[House Report 107-170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-170

======================================================================



 
                 HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

 July 27, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2505]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2505) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
prohibit human cloning, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendments...................................................     1
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Vote of the Committee............................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     8
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     9
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    11
Markup Transcript................................................    12
Dissenting Views.................................................    71

    The technical amendments (stated in terms of the page and 
line numbers of the introduced bill) are as follows:

    Page 2, line 12, strike ``exisiting'' and insert 
``existing''.

    Page 3, line 14, strike ``who'' and insert ``that''.

    Page 3, line 15, strike ``section'' and insert ``title''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2505, the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001,'' 
amends title 18, United States Code, by establishing a 
comprehensive ban on human cloning and prohibiting the 
importation of a cloned embryo, or any product derived from 
such embryo. Any person or entity that is convicted of 
violating this prohibition is subject to a fine or imprisonment 
of not more than 10 years, or both. In addition, H.R. 2505 
provides a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 for any 
person who receives a monetary gain from cloning humans. 
However, H.R. 2505 does not prohibit the use of cloning 
technology to produce molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, organs, 
plants, or animals.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Cloning, which literally means to make a copy, is the 
asexual reproduction of a precise genetic copy of a molecule, 
cell, tissue, plant, or animal. The word ``cloning'' can be 
used as a generic term to describe several different techniques 
of cloning. Molecular cloning refers to the copying of DNA 
fragments. For example, the human gene for insulin has been 
cloned into bacteria to produce insulin for the treatment of 
diabetes. In addition, human cells are routinely cloned to 
study cancer or genetic diseases.
    The cloning technique that could possibly allow for the 
production of individuals who are genetically identical to an 
already existing individual is known as ``somatic cell nuclear 
transfer.'' This is the procedure that was used to clone Dolly 
the sheep in 1996, the first mammal ever to be cloned from an 
adult cell. Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves taking a 
mature but unfertilized egg, removing or deactivating its 
nucleus, and introducing a nucleus obtained from a specialized 
(somatic) cell of another adult organism. The egg is chemically 
treated so that it begins to behave as if fertilization has 
occurred. Once the egg begins to divide, the embryo is 
transferred to a female's uterus to initiate pregnancy. Since 
almost all the hereditary material of a cell is contained 
within its nucleus, the re-nucleated egg and the individual 
into which it develops are genetically identical to the 
organism that was the source of the transferred nucleus.
    The announcement of the birth of Dolly brought into sharp 
focus the future possibility of cloning human beings along with 
all its inherent moral, ethical, and legal implications. The 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) was ordered to 
review the legal and ethical issues involved in the cloning of 
human beings and delivered its recommendations in June 1997. 
The NBAC agreed that the creation of a child by somatic cell 
nuclear transfer is scientifically and ethically objectionable 
because: 1) the efficiency of nuclear transfer is so low and 
the chance of abnormal offspring is so high that 
experimentation of this sort in humans was premature; and 2) 
the cloning of an already existing human being may have a 
negative impact on issues of personal and social well being 
such as family relationships, identity and individuality, 
religious beliefs, and expectations of sameness.
    Currently, no clear regulations exist in the United States 
that would prevent a private group from attempting to clone a 
human being. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has 
announced that it has the authority to regulate human cloning, 
but that authority has been questioned by many experts and 
remains unclear today. According to the FDA, that authority 
comes in part from the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, which 
gives FDA the power to regulate ``biological products'' that 
are used to treat medical conditions. The FDA asserts that a 
human somatic cell clone (a cloned human embryo) is a 
``biological product'' intended to treat a medical condition, 
that condition being infertility.
    The FDA also says it can regulate human cloning under the 
Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act because human somatic cell 
clones fall under the definition of ``drugs.'' That act defines 
drugs as ``articles (other than food) intended to affect the 
structure or any function of the body.'' According to the FDA, 
a human somatic cell clone is an ``article'' that affects the 
structure and function of a woman's body by making her pregnant 
and would be subject to investigational new drug application 
requirements under the FD&C Act.
    With recent reports that otherwise reputable scientists and 
physicians plan to produce the first human clone and no clear 
regulations in place, it has become imperative that Congress 
act to prevent this ethically and morally objectionable 
procedure.
    Several other nations and international organizations have 
also enacted laws or issued policy statements prohibiting the 
cloning of human beings. Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, 
China, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Norway, Peru, 
Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the 
United Kingdom already have laws or have announced plans to 
pass laws prohibiting the cloning of human beings. In addition, 
the Denver Summit of Eight, the Council of Europe, the World 
Health Organization, UNESCO's International Bioethics 
Committee, the European Commission, and the Human Genome 
Organization have called for a worldwide ban on the cloning of 
human beings.
    The possible production of a human clone raises a host of 
ethical questions. Cloning entails producing a person with a 
particular genetic code because of the attractiveness or 
usefulness of a person with that code. In this sense, by 
allowing human cloning, we are possibly legitimizing in 
principle the entire enterprise of designing children to suit 
parental or social purposes.
    It must also be recognized that any attempt at cloning a 
human being would be experimentation on the resulting child-to-
be. Each experiment runs a high risk of failure. In all the 
animal experiments, fewer than 2 to 3 percent of all cloning 
attempts succeeded. Not only are there fetal deaths and 
stillborn infants, but many of the so-called ``successes'' are 
in fact failures. As has only recently become clear, there is a 
very high incidence of major disabilities and deformities in 
cloned animals that attain live birth. Attempts to clone human 
beings carry massive risks of producing unhealthy, abnormal, 
and malformed children.
    It is well within Congress' power and perogative to 
restrict or prohibit the means used by researchers that 
threaten interests in which the citizens of this country have a 
legitimate concern. As the National Bioethics Advisory 
Commission 1997 report pointed out, ``(b)ecause science is both 
a public and social enterprise and its application can have a 
profound impact, society recognizes that the freedom of 
scientific inquiry is not an absolute right. . . .''
