, Mr. Chairman, some of this new technology also has the potential 
to do great harm to our people and to our environment. All too often, 
these dangers are magnified because the owners of technology are 
primarily interested in how much money they can make, rather than the 
betterment of society.
  We have seen this in the area of genetically modified organisms that 
are finding their way into our food supply in the U.S. The legislation 
we are considering today concerns an even more important issue; namely, 
the cloning of human life itself. While I support stem cell research, 
the cloning of a human being for any purpose raises the deepest and 
most profound ethical and moral questions: questions about the sanctity 
or the uniqueness of each human person; questions about the evil of 
eugenics and genetic engineering in humans; and, equally important, 
questions about the ownership and use of cloned humans by an 
unregulated corporate biotechnology industry motivated almost 
exclusively by their quest for venture capital, short-term profits, and 
higher stock prices.
  The speed with which human cloning technology has developed thus far 
has far outpaced our abilities as a society to wrestle with these 
questions.
  Mr. Chairman, technology should not drive ethics and morality in this 
country and on this planet; ethics and morality should frame the 
acceptable limits of our use of technology. That is why I strongly 
support H.R. 534, which would ban all human cloning.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are few decisions more difficult than the one we 
are making today. If it were simply a debate about human cloning, I 
doubt that we would have one vote for it. I think the vote would be 435 
to zero.
  I think we are all troubled by the recent media reports by the 
Raelians about attempting to clone a human being. Human cloning is a 
horrifying practice that should be banned, and people like the Raelians 
should be stopped.
  But this legislation is more than human cloning. There is an exciting 
field of research known as therapeutic cloning that can potentially 
cure diseases and conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
spinal cord injuries, organ failure, Alzheimer's, and other life-
threatening illnesses. Who of us has not had a constituent or family 
member touched by one of these illnesses so that we would be willing to 
do whatever research possible to end their suffering?
  We have heard amazing testimony from scientific experts who have made 
a compelling case for therapeutic cloning. They tell me that 
individuals currently receiving organ transplants may endure toxic 
immunosuppressive drugs in order to stay alive; but by cloning tissues 
and organs, nerve cells and other cells, we can provide a genetic 
duplicate that the body would not reject. If this technology is 
developed, we could cure any disease that involves the damage or 
deterioration of tissues and cells. There are very few diseases that do 
not fall in this category. This is the most promising approach for 
millions of Americans whose suffering could end if therapeutic cloning 
is allowed. That is why I support the Greenwood substitute.
  Many oppose cloning because they believe it is not allowed in their 
religious beliefs. The Greenwood substitute prohibits human cloning but 
it allows for our God-given intelligence to make our world a healthier 
and safer and less painful place.
  As Christians, I hope that is our mission and our prayer, to 
eliminate human suffering. That is why I hope my colleagues will join 
me in supporting the Greenwood substitute and give hope to these 
individuals.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this bill. We have taken a 
consensus and we all agree that human cloning should be outlawed and 
warped it into a vehicle to impose one religious viewpoint on the 
scientists of this country. Not only is this wrong, but it will force 
scientists to flee our shores, will bring down the veil of ignorance to 
our country, and will remove us as having the leading scientific edge 
in the world for this biotechnology research.
  I urge all Members to vote no.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, during this general debate we have 
heard from the opponents of this legislation that scientific research 
would come to a screeching halt if a ban on cloning of human embryos is 
enacted. There would be no more stem cell research, there would be no 
in vitro fertilization, and on and on and on.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill itself in section 
302(d) says, and I quote, ``Nothing in this section restricts areas of 
scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, 
including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning 
techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, 
tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.''
  What this section says is that all of this type of scientific 
research that is going on now will be able to continue as long as 
cloned human embryos are not used. That is a big difference. If a 
scientist wants to create human embryos and peddle them around the 
world and around this country to make a profit, that will be 
prohibited. But if a scientist wants to do scientific research, 
including stem cell research, on material other than cloned human 
embryos, which include adult stem cells, then that will be able to 
continue to proceed.
  This bill draws a line, a very reasonable line, between science and 
ethics. That reasonable line is whether a cloned human embryo is used. 
Should a cloned human embryo be created and used, yes, this bill 
criminalizes it, as it should; but if the research uses any other 
material besides cloned human embryos, the criminal penalties of this 
bill do not apply, and that research will be able to proceed.
  I would hope that the Members of this House will listen to the fine 
points of this debate and ignore allegations that have been made that 
are not contained in the bill, and pass it.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I, like most Americans, am strongly opposed 
to human cloning. It is wrong to try to duplicate human beings. But it 
is important, as we ban human cloning, that we do not prevent 
legitimate scientific research into life-saving therapies that can mean 
so much to human life. All of us have friends who suffer from 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's, heart disease, liver 
failure, end-stage renal disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, 
burns, multiple sclerosis, brain damage, Lou Gehrig's disease and 
lupus. Americans who suffer from these diseases should not be told that 
Congress has stopped the search for a cure for their diseases, and that 
they will have to move to another country to have any hope.
  One of the great achievements of Congress in the last several years 
has been to boost NIH funding to accelerate the discovery of cures for 
many of these dread diseases. It would be a mistake to put NIH and 
other leading research institutions in a legal straight-jacket that 
prevented legitimate research.
  Unfortunately, although the Weldon bill commendably bans human 
cloning, it also cripples scientific research into potentially-life 
saving therapies. That is why I am supporting the Greenwood bill, which 
bans human cloning

[[Page 4701]]

without harming other scientific research. The Greenwood bill actually 
has tougher punishments for those who violate its provisions than the 
Weldon bill does.
  There is considerable confusion surrounding this debate. I have been 
listening to many people with differing points of view, and read many 
articles concerning the bills. One particularly touching conversation 
was with a father whose own son has Type I diabetes, and whose 
opposition to the human cloning and any related technology is so strong 
that he is willing to forego research that could even save his own 
son's life. For Middle Tennesseans, the debate is more confused because 
Senator Bill Frist, M.D., has surprised the scientific community by 
supporting the Weldon bill. It is interesting to note, however, that 
Vanderbilt University, the institution where Dr. Frist worked before 
entering politics, opposes the Weldon bill and supported the Greenwood 
bill. The head of Princeton University, where Dr. Frist received his 
training in pre-medical studies, also opposes the Weldon bill and 
supports the Greenwood bill.
  Having studied this issue closely, I think that the Greenwood bill 
hits the target of banning human cloning, without harmful side-effects. 
In past congressional debates, such as over research on DNA, Congress 
was tempted to pass an overly broad ban, but, fortunately resisted such 
temptation. Congress has another such opportunity today: to pass 
legislation that achieves the objective of banning human cloning, with 
out harming the health care of our people.
  Finally, it was unfair to the Republican majority to require a vote 
on this bill without having held any committee hearings or received any 
testimony on it in this Congress. While it was considered in the 
previous Congress, there are many new members who do not have the 
benefit of those hearings, and even older member lack of updated 
information that is available from the scientific community. It is a 
serious mistake for Congress to rush complex legislation through 
without any hearings and with minimal debate, especially when it could 
have such a profound impact on the health of the American people.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534, 
and in support of the Greenwood substitute.
  Two years have passed since the House last considered this complex 
issue. And in that time, scientists and physicians around the world 
have made incredible strides in their efforts to understand and cure 
diseases like Alzheimers, diabetes, and cancer. The work our scientists 
are doing is truly remarkable and it holds the potential to alleviate 
human suffering around the globe. Today, we are considering a bill, 
which will leave our sickest patients hopeless at the expense of 
politics.
  I oppose reproductive human cloning because it is morally wrong. But, 
H.R. 534 goes too far. The Weldon bill would stop all research 
initiatives that rely on somatic nuclear cell transfers, just as we are 
realizing to enormous benefits of this biomedical research. The 
Greenwood substitute, in contrast, bans reproductive cloning while 
allowing this critical research to continue.
  As a representative of the Research Triangle Region of North 
Carolina, I understand the importance of the research our scientists 
are conducting. It has the potential to save the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of people who suffer from a number of debilitating diseases.
  The implications of passing H.R. 534 reach far beyond the highly 
emotional and contentious debate of whether or not the creation of an 
embryo to be used in medical research constitutes human life. This bill 
criminalizes medical research that might be the only chance for a cure 
for many terrible diseases. While the promise of this biomedical 
research remains years away from being perfected and utilized, the 
Greenwood substitute allows us to hold on to the hope that we may one 
day find a cure for leukemia, heart disease, Parkinson's, spinal cord 
injuries, and a host of other illnesses.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534 and vote for the Greenwood 
substitute.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 534, the 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. Human cloning is accomplished by 
a technique called ``somatic cell nuclear transfer.'' One takes the 
nucleus from a body (somatic) cell and transfers it into a female egg 
which has its nuclear material removed. Using an electric current or 
chemical stimulus, the cloned embryo beings to divide as does a 
fertilized embryo. Thus, the product of human cloning would be a human 
embryo, regardless of how the embryo will be used.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to human cloning for a variety of reasons. 
When animals are cloned, 95-98 percent of the attempts end in failure, 
and those that are successful have genetic abnormalities. Most 
scientists will agree that human cloning poses a serious risk of 
producing children who are stillborn, unhealthy, severely malformed or 
disabled. Many opponents of this bill think the cloned embryos will 
produce stem cells that can be used to cure a variety of ailments. 
However, there are no models in animal cloning in which scientists 
derived stem cells to cure the animals. The prospect of creating 
clinical treatments from stem cells derived from cloned embryos is 
completely speculative.
  The attempt to perfect human cloning despite the high risks of injury 
would constitute a violation of the fundamental principle of all human 
research: DO NO HARM. To proceed on the basis that the eventual 
benefits may outweigh the probable harms to woman and child is akin to 
the Nazi experiments at Nuremberg. Efforts to create human beings by 
cloning shift human reproduction into a manufacturing process in which 
children are made in laboratories to preordained specifications and in 
multiple copies.
  Human cloning also poses a significant risk to women's health. In 
order to create human embryos, great quantities of women's eggs will be 
needed. To obtain eggs, women will be injected with supervulatory drugs 
and then will undergo an invasive procedure. The risks of this 
procedure are just starting to be documented. The side effects from 
these injections are known to be abdominal pain and nausea, in three to 
five percent of cases of hyperstimulation of the ovaries occurs, 
causing severe abdominal pain, and on rare occasions surgery is 
required which may leave the woman infertile.
  Women of lower economic means are particular targets for 
exploitation. Women may be paid to donate their eggs for failed human 
cloning experiments. But it will not just be a few women who will be 
needed. In order to generate enough cloned embryos to carry out 
research on the scale that is envisioned, thousands of eggs will need 
to be solicited from numerous women. Just to treat 16 million 
Parkinson's patients, it is estimated that a minimum of 800 million 
human eggs would be needed from a minimum of 80 million of childbearing 
age.
  I strongly support the development of cell and tissue-based therapies 
based on research involving the tissue based on research involving the 
cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human 
embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans. 
Already, these scientific methods have enabled researchers to develop 
innovative drugs to treat diseases such as breast cancer, and aid in 
treatment techniques for injuries, such as cloning skin cells for skin 
grafts. The bill I support restricts the use of cloning technology only 
on human embryos.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that human life at every stage of biological 
development is deserving of respect and protection, regardless of the 
circumstances under which that human life was created. That is why I am 
supporting H.R. 534 and will oppose Mr. Greenwood's substitute 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 
534. This legislation involves an important public policy matter and 
what many would call cutting edge scientific issue: human cloning.
  We have not held hearings in which we discussed the ethics of cloning 
and legislation proposals to impose federal control on the cloning 
process. Yet, today we will vote on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act 
of 2003, H.R. 534.
  We all recognize that cloning is a fascinating and promising issue 
but is certainly an area that needs to be fully explored. We must 
carefully balance society's need for lifesaving scientific research 
against numerous moral, ethical, social and scientific issues. 
Reproductive cloning is almost universally opposed in Congress and the 
majority of Americans are not comfortable with the prospect of a human 
clone.
  In our rush to ban reproductive cloning, there are some in Congress 
who want to close the door on this new research technology, which may 
provide critical medical advances. And, one of these innovative areas 
is the promise of stem cell research. Stem cell research has the 
potential to cure some of the most painful and deadly diseases 
afflicting our population.
  H.R. 534 would make it next to impossible to use stem cell lines to 
research diseases which are more prevalent in people of particular 
racial or ethnic groups, for example, diseases such as sickle cell 
which afflict African-Americans, thalassemia which disproportionately 
affects Asian-Americans, or Tay-Sachs which is prevalent in the Jewish 
population.
  After Congress considered this issue in the 107th Congress, President 
Bush issued an order limiting stem cell research to the approximately 
seventy stem cell lines existing as of August 9, 2001. A recent 
Institute of Medicine study explained that because the cell

