[House Report 105-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Rept. 105-239
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________
HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH PROHIBITION ACT
_______
August 1, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 922]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 922) to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to
conduct or support research on the cloning of humans, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose of the Bill.............................................2
II. Background and Need for the Legislation........................2
III. Summary of Hearings............................................3
IV. Committee Actions..............................................8
V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................8
VI. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section).............9
VII. Committee Views................................................9
VIII. Cost Estimate.................................................10
IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.....................10
X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)..........13
XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations..............13
XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight................................13
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement............................13
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement..........................13
XV. Congressional Accountability Act..............................13
XVI. Committee Recommendations.....................................13
XVII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup..........................14
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Research Prohibition
Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR RESEARCH
ON CLONING HUMANS.
(a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available in any Federal
law may be obligated or expended to conduct or support any project of
research that includes the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology to produce an embryo.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``human somatic cell nuclear transfer'' means
transferring the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an oocyte
from which the nucleus has been removed or rendered inert; and
(2) the term ``somatic cell'' means a cell of an embryo,
fetus, child, or adult which is not and will not become a sperm
or egg cell.
SEC. 3. REVIEW.
The Director of the National Science Foundation shall enter into an
agreement with the National Research Council for a review of the
implementation of this Act. Not later than 5 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the Congress
a report containing the results of that review, including the
conclusions of the National Research Council on--
(1) the impact that the implementation of this Act has had on
research; and
(2) recommendations for any appropriate changes to this Act.
SEC. 4. PROTECTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
Nothing in this Act shall restrict other areas of scientific
research not specifically prohibited by this Act, including important
and promising work that involves--
(1) the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning
technologies to clone molecules, DNA, cells other than human
embryo cells, or tissues; or
(2) the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques to
create animals other than humans.
I. Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the expenditure of
Federal funds to conduct or support research which includes the
cloning of humans.
II. Background and Need for the Legislation
On February 23, 1997, The Observer broke the international
news that embryologist Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues from
Edinburgh, Scotland's Roslin Institute, were about to announce
the successful cloning of an adult sheep by using a new cloning
technique which had never before been fully successful in
mammals. This announcement of the creation of ``Dolly''
represented a remarkable scientific breakthrough.
While these advances in cloning technology offer great
potential in areas such as medical research and agriculture,
the sheep cloning raised the prospect of a similar procedure
for humans. Although major hurdles still exist before human
cloning can become a reality, this theoretical ability to clone
humans has raised strong objections and profound moral,
ethical, religious, and psychological concerns throughout the
world.
In February 1997, following the announcement of Dolly's
cloning, the President issued an executive order to all Federal
agencies that ``no [F]ederal funds shall be allocated for
cloning of human beings.'' Additionally, among other
recommendations, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's
June, 1997 report, ``Cloning Human Beings,'' endorsed the
continuation of the current moratorium on the use of Federal
funding in support of any attempt to use somatic cell nuclear
transfer to produce a product with the intent of introducing
the product into a woman's womb.
There is also an annual statutory prohibition of Federal
funding for research which creates or destroys human embryos by
agencies funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education Appropriations bill. This ban must be enacted
annually. Currently, there is no permanent statutory
prohibition on the use of Federal research funds to produce
human embryos through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Internationally, the European Union and several countries,
including Germany, Denmark, Australia, Spain, and the United
Kingdom, already have laws or are preparing laws to forbid
human cloning. France, Argentina, China, and Japan have also
indicated an intention to deter efforts to clone humans, as
well as the Council of Europe and the World Health
Organization. At the June 1997, G7 Summit of Economic Countries
in Denver, Colorado, the heads of state for the United States,
Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, and Canada, all
endorsed a worldwide ban on human cloning.
In order to address the lack of a permanent statutory ban
on the use of Federal research funds to produce human clones,
Congressman Vern Ehlers of Michigan introduced H.R. 922 on
March 5, 1997. H.R. 922 was referred to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Commerce.
III. Summary of Hearings
In the wake of the announcement that scientists in Scotland
apparently had succeeded in cloning an adult sheep, the Science
Committee held a series of three hearings, over five months, on
human cloning. The Committee examined the legal and ethical
issues associated with the use of cloning technology, reviewed
the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report, ``Cloning
Human Beings,'' and discussed the parameters for Federal
funding of human cloning research.
March 5, 1997; ``Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning: How Far
Should We Go?''
On Wednesday, March 5, 1997, the Technology Subcommittee
held the first Congressional hearing on the subject of cloning,
entitled ``Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning: How Far
Should We Go?'' Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr.
Harold E. Varmus, Director, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, Maryland; Dr. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., Supervisory
Research Physiologist, Agriculture Research Service, Gene
Evaluation and Mapping Laboratory, Livestock and Poultry
Sciences Institute, United States Department of Agriculture,
Beltsville, Maryland; Dr. M. Susan Smith, Director, Oregon
Regional Primate Research Center, Oregon Health Sciences
University, Beaverton, Oregon; Dr. Thomas M. Murray, Chairman,
Genetics Testing Subcommittee, National Bioethics Advisory
Commission and Professor and Director, Center for Biomedical
Ethics, Case Western University, School of Medicine, Cleveland,
Ohio; and, Mr. James Geraghty, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Genzyme Transgenics, Farmingham, Massachusetts.