    Some opponents of the bill would rather see a ban that 
would only prohibit cloning when there was an intent to 
initiate a pregnancy and would still allow scientists to clone 
human embryos for experimental purposes. This approach to 
prohibiting cloning would be much less effective and would 
inevitably turn out to be unenforceable. Once cloned embryos 
were produced and available in laboratories, it would be 
virtually impossible to control what was done with them. 
Stockpiles of cloned human embryos could be produced, bought 
and sold without anyone knowing it. Implantation of cloned 
embryos, a relatively easy procedure, would take place out of 
sight. At that point, governmental attempts to enforce a 
cloning ban would prove impossible to police or regulate. 
Creating cloned human children necessarily begins by producing 
cloned human embryos. The only effective way to prevent this is 
to prohibit all human cloning.
    Opponents of a complete ban on human cloning also argue 
that H.R. 2505 would have a negative impact in the field of 
stem cell research. Testimony given before the Committee does 
not support this argument. Cloning human embryos for the sole 
purpose of destroying them for their stem cells is unnecessary 
because of the successes that scientists have had with adult 
stem cells. Adult stem cells are already being used 
successfully for therapeutic benefit in humans. This includes 
treatments associated with various types of cancer, to relieve 
systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, 
anemias, immunodeficiency diseases, and restoration of sight 
through regeneration of corneas. Furthermore, initial clinical 
trials have begun to repair heart damage using the patient's 
own adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are making good on what 
are only promises of embryonic stem cells.
    Few issues have ever created such a unified public 
opposition as the possibility of producing human beings who are 
genetically identical to an already existing individual. 
Cloning experiments produced 277 stillborn, miscarried or dead 
sheep before Dolly was successfully cloned. That failure rate, 
which has remained steady since 1997, is not acceptable for 
human beings. H.R. 2505, by banning human cloning at any stage 
of development, provides the most effective protection from the 
dangers of abuse inherent in this rapidly developing field. By 
preventing the cloning of human embryos, there can be no 
possibility of cloning a human being.

                                Hearings

    H.R. 2505 is substantially similar to H.R. 1644 which the 
Committee's Subcommittee on Crime held 2 days of hearings on 
June 7, 2001, and June 19, 2001. The Subcommittee on Crime also 
heard testimony on a related bill, H.R. 2172, at those 
hearings. H.R. 2505 includes minor changes to the definitions 
of H.R. 1644 that clarify the term ``human cloning'' and 
specifies that the mental culpability standard for violating 
the criminal statute is ``knowingly.'' Also, the sections on 
Congressional findings and the sense of Congress contained in 
H.R. 1644 are not included in H.R. 2505. Testimony was received 
from eight witnesses, representing eight organizations. The 
witnesses were: Dr. Leon R. Kass, Professor of Bioethics, The 
University of Chicago; Dr. David A. Prentice, Professor of Life 
Sciences, Indiana State University; Dr. Daniel Callahan, 
Director of International Programs for The Hastings Center; 
Robyn S. Shapiro, Esq., Professor of Bioethics, the Medical 
College of Wisconsin; Alex Capron, Esq., Professor of Law and 
Medicine, University of Southern California, School of Law; Dr. 
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Professor of Social and Political Ethics, 
The University of Chicago; Gerard Bradley, Esq., Professor of 
Law, Notre Dame Law School; Dr. Thomas Okarma, President and 
CEO of the Geron Corporation.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 19, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2505, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 24, 2001, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 2505 with technical amendments by a recorded vote 
of 18 to 11, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    1. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered 
by Mr. Schiff. The amendment would ban the use of human cloning 
techniques with the intent to initiate a pregnancy, would 
provide a 5-year sunset provision, and would preempt any State 
law prohibiting human cloning techniques that is not already in 
effect on the date of enactment of this bill. The amendment was 
defeated by rollcall vote of 11 to 19.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Gekas.......................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Barr........................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Hutchinson..................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Graham......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Scarborough.................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Frank.......................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             11              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment was offered by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Conyers 
to insert language at the end of the bill that states: 
``Nothing in this act shall prohibit research or therapies 
using human pluripotent stem cells derived from human 
embryos.'' The amendment was defeated by rollcall vote of 11 to 
18.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Gekas.......................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Barr........................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Hutchinson..................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Graham......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Scarborough.................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Frank.......................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             11              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to add a new 
section 302(e) that states" ``Nothing in this section restricts 
the use of in vitro fertilization, the administration of 
ovulation induction drugs, or other medical procedures to 
assist individuals in becoming parents through any form of 
sexual reproduction.'' The amendment was defeated by rollcall 
vote of 10 to 17.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Gekas.......................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Barr........................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Hutchinson..................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Graham......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Scarborough.................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Frank.......................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             10              17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to insert at the 
end of the bill a sunset provision whereby none of the 
prohibitions of the bill would be in effect 5 years after the 
date of enactment. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
    5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to insert language 
at the end of the bill that would provide an exemption to the 
prohibitions of the bill for the importation of any product 
derived from an embryo if such product is unable to develop 
into a full human being. The amendment was defeated by voice 
vote.
    6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to insert language 
at the end of the bill that would provide an exemption to the 
prohibitions of the bill for a woman who receives an embryo in 
her uterus if such activity was performed with the intent to 
initiate a pregnancy. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
    7. Final Passage. The motion to report favorably the bill, 
H.R. 2505, was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 18 to 11.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Gekas.......................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Barr........................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Hutchinson..................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Graham......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Scarborough.................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Frank.......................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             18              11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 2505 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2505, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 27, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2505, the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette J. 
Walker (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
Shelley Finlayson (for the State and local impact), who can be 
reached at 225-3220, and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-
sector impact), who can be reached at 226-2940.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2505--Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.
    H.R. 2505 would prohibit any person or entity from 
performing or attempting to perform human cloning, 
participating in the human cloning process, or shipping or 
importing an embryo produced by human cloning. Anyone 
prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 2505 would be subject to 
both criminal and civil fines and up to 10 years in prison. 