[[Page 4702]]

lines available to researchers are limited, they do not represent the 
genetic diversity of the general population nor do they represent the 
diversity of our population.
  Diseases that plague minority populations are almost certainly not 
represented in the 64 approved stem cell lines. On the uses of stem 
cells, the National Institutes of Health described their medical 
potential as enormous.
  The legislation before us is so sweeping that it would not only ban 
reproductive cloning but all uses of nuclear transfer--also known as 
therapeutic cloning--for research or medical treatment.
  H.R. 534 goes beyond banning reproductive cloning to banning research 
in somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is that the bill would cut 
off scientific developments that are granting hope to millions of 
Americans who have been told there is no cure for their diseases.
  I would note that the legislation's supporters would have us believe 
that H.R. 534 has nothing to do with stem cell research and would not 
disrupt scientific advances being made in this important and much-
discussed area. I disagree with this argument.
  I strongly believe that we should provide an exemption for embryonic 
cloning for the purpose of creating a genetically diverse stem cell 
line.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, cloning for the purpose of reproduction 
is wrong, and I am confident my colleagues agree. I am supporting a 
proposal, offered as an amendment to H.R. 534, which clearly outlaws 
human reproductive cloning while not closing the door on future 
advancements in scientific research which have the potential to find 
cures for degenerative and life threatening diseases. This research is 
critical to advancing therapies and cures for diseases such as 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes, as well as conditions resulting 
from spinal and head injuries.
  Most egregious, the underlying bill will halt important research on 
cures for these diseases, which kill over 3,000 Americans each year. 
The bill goes so far as to even bar the importation of overseas medical 
treatments developed using cell cloning techniques. Just because this 
type of scientific research does not fit the ultra-conservative views 
of some members of this body is no reason to withhold potentially life-
saving treatments from millions of Americans suffering from 
debilitating and life threatening diseases. These citizens and their 
families deserve better.
  This bill is a misplaced application of religious doctrine, imposing 
a narrowly held view of science and law on America. We can and should 
provide guidelines that prevent reckless experimentation on the 
development of humans and prohibit cloning for purposes of human 
reproduction, but Congress should not overreach in this area.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I had been present, I 
would have voted no on final passage and yes on the Democratic 
substitute. I needed to return to my district earlier than planned 
because of an urgent matter and because of the weather emergency.
  I believe that this measure is simply going too far since it bans all 
human cloning. This would lead to a terrible stifling of important 
scientific research that could potentially have been conducted to save 
the lives of countless human beings who suffer from degenerative and 
life-threatening illness.
  The bill is so extensive that it would not only ban reproductive 
cloning but also therapeutic cloning for research or medical treatment. 
Moreover, it would impede research that is designed to help those who 
suffer from a variety of disease such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, 
Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries.
  The bill would make it nearly impossible for our country to benefit 
from ongoing stem-cell research. Many people I have spoken with that 
are informed on this subject argue that the technology banned by this 
bill is vital to any breakthrough in the use of these ``master'' stem 
cells. Enactment of this legislation would stop stem cell research in 
its tracks and deny Americans the benefit of research that the National 
Institutes of Health has described as having ``enormous'' medical 
potential in the treatment of any number of life-threatening diseases 
and conditions.
  Additonally, I believe that those who oppose stem cell research on 
ethical grounds are simply misunderstanding the issue. Currently, there 
are tens of thousands of frozen embryos already in fertility clinics 
around the nation, which, if not used for research, will merely be 
destroyed. These are cells that are not yet specialized to perform a 
specific task, but can take on the character of virtually any cell in 
the body. Numerous studies demonstrate that these cells may be capable 
of repairing what goes wrong with other cells, and therefore hold the 
cure to many horrible diseases and conditions that attack the human 
body on the cellular level.
  In my view, not to take advantage of this research by yielding to the 
excessive influence of our country's powerful conservative activists 
would be a terrible mistake. I also do not believe that an all out ban 
on human cloning needs to include a ban on nuclear transfer research. 
The former brings a new child into the world; the latter is concerned 
only with the study of embryonic development and curing disease. In a 
word, this bill would prevent vital research from taking place.
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
explain why I am voting against the Human Cloning Prohibition Act 
today.
  I call to mind a previous case that I think closely resembles today's 
actions by this body. I refer to a trial that took place almost 400 
years ago; the heresy trial of Galileo in 1633.
  Galileo was a scientist who studied the mysteries of the physical 
world--he dared to explore that which we did not understand. 
Unfortunately, the political leaders at the time were afraid, and 
justifiably so. They said that his ideas threatened their religious 
beliefs, they were afraid of where the research would lead. They were 
right to be afraid--they were wrong to take the actions they did as a 
result.
  Galileo's persecutors concluded that his research was immoral, and 
after his heresy trial he spent the rest of his life under house 
arrest. It was not until 1992 that the church lifted its edict of 
inquisition against him.
  Galileo himself saw no conflict between science and religion. When 
asked about his research, he said that ``Holy Scripture and Nature are 
both emanation from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy 
Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God's commands.' And he 
died a devout Catholic.
  Like the Roman Catholic Church in Galileo's time, I am scared. I am 
afraid of where cloning research may lead. I am afraid of its 
applicability in the wrong hands. But I refuse to be a part of a heresy 
trial today.
  This bill would make it a crime for scientists to pursue reasonable 
research, inspired by noble goals and performed by decent people.
  Supporters of this misinformed bill argue that this research should 
not be pursued. One of the reasons they gave is that there is no 
evidence that the research will work as intended. I submit that that is 
exactly why it should be pursued. After all, that is the point of 
research--to try to understand those things which we do not yet 
understand.
  I believe that we have some of the greatest minds of our time trying 
to find cures for the dozens of diseases that plague us--young and 
sold, rich and poor alike. I am unwilling to take away any of their 
tools out of fear.
  I am unwilling to persecute Galileo. My faith in God is strong and, 
perhaps, just as Galileo's research is not described by religious 
scholars as ``opening up new windows upon the wonders of God's 
creation,'' this research may one day be universally acclaimed--both 
for its ability to cure diseases as well as the insight it lends us to 
God's creation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I believe that human cloning 
is dangerous, unethical and needs to be prohibited. The recent reports 
surrounding Clonaid's supposed first successful human baby cloning, 
though thus far unverified, provides further impetus for the need to 
enact a prohibition of this practice. As such, I strongly support 
banning the practice of reproductive cloning, which is the replication 
of an individual's genetic material in a new individual.
  However, as strong as my opposition is to the process of reproductive 
cloning, my support for continued stem cell research to develop cures 
for debilitating diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and others, is 
equally strong. The process of therapeutic cloning, also known as 
somatic cell nuclear transfer, is the transplantation of a patient's 
own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells. 
Therapeutic cloning does not in any way lead to the creation of viable 
human life. However, it does allow for continued research in the area 
of stem cells.
  Unfortunately as a result of overly broad cloning prohibition 
language in H.R. 534, the scientific process of therapeutic cloning is 
also prohibited along with reproductive cloning. Also, as my colleague 
Mr. Conyers has recently pointed out, H.R. 534 also bans the 
importation of lifesaving medicines from other countries if their 
production is in anyway derived from nuclear transfer. Because of these 
considerations, I will be voting against H.R. 534.
  I do, however, strongly support the substitute measure being offered 
by Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Deutsch, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Eshoo, and Mr. Kirk. 
This measure also bans the process of reproductive cloning, but allows 
continued stem cell research, which has shown great promise towards 
finding cures for