Dr. Varmus began his testimony with a historical
perspective of the development of genetic research in areas
similar to the topic of interest. Dr. Varmus then presented six
areas of focus and/or implementation which have arisen as a
result of advancements in genetic cloning techniques. These
advancements included: Traditional Husbandry (to generate
optimal forms of plants or animals for feeding the human
populations); Non-traditional Husbandry (to produce medically
useful products or organs that may be useful for human
transplantation); Research of Human Disease (the use of animals
to simulate diseases in humans); Fundamental Biological
Principles Research (analyzing the process by which genes are
activated and deactivated to better understand genetic disease
and the developmental process); Reprogramming of Human Cells
(to treat certain diseases); and creation of Human Clones.
The final research effort, though not having been
successfully accomplished to date, is the subject of the moral
and ethical debate that has infiltrated practically every
sector of society. This effort, Dr. Varmus contends, is an
offensive idea that is not scientifically necessary. Scientific
genetic studies can be conducted on animals, while social
studies can be (and could always have been) conducted on
identical twins. Dr. Varmus opens a forum of debate, searching
for situations whereby cloning might be socially acceptable. He
applauds the President's decision to refer the issue to NBAC,
and supports the extension of the ban on cloning research.
Dr. Rexroad, though stressing that scientists at the United
States Department of Agriculture have not been participating in
research efforts similar to that done in Scotland at the Roslin
Institute, highlighted many of the significant genetic research
projects currently underway at USDA laboratories and the
societal benefit he hopes such research will generate. Dr.
Rexroad was very careful to note precise similarities and
differences between work done at the Roslin Institute and work
done by the Department of Agriculture. He also mentioned many
possible advancements in livestock populations that could
possibly be derived from recent findings in genetic research.
In closing, Dr. Rexroad stressed that the cloning of animals
``from adult or fetal cells is seen by the ARS [Agricultural
Research Service] to be a primary tool for research that could
lead to important advances in biotechnology . . . [that could]
provide a powerful approach to improving the availability,
affordability and the quality of food . . .''
Dr. Smith presented a very comprehensive survey of the work
and efforts that are being conducted at the Oregon Regional
Primate Research Center. Stressing that the primary (and
solitary) purpose of the work is to produce identical sets of
twin rhesus monkeys by means of a process whereby monkey
embryos are inserted (in vitro) into host mothers, Dr. Smith
listed the numerous benefits to science that these processes
might add. While focusing on the use of embryonic cells to
produce genetically identical offspring, the Primate Center has
no plans or rationale for the cloning of adult monkeys.
Reiterating the potential of the research conducted at her
center, Dr. Smith cautioned against the prevention of valuable
research by an act of Congress or the Administration.
Dr. Murray spoke of the many issues and concerns that the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Genetic Subcommittee
will consider over its ninety day study. He touched upon many
of the societal factors that will be addressed, including
religious concerns of many types, the concern over the sanctity
and the power of creation, and the debate between genetic and
environmental determinism. Faced with the strong sentiment
possessed by much of the public, the NBAC has a extensive task
of weighing the concerns of an extremely diverse population,
while protecting the valuable research alluded to by the
previous witnesses.
Mr. Geraghty, though not formally representing the
biotechnology industry, believes that the remarks he presented
would depict a consensus throughout the industry. He contended
that an overwhelming majority agrees that ``there is no place
for the cloning of human beings in our society and recognizes
that we must work within acceptable social limits.'' His
purpose in testifying was to discuss the potential impact and
possible benefits that recent advances in cloning research have
made possible. He touched upon the techniques (and subsequent
benefits) made possible by the Dolly experiment. He concluded
by noting that the widespread public knowledge of the results
of the cloning of Dolly could be a great opportunity to educate
the public in the advances in the biopharmaceutical field which
have already enhanced the lives of many.
June 12, 1997; ``Review of the Recommendations on Cloning by the
President's Commission''
The second hearing in the series was held on June 12, 1997,
three days following the publication of the report, ``Cloning
Human Beings,'' submitted by the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission (NBAC) to the President. The President had requested
the NBAC to perform a ninety day study to examine the
scientific, ethical, and legal aspects of the cloning issue.
The hearing, entitled ``Review of the Recommendations on
Cloning by the President's Commission,'' provided the first
Congressional forum for discussion on the findings of the
Commission.
Testifying before the Technology Subcommittee were three
NBAC members, including its Chairman and the Chairman of the
relevant subcommittee, as well as the Director of the National
Institutes of Health. The witnesses were: Dr. Harold E. Varmus,
Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland;
Dr. Harold T. Shapiro, Chairman, National Bioethics Advisory
Commission, and President, Princeton University, Princeton, New
Jersey; Dr. Thomas M. Murray, Chairman, Genetics Testing
Subcommittee, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Professor
and Director, Center for Biomedical Ethics, Case Western
University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio; and, David R.
Cox, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Genetics and Pediatrics,
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine,
Stanford, California.
Dr. Varmus briefly summarized the legislative activity (the
House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology hearing
on March 5, 1997 and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety hearing on
March 12, 1997) that had transpired.