Collections of criminal and civil penalties are recorded in the 
budget as governmental receipts (revenues). Criminal fines are 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and spent in subsequent 
years. Because H.R. 2505 could affect direct spending and 
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Based on 
information from the Department of Justice, CBO expects there 
is little likelihood that many cases would be prosecuted under 
the bill. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting this 
legislation would have a negligible effect on receipts and 
direct spending.
    H.R. 2505 would impose an intergovernmental and private-
sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) because it would prohibit public and private entities 
from performing human cloning as defined in the bill. According 
to government and industry sources, there is limited, if any, 
human cloning currently being performed by public or private 
entities. CBO, therefore, estimates that the bill would impose 
minimal costs on State, local, or tribal governments, or the 
private sector. Thus, the direct costs of the mandate would not 
exceed the thresholds established by UMRA ($56 million for 
intergovernmental mandates and $113 million for private-sector 
mandates in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lanette J. 
Walker (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
Shelley Finlayson (for the State and local impact), who can be 
reached at 225-3220, and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-
sector), who can be reached at 226-2940. This estimate was 
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Section 1: Short Title
    Section 1 of the bill states the short title of the bill as 
the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.''
Section 2: Prohibition on Human Cloning
    Section 2 amends title 18, United States Code, by inserting 
after chapter 15, a new chapter 16--Human Cloning. The new 
chapter 16 is comprised of two sections, numbered 301 and 302.
    Section 301 defines the terms ``human cloning,'' ``asexual 
reproduction,'' and ``somatic cell'' as used in the bill.
    Section 302 establishes a prohibition on human cloning. 
Section 302(a) states that it shall be unlawful for any person 
or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate 
commerce, knowingly, to perform or attempt to perform human 
cloning, to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning, 
or to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced by 
human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
    Section 302(b) provides that 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.
    Section 302(c) states that any person or entity that is 
convicted of violating the prohibition on human cloning shall 
be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. If such 
person or entity derived a pecuniary gain from the violation, 
then they would also be subject to 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.
    Section 302(d) emphasizes that nothing shall restrict areas 
of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this 
bill, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or 
other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other 
than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other 
than humans. This section also makes a clerical amendment to 
the table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States 
Code.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Chap.                                                               Sec.
1.     General provisions.........................................     1
     * * * * * * *
15.    Claims and services in matters affecting government........   281
16.    Human Cloning..............................................   301
     * * * * * * *

                       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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                         TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    The next item on the agenda is markup of H.R. 2505, the 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.
    [The bill, H.R. 2505, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Smith, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, for a motion.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime reports 
favorably the bill, H.R. 2505, and moves its favorable 
recommendation to the full House.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 2505 will 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas to strike the last 
word.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The manufacture of cloned human beings alarms an 
overwhelming majority of Americans. A recent Time/CNN poll 
found that 90 percent of all Americans are opposed to cloning 
humans.
    The theoretical ability to clone humans has raised profound 
ethical and legal issues. Testimony before the Crime 
Subcommittee revealed that there are a growing number of 
individuals who claim they can and will clone a human being.
    Currently, no Federal regulations exist in the United 
States that would prevent a private group from attempting to 
create a human clone. The Food and Drug Administration has 
asserted that it has the authority, but legal scholars doubt 
whether this claimed authority would stand up to challenge.
    The bill would prevent experimental procedures that the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission call scientifically and 
ethically objectionable. The NBAC unanimously concluded that 
given the state of science, quote, ``any attempt to create a 
child using somatic cell nuclear transfer, whether in the 
public or private sector, is uncertain, and its outcome is 
unacceptably dangerous to the fetus, and therefore, morally 
unacceptable.'' End quote.
    H.R. 2505 prohibits all human cloning, which is the only 
way to insure that the ban is effective. If we were to allow 
human embryos to be cloned, it would be impossible to control 
what is done with them.
    As Dr. Leon Katz testified at a hearing, stockpiles of 
cloned human embryos could be produced, bought and sold without 
restrictions. Implantation of cloned embryos, a relatively easy 
procedure, would inevitably take place.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order, and 
the gentleman from Texas, I guess, will--should speak more 
directly into the mike.
    Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I thought I was.
    As Dr. Leon Katz testified at a hearing, stockpiles of 
cloned human embryos could be produced, bought and sold without 
restrictions. Implantation of cloned embryos, a relatively easy 
procedure, would inevitably take place. Attempts to enforce a 
cloning ban would prove impossible to monitor.
    H.R. 2505 is similar to H.R. 1644, on which the 
Subcommittee held two hearings. Changes were made to the bill 
to incorporate technical modifications to the definition of 
human cloning, and to state that the mental culpability 
standard for violating the prohibition on human cloning is 
``knowingly.'' Also, the sections on congressional findings and 
the sense of congress were removed, since these comments were 
more appropriate for a Committee report. All the testimony 
taken by this Committee on H.R. 1644 applies equally to H.R. 
2505.
    Mr. Chairman, during our hearings, we learned that any 
experiment runs a high risk of failure. In all the animal 
experiments, fewer than 2 to 3 percent of all cloning attempts 
succeeded. There were numerous fetal deaths and stillborn 
infants. Based on these experiments, cloning human beings also 
carries massive risk of producing unhealthy, abnormal and 
malformed children. The only way to prevent this from happening 
is to adopt the restrictions on human cloning set forth in H.R. 
2505.
    As Professor Bradley testified at one of our hearings, the 
only effective way to prohibit human reproductive cloning is in 
fact to prohibit all human cloning.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler. For what purpose do you see recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. Can I ask a point of information before 
striking the last word?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his point.
    Mr. Nadler. Just one clarification. It's been generally 
held that there are two types of cloning, one to produce a----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Could the gentleman speak into the 
mike, please?
    Mr. Nadler. I'm sorry. It's been generally stated--point 
well taken. It's been generally stated that there are two types 
of cloning, one to try to reproduce a human being, the other to 
produce perhaps stem cells for whatever purpose. They have been 
given different names. I forget what they are. Is this to ban 
both of them or just to produce a person?