[[Page 4703]]

many illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, blindness and sickle cell anemia.
  Forty Nobel Laureates, millions of patients, former first-lady Nancy 
Reagan who's husband, as we all know, suffers from Alzheimer's disease, 
and others, have expressed support for therapeutic cloning. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of the Greenwood substitute and in 
support of banning the unethical process of human cloning, but at the 
same time allowing further research into a promising field that could 
benefit millions of men, women, and children who suffer from 
devastating diseases.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, in our rush to ban human reproductive 
cloning, we are at risk of also banning the most promising and exciting 
area of biomedical research in the past thirty years. If passed into 
law, the overly-broad Human Cloning Prohibition Act would ban not only 
human cloning but also a laboratory technique that may enable 
scientists to understand the genetic causes of diseases such as cancer 
and develop therapies for diseases and disabilities such as diabetes, 
Parkinson's Disease, and spinal cord injuries.
  No responsible person, patient advocate or scientist supports the 
cloning of human beings. Human reproductive cloning is unethical, 
should be prohibited, and should be punishable under federal law.
  But in banning human cloning, we should not ban a laboratory 
technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which can be used to 
derive human embryonic stem cells. With such stem cells, our scientists 
will gain fundamental insights into cell biology that will lead to new 
treatments and cures for a host of diseases and disabilities.
  Prohibiting this basic scientific technique will severely hinder U.S. 
research. Our scientists have achieved an unparalleled record of 
accomplishment by employing new technologies to benefit humankind. New 
innovations in scientific discovery have historically been 
controversial, but they have proven to save lives and help manage 
devastating diseases. An example is the use of recombinant DNA 
technology, which provoked considerable alarm and debate in the 1970's, 
and has since become the foundation of modern biomedical research and 
our biotechnology industry.
  In his speech memorializing the crew of the space shuttle Columbia, 
President Bush said. ``This cause of exploration and discovery is not 
an option we choose; it is a desire written in the human heart. We are 
that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation.''
  Mr. Chairman, we should be encouraging our scientists to respond to 
that desire which is written in their hearts: understanding and ending 
the suffering of their fellow human beings. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the substitute offered by Mr. Greenwood and, if it 
fails, against the underlying bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, February 27, the House will 
take up the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), a 
bill to prohibit the creation of human embryos by cloning.
  This is the same bill that the House debated on July 31, 2001. On 
that occasion, our colleague Mr. Greenwood offered a substitute 
amendment that would have permitted the human cloning (the cloning of 
human embryos), but attempted to prohibit initiating a pregnancy by 
implanting such a cloned human embryo in a womb. The House decisively 
rejected the Greenwood Substitute, and then adopted the Weldon-Stupak 
bill overwhelmingly, 265-162. Although 64 members of the Democratic 
caucus voted to pass the Weldon-Stupak bill, to our disappointment, 
Democratic Leader Gephardt voted in opposition.
  However, it is noteworthy that when Mr. Gephardt appeared on NBC's 
Meet the Press less than three weeks later, on August 19, 2001, he 
appeared to have had a change of heart. Although host Tim Russert did 
not ask about cloning, Mr. Gephardt volunteered this remarkable 
statement: ``Obviously, we don't want cloning. . . . We passed a law 
saying no cloning and I think that's the law that we ought to follow.''
  The only bill that had been passed pertaining to cloning, of course, 
was the Weldon-Stupak bill (the House had emphatically rejected the 
pro-cloning Greenwood Substitute). It seemed that Mr. Gephardt was 
taking credit for what the House had done, even though he had voted 
against it just three weeks earlier. But be that as it may, we 
certainly agree with Mr. Gephardt's conclusion that the ban that the 
House passed (the Weldon-Stupak bill) is indeed ``the law that we ought 
to follow.''
  We urge you to oppose the Greenwood Substitute, which would permit 
what President Bush called cloned human ``embryo farms,'' and to 
support the Weldon-Stupak bill, the only bill that would really say 
``no cloning.''
  The complete transcript of the exchange between Mr. Russert and Mr. 
Gephardt follows.

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

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

                                             Congress of the U.S.,


                                     House of Representatives,

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

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I believe that all embryonic 
cloning, whether therapeutic or reproductive, violates moral and 
rational bounds.
  First, embryonic cloning is unproven. Not a single case of embryonic 
cloning in animals has resulted in successful treatment of any disease. 
Furthermore, animals created through embryonic cloning have developed 
unnaturally and suffered numerous genetic defects.
  Second, embryonic cloning is immoral. Every cloned embryo is capable 
of developing into an adult. The Greenwood amendment proposes the 
artificial creation of life and subsequent destruction thereof. This 
cannot be tolerated.
  Finally, even in the most conservative of estimates, hundreds of 
millions of human eggs would be needed for human cloning. Women, 
especially the under-privileged, would be exploited for the sale of 
their eggs. We cannot allow human eggs to become a commodity.
  We must ban all embryonic cloning. I urge my colleagues to support 
the resolution.

[[Page 4704]]


  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following 
information from National Right-to-Life:

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


                       president bush's position

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


                       the situation in congress

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


                        misconceptions and facts

       MISCONCEPTION: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak 
     legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the 
     Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.''
       REALITY: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the 
     Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in 
     the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``the use of nuclear 
     transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, 
     DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, 
     or animals other than humans.'' [Sec. 2 of the bill, at (d) 
     in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface added for 
     emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to ``clone'' new 
     skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are perfectly okay 
     under the Brownback-Landrieu bill. Moreover, any cloning 
     method that would produce stem cells without first producing 
     and killing a human embryo--as some researchers have claimed 
     that they eventually will be able to do--is explicitly 
     permitted by this language. In addition, the Brownback-
     Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills place no restrictions on 
     research of any kind on human ova (``eggs'').
       In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-
     Feinstein legislation are alike in that they would both 
     permit cloning involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but 
     they differ on one proground issue: The Hatch-Feinstein/
     Greenwood proposals would allow the use of the somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone human embryos, and 
     the Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT 
     to clone human embryos.
       Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about 
     ``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the 
     argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to 
     clone human embryos.
       MISCONCEPTION: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not 
     involve creating human embryos.
       FACT: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a 
     developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something 
     that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in 
     2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to 
     obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who 
     clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the 
     bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the 
     embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning 
     researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts. 
     Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current 
     disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/
Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html
       To cite just one example here, a group of scientists, 
     ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called 
     ``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for 
     research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, 
     Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth 
     University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli 
     of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000 
     issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 
     ``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another 
     term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate 
     creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also 
     wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the 
     creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage 
     embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.''
       In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's 
     Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy 
     recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations 
     regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial 
     public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful 
     SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The 
     product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone, 
     genetically virtually identical to the individual that was 
     the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic 
     clone of the donor.''
       The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for 
     biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to 
     distinguish between two of the purposes for which human 
     embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and 
     ``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The 
     Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is 
     here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html
       The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because 
     whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing 
     embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic 
     cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been 
     demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as 
     discussed below), and the process is certainly not 
     ``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which 
     is what the argument is about.
       MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow 
     research on only ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.''
       REALITY: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology 
     text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg'' 
     is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very 
     unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23 
     chromosomes. An ovum has no sex.
       As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from 
     any species that is activated (whether by sexual 
     fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer, 
     SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of 
     that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no 
     such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg'' 
     or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or 
     female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred 
     cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of 
     cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old 
     human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public 
     regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit 
     that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists 
     should enlist.
       The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term 
     ``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But

[[Page 4705]]