Dr. Shapiro broadly summarized some of the major
conclusions of NBAC. He began by presenting some of the
scientific uncertainties that currently obstruct the successful
cloning of a human being, and thus, the successful scripting of
public policy analysis in this area. He stated that the
Commission's report cited current deficiencies in technology
for the safe cloning of a human, and that the current state
would expose the fetus and developing child to unacceptable
risks. This deficiency was coupled with far-reaching concern
that human cloning is not deemed morally acceptable by society
as a whole.
He explained the Commission's approach to the study,
claiming that ethicists, theologians, scientists, scientific
societies, physicians, and others were all given the
opportunity to present their opinions. He noted that NBAC's
focus was on the issues pertaining to cloning technologies that
would be used to create an embryo which would be implanted into
a woman's uterus. He concluded by suggesting that a specific
period of time be set aside, during which no attempts at human
somatic cell nuclear transfer would be attempted, and that the
debate be revisited after scientific, moral, and ethical data
can be collected and better evaluated.
Dr. Murray gave testimony discussing mainly the religious
and ethical issues analyzed by the Commission. After outlining
the process taken by the NBAC, he presented the major findings
in regard to ethical and religious debate. Dr. Murray raised
the issue of the responsible dominion over nature by humankind.
He also discussed religious teaching on procreation in an
effort to better understand the differences between begetting
and making. NBAC also gave testimony that the potential cloning
of humans would disrupt the relationship among generations. The
Commission also focused on concerns over hubris, domination and
oppression of made people, and concern over objectification.
With regard to ethics, the findings were almost unanimous in
their concern that undue harm was posed to a child conceived by
current cloning technology. The Commission also noted that
extreme caution must be exhibited whenever humans are used as
the subject of scientific experimentation. NBAC found there is
sufficient cause to warrant legislation because a developing
child would be subject to undue harm as a result of current
``unscientifically plausible technology.''
Dr. Cox testified about the remarkable nature of the
scientific discovery and the opportunity for great advancements
in basic science. Dr. Cox was careful to mention the scope of
the NBAC study. He explained that the cloning technique in
question, somatic cell nuclear transfer, cannot be done without
the transfer of genetic information to an egg. When division of
the egg takes place, by definition, an embryo is produced. He
stated that it was not in the scope of the study to revisit the
embryonic debate. He concluded by stating that NBAC recommended
legislation aimed at controlling science, despite the fact
that, above all, ``scientists value scientific freedom.''
July 22, 1997; ``Legislative Hearing on the Prohibition of Federal
Funding for Human Cloning Research''
The final hearing in the series, held on July 22, 1997, was
entitled ``Legislative Hearing on the Prohibition of Federal
Funding for Human Cloning Research.'' The hearing discussed the
parameters for legislating Federal funding for human cloning
research and reviewed H.R. 922, ``The Human Cloning Research
Prohibition Act,'' introduced by Congressman Vern Ehlers of
Michigan.
The hearing featured testimony from Dr. Hessel Bouma, III,
Professor of Biology, Calvin College Biology Department, Grand
Rapids, Michigan; Fr. Kevin Wildes, Associate Director, Kennedy
Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Dr.
Arthur F. Haney, M.D., President-elect, American Society of
Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and Director, Department of
Endocrinology and Infertility, Duke University Medical Center,
Durham, North Carolina; Dr. Alison Taunton-Rigby, Member of the
Board of Directors of the Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO) and President and Chief Executive Officer, Aquila
Biopharmaceuticals, Worcester, Massachusetts; and, Dr. Lester
M. Crawford, Vice Chairman, National Association for Biomedical
Research (NABR) and Director, Center for Food and Nutrition
Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Dr. Bouma testified in strong opposition to the cloning of
humans, and presented provisions that the legislation must
include, as well as recommendations for the need to ban
additional activities. He stressed the uniqueness, freedom, and
respect intrinsic to human life. Cloning, Dr. Bouma testified,
is in direct violation of all three, and therefore should be
prohibited by law. Dr. Bouma, while he supports Congressman
Ehlers efforts to restrict Federal funding, believes that
legislation to ban privately funded research should be enacted
as well. He cautioned that legislation must be crafted
carefully, and not infringe upon the genetic research in
farming or agriculture for purposes of enhancing food or drug
supplies, nor should it inhibit research aimed at developing
human tissues or organs for implantation.
Dr. Wildes stated that he supported the conclusions of the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission study that legislation
to prevent human cloning was necessary. He notes, with the
history of the past century containing many prime examples,
that science does not exist in a vacuum. He cites chilling
reminders of the consequences that arise when science and
medicine move outside of the moral fabric of any given society.
He called for a built-in review mechanism for any legislation,
mentioning that ethical issues in science and medicine change
extremely rapidly, and certain obscure topics often come to the
forefront of public attention.
Testifying on behalf of the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Dr. Haney stated that the ASRM
believes human cloning to be totally unjustifiable. Dr. Haney
called for meticulous care to be taken in the drafting of
legislative measures, in an effort to assure proper definitions
of cloning. The ASRM offered a definition of cloning it
approved for legislation. The ASRM also supported an initiative
that would include a sunset clause in the bill language.
Finally, the ASRM endorsed preempting state laws on cloning to
ensure uniformity across the Nation.