    Mr. Smith. This bill would ban all human cloning. And I 
want to make the distinction, and perhaps I'll be able to make 
it in more detail later on, that this is a different debate 
from stem cell research. And we can go into that in a few 
minutes, but this is to ban all human cloning on the 
principle----
    Mr. Nadler. Can you define----
    Mr. Smith [continuing]. That if you allow any human 
cloning----
    Mr. Nadler. And you define cloning as anything that would 
produce a cell as stated here?
    Mr. Smith. Human cloning is defined as anything that would 
produce a human if the process were to continue.
    Mr. Nadler. Human embryo. A human--a human--a new cell 
which was capable of developing into an organism even if it 
doesn't go any further than that?
    Mr. Smith. That's correct.
    Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you. Now, move to strike the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan moves 
to strike the last word, and is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee. This may be known as the part of the meeting this 
morning in which we try to play doctor, and that's bad news for 
American patients.
    I don't think we can believe that anyone can schedule a 
single hearing and markup on this legislation and be on the 
verge of banning one of the promising medical technologies to 
come along in more than a generation. For you see, folks, the 
bill before us is so sweeping, that it would not only ban 
reproductive cloning, but all uses of nuclear cell transfer for 
experimental purposes as well.
    This would stop ongoing studies designed to help persons 
suffering from diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's disease, heart 
disease, spinal cord injury, right in its tracks. Even if the 
Administration--and I'm hoping that they will--does the right 
thing and funds stem cell research, under this bill, it would 
be next to impossible to implement any successes at the private 
level because it bans the importation of life saving medicine 
from other countries if it has anything to do with experimental 
cloning. This means that if another nation's scientists develop 
a cure for cancer, it would be illegal for persons living in 
this country to benefit from the drug. May we have more 
compassion, please?
    Now, if those who really want to do something on this and 
wanted to do something about cloning, about the problem of 
reproducing real live people, then they would join with us in 
passing legislation to criminalize reproductive cloning. There 
is broad bipartisan support, I can tell you, on both sides of 
the aisle for such a proposition, and we could come together to 
do something most people would want instead of any posturing 
and using up time on measures which have very little chance of 
being passed into law.
    And so I thank you for permitting this statement, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' 
opening statements may be placed in the record at this point.
    [The statement of Mr. Barr follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Barr, a Representative in 
                   Congress From the State of Georgia
    Research in the field of embryology and genetics has expanded 
threefold in the past decade. New advances in in-vitro fertilization 
and genetic screening are leading to many new procedures, and has made 
human embryo cloning possible.
    The practice of either embryo splitting or nuclear replacement 
technology, deliberately for the purposes of human reproductive 
cloning, raises serious ethical issues we, as policy makers, must 
address.
    The ability to produce an exact genetic replica of a human being, 
alive or deceased, carries with it an incredible responsibility. Beyond 
the fact the scientific community has yet to confirm the safety and 
efficacy of the procedure, human cloning is human experimentation taken 
to the furthest extreme. In fact, the National Bioethics Commission has 
quite clearly stated the creation of a human being by somatic cell 
nuclear transfer is both scientifically and ethically objectionable.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to further address the issue of 
``therapeutic cloning,'' that is, cloning of embryos for the purpose of 
scientific research. There is nothing humanitarian or compassionate 
about creating and destroying human life for some theoretical, 
technical benefit that is far from established. To create a cloned 
human embryo solely to harvest certain cells is just as abhorrent as 
cloning a human embryo for implantation.
    Certain scientists and self-serving organizations have regaled us 
with the infinite possibilities cloned embryos have for the treatment 
of infertility, for the development of therapies used to cure disease, 
or even for the production of organs for transplantation. These, 
however, are all mere theories. In reality, not one disease has been 
cured, nor one treatment developed based on this technology. 
Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that alternatives to this 
procedure already exist. Stem cells, which can be harvested from 
placentas and umbilical cords, even from human fat cells, have yielded 
far more results than embryonic stem cells.
    I fully support Doctor Weldon's effort to ban human embryonic 
cloning. I have co-sponsored his original bill, H.R. 1644, the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act. Nothing scientifically or medically important 
would be lost by banning embryonic cloning; ethically, we would lose 
much; and indeed, at this time, there is no clinical, scientific, 
therapeutic or moral justification for pursuing such a dangerous 
course.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? The gentleman 
from California, Mr. Schiff. Do you have an amendment?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
2505, offered by Mr. Schiff. Strike all after the enacting 
clause, and insert the following: Section I, Short Title. This 
Act may be cited as----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, request consent to waive the 
remainder of the reading.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk is passing out the wrong 
amendment, so would the clerk please read and have the staff 
pass out the correct amendments?
    The Clerk. Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. Section 
2(a), Prohibition on Human Cloning. (a) In General. Title 
XVIII, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
chapter 15 the following. Chapter 16, Human Cloning.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    [The amendment follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, the base bill 
today is offered with the best of motivations. It is out of a 
desire to ban human cloning, a practice that we all agree ought 
to be banned. The question, as raised by today's hearing on 
this bill, is how broad that ban ought to be, whether it ought 
to ban not only human cloning for the purposes of reproduction, 
but also human cloning for the purposes of research.
    There are two separate elements of research at stake here 
today: the benefit of stem cell research and the benefit of 
nuclear transfer embryonic stem cell research. And I want to 
talk very briefly about both. Stem cell research offers the 
advantage of undifferentiated cells--embryonic stem cell 
research, that is--undifferentiated cells that have the 
potential of turning into any type of cell. Adult stem cells as 
yet do not have that same capacity. Now, maybe they will in the 
future, but at this point they do not have that ability. With 
the benefit of embryonic stem cell research we have the 
opportunity to create cells of any type of the body to cure 
numerous illnesses and ailments that threaten lives of many 
around the country and around the world.