     ``blastocyst'' is simply a technical term for an embryo at an 
     early stage of development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is 
     just another word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course 
     human embryos produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' 
     because that is what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no 
     sperm. Every cloned mammal in the world was unfertilized from 
     the one-celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be 
     unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo created 
     by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted in a womb, 
     is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still be 
     unfertilized.
       MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise 
     that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning 
     ``reproductive cloning.''
       REALITY: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the 
     Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most 
     Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It 
     will not become law. But that does not bother many of its 
     backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because 
     the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede 
     enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing 
     political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation 
     of human embryos for research.
       Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology 
     industry lobby and its allies, the policy the Hatch-Feinstein 
     bill or the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is 
     far from a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the 
     substantial majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in 
     May 2002 found that 61% of the American people opposed 
     ``cloning of human embryos for use in medical research'' (34% 
     approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill 
     is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls, 
     substantially higher numbers are opposed when it explained 
     that the human embryos will die in the research.
       The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a 
     middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction. 
     The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the 
     establishment of human embryo farms.
       The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been 
     emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the 
     House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to 
     Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a 
     presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not 
     believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be 
     treated differently, given that they both require the 
     creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . . 
     . the Administration could not support any measure that 
     purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing 
     research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that 
     he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/
ThompsontoBrownback.pdf)
       The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement 
     agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on 
     implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the 
     Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The 
     Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human 
     embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent 
     some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no remedy to 
     apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted here: 
     www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf
       MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human 
     cloning'' or ``ban the cloning of human beings.''
       REALITY: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human 
     cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a 
     uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter 
     term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are 
     attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing 
     a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized 
     blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (not counting 
     time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject 
     to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in 
     the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being 
     applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned 
     human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to 
     procure an abortion.
       In other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but 
     the survival of human clones, which is a very different 
     thing.
       Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,'' 
     because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the 
     species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo 
     sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later 
     born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always 
     a member of the species Ovis aries).
       As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a 
     ``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want 
     to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement 
     that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human 
     beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it 
     amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the 
     species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (If not, what 
     species of being is it?)
       It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize 
     cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22 
     statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to 
     ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy 
     life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a 
     cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added]
       The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a 
     cloned human being is born, she should have the same status 
     as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently 
     are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002, 
     Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the 
     Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are 
     busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the 
     Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human 
     being would even be the correct term for such an individual 
     heretofore unknown in nature.''
       As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing 
     Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/), 
     ``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her--
     won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to 
     humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will 
     never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and 
     walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/
arecloneshuman.html)
       MISCONCEPTION: Those who favor cloning for research would 
     never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age.
       REALITY: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to 
     establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones, 
     there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology 
     industry would support such a limitation in a bill it 
     actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers 
     are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones.
       For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to 
     giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned 
     humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development, 
     even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long 
     as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB 
     1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on 
     Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the 
     bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/
document/document020303c.asp)
       Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from 
     cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and 
     from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were 
     widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so-
     called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the 
     only two animal studies that have claimed to show 
     ``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, every once in a while, an issue comes along 
that makes so much sense and has so much support, it clearly must be 
good public policy. The issue before us today, a full and complete ban 
on cloning, is just such an issue.
  The American people overwhelmingly support banning cloning, a 
majority of this House has voted in the past to fully ban cloning, the 
Administration supports this ban, and importantly scientists and 
doctors and other medical professionals support this ban on cloning.
  So what's the hold up?
  A lot has been and will be said about ``research cloning'' or 
``therapeutic cloning''--but despite all of the semantics and wordplay 
the other side uses, the reality remains that this procedure is one 
that simply horrifies most Americans. The repercussions if we do not 
act today are grave.
  What we're debating here is the value of human life, pure and simple. 
If you want to reduce human life to merely clinical terms, research 
elements and other antiseptic talk, then you can vote that way today. 
But if you are as horrified I am, as the American people are, and the 
medical community is, by the ghastly possibilities that cloning offers 
us, then you should support this legislation and a complete, full, and 
real ban on cloning.
  I commend the gentlemen from Florida (Dave Weldon) and Michigan 
(Stupak) for their work, and strongly encourage all of my colleagues to 
support the passage of this important bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, these words are from Frederic Bastiat's The 
Law. They are prophetic, not only in the way they describe legislators' 
attempts to transform society through socialized economic planning, but 
also in the analogy to the current moral issue before us today: human 
cloning.
  Human life begins at conception. This fact is not a matter of faith. 
Every contemporary textbook of human embryology teaches that the life 
of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. When an 
embryo is cloned, a distinct human being is created: if implanted into 
a woman's uterus, he or she grows into a human being. Those who deny 
the humanity of the ``embryo'' simply deny the facts.
  Today we see another instance of the legislator playing God, viewing 
himself as Bastiat's farmer or chemist. But human embryos are not just 
some ``seeds'' for the ``farmers'' to scatter! I ask those of you 
wishing to use taxpayer dollars to fund human cloning: Were

[[Page 4706]]

you not once at this very stage of life? Is not each of you a developed 
embryo? And to those who view cloning and the accompanying destruction 
of humans at the embryonic stage of life as morally acceptable, I ask 
this, Are you aware that it took 277 attempts to clone Dolly the sheep, 
and when she finally was born, she was defective and died soon after? 
We must shudder to think of what this kind of experimentation implies 
for humans. Many ignore that a human is not cloned by simply waving a 
magic wand--rather, embryos are experimented upon and then discarded 
before a human is created via cloning. Many pro-lifers mistakenly 
attack the act of cloning, when what they should address is the 
discarding of humans at the embryonic stage of development that 
precedes the act of cloning.
  Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent 
human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well 
intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to 
create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction 
of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the 
states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that 
protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional 
amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it 
would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the 
letter of the law.
  In Congress we can either pass an unconstitutional ban on cloning, or 
we can abide by the law and not pass the ban, as bureaucrats continue 
to have control over human cloning and use of taxpayer funds to destroy 
human life. These bureaucrats seem to have no difficulty violating the 
consciences of those who recognize cloning experimentation for what it 
is. What is to be done? I fear the answer to this question, and its 
implications, will continue to haunt us in the months and years to 
come, whether or not this federal ban on human cloning passes. Mr. 
Chairman, when we last considered this issue I placed the following 
statement in the Record and wish to do so once again.

       Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we're being asked to choose 
     between two options dealing with the controversies 
     surrounding cloning and stem cell research. As an 
     obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with 
     strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem 
     cell research and human cloning offtrack, dangerous, and 
     missing some very important points. This debate is one of the 
     most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, 
     religious, legal, and ethical overtones. However, this debate 
     is as 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 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. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 534, the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. Like most Americans, I believe 
reproductive cloning of human beings ought to be criminalized. I 
support outlawing this practice, which is one of the provisions of this 
legislation. But, I cannot support this bill because it would also 
severely limit the ability of scientists to conduct advanced cell 
research and develop life-saving therapies that could benefit millions 
of Americans.
  H.R. 534's overly broad language would needlessly outlaw an important 
form of advanced cell research, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. 
This research holds great promise to radically improve the health of 
Americans. This laboratory procedure allows for the development and 
harvesting of embryonic stem cells that can potentially repair damaged 
organs and tissues. If the donor material

[[Page 4707]]