Dr. Alison Taunton-Rigby represented the Biotechnology
Industry Organization (BIO), representing 730 biotechnology
companies and others engaged in biotechnology research on
medicines and diagnostics, agriculture, pollution control, and
industrial applications. BIO agrees that it is unacceptable for
anyone in the public or private sector to clone humans. BIO
believes that legislation on the subject of cloning human
beings that must not be enacted. In lieu of legislation, BIO
recommends that the current moratorium be continued
indefinitely. If legislation must be enacted,BIO recommends:
(1) it should focus only on research funded by the Federal Government;
(2) it should include a sunset provision; (3) a preemption provision;
(4) a findings section; (5) a section defining protected research; (6)
a prohibition on private rights of action; and (7) an effective date.
Dr. Crawford represented the National Association of
Biomedical Research (NABR), which is dedicated exclusively to
advocating sound public policy regarding the humane and
necessary use of animals in biomedical research, education and
testing. NABR represents over 360 member institutions including
the nation's largest university, the majority of U.S. medical
and veterinary schools, academic and professional societies,
voluntary health organizations as well as pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies. NABR agrees with and supports the
conclusions and recommendations made by the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission. NABR recommendations are: (1) science will
not pursue research results which society is morally and
ethically unwilling to accept; (2) safeguards are in place to
protect humans and animals in experimentation; and (3) existing
laws and regulations are being followed and should be
periodically reviewed to keep pace with new technologies.
IV. Committee Actions
The Science Committee met to mark up H.R. 922 on July 29,
1997. Three amendments were offered during the Committee's
consideration of the bill. One was rejected and two were
adopted by voice vote.
1. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, offered by Mr.
Ehlers of Michigan, was adopted, as amended, by a voice vote.
The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 922 struck
all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof a
short title, a redefined prohibition against expenditure of
Federal funds for research including the creation of a human
clone, and a review by the National Research Council on the
impact of the Act on research, to be conducted five years after
the date of enactment of the Act.
2. En Bloc Amendment to the Ehlers Amendment in the Nature
of a Substitute to H.R. 922, offered by Ms. Rivers of Michigan,
was rejected by a voice vote. The Rivers En Bloc Amendment
would have changed the definitions of the prohibition against
expenditure of Federal research funds for cloning humans.
3. Amendment to the Ehlers Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 922, offered by Ms. Rivers of Michigan, was
adopted, as modified, by a voice vote. The Rivers Amendment
inserted a new Section 4 to the bill, entitled ``Protected
Scientific Research.''
With a quorum present, Mr. Brown moved H.R. 922, as
amended, be reported. The motion was adopted by voice vote.
V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
Provides a prohibition against expenditure of Federal funds
for research which includes the creation of a human clone.
Provides a review by the National Research Council of the
impact of this Act upon research, to be completed five years
after the date of the enactment of the Act.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This Act is titled the ``Human Cloning Research Prohibition
Act.''
Section 2. Prohibition against expenditure of federal funds for
research on cloning humans
The Act prohibits the use of Federal funds to conduct or
support any project of research that includes the use of human
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce an embryo.
The bill defines ``human somatic cell nuclear transfer'' and
``somatic cell.''
Section 3. Review
The Director of the National Science Foundation shall enter
into an agreement with the National Research Council to conduct
a review of the impact of the Act on research. The report, its
conclusions, and any recommendations for appropriate changes to
the Act shall be transmitted to Congress no later than five
years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 4. Protected scientific research
The Act shall not restrict the important and promising work
not specifically prohibited by the Act including the use of
somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning technologies to
clone molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryo cells, or
tissues or the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques
to create animals other than humans.
VII. Committee Views
The Science Committee is charged with overseeing Federal
funding of civilian science research and development. It has
been the Committee's intent to craft legislation that will
address the moral and ethical issues associated with human
cloning while ensuring that Federal agencies retain their
ability to pursue important scientific research.
The Committee believes it is extremely important to make a
statement to society that human cloning is not acceptable in
the United States and that Federal funding should not be used
for research that includes human cloning. The Committee
believes that attempting to clone a human being is unacceptably
dangerous to the child and morally and ethically unacceptable
to our society. This appears to reflect a national, if not a
worldwide, consensus on the issue.
The Committee, however, recognizes the complexity of
legislating a prohibition on Federal funding for human cloning
research that does not adversely impact other scientifically
important forms of research. While banning the use of Federal
research funding for human cloning, the Committee seeks to
preserve Federal funding for genetic research and animal
cloning technologies that could substantially improve our
quality of life and provide us with life-saving cures for
diseases.
VIII. Cost Estimate
Clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report accompanying
each bill or joint resolution of a public character to contain:
(1) an estimate, made by such committee, of the costs which
would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution
in the fiscal year in which it is reported, and in each of the
five fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the
authorized duration of any program authorized by such bill or
joint resolution, if less than five years); (2) a comparison of
the estimate of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this
paragraph made by such committee with an estimate of such costs
made by any Government agency and submitted to such committee;
and (3) when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the
appropriate levels under current law. However, clause 7(d) of
that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when a
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report
pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI. A cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of this
report and included in Section IX of this report pursuant to
clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI.
Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies
a measure providing new budget authority (other than continuing
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 922
does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or
changes in revenues or tax expenditures. H.R. 922 does not
specifically authorize additional discretionary spending. H.R.
922 does include a National Research Council review requirement
which will impact discretionary spending as described in the
Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is
contained in Section IX of this report.
IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R 922 contains no unfunded mandates.
XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include
oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to
clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X. The Committee has no oversight
findings.
XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight
Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to contain a
summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by
the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee pursuant to
clause 4(c)(2) of Rule X, whenever such findings and
recommendations have been submitted to the Committee in a
timely fashion. The Committee on Science has received no such
findings or recommendations from the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight.
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement
Clause 2(l)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each report of a committee on a bill
or joint resolution of a public character to include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the
United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 922.
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
H.R. 922 does not authorizes any work to be performed by a
Federal Advisory Committee.
XV. Congressional Accountability Act
The Committee finds that H.R. 922 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).
XVI. Committee Recommendations
On July 29, 1997, a quorum being present, the Committee
favorably reported the Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act,
by a voice vote, and recommends its enactment.
XVII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup
FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 922--HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH PROHIBITION
ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 1:19 p.m., in room 2318 of the Rayburn
House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Finally, the last item on the
agenda is H.R. 922, the Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act.
Without objection, opening statements by all members will
be placed in the record at this point.
[The text of the bill, supporting materials, and the
opening statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follow:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the
gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, the Subcommittee
Chair.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your leadership on this issue, for it is
appropriate and right for the Science Committee to exercise our
voice in the shaping of our Nation's human cloning policy and
the federal funding for such research.
The Technology Subcommittee held the first Congressional
hearings on cloning after the announcement of the landmark
breakthrough technology that created Dolly the Sheep, and after
the National Bioethics Advisory Committee submitted its report,
``Cloning Human Beings,'' to the President.
In the course of our series of hearings, we have received
input from leading scientists, biomedical researchers, members
of industry, bioethicists, religious organizations, and the
general public.
From many opinions and beliefs, two sets of unanimous
conclusions have emerged. The fact is that attempting to clone
a human being is unacceptably dangerous to the child, and
morally unacceptable to our society.
There should be legislation prohibiting the federal funding
of attempts to create a child using the somatic cell nuclear
transfer cloning techniques that made possible the creation of
Dolly.
This appears to reflect a national, if not a worldwide,
consensus on the issue.
The second conclusion reached at our hearing is that in
achieving the legislative goal of prohibiting federal funding
for human cloning research, it is imperative that we proceed
carefully and prudently.
We must be extremely careful in crafting language which
does not result in over-restrictive legislation that could
impede new avenues of research.
By taking a cautioned and judicious approach to prohibit
the federal funding for human cloning research, we can prevent
the misuse of cloning technology on humans while also
preserving the potential for future biomedical breakthroughs
using that technology.
As we all know, the promise of cloning technology holds
tremendous agricultural and medical benefits which could
substantially improve our quality of life. These include
revolutionary medical treatments and life-saving cures for
diseases such as cancer, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, sickle
cell anemia, and emphysema, as well as better crops and
stronger livestock.
Additionally, cloning technology furthers our knowledge
about developmental biology that may one day lead to such
advances as the repair and regeneration of human tissue in
severe burns and spinal cord injuries, and bone barrow
regeneration for patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy.
We must not inhibit the potential for this research and
development by any legislative actions we undertake. So much is
at stake: the health of patients with unmet medical needs and
the well-being of their families.
It has become clear, as we have engaged in the process of
legislating a prohibition on federal funding for human cloning
research, that what may outwardly appear to be simple is in
fact actually highly complex.
We all want to prohibit the federal funding of human
cloning, but how can we legislate its ban without inadvertently
hindering biomedical research and imperil our progress against
disease?
Today we are considering one such attempt to do just that.
While I commend my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers,
for his sincere efforts to ban the federal funding of human
cloning research while protecting scientific development, and I
appreciate the courtesies that he has extended to me in his
efforts to reach an agreement with the biotechnology,
pharmaceutical, and biomedical research organizations, I regret
that I cannot support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, there is deep concern within all the
scientific organizations that could potentially be impacted by
federal legislation to ban human cloning, including the
biotechnology industry of which I represent the third largest
concentration in the country, but H.R. 922 is drafted
imprecisely and could harm continued genetic research and
biomedical innovation.
I share their concerns. Among the biotechnology,
pharmaceutical and biomedical research organizations, there is
no disagreement that human cloning should be banned. Yet, not
one scientific organization can endorse H.R. 922.
I just think, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps with more time for
greater deliberation, a consensus bill can be worked out
between the scientific research organizations and all
interested parties.
However, I believe H.R. 922 in its current form may have
unintended adverse consequences on future biomedical advances,
and I regretfully will be voting against its passage. I yield
back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee? As
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, do you have anything
you wish to add? Or, without objection----
Mr. Gordon. Without object, I will again follow the
Chairman's earlier request and put my remarks in the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. We now are to the point of
amendments.
The amendment on the roster is one offered by the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to offer
this amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill. I
will keep in mind the time limits----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The amendment roster and the text of the amendment
follow:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for a quick 5 minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. And I will try to make it a quick 5
minutes.