    The benefit of nuclear transfer embryonic stem cell 
research is that in addition to all of the advantages of stem 
cell research, you have the additional advantage that by using 
the patient's own DNA, we can prevent rejection, we can avoid 
the necessity of immune suppressant drugs and all of the 
detriment that that can bring to patients in terms of adverse 
side effects.
    There are two arguments in favor of a broad ban, 
notwithstanding these research benefits. The first is that life 
begins with a fertilized egg, and as to that argument, it is 
very little subject to debate in this Committee. It's my 
experience that none of us have ever persuaded one another on 
that essential moral question, and I certainly won't try today.
    The second argument, however, I think is more easy to 
discuss, and that is, it would make it more difficult to 
prevent reproductive human cloning if we fail to ban all of 
human cloning. And the fact of the matter is that where a 
person operates with an illicit motive, they will perform any 
type of cloning they choose.
    The argument against the broad ban, I think, is more 
compelling, and that is that life is sacred for all, including 
those who are ill, and this very promising research has the 
opportunity of offering life to those who currently have no 
hope. Science has truly given us a vexing choice in this issue, 
a more promising therapy with more risk of abuse. But in my 
view we ought to bet on the best people in research, and not 
bet on those who would disregard our laws, and for that reason, 
I urge Members of the Committee to support a ban on human 
cloning that does not support a ban on research, and it is 
contained in the substitute. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make 
substantial and fundamental changes to the underlying bill. 
Specifically, the prohibition of human cloning would be changed 
from banning all human cloning, to only prohibiting human 
cloning with the intent to initiate a pregnancy. This approach 
is unenforceable. Once cloned embryos are produced and 
available in laboratories, I want to repeat, it is impossible 
to control what is done with them.
    Stockpiles of cloned human embryos could be produced, 
bought and sold without restrictions. Attempts to enforce a 
cloning ban would prove impossible to monitor. Mr. Chairman, 
creating cloned human children necessarily begins by producing 
cloned human embryos. If we want to prevent the latter, we 
should prevent the former.
    It has been argued that H.R. 2505 would have a negative 
impact on scientific research. This argument is unsupported, 
both by the language in the bill and by the testimony received 
by the Crime Subcommittee during two legislative hearings that 
we held. The language of the bill specifically states that 
nothing shall restrict areas of scientific research not 
specifically prohibited by this bill, including research into 
use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques used to 
produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, 
tissues, organs, plants or animals or other humans.
    Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that there are a 
number of individuals, including Senator Hatch, the Ranking 
Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who support stem cell 
research, but also support a ban on human cloning. The National 
Institutes of Health, the NIH, and the National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission also have expressed serious concerns over 
creating embryos specifically for research purposes.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me quote from an editorial in 
the Washington Post, again showing the distinction between stem 
cell research and banning human clones. The Washington Post 
stated, quote: ``It is not necessary 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 Post went on to 
characterize the creation of embryos solely for research as 
unconscionable.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend the 
gentleman from California for a very reasonable attempt to 
prohibit human cloning with prohibiting the ability to conduct 
viable, medical research. And I think the measure before us, 
H.R. 2505, bans reproductive cloning, and then goes further to 
ban necessary therapeutic research which could grant new hope 
to patients who have been told there is no cure for their 
illnesses.
    Now, reproductive cloning to produce a pregnancy, I think, 
should be prohibited. But in prohibiting reproductive cloning, 
we do not need to exclude valuable research cloning that could 
lead to significant medical advances. And that's why I think 
this amendment really makes this measure palatable, because it 
narrows the prohibition and focuses on actions which would 
result in a cloned child by limiting the prohibition to cloning 
with the intent to initiate a pregnancy. This ensures that the 
cloning of humans is prohibited while the use of cloning for 
medical purposes is preserved.
    And so I think--I think we've hit it right on the head 
here, and I commend Adam Schiff for this great contribution. I 
return any time left.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. What purpose does the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Keller, seek recognition?
    Mr. Keller. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Keller. Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment, and 
ask my colleagues to support the bill, the Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2001 as is. I want to acknowledge the 
outstanding work on this bill done by my colleague from 
Florida, Dr. Weldon, who is with us today.
    Recent reports have indicated that there are reputable 
scientists and physicians who have announced their intention to 
produce the first human clone, and this raises several ethical 
issues related to human cloning, even if there is some sort of 
research benefit. For example, one of the ethical questions: 
Will parents seek to clone children in order to provide 
tissues, organs or bone marrow for transplant into another 
child? Now, truly, that would benefit the first child, but it 
raises a heck of a large ethical question with respect to the 
manner in which they do that, using that research.
    I think it also has to be recognized that any attempt at 
cloning a human being would be experimentation on the resulting 
child to be. Each experiment runs a very high risk of failure. 
98 percent of the cloning attempts with animals have failed, 
and there is a very high incidence of major disabilities and 
deformities in the cloned animals that do attain live birth.
    This is a good bill. It provides appropriate and stiff 
penalties of a million dollars civil fines and 10 years in 
prison. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and 
yes on the original bill. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Nadler, seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending Mr. 
Schiff for a very well thought out and very well designed 
amendment.
    Mr. Chairman, this bill, as drafted, unfortunately combines 
two completely separate issues, and they are separate issues. 
One is cloning for the purpose of producing a pregnancy and 
producing another human being, and for the reason stated by Mr. 
Keller, there are real problems with that. First of all, the 
technology isn't developed and a lot of children would be born 
with terrible deformities and so forth, and it would be a moral 
horror to do that. Even were the technology developed, and one 
day it will be, I presume, it raises severe ethical problems, 
though I'm not sure that a 100 percent ban would be ethically 
desirable in any event. We need a lot of years yet to think 
that out. For example, if a married couple couldn't have a 
child, but could have a child if you took an egg from the woman 
and the--and used human somatic transfer to take the genes from 
the father--from the husband into the woman's egg, and then 
implant it in--implant it in her, whether that clone of the 
father, in effect, from that couple, would be so morally 
terrible, I'm not so sure that there's something wrong with 
that. But that's an issue that we don't have to face now. I 
don't have a problem with banning the whole--human reproductive 
cloning now with a 5 or 10-year take a look at it again once 
the technology is complete and we've thought these issues 
through more, because there might be some exceptions.