of this procedure is from the patient, the stem cells would be 
genetically identical to the patient and thus avoid the problem of 
immune system rejection that is present with conventional treatments. 
According to the National Institutes of Health, this technology has 
``enormous'' medical potential to treat conditions as varied as 
Parkinson's disease, chronic heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, 
diabetes and spinal injuries.
  Unfortunately, this bill's broad language also makes illegal the 
importation of any therapies developed in other countries that employ 
this advanced cell research technology. This ban against importation 
will further deprive our Nation's patients of treatments that could 
save their lives.
  Support for the continuation of advanced cell research has been 
expressed by countless teaching and research institutions, scientists, 
and patient advocate groups. Opponents of this research are quick to 
offer scenarios of doom and gloom if we allow this research to 
continue. Yet, this same group of religious zealots and hapless 
naysayers made similar predictions with the development of such 
biological advances as in-vitro fertilization and recombinant DNA. The 
only ``horrors'' that have occurred from fostering that biological 
research has been allowing more than 16,000 otherwise infertile couples 
to experience the joys of childbirth and parenthood and the development 
of an improved form of insulin for the treatment of diabetes.
  While I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534, I also 
encourage support of the Greenwood/Deutsch substitute bill that 
prohibits the cloning of a human life, but allows for the continuation 
of advanced cell research and the unfettered availability of health-
improving products and procedures derived from this research.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, today we are having a virtually identical 
debate over the virtually identical bill we had in the 107th Congress. 
Had I not been required to travel to Oregon for official 
representational purposes, I would have voted (1) `aye' on the Scott 
amendment to provide for a GAO study to determine whether the 
prohibition on human cloning needs to be amended in the future give 
newer technologies; (2) `no' on the Stearns amendment forcing our 
moralities on other nations; (3) `aye' on the Greenwood amendment in 
the nature of a substitute; and (3) `no' on the underlying bill, H.R. 
534.
  By bringing a bill like this to the floor, the Republican majority 
has transformed what could have been a rational debate over the merits 
and limits of emerging technologies into a dogmatic infomercial for the 
radical-right.
  I've consistently opposed human cloning for reproductive purposes. 
Under current law the federal government is prohibited from funding 
research that involves human cloning. In addition, the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) has the authority under federal law to prohibit 
any attempt to clone humans for reproductive purposes and has acted to 
stop such efforts. I support the FDA's actions.
  I believe H.R. 534 goes too far. This legislation would not just ban 
reproductive cloning, it would create harsh criminal penalties that 
would significantly restrict a wide range of scientific research 
efforts in related fields.
  This legislation would specifically halt scientific efforts aimed at 
developing new treatments for those suffering from cancer, diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord and burn 
injuries. These diseases and injuries can be extremely debilitating, 
costly and dehumanizing for individuals, families and our society. I'm 
also concerned with provisions in the bill that would ban American's 
from receiving new treatments developed in other countries that have 
developed with such research.
  If this bill is passed, we're showing the world that our drive for 
innovation can be derailed by senseless hysteria. Limiting Americans 
access to new treatments and therapies based on fear and ideology is a 
backward way to legislate in the twenty-first century.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
measure. The only difference between human cloning to produce a cloned 
baby and human cloning for research is whether the cloned embryo is 
implanted in the uterus or destroyed. The scientific procedure to 
create the clone is the same.
  H.R. 534 would prevent cloned human embryos from being used as human 
guinea pigs. Without this legislation, human life could be copied, 
manufactured in a laboratory, in a petri dish, for the sole purpose of 
harvesting cells and then destroying the clone. The mass production of 
human clones solely for the purpose of human experimentation demeans us 
all.
  The simple, most effective way to stop this process is to ban it, 
deterring its use. H.R. 534 does nothing to prohibit appropriate 
scientific research. It fully permits research that clones molecules, 
or DNA, tissues, organs, plants, or non-human animals. So-called 
therapeutic cloning has not produced a single cure in animal models for 
any disease, nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials.
  In the area of human embryo cloning, the ends do not justify the 
means.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534, 
the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This legislation would ban 
reproductive human cloning and prohibit nuclear transplantation to 
produce stem cells for medical research. I am sure that most of my 
colleagues here today would agree with me and every one of my 
constituent scientists with whom I have discussed this matter that we 
do not want to allow reproductive cloning. An attempt to duplicate an 
individual human raises profound and disturbing moral and bioethical 
questions. It is unacceptable for anyone in the public or private 
sector to attempt to create a person using somatic cell nuclear 
transfer (SCNT) and I believe we must prohibit it. However, 
Representative Weldon's proposal before us today, goes too far and also 
bans SCNT for therapeutic purposes. This complete ban will close the 
door on promising publicly and privately funded research in 
regenerative medicine and will end hope for more millions of Americans 
suffering from life-threatening diseases.
  The Human Cloning Prohibition Act criminalizes the very biomedical 
research that could help researchers find cures for Alzheimer's 
disease, Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis, various cancers, strokes 
and spinal cord injuries. Furthermore, H.R. 534 will halt vital 
research in my congressional district, throughout Massachusetts and the 
Nation. A ban or a moratorium on this research will result in other 
countries taking the lead in finding cures to these diseases.
  Our colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Greenwood, has worked 
to produce what I believe to be a well-balanced, comprehensive 
alternative. The Greenwood substitute contains the same language that 
Rep. Weldon's legislation uses to ban reproductive cloning. Both ban 
scientists from using technology to produce human beings. Unlike the 
Weldon proposal, the Greenwood alternative allows strictly regulated, 
privately funded SCNT research to move forward. This legislation 
requires scientists to register with the federal government before 
conducting medical research and requires all research to be conducted 
with substantial oversight. The bill would also permit a stem cell 
technique that offers significant promise of delivering new treatments 
and cures to millions of Americans.
  I believe a ban on human cloning does not need to include a ban on 
nuclear transfer research. The National Academies and more than 40 
Noble laureates agree that this research has the potential to produce 
promising contributions to science and medicine. I urge my colleagues 
to allow this research to continue, vote no on Weldon and yes on 
Greenwood.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
534. Although I am against Human Cloning this bill does more than ban 
Human Cloning. It prevents the highest form of medical research in our 
society, therapeutic cloning. We owe it to our communities to explore 
the options of therapeutic cloning. Those who have lost relatives due 
to heart disease, brain damage due to strokes, Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, Cancer . . . we owe it to these people to at least explore 
the option of therapeutic cloning. I don't want to stop medical 
progress and the possibilities that it would allow for new treatments 
to diseases where medical progress is continuously being made. Doctors 
understand that these diseases cause damage to cells and tissues and 
that therapeutic cloning would allow them to explore the option of 
replacing these dead cells or tissues. I do not support human cloning 
for organ production. I am saying lets leave ourselves options for the 
future. Doctors are trying to find medically safe and reliable ways to 
help people with disease. I have some of the greatest doctors (at 
Cleveland Clinic, University Hospital), in the world in, my district 
working with molecules and DNA to find cures for diseases, and this 
would limit their abilities to continue to do what it is that they do 
best. Save lives.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, ninety percent of all Americans 
oppose cloning human beings. And for good reason. The American public 
recognizes that cloning raises serious ethical questions. Scientists 
have cloned monkeys, cattle, pigs, mice and other animals. Because of 
this success, there are a growing number of groups who claim they

[[Page 4708]]

can, and will, clone a human being. That prospect should worry us. 
Cloning is a manufacturing process--a scientific assembly line--devoid 
of procreation. Efforts to improve humanity should never spin out of 
control and devalue humanity, which is precisely what human cloning 
does.
  Our values of faith and family are slowly eroding. Given that fact, 
we should be mindful that there are certain ethical lines we should 
never cross. One of the dehumanizing effects of the cloning process is 
the failure rate. It is extremely high. Those in favor of cloning 
humans often downplay that it took 277 stillborn, miscarried or dead 
sheep to make one Dolly. And what happens to those who survive? 
Attempts to clone human beings could carry massive risks of producing 
unhealthy, abnormal, and malformed children.
  I favor a total ban on human cloning because if we allow cloning for 
any reason, we will be unable to control what is done with cloned 
embryos. No one is going to monitor every research laboratory. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 534. 
This bill's title claims that it is designed to prohibit human cloning. 
The reality is it will do much more: it will stifle crucial medical 
research that might someday cure diseases such as Parkinson's, 
diabetes, or Alzheimer's. None of us support human cloning. We all see 
such a step as ethically reckless and medically unsound. The cloning 
and creation of human beings should be banned. But this bill goes much 
further. It bans the practice of somatic cell nuclear, which creates 
cells, not human beings. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic 
cloning as it is also called, represents one of our most promising 
avenues of medical research.
  That is why I support the bipartisan Greenwood/Deutsch/Degette 
amendment that would outlaw human cloning for reproduction without 
outlawing medical advancements. This bipartisan alternative provides 
severe penalties, including $10 million fines, for violations of the 
human cloning ban but allows cell transfer technology to proceed. 
Through the creation of stem cells, we may be able to conquer spinal 
paralysis, heal burn victims, and cure a wide range of diseases. For 
everyone who has helplessly watched a parent succumb to the terrible 
cruelty of Alzheimer's or seen a child struggle with diabetes, somatic 
cell nuclear transfer holds out the promise of a potential cure.
  But this bill would cut off that research and criminalize those 
medical advancements. The National Academies of Science examined this 
issue and urged lawmakers to forbid human cloning but not to outlaw 
nuclear transplantation which could hold the key to treating life-
threatening diseases and injuries. As they complete their medical 
training and begin their careers as physicians, we ask our doctors to 
take Hippocratic Oath, which involves, the principle, ``first do no 
harm.'' As legislators, we should adopt a similar principle: as we 
wrestle with these complex scientific questions, let us first do no 
harm.
  This bill applies a sledge hammer when a scalpel is needed. We can 
and should outlaw human cloning without wiping out the promise of a 
cure for millions of Americans. I urge you to oppose this bill and to 
support the bipartisan Greenwood/Deutsch/Degette alternative. Thank you 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 534 is as follows:

                                H.R. 534

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

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

                      ``CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING

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

     ``Sec. 301. Definitions

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

     ``Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
     entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate 
     commerce, knowingly--
       ``(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
       ``(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human 
     cloning; or
       ``(3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced 
     by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
       ``(b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
     entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any 
     purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product 
     derived from such embryo.
       ``(c) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity that violates 
     this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
     not more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity that violates 
     any provision of this section shall be subject to, in the 
     case of a violation that involves the derivation of a 
     pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 
     and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the gross 
     gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than 
     $1,000,000.
       ``(d) Scientific Research.--Nothing in this section 
     restricts areas of scientific research not specifically 
     prohibited by this section, including research in the use of 
     nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce 
     molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, 
     organs, plants, or animals other than humans.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 15 the following:

``16. Human Cloning..........................................301''.....

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


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

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

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

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 3. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

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

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


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

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

[[Page 4709]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

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

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


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

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST HUMAN CLONING.