I am disappointed that the President has not invited me to
the White House, as well, since we not only agree on the
balanced budget bill, but also on the issue of human cloning
and think that it is unacceptable, particularly from the moral
standpoint.
The President has imposed a moratorium, and this bill was
introduced for the purpose of making the moratorium permanent.
As we considered the issue in the Technology Subcommittee,
or the entire panoply of issues surrounding cloning, it became
clear that the initial bill was not specific enough. That point
was raised by a number of individuals both in the biotechnology
industry, but also those who were interested in the general
issue of the moral ethics and other aspects of that relating to
human cloning.
In particular the issues was raised regarding embryo
research. In an attempt to allay those fears--and also, if I
may emphasize, the purpose of this bill is not just to prohibit
human cloning, but to ensure that the industry is allowed to
continue cloning of animals, cloning of plants, cloning of
molecules, DNA, various cells, et cetera.
It is very important to continue that research because it
does promise major medical advances in the future.
But the issue of embryo research is a very difficult issue.
I decided the best way out of this was simply to use the
language that has been used before by the Congress, that was
passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President in
the annual appropriations bills of Labor/HHS.
And so they say that language was used in the bill, or in
the substitute which is before you. We address the issue of
cloning simply by using the language of the HHS Act: ``None of
the funds made available in the Act may be used for the
creation of an embryo.''
That follows exactly the language that has been used for a
number of years and has been approved by the Congress in the
past.
I had hoped that this would allay any controversy. There
are still some individuals that are concerned about that and
think that this closes the door on research.
It is not my intent to close any doors, other than those
involving the morality and ethics of the research in question.
As a scientist, certainly I want to continue whatever
research is permissible. I believe that under this bill
virtually all the research that the industry wants to do can
continue.
However, when one is talking about creating life, there are
many additional questions that arise. Many different segments
of society feel differently about the issue, and this bill is
an honest attempt to use the language that has survived the
legislative process in the past, and I believe is acceptable to
the Majority in the House and the Senate, has been signed into
law by the President, and is acceptable to the majority of the
people in the United States.
Therefore, I am pleased to offer this amendment and urge
the support of this Committee for that amendment.
Ms. Rivers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Rivers.
Ms. Rivers. I have amendments to the amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the
amendments to the amendment, and also distribute it to the
members.
Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers' En Bloc Amendment to Ehlers
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 922.
``On page----
Ms. Rivers. Could we consider it as read, sir?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment
will be considered as read.
Does any member wish to reserve a point of order on the
amendments?
Mr. Ehlers. Could we have a clarification, Mr. Chairman, as
to which amendment we are considering?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The one that is being passed out. I
am going to ask unanimous consent that the Rivers' Amendments
be considered en bloc.
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the Rivers'
Amendments are considered en bloc.
Before recognizing the gentlewoman from Michigan, does
anybody wish to reserve a point of order on them, on the
amendments en bloc as----
Mr. Weldon of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida will
state his inquiry.
Mr. Weldon of Florida. Is this amendment en bloc in
violation of the rules or procedures of the Committee or of the
House?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the Chair would have to rule
on that as a part of a point of order. In a parliamentary
inquiry it is not proper for the Chair to give advisory
opinions in the form of a parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Rivers. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Michigan will
state the parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Rivers. I am making certain--I am requesting
information on whether or not we are dealing with the single
page of paper with two proposals on it marked ``Rivers En
Bloc.''
Chairman Sensenbrenner. That is correct.
Ms. Rivers. Not the second sheet.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The second page of paper, which
deletes Section 3 and inserts a new Section 3, was not offered,
unless you wish to include that in your en----
Ms. Rivers. No. All I wish to include at this point is the
single page labeled Rivers En Bloc.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Does anybody wish to reserve
or make a point of order on the single page of paper as
described by the gentlewoman from Michigan?
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes?
Mrs. Morella. I do not know whether this is in order. I
guess it is a point of clarification addressed to the offeror
of the amendment to the amendment----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if there are no points of
order, the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan,
Mrs. Rivers, for 5 minutes. And the gentlewoman from Maryland,
or any other member of the Committee, can seek whatever
clarifications they might desire as a part of the debate on the
Rivers' Amendment.
We are only dealing with the first page of paper that was
passed out.
[The text of the amendment follows:]
Ms. Rivers. Right. That is the first amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. There are two other Rivers'
amendments that are not before the Committee at this time.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I bring this amendment before the Committee today for
several reasons. The first is because I am concerned that we
use precise language in all of the work that we do here.
Concerns have been raised first by the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, as well as members of NBAC, about the
language that we have chosen to use in this particular vehicle.
I will speak specifically from a letter addressed to me
from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which I would
also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Ms. Rivers. This says that they are concerned that the
terms used in the Ehlers proposal are not correct from a
scientific viewpoint, or at least open to a wide-ranging and
troublesome interpretation.
We would think that the science community would want to
demonstrate its expertise on issues of science and not use
terms which are not correct from a scientific point of view.