    However, the idea of banning cloning as just to produce an 
embryo, a couple--defining an embryo as we do, as a few cells, 
I don't regard--many people don't regard--some religions do, 
some don't--an embryo as a human being. Now you're getting 
really into the ultimate right-to-life question, is an embryo a 
human being? I say no. I say it is not more--a fetus at some 
point becomes a human being, and we know all the questions 
about abortion. At one point this will become a human being. We 
all differ on that. But an embryo, as far as I'm concerned, as 
far as many religions are concerned, is not a human being, and 
I have no moral compunction about killing that embryo for 
therapeutic or experimental purposes at all.
    And this says no human--no scientific research shall be 
banned except if it including--if it produces cells other than 
human embryos. What if you produce a human embryo? Let me give 
you an example. Let's assume someone has a terrible disease. 
It's a few years from now. We have better stem cell technology, 
and the way to cure that disease without risking rejection from 
autoimmune--without risking immune system rejection, is to take 
a cell from that person, clone it, get an embryo, take a stem 
cell out of that, develop new heart tissue to solve his heart 
disease. That may be the technology 10 or 15 years from now. 
Why should we ban that and ban the research for it? And the 
answer is, we should ban it only if you regard an embryo of 5 
or 10 cells as a human being.
    Now some right-to-life--I won't say extremists, because 
they're entitled to their view--some right-to-life purists 
regard that, some churches regard that. Others do not. I don't 
think we ought to be enacting bans on medical research and on 
medical practice that can have real therapeutic value and save 
lives because of our theological view. And this comes back--and 
it is intimately connected to the stem cell controversy, 
because the way to produce stem cells that don't have--and 
tissues derived from stem cells, where those tissues are heart 
tissues or pancreas or to solve whatever disease it may be, 
without the risk of rejection, may very well be through cloning 
from the very person who you're going to treat.
    Mr. Conyers. Could the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. In one second. So to pass this extreme a bill, 
going right across the board, and ban all the research because 
of a fundamentalist view that an embryo, a few cells is the 
same as a human being, and, therefore, we'd rather let existing 
human beings die for lack of medical treatment, is something 
that I don't think we ought to engage in, and I commend the 
gentleman for the amendment, and I'll yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Conyers. Oh, good. Well, I am just reassured that the 
gentleman if for the amendment. I just wanted to double check. 
Thank you very much.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I'll yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to briefly state my agreement 
with a point made by the gentleman. We are a democracy here in 
the United States. We are not a theocracy. And I think that 
when we have issues such as this, where the religious in 
America are completely divided on what is required of us by our 
own religious beliefs, that it is not for the United States 
Congress to pick which religions are going to be adhered to and 
which are not in the direction of scientific research. So I 
believe that the gentleman's amendment draws the correct line.
    Certainly, whatever the future may bring, there is no 
justification for human cloning to create a live birth at this 
point because of the inherent dangers. This is no dispute as to 
that fact now, and we need to go no further, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired. For what purpose the gentleman from Virginia seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from Ronald 
M. Green, Director of Ethics Institute, Chair of the Department 
of Religion at Dartmouth College. He is a bioethicist. He has 
been pPesident of the Society of Christian Ethics, the largest 
association of religious ethicists in the world, and Secretary 
of the American Academy of Religion, the professional 
association of educators in religion in the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, in his letter he says that he wishes to draw 
your attention to devastating implications for medical science 
of H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. ``In 
its current form, H.R. 2505 would make it unlawful to perform 
or attempt to perform human cloning in any form. This 
prohibition appropriately rules out reproductive cloning, the 
attempt to initiate a pregnancy through cloning and the view of 
the still unknown--in view of the still unknown risks to 
offspring produced by cloning, no responsible ethicist believes 
that we're ready to use nuclear transfer technology for 
reproductive purposes.''
    ``However, as written, the bill would also prohibit several 
other very research directions of possibly great medical 
benefit. One of these is the new technology known as nuclear 
transfer for cell replacement or therapeutic cloning. An 
article that I co-authored in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association last December explains this technology.''
    ``As the article makes clear, nuclear transfer for cell 
replacement would permit us to use immunologically compatible 
cells for tissue repair. There is no intention on the part of 
those researching this technology to clone a person. Using this 
technology, a child suffering from diabetes could receive a 
replacement set of insulin-producing cells. These would not be 
rejected by the child because they would be produced via 
nuclear transfer procedure from the child's own body cells. 
Neither would the implantation of these cells require the use 
of dangerous immunosuppressant drugs. Using this same 
technology, paralyzed individuals might receive a graft of 
nervous system cells that would restore spinal cord function, 
burn victims could receive their own skin tissue back for wound 
healing and so on.''
    ``As presently drafted, H.R. 2505 will shut down this 
research in this country. This would represent an unparalleled 
loss to biomedical research and for no good reason. As the 
amendment to be introduced by Representative Adam Schiff makes 
clear, it is possible to prohibit reproductive cloning, an 
attempt to initiate a pregnancy, while allowing nuclear 
transfer research that aims only at producing immunologically-
compatible cells for tissue replacement and repair or for other 
valid medical purposes.''
    ``In January of this year, by an overwhelming vote, the 
British Parliament approved similar research. In that country 
the government not only permits nuclear transfer research for 
cell replacement, it funds it. In our own country private 
companies are willing to use their own resources to further 
this research. No one is seeking Federal support. However, 
neither should the Federal Government intervene at this time to 
prohibit such research.''
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce the entire letter and 
the article into the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The material referred to follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Conyers. Let's vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan is 
suggesting that we vote. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from North Carolina seek recognition?
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes Members of 
Congress--and I guess everybody on this Committee knows that, 
but I'm not sure everybody in the public knows it--sometimes 
we're just inadequate to deal with certain issues, and it's not 
because we are political. I think our intentions are good. And 
when I see a bill cosponsored by Mr. Weldon and Mr. Stupak and 
Mr. Kerns and Mr. Kucinich, which kind of represents the entire 
ideological spectrum of the Congress almost, it demonstrate how 
difficult an issue this is.