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

                       ``CHAPTER X--HUMAN CLONING


                  ``prohibition against human cloning

       ``Sec. 1001. (a) Nuclear Transfer Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
       ``(A) to use or attempt to use human somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer technology, or the product of such technology, to 
     initiate a pregnancy or with the intent to initiate a 
     pregnancy; or
       ``(B) to ship, mail, transport, or receive the product of 
     such technology knowing that the product is intended to be 
     used to initiate a pregnancy.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology' means 
     transferring the nuclear material of a human somatic cell 
     into an egg cell from which the nuclear material has been 
     removed or rendered inert.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be 
     construed as applying to any of the following:
       ``(1) The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology 
     to clone molecules, DNA, cells, or tissues.
       ``(2) The use of mitochondrial, cytoplasmic, or gene 
     therapy.
       ``(3) The use of in vitro fertilization, the administration 
     of fertility-enhancing drugs, or the use of other medical 
     procedures (excluding those using human somatic cell nuclear 
     transfer or the product thereof) to assist a woman in 
     becoming or remaining pregnant.
       ``(4) The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology 
     to clone or otherwise create animals other than humans.
       ``(5) Any other activity (including biomedical, 
     microbiological, or agricultural research or practices) not 
     expressly prohibited in subsection (a).
       ``(c) Registration.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each individual who intends to perform 
     human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology shall, prior 
     to first performing such technology, register with the 
     Secretary his or her name and place of business (except that, 
     in the case of an individual who performed such technology 
     before the date of the enactment of the Cloning Prohibition 
     Act of 2003, the individual shall so register not later than 
     60 days after such date). The Secretary may by regulation 
     require that the registration provide additional information 
     regarding the identity and business locations of the 
     individual, and information on the training and experience of 
     the individual regarding the performance of such technology.
       ``(2) Attestation by researcher.--A registration under 
     paragraph (1) shall include a statement, signed by the 
     individual submitting the registration, declaring that the 
     individual is aware of the prohibitions described in 
     subsection (a) and will not engage in any violation of such 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Confidentiality.--Information provided in a 
     registration under paragraph (1) shall not be disclosed to 
     the public by the Secretary except to the extent that--
       ``(A) the individual submitting the registration has in 
     writing authorized the disclosure; or
       ``(B) the disclosure does not identify such individual or 
     any place of business of the individual.
       ``(d) Applicability of Human Subject Protection 
     Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Research involving human somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer technology shall be conducted in accordance 
     with parts 50 and 56 of title 21, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, subject to paragraph (2). Individuals whose 
     cells are used for such research shall be considered human 
     subjects for purposes of such parts.
       ``(2) Informed consent.--
       ``(A) Donor of human cells.--In research involving human 
     somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, human cells may be 
     used only if, in addition to requirements that apply under 
     parts 50 and 56 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
     individual who provides the cells makes a statement in 
     writing, which is signed by the individual, declaring that--
       ``(i) the individual donates the cells for purposes of such 
     research;
       ``(ii) the individual understands that Federal law 
     regulates such technology and establishes a crime relating to 
     the use of the technology to initiate a pregnancy; and
       ``(iii) the individual does not intend for the cells to be 
     used to initiate a pregnancy.
       ``(B) Attestation by researchers.--In research involving 
     human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, human cells 
     may be used only if, in addition to requirements that apply 
     under parts 50 and 56 of title 21, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the individual with the principal responsibility 
     for conducting the research makes a statement in writing, 
     which is signed by the individual, declaring that the consent 
     of the donor of the cells for the cells to be used in such 
     research was obtained in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(e) Preemption of State Law.--This section supersedes any 
     State or local law that--
       ``(1) establishes prohibitions, requirements, or 
     authorizations regarding human somatic cell nuclear transfer 
     technology that are different than, or in addition to, those 
     established in subsection (a) or (c); or
       ``(2) with respect to humans, prohibits or restricts 
     research regarding or practices constituting--
       ``(A) somatic cell nuclear transfer;
       ``(B) mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy; or
       ``(C) the cloning of molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, or 
     organs;

     except that this subsection does not apply to any State or 
     local law that was in effect as of the day before the date of 
     the enactment of the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.
       ``(f) Right of Action.--This section may not be construed 
     as establishing any private right of action.

[[Page 4710]]

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

     SEC. 3. STUDY BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

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

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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

                              {time}  1530

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a good debate so far. It was a good debate 
last year. This is about ethical and moral issues. The proponents of 
the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Weldon) bill have argued the ethical 
and moral issues against reproductive cloning; and on that issue, my 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and I are in perfect 
agreement. It is wrong to create a human being through cloning. It is 
probably physically cruel to do that, because of the likelihood of 
defect; and it is emotionally, I believe, cruel to do that because no 
one should be brought into life as a duplicate of another. Each of us 
has the right to be the product of a mother and a father. So we agree 
on that.
  Now let us deal with the moral and ethical issues that have to do 
with somatic nuclear transfer. Because what is at stake is well over a 
hundred million Americans today suffering from diseases like 
Parkinson's, like Alzheimer's, like cancer, and like diabetes; and as 
this chart shows, the millions of people suffering today from those 
diseases and the millions more expected to be suffering from those 
diseases over the next 10 years.
  Now, none of us in this room is an expert on the science of nuclear 
cell somatic transfer. But those who are the experts tell us this, that 
with this technology simply requires a limited number of eggs donated 
by women, denucleated, enucleated. And then the cells, the DNA from 
something like a cheek cell placed in that nucleus, electricity is 
applied and then the cells divide. Why do scientists want to do that? 
They want to do that because we want to observe the miraculous 
occurrence inside that egg as those cells become first pluripotent stem 
cells and then divide into specialized cells.
  Why do they want to do that? They want to do that because they need 
to understand the biology and the chemistry as to how that happens. And 
when they have understood the biology and the chemistry of that 
process, there is no more need for women to donate eggs in order for 
the cures for these diseases to come about. Because then doctors in 
hospitals around the world will be able to take these patients 
suffering from not only these diseases but from juvenile diabetes, from 
Alzheimer's, from spinal cord injuries, from head injuries, and take 
the somatic cells from that patient, combine them with the growth 
factors that they identify in this limited amount of research, process 
healthy cells from our own bodies and use those healthy cells to cure 
our diseases, to fix our injuries, and to reduce human suffering by 
amounts that we cannot even imagine.
  So the ethical and moral issue here is are we or are we not willing 
to allow that science to go forward so that we go through this 
transient phase where we use this relatively small number of ova 
contributed by willing women to understand how to do this so we can 
bring about the cure. Now the argument that is presented by the 
exponents of my substitute, which again bans reproductive cloning, 
allows this research to continue.
  The argument that is proposed is, well, once that cheek cell divides 
in an egg in a petri dish, it is a potential human being; and, 
therefore, if it is going to be destroyed after it divides a certain 
number of times, after the observations are finished that that is 
immoral.
  Now, if that is the case, if that is what you believe, then we should 
ban in vitro fertilization because in vitro fertilization has produced 
100,000 embryos in this country right now that will be discarded, 
100,000 of them. Far more order of magnitude than will ever be created 
through this technology and they are going to be discarded, and that is 
apparently okay with the proponents of this legislation because it 
brings beautiful little children into the world to couples who 
otherwise could not have them.

[[Page 4711]]