They follow by saying: My proposed prohibition is
technically correct and focused on the cloning issue. Several
individuals have raised questions about the definitions that I
have put forward, and I need to be very clear that those
definitions come from recognized sources, from the National
Bioethics Advisory Committee, from the Biotechnology Industrial
Organization, from the American Society of Reproductive
Medicine, both of which have endorsed this proposal, as well as
from the Bantam Medical Dictionary.
I feel very comfortable that this is language that is
widely understood and widely respected.
Secondly, I think it is important that, as we heard from
the Biotechnology Advisory Committee, it is important that we
listen to what they have to say.
It is, unfortunately, a real problem in public life these
days that Committees are continually seated only to be ignored
after they have done their work and made their reports.
The National Bioethics Advisory Committee was very clear in
what they were suggesting about what they thought should be
done, and frankly they did not address the issue of embryonic
research that the maker of the proposal is so interested in.
I am particularly concerned that the Ehlers' bill
unnecessarily embroils the Committee in the controversy around
human embryo research.
As I said, NBAC did not deal with the issue. They
consciously avoided reopening the debate on the embryo
research.
The maker of the proposal mentioned the President a few
minutes ago, but the President did not speak to embryonic
research in his cloning bill; he also left that for another
time.
I am also concerned that the Ehlers' language creates
conflict in that it is different language than is currently
contained in the law or the legislative ban.
Secondly, the Biotechnology Industry Association has
characterized the Ehlers amendment as overbroad, inconsistent
with the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory
Committee, and jeopardizing to vital biomedical research.
The Ehlers' ban on federally funded human embryo research
is a permanent ban, as opposed to the year-by-year ban
currently contained in the Labor/HHS appropriations bill.
It is inappropriate to enact a permanent ban, given the
rapid and unpredictable pace of biomedical research.
In all, this amendment would make clear scientific
definitions for the terms used within the bill. It would be
respectful of the proposals that have come back to us from the
National Bioethics Advisory Committee work.
It would allow the existing legislative ban on embryonic
research to continue without being complicated by a second
standard being created by a different Committee, and it would
allow the scientificresearch to go on as I believe NBAC and
other organizations have urged us.
I would urge people to recognize that this does not create
the ability for scientists today to do embryonic research. That
ban is still in legislative existence. It simply clarifies
scope of the Science Committee's recommendations on this issue.
Thank you.
[The voting bells ring.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. What would the gentleman from
California like us to do relating to a recess?
Mr. Brown of California. I think we should recess now and
come back. We might have time to finish the bill if we come
back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. I have conferred with the
gentleman from California. The Chair is about ready to declare
the Committee in recess.
I would ask all members to come back very promptly after
this vote so that we can finish the bill before half of the
Committee goes to celebrate.
So without objection, the Committee is in recess. I would
ask members to really make an effort to come back promptly.
[Brief recess.]
AFTER RECESS
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order.
Pending at the time of the recess were the Rivers' En Bloc
Amendments to the Ehlers' Amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Does anybody else seek recognition?
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We had a series of hearings on this subject and witnesses
from a wide spectrum of interests. I think that there was near
consensus on three issues.
One was that we have had a long debate on embryo research
and there is existing legislation which prohibits the use of
federal funds in embryo research.
The second consensus was that the President's moratorium on
using federal funds for cloning humans is working.
And the third consensus was that this is a very important
area that we need an expanded dialogue in so that when we pass
legislation we are very sure that we have carefully crafted
legislation that will do what we want to do and will not do
some things that are not intended.
I think from the discussion today it is obvious that there
is not unanimity on what the appropriate language is.
I really regret that we have this bill before us now
because I think that it is so important that we should have had
more of a public dialogue and more opportunity for input before
we bring a bill to a vote.
I am debating whether or not I can support the bill in its
final form, not because I do not support the intent of the
bill, but because I am concerned that we have not had time for
adequate dialogue so that we can carefully draft the language
so that we will accomplish just what we want to accomplish and
nothing more.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to respond to the two previous speakers.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. First, I would simply comment on the matter of
discussions and hearings.
The gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, Chairwoman of
the Technology Subcommittee, has been very conscientious on
this point and has held three hearings on the topic, all of
which went on at some length.
We examined the issues thoroughly. We had one hearing
shortly after the announcement of the birth of Dolly; another
hearings after the National Bioethics Advisory Commission
Report, and another hearing on this bill itself. So there has
been a good deal of discussion.
In addition to that, Mrs. Morella has met with many
individuals interested in this issue, and so have I had many
individual conferences and talked to individuals about it. So
there has been both public discussion of it and private
discussions.
In response to the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman
from Michigan, a colleague of mine from Ann Arbor, I have to
oppose her amendment.
These definitions are not new. I have looked at them
before. The biotech industry had proposed them to me earlier.
I tried preparing a bill incorporating them and ran into a
number of snags after discussing them with other members and
other interested parties.
For example, it goes far beyond the stated intent of simply
not mentioning embryos. It basically says that nothing is
prohibited except cloning a human being and implanting the
resulting product for gestation and subsequent birth.
That is a very broad-based definition. That provides the
greatest amount of latitude. Is the PA system working, by the
way? It does not sound like it.
Testing? Good.
The biotech industry of course wants the widest possible
latitude, and this definition would give them the widest
possible latitude. I believe it is important not just to
respond to industry concerns but the concerns of society as a
whole, as well. Therefore I oppose this amendment.