    Depending on who you talk to, I was within minutes, or 
hours, or maybe days, of being a cosponsor of Mr. Weldon's bill 
myself. And I want to commend the work Mr. Weldon has done on 
this issue, taking the lead on it, and campaigning for it, and 
aggressively campaigning with me for his position.
    In the final analysis, I decided that I didn't know enough 
about this area to really effectively cosponsor a bill, and 
that I needed to understand more about the bill. I vigorously 
opposed human cloning and oppose human cloning, vigorously 
oppose human cloning for the purpose of cloning people, cloning 
children, and--but I think I also, as vigorously, think that we 
ought not stifle medical advances if we can avoid doing so in 
an ethical way. And I think in the final analysis I became 
convinced, as in many, many other areas of the law, the law is 
made for people who will abide by it, and there will always be 
someone who will violate the law, and I'm not sure that you can 
ever write a law that is airtight enough to keep mal-
intentioned individuals from violating the law.
    So given that dilemma, I think Mr. Schiff probably has 
drawn a better balance on this issue. He has prohibited, in his 
amendment, what I believe vigorously ought to be prohibited. He 
has, it seems to me--although I am not adequate really to 
understand all of the medical technology and terms that either 
of these documents have introduced. It seems to me that he--his 
amendment would allow the continuation of research, stem cell 
research, and medical advances that I think we need to at 
least--at least leave ourselves open to at this point. And 
therefore, it is my intention to support Mr. Schiff's 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield? Would the 
gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. If I have some time, I'm happy to yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman. I just briefly want 
to associate myself with your remarks about the difficulty of 
this question and the fact that Mr. Weldon has worked so hard 
on it. But I think that because we are exploring new grounds, 
important new ground, saving lives, providing opportunities for 
in vitro fertilization, and very important research, that we 
must be cautious in how we limit this important option, if you 
will. I think Mr. Schiff strikes a real balance. Support the 
legislation.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, might I reclaim and ask unanimous 
consent for 30 additional seconds?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And I support the legislation. Yielding 
back to the gentleman.
    Mr. Watt. I just want to reaffirm to Mr. Weldon, since he's 
here, and do it publicly, that my mind has not closed on this 
issue. I think it is an issue that we need more information 
about. I really wish, since I'm not on the Crime Subcommittee, 
that we had had some full Committee hearings on this issue, so 
that those of us who are really wrestling with it seriously, 
could have understood----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has once again 
expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon, seek recognition?
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I am deeply 
reluctant to take time on this----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Cannon. I would just like to make a couple of points. 
First of all, there will always be violators of the law, but 
the law is a great teacher. And so I think we need to decide 
here where we are going to go.
    Secondly, I don't believe this is a theological issue. I 
believe for Jews, for Catholics, and as a Mormon, the doctrine 
related to when life begins is clearly unclear. I think the 
Pope made that clear recently. But the foundation of American 
Government--and by the way, it's not a democracy, and that's 
particularly relevant here--the foundation of our Government is 
respect for the individual, and the problem we have is a lack 
of understanding when individuality begins. It seems to me that 
what we ought to be doing is erring on the side of protecting 
what may become an individual life. Granted, there are many, 
many benefits that may flow from this kind of research. The 
problem is that as you go down this slope, it is a slippery 
slope. While it's clearly not clear from most religions when 
life begins, whether that's at conception or some other time, 
there is no other point in the process that you can 
definitively say is the beginning of life. And therefore it 
seems to me that what we ought to be doing here is erring on 
the side of protecting those fundamental concepts that make 
America, which is respect for the individual.
    Over time we can always come back and revisit this as we 
begin to understand more clearly how life begins, how life 
develops, but it seems to me that in the short term, we ought 
to be thinking in terms of principles and foundational 
concepts, and let knowledge develop over time, at which point 
we could revisit this issue. But once you----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Cannon. If we don't disallow cloning now, I don't 
believe we will have the opportunity to do that in the future.
    And frankly, I would like to yield, but in deference to the 
Chairman, I would prefer to yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman will yield, I'll take less 
time than striking the last word.
    Mr. Cannon. I'd be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.
    Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman, 
because I do think that--I was the one that mentioned that we 
should not be a theocracy here in the United States Congress, 
and I believe that quite strongly.
    In terms of respecting the individual, you are correct, but 
what about the individual scientist who had to flee California 
and relocate from the University of California at San Francisco 
last week, relocate his science research in England because of 
what we are doing here in the United States Congress? What 
about respect for the individual who has Parkinson's disease or 
Alzheimer's disease or who is paralyzed and might have the 
opportunity to walk again if scientists were allowed to do this 
research? We're not talking about a person. We are talking 
about what the scientists refer as cell replacement through 
nuclear transfer, an embryo that may not be nurtured and may 
not develop into a human being.
    Now, I understand that different people with different 
religious views see that differently, and I respect that each 
of us, from our faiths, comes to a different conclusion about 
what that means. But what I think is important is that in the 
murky area that you have referred to, where people of good 
faith reach different conclusions about a 14-day developed 
embryo, where each cell--where the embryo could become two--
could become triplets, that at that point for the Congress to 
step in and say the religions that have a view that that is a 
person are going to trump the religious views of those who do 
not----
    Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming--reclaiming my time.
    Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. And we are going to impose that 
religious view on the scientists of America, I don't think 
that's respectful of the individual's----
    Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Cannon. This is not again a matter of religion, from my 
perspective. Certainly my religion is totally and completely 
unclear on this point. It is not, from my perspective, an issue 
of religion.
    As to your scientist, who you would like to respect, I 
respect scientists as well, we are lawmakers and the law is a 
teacher. This is a grave responsibility, I will grant you that.