  So that is the trade-off we make. And nobody here is arguing, in 
fact, to the contrary. They are preserving the need for in vitro 
fertilization, and yet the number of embryos created and destroyed by 
in vitro fertilization orders of magnitude is more than we are talking 
about here. And if we want to get totally philosophical about this, 
every single day millions of eggs are fertilized in the womb that do 
not adhere to the uterine walls and are flushed away and somehow that 
is the way God does it. That is the way nature does it. And we do not 
hear a gnashing of teeth about that by the makers of this amendment 
about this bill.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a turning point in our history. This is 
a question about whether or not we are going to go forward with the 
most promising medicine of our time. The ability to stop the suffering, 
to heal the sick, to cure the injured of diseases that have plagued us 
for centuries or whether we turn our back on this science in the name 
of ethics and morals and kill an opportunity to do something that is 
ethically and morally correct, and that is to prevent this suffering.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate on whether or not human embryos should be 
cloned is one that goes across religious lines, it goes across 
philosophical lines, and it goes across political lines; and I 
certainly can respect those who come down on the other side of this 
piece of legislation. But this amendment in the nature of a substitute 
is the equivalent of a political knuckle ball thrown into the debate on 
whether or not human embryos should be cloned.
  In June of 1997, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory 
Committee issued its report entitled ``Cloning Human Beings.'' I 
referred to this in the general debate, but I want to refer to this 
again because this is the crux of the argument against the Greenwood 
substitute. The executive summary of President Clinton's blue ribbon 
commission states in part: ``The commission began its discussions fully 
recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell 
nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo with 
the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to 
term.''
  The whole question around the Greenwood substitute amendment is how 
to police the cloned human embryos once they are created. Sure, some of 
them may be used for purposes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) described in his eloquent opening statement, but others can 
be implanted in utero and be developed to term. And what does the 
government do in that case when somebody for whatever purpose they want 
to announces that they have developed a cloned human being?
  This substitute is a big mistake for a number of reasons, and it 
should not be supported. Most notably it would make the prohibitions 
against human cloning virtually impossible to enforce, as I have just 
described. It would foster the creation of cloned human embryos through 
the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency of the Federal 
Government; and it would trump States that wish to prohibit cloning. As 
I have already stated, allowing the creation of cloned embryos by law 
would enable anyone to attempt to clone a human being. While most 
individuals do not have the scientific capacity to clone human embryos, 
once they have been cloned, there has been no mechanism for tracking 
them and to determine what use those cloned human embryos are being put 
to. In fact, one would logically expect an organization to authorize 
the cloned human embryos pursuant to this substitute to be prepared to 
produce an abundance of cloned embryos for research. Meanwhile, those 
without the capabilities to clone human embryos could easily implant 
any one of the legally cloned embryos if they had the opportunity and a 
child would develop.
  The fact is any legislative effort in order to be effective to 
prohibit cloning must allow enforcement to occur before the cloned 
embryo is implanted. Otherwise, it is too late, and that is the big 
deficiency of the Greenwood substitute. The substitute attempts to draw 
a distinction between necessary scientific research in human cloning by 
authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services to administer a 
quasi-registry, quasi because the embryos are not in the custody of 
HHS. They are maintained by private individuals. However, let us be 
clear that the crux of this substitute is to invoke a debate on stem 
cell research. A political knuckle ball in this debate on stem cell 
research is a red herring.
  Just read the bill. First, therapeutic cloning does not exist, not 
even for experimental tests on animals. Second, the substitute would 
require authorized researchers to destroy unused embryos, the first 
Federal mandate of its kind and a step that is extremely controversial. 
Third, H.R. 534 within its text allows for research using stem cells. 
Again, the bill does not prohibit stem cell research, notwithstanding 
the allegations by those who are opposed to it.
  Currently, private organizations are able to conduct unfettered 
research on embryonic stem cells. Further, in August 2001, President 
Bush announced that Federal funds could be used for research on 
existing stem cell lines. H.R. 534 would do nothing to hinder that 
research.
  The bill would also not affect research using adult stem cells. Adult 
stem cells are the other area of stem cell research which is much less 
controversial and which has been successful in over 45 clinical trials. 
In fact, adult stem cells have been utilized to treat multiple 
sclerosis, bone marrow disorders, leukemia, anemia, and cartilage 
defects, and immuno-deficiency in children.
  Adult stem cells have been extracted from bone marrow, blood, 
skeletal muscle, the gastrointestinal tract, the placenta, and brain 
tissue to form bone marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat, 
liver, brain, nerve, blood, heart and other cells. H.R. 534 would not 
interfere with this work. It would not interfere with this work. But it 
prohibits the production of cloned embryos. It is a cloning bill, not a 
stem cell research bill.
  Fourth, the substitute prohibits States from adopting laws that 
prohibit or more strictly regulate cloning within their borders. It is 
a Federal preemption. Try telling any of our constituents that they 
cannot ban human cloning through their State legislatures and I will 
tell you they will disagree.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the substitute contains a 10-year sunset 
provision. If this were to be enacted, Congress would have to go 
through this debate once again before the sunset occurs. The ethical 
and moral objections to human cloning will not change 10 years from now 
or 50 years from now or forever. However, the proponents of human 
cloning will continue to fight for their right to produce human clones 
in America, and authorizing a subsequent ban on human cloning could 
become even more controversial.
  That is why Members on both sides of the aisle should rise in 
opposition to the substitute, defeat it, and pass H.R. 534.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who has been a leader for several years on this 
issue.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, in the April 22, 2001, edition of the 
magazine ``Science,'' researcher Irving Weissman and Nobel Laureate 
David Baltimore said, ``The wrong action here could close the door to 
an important avenue of scientific and clinical discovery.''

                              {time}  1545

  They were talking, of course, about the restrictions on Federal 
funding of stem cell research. As Ronald Reagan said, here they go 
again.
  Everybody agrees that we must ban human cloning and our substitute 
does just that, but the difference in this bill is we allow for the 
very important somatic nuclear cell transfer technology which is being 
developed and which will be the cure for many diseases that affect 
millions of people both in the United States and worldwide.

[[Page 4712]]

  I hear the opponent of our substitute saying, oh, no, stem cell 
research will not be hurt, but that could not be farther from the 
truth, and here is why. Stem cell research is continuing, but the base 
bill will ban the somatic nuclear cell transfer research that we are 
talking about. What this research does at this point is it takes 
somatic cells, so-called therapeutic cloning techniques, it replaces 
the nucleus, and it makes new cells of tissues that will cure diseases 
like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. This type of research is 
truly the clinical extension of stem cell research because without this 
research we will never have islet cells for diabetics. We will never 
have the cells for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or nerve damage because 
we will not be able to match the patient's tissue.
  We are not and we do not support creating embryos for the purpose of 
this research. Instead, what happens is researchers use existing 
embryos from reproductive clinics, which are going to be disposed of 
anyway, and there is no way that this research will be used to clone a 
human being, period. It will be a criminal act under our substitute.
  I do not think people should demagogue this issue. These are very 
difficult ethical and medical issues, but unless we have some control 
over the research and unless we ban human cloning, we will not be able 
to have cures for all of these very important diseases.
  As the co-chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I think we need 
to do everything we can to support this important cell research but 
also to have strict control. Forty Nobel Laureates agree with this. 
More than two thirds of Americans agree with this. Senator Orrin Hatch 
and former Senator Connie Mack agree with this. And here is what Nancy 
Reagan said in a letter dated January 29 of this year: ``There are so 
many diseases that can be cured, we cannot turn our back on this.''
  Do not turn your back on all of these procedures.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time, and I again want to commend him for his work in 
this area and his eloquent statements on the floor.
  I rise in very strong opposition to this substitute, and I encourage 
all my colleagues to vote against it and to vote in favor of the 
underlying bill.
  Let me address, first out, one of the issues that seems to be implied 
by some of the discussion that I have heard so far, and that is, these 
embryos that are created through somatic cell nuclear transfer process 
are somehow not embryos or they are cells or they are cheek cells or 
they are stem cells. I am a scientist, a doctor. I am not an expert in 
this area, but I know a fair amount about it. I did research in 
molecular genetics as an undergraduate. I am a physician.
  When a person does somatic cell nuclear transfer they are creating a 
human embryo. Indeed, President Clinton's Bioethics Council has said 
that, and President Bush's Bioethics Council has said that, a human 
embryo resulting from the nuclear transfer process is a human embryo. 
It is contrasted from a human embryo created by sexual reproduction, 
which is a unique embryo; whereas when we create a human embryo through 
somatic cell nuclear transfer, we are essentially creating an identical 
duplicate or twin.
  So let us do away with that issue here and now. This is very, very 
clearly a human embryo. That is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
wants to allow to be created for research purposes. What will happen if 
we do that? What will happen if we go down that route?
  I contend that a lot of things will happen that I think are very, 
very concerning. Number one, we are going to have a lot of research 
labs that will need eggs. Where will they get the eggs? They will have 
to get them from women. How do we get eggs from women? Well, we give 
them drugs that cause a phenomenon called superovulation. We have to do 
periodic ultrasounds to make sure they do not develop ovarian cysts, 
and they can get depression from those drugs; and then once the eggs 
are ripe, we have to give the woman a general anesthetic to harvest the 
eggs. And we will have these research labs that are going to need these 
large quantities of eggs, and this is why these biotech executives say 
this is a nonstarter in terms of developing so-called therapeutic 
cloning. The logistics of this are just unimaginable of how we would 
execute something like this.
  One important thing I want to say, if we have all of these labs 
generating these eggs, we are going to have unscrupulous physicians 
implanting one of these in a woman, and we are going to usher in the 
very thing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from 
Florida say they are against. They say they are against reproductive 
cloning, but our own Justice Department says there will be no way to 
police this. We will have all of these embryos in all of these labs, 
and the only way to prevent it is to stop it from the very, very 
beginning.
  Might I also just reiterate, adult stem cell research is moving along 
very nicely. We have heard some very impassioned comments about 
Parkinson's disease. I want to quote from Dennis Turner, who had his 
Parkinson's disease treated successfully with adult stem cells. We 
cannot even produce one research study in a rat where we can cure 
Parkinson's disease with embryo stem cells or cloned stem cells. But I 
have got a real live human being here. He says, they were not fetal 
cells, they were my cells, so I would not have to take any anti-
rejection medications the rest of my life. Dennis Turner previously 
could not even hold a newspaper, and now he is hardly on any medication 
at all. The adult stem cells are working great.
  I say to my colleagues this alternative, this substitute, is 
unnecessary and unethical. We do not want to go down the path of 
creating human life for the purpose of exploiting it in the lab and 
then destroying it.
  Vote no on this substitute. Vote yes on the underlying bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there any objection for the 
time yielded by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) to be controlled on the 
minority side by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to quickly make observations about two contradictions that I 
think my friend from Florida made. Number one, he said that our 
substitute cannot be enforced. That does not make any sense. If we can 
enforce the Weldon law, we can enforce the Greenwood law, and if people 
are going to make clones in violation of the law, they are going to do 
it under the Weldon law or the Greenwood law. So that is an argument we 
should discount immediately.
  The second contradiction, which I think is more severe, is that I 
heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) talk about we are going 
to have shelves of embryos, we are going to have embryo farms; we are 
going to create all of these embryos. He just told us how 
extraordinarily difficult it is to get one ovum. We have to 
superovulate a woman. It is very difficult. It is painful. Women are 
not going to line up to have this procedure.
  So there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that we are going to have 
this huge multitude of eggs. We are going to be lucky to have enough to 
do the research.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and rise in support of the Greenwood substitute because it honors 
our tradition of medical science.
  Medical achievement is part of America's birthright. In the last 50 
years we have won more Nobel prizes than England, Germany, Russia, 
France, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Japan and Switzerland combined. Six 
out of 10 Nobel prizes in medicine come just to America.

[[Page 4713]]

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

                      Not Ready for Human Cloning

                            (By Bill Frist)

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

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), who, based upon long background and interest in 
this area, has been a leader in terms of health care for all Americans.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise today in support of the substitute and in opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  There are three major points that need to be made. First, the 
substitute bans human cloning in any form, period. It has stiff 
criminal and civil penalties imposed on anyone who would attempt human 
cloning, and both bills do that.