I believe it would allow considerable experimentation on
embryos, and one could even read into it that there could be
experimentation after implanting because of the words ``its
implantation of the resulting product for gestation and
subsequent birth.''
I would also like to address the comments made by the
gentlewoman from Ann Arbor about the NBAC report, the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission, saying that they did not say
anything about embryos and therefore we should not, either.
In fact, when we had the hearing and the members of NBAC
who were present presented the recommendations of the
Commission to us, they were specifically asked that question by
a member of theCommittee--not myself--and their response was,
they did not enter into the discussion----
We seem to have lost our sound again.
We did not enter into a discussion--or they did not enter
into a discussion of embryos for two reasons. First of all,
they did not have the time to do so. They were on a very short
schedule for 90 days and they had a great deal to do, and they
decided not to address that issue.
The second reason was, they felt the issue was already
resolved by the legislation that is in place in the
appropriations bills of Labor/HHS, and therefore that was the
law of the land and that the industry would have to work within
the law of the land.
That is one of the major reasons I decided to simply use
that language in addressing the concern of individuals about
cloning of embryos.
So I would urge the Committee to reject the Rivers'
amendment and to stick with the language that is in the
substitute that I have offered.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Rivers'
Amendments en block to the Ehlers Amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Those in favor of the Rivers' Amendment will signify by
saying, aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no.
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it. The
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Rivers.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like unanimous consent to withdraw
amendments number two and number four----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman does not need that
consent because she has not offered them yet.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Then I would like to offer Amendment No. 3----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the
amendment.
Ms. Schwartz. ``Rivers Amendment to the Ehlers Amendment In
The Nature of A Substitute''----
Ms. Rivers. I would ask that it be treated as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, let the Clerk read to make
sure that the Clerk has got the right amendment.
Ms. Schwartz (continuing). ``to H.R. 922. At the end of the
amendment, insert the following:
``SEC. 4. PROTECTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Nothing in this
Act shall restrict other areas''----
I would ask that it be considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment
will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Michigan
is recognized for 5 minutes.
[The text of the amendment follows:]
Ms. Rivers. I need only a moment, Mr. Chair, to say that I
would ask unanimous consent to change this amendment in a
single fashion, which is, under Subsection [1] under SECTION
4., the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning
technologies to clone molecules, DNA or human embryo cells.
Mr. Ehlers. You mean cells other than human embryo cells?
Ms. Rivers. Cells other than human embryo.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
modified as described.
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Hearing none, so ordered and the
gentlewoman from Michigan is recognize.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you. This is to make clear that, while
there are prohibitions within the larger part of the bill, this
is to make clear that this specific scientific inquiry and
research is specifically protected under the bill.
It makes a clear statement about activities that are going
on and our desire to see them continue and to make clear that
they are not prohibited in any way by this provision.
Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the
balance of her time.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers----
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of
time----
Chairman Sensenbrenner (continuing). Is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. In the interests of time, and in
view of the fact that I previously offered something along this
line to the industry, in view of my stated objective of making
clear that research other than human cloning would be
permitted, I believe I can accept this amendment.
I do have some question about the precise wording, and if
the author or sponsor of the amendment will recognize that I do
have some concerns about the precise working and may want to
reword it as it goes through the process of first the Commerce
Committee and then to the Floor, I am willing to accept the
amendment and say I am accepting the intent and we may have to
deal with some wording changes later on.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back.
The question is on--the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon?
Mr. Weldon of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I could be
recognized for a question?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Weldon of Florida. Is the intent here to allow research
to cultivate skin cells and that sort of thing? Is that the
purpose or intent of this amendment? If the lady would respond?
Ms. Rivers. Thank you. Yes. The Ehlers amendment is written
in the form of a prohibition of certain kinds of activities are
not to be pursued. This is to make clear that certain other
kinds of activities are specifically protected.
That is, to protect all of the nonembryonic research that
is going on. So non-embryonic cells, nonreproductive cell work
that may be going on is still protected and still encouraged.
Mr. Weldon of Florida. I thank the lady.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Rivers'
amendment to the Ehlers amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Those in favor will signify by saying, aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The ayes have it, and the amendment
is agreed to.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Ehlers
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor will
signify by saying, aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it. The
ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute
as amended is agreed to.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the Chair will recognize a
Member for a motion to report.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown of California. I move the Committee report the
bill H.R. 922, Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act As
Amended. Furthermore, I move to instruct the staff to prepare
the legislative report, to make technical and conforming
amendments, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to
bring the bill before the House for consideration.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the motion. The
Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum, barely. Those
in favor will signify by saying, aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it. The
ayes have it, and the bill is reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
Without objection, the members will have 2 subsequent
calendar days in which to submit Supplemental, Minority or
Additional views on the measure.
Without objection, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 20 of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee authorizes
the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the
House to go to Conference with the Senate on the bill.
Are there any objections to any of these unanimous consent
requests?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Hearing none, so ordered.
The Chair would like to thank all members for their
cooperation in getting the business completed expeditiously.
Democrats, have fun. This Committee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, July 29, 1997, the
Committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., July 30,
1997.]