    As to the person with Parkinson's, this is a tragedy. I 
think that a greater tragedy is potential in a course of action 
that could lead to a failure to be able to distinguish when an 
individual is an individual, and err--and therefore I would 
prefer to err on the side of safety at this point in time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. What purpose does the gentlewoman 
from California seek recognition?
    Ms. Waters. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for 
your patience and generosity in allowing those of us who want 
to take the time to at least express how we feel about these 
two bills.
    I think all of us or most of us have real problems with 
human cloning, and would not support any reproductive cloning 
in any shape, form or fashion. However, I think the original 
bill that we are looking at, H.R. 2505, is flawed in that it is 
literally saying to us if a cure or remedy is developed through 
this process in some other country and we have something that 
could deal with Alzheimer's disease or diabetes or some of the 
other diseases that are literally devastating our society, we 
would not be able to use it, and I think that's unconscionable.
    I have real questions about this whole area of cloning, and 
I do think that the Members of this Committee should have more 
information. It would have been great to have a full Committee 
hearing. It would be great to have briefings, and even an 
extended workshop of some kind to further understand in more 
detail what it is we are legislating. I'm not so sure that Mr. 
Schiff's substitute is crafted in such a way that would give 
all of the protections that perhaps I would like to have at 
this time.
    However, if I am to err in this--with this vote, I am going 
to err on the side of saving human beings. I am watching many 
Americans die--well, human beings period, but many Americans, 
people in my neighborhood, people in my city and in the State, 
people I've worked with, I've known, die from the devastating 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, and other kinds of disease, and cancer. 
And I just feel in an advanced society, we should know more, we 
should have advanced further in saving lives. It is just unreal 
that cancer continues to take as many lives as it is taking and 
destroying in this country. It seems to me that we should have 
advanced further than we have at this point.
    And so even though I do have some questions still, I am 
going to err on the side of the kind of research that will help 
to stem the tide of the loss of life from what I think are 
preventable diseases.
    And so I am pleased that you have given us the opportunity 
to express ourselves even though we have not a lot to add to 
the body of information, but simply to express our feelings 
about this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Waters. I will yield.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of, ask for 
unanimous consent to have admitted to the record a letter from 
a couple dozen universities, medical schools and research 
institutes in opposition to the base bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The material referred to follows:]

    
    
     
    
    
    Mr. Schiff. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Illinois seek recognition?
    Mr. Hyde. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This has been and will continue to be a fascinating 
subject, a profound subject, one of immense consequence, and I 
think at the center of the controversy is the embryo and what 
is an embryo? Clearly, if one is an advocate for abortion, one 
wishes to dehumanize the embryo, dehumanize the fetus, and as a 
matter of fact, dehumanize a four-fifths born baby through 
partial-birth abortion. Definitions are important.
    If on the other hand, you concede the embryo is human life, 
perhaps short of personhood, but it is human life, it's not 
animal, it's not vegetable, it's not mineral, it's human, it 
has the 46 chromosomes, 23 and 23, for a human entity, the 
question is: No matter how wonderful the purpose the research, 
may we create embryos, may we create what is human life by any 
reasonable scientific, not theological, definition? May we 
destroy that human life because our purpose is perhaps to help 
alleviate some medical condition?
    I think it again depends on how we respect human life in 
whatever manifestation. It's tiny, it's microscopic, but what 
you're doing is creating embryos, and an embryo is human life, 
it is not a speck of dust, it is not cartilage or sinew. It is 
human life. And when you--no matter what the purpose of the 
research is, if you are destroying human life to get at that 
purpose, it seems to me that is a tradeoff that's unworthy.
    The Chicago Sun Times, certainly not a pro-life organ, had 
an editorial that said it all. It says, ``We can debate all day 
whether an embryo is or isn't a person, but it is 
unquestionably human life, complete with its own unique set of 
human genes that inform and drive its own development. The idea 
of the manufacture of such a magnificent thing as a human life 
purely for the purpose of conducting research, is grotesque at 
best whether or not it's federally funded.''
    So really the question is, do everybody's tax dollars, are 
they--is it appropriate to spend them doing research which 
creates human life in a petri dish, and then destroys that life 
to get at the stem cell? I say no. I say if we respect human 
life, no matter how tiny or how small or how vulnerable, or 
embryonic, we should reject cloning in all its manifestations, 
and I support the bill. Yield back.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Massachusetts seek recognition?
    Mr. Frank. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First I want to comment on the--what--the remarks of the 
gentleman from Utah. There is another obvious place. He says 
where do you start, slippery slope, how do you define the 
beginning of human life, if not at conception, then where? 
Well, one place could be at implantation. The Senator from--
Senator Hatch, who is very pro-life, very anti-abortion, anti-
choice, said that he draws a distinction between an embryo 
that's implanted in a woman's uterus and is going to develop 
into a person and--I don't want to paraphrase. I don't remember 
his phrase exactly, but I think--but a clump of cells created 
in a petri dish, never in a woman, which will not, unless 
implanted in a woman develop into a life. You could do it there 
as logically.
    But let me now comment on the profound comments of the 
gentleman from Illinois. An embryo, a clump of a few cells, he 
regards, many people regard, as human life, and therefore, even 
to save other human lives, how can you sacrifice it, is the 
essence of his remarks. I respect those remarks. I respect that 
view. I don't share it.
    The fact is, a skin cell--and I just destroyed a million of 
them by flicking my finger against my hand--a skin cell also 
has 46 chromosomes. We can't produce a human being from a skin 
cell today, but I have no doubt that 50 or 60 years from now 
the technology will exist to produce a human being from any 
cell in our body without transfer of DNA from one person's cell 
into another--into an egg cell. I have no doubt 1 day we'll 
have the technology to take any cell out of your body, put it 
in a petri dish and start an embryo growing. Does that make 
every cell in your body sacrosanct?
    The fact is that the embryo, at that stage, has no nerve 
cells, no feelings, no brain, no heart, no nerve impulses. You 
can take a view that it's a human life. You can just as 
logically take the view that it is not human life.
    From my point of view--and that--and your conclusion on 
that question, whether you regard a clump of cells with no 
nerves, no feelings