                              {time}  1600

  One is not diminished with a stronger bill. They both absolutely 
provide that.
  Second, the underlying bill takes a step that I do not think can be 
talked about enough, and that is that it turns scientists and 
researchers, who I think are the merchants of hope, into criminals 
simply for trying to find cures for our most dreadful diseases.

[[Page 4714]]

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

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

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

[[Page 4715]]

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

                              {time}  1615

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

[[Page 4716]]

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

[[Page 4717]]

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

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

                              {time}  1630

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

[[Page 4718]]


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

[[Page 4719]]

greatly to stem cell research. Three years ago he became the first 
person to isolate stem cells from human embryos. He has not taken on 
this work lightly, he has thought carefully about the ethical 
implications of his research. For Dr. Thompson, the moral questions 
about embryo experimentation were not difficult to resolve; he 
concluded that research was the ``better ethical choice.''
  Because embryonic stem cells have the potential to grow into any cell 
or tissue in the human body, scientists say they hold great potential 
for repairing damaged tissues or organs. But to extract them requires 
that the embryo be destroyed, therefore, every year since 1995, 
Congress has attached language to its appropriations legislation to ban 
taxpayer financing of the work.
  This ban requires that Dr. Thomson work into different laboratories, 
one of them in secret. He works primarily out of the university's 
primate center. This is his federally financed laboratory where he 
studies stem cells derived from the embryos of rhesus monkeys and 
marmosets.
  When he conducts research on human cells, he must, however, move to 
an entirely different laboratory. This one is paid for by WiCell 
Research Institute, a corporation set up as a subsidiary of the 
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the nonprofit group that holds 
the patent to Dr. Thomson's work. The location of this lab has never 
been disclosed to ensure the safety of the workers.
  Freedom of research has led to the development of over 117 biotech 
products that have helped more than 250 million people worldwide. In 
addition, the biotech industry generated $28.5 billion in revenues in 
2001, an increase of more than 350 percent in just ten years. Further, 
employment within the sector more than doubled in the same time period.
  The United States has an obligation to demonstrate our continued 
leadership in this arena and we can only do so with the support of our 
government. We cannot afford the loss of resources that a chilled 
scientific climate will bring. We should not cede our leadership, or 
our industry, to other nations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Weldon bill. Support 
responsible research, vote yes on the Greenwood Substitute.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, the issue of human cloning is one 
that understandably causes grave concern and often heated opposition. 
But we in our position as leaders have the responsibility not only to 
ensure that this developing and promising technology that can 
revolutionize the art of healing, is not used for nefarious purposes, 
but to also educate and inform the public on the issue.
  Today I rise in support of H.R. 801, the Greenwood-Deutsch Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2003, because it makes the critical distinctions and 
provides the hope that the people of this country are looking for. We 
don't ever want to clone human beings, but we do want to use the 
technology termed, ``human somatic cell transfer'' as the vital tool it 
is, to allow scientists to fully develop the wonderful promise of stem 
cell research.
  I applaud my colleagues for their leadership in bringing this 
alternative bill forward. It should be the primary, and really the one 
bill before us today.
  As a physician I look forward to the day when we can cure diseases 
such as sickle cell disease, make the quadriplegic walk again, and 
successfully treat or reverse so many other diseases for which this was 
still an impossible dream I was in practice.
  To pass H.R. 534 would not only cost our nation its standing as the 
world leader in health technology, but passing that base bill would 
kill this dream, and with it the hope of life and health for countless 
of our constituents.
  Let's not do that, vote instead for the Greenwood/Deutsch/DeGette/
Eschoo substitute.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
extreme opposition to the cloning of human beings. At no time do I 
think it will be acceptable for science to go down that path. As 
Members of Congress, we need to impose very strict penalties to prevent 
scientists from making the jump from doing important research to 
playing God.
  But as a nurse, I remember a debate very similar to this one, the 
debate over researching DNA. In the 1970s, we in the healthcare 
community were very excited over the research being conducted by 
scientists on human beings actual biological makeup. However, many 
others believed then that we were headed towards creating Frankenstein 
or Aldolphus Huxley's ``Brave New World.''
  The DNA technology debate also focused on regenerative medicine based 
on stem cell and nuclear transfer biology. DNA involves splicing the 
gene for a desired protein into bacterial, yeast or other mammalian 
cells, which then manufacture protein. To accomplish this, scientists 
had to develop incredibly powerful techniques for managing the 
mechanisms to cellular biology. Society had to decide whether to allow 
their continued development and if so, how to regulate and manage these 
techniques.
  Mr. Chairman, the research continued, and millions of patients and 
their families have benefited. Today, it is used to produce human 
therapeutic proteins to treat or prevent a wider array of diseases and 
conditions. DNA products include: Human Insulin for diabetics; 
Herceptin for patients with breast cancer; Epogen for patients with 
kidney disease; Enbrel to hel patients with rheumatoid arthritis; and 
Pulmozyne that has prevented childhood deaths from cystic fibrosis.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to submit for the Record a 
list of 66 other DNA products that are approved by the FDA. These 
products have helped ten of millions of patients worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, today's, Greenwood Amendment takes care of both of my 
concerns on this issue. First and foremost, if defines human somatic 
cell nuclear transfer with the intent to initiate a pregnancy as a 
criminal act subject to criminal and civil penalties. These penalties 
include: Imprisonment of up to 10 years; Civil penalties up to $10 
million (or two times the pecuniary gain from cloning); and it provides 
for forfeiture of equipment, other property, and any monetary gains 
from cloning human beings. In addition, it requires all individuals who 
plan to perform human somatic cell nuclear transfer to register with 
the FDA. And finally it requires all research be conducted with the 
Institutional Review Board's oversight.
  The Greenwood Amendment also addresses my concern about restrictions 
on therapeutic cloning by allowing this important research to proceed. 
The goal of therapeutic cloning is to treat or cure patients with life 
threatening diseases by creating tailor made, genetically identical 
cells that the patient's body will not reject. In other words, this 
procedure could allow patients to be cured using their own DNA.
  In that process the nucleus is removed from a donated unfertilized 
egg and replaced with the patient's own cells, like skin, heart, or 
nerve cell. These types of cells are called somatic cells. These 
unfertilized egg cells are stored in a perti dish to become a source of 
stem cells that can be used to treat life-threatening medical 
conditions. These cells are not transplanted into a womb and no sperm 
is used in this procedure.
  The National Scientists Academy believes that therapeutic cloning or 
somatic cell nuclear transplant technology could lead to dramatic new 
treatments and cures for currently noncurable diseases and medical 
conditions including cancer, diabetes, parkinson's, spinal cord 
injuries, heart disease, ALS and many others. We need to find these 
cures today and this research may be the key to unlock the cure.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood Amendment 
and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

[[Page 4720]]



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

[[Page 4721]]

 
Saizen (human growth hormone)....  Serono Laboratories.......  Treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children.....  1996
Serostim (human growth hormone)..  Serono Laboratories.......  Treatment of cachexia (AIDS-easting)...................  1996
Simulect (basiliximab)...........  Novartis Pharmaceutical     Prevention of acute rejection episodes in kidney         1998; 2001
                                     Corporation and Ligand      transplant recipients; use in renal transplantation in
                                     Pharmaceuticals Inc..       combination with triple immunosuppressive therapy; use
                                                                 in pediatric renal transplantation and use of an IV
                                                                 bolus injection.
SYNAGISTM (palivizumab)...........  MedImmune Inc.............  Prevention of serious lower respiratory tract disease    1998
                                                                 caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in
                                                                 pediatric patients at high risk of RSV disease.
Thyrogen (thyrotropin alfa)......  Genzyme...................  Adjunctive diagnostic tool for serum thyroglobulin       1998
                                                                 testing with or without radioiodine imaging in the
                                                                 follow-up of patients with thyroid cancer.
TNKaseTM (tenecteplase)...........  Genentech Inc.............  Treatment of acute myocardial infarction...............  2000
Twinrix (hepatitis A and           SmithKline Beecham          Immunization against hepatitis A and B viruses.........  2001
 hepatitis B [recombinant]           Biologicals.
 vaccine).
XigrisTM (drotecogin alfa,          Eli Lilly and Company.....  Treatment of severe, life-threatening sepsis...........  2001
 recombinant).
Zenapax (daclizumab).............  Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.....  Prevention of kidney transplant rejection..............  1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4722]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               AYES--174

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

                               NOES--231

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Filner
       

                             NOT VOTING--28

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1658

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

                              {time}  1700

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Lofgren

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

  Ms. Lofgren moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 534, to the Committee on 
the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House 
forthwith with the following amendments:
       Page 4, line 24, strike the close quotation mark and the 
     period that follows.

[[Page 4723]]

       Page 4, after line 24, insert the following:

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

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               AYES--164

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

[[Page 4724]]



                               NOES--237

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

                             NOT VOTING--33

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


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

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

                              {time}  1725

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

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               YEAS--241

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

                               NAYS--155

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

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Barton (TX)
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Carson (IN)
     Combest
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Ford
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hyde
     Lipinski
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Payne

[[Page 4725]]


     Peterson (MN)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Serrano
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Vitter
     Waters
     Young (FL)
  The SPEAKER (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1732

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

                          ____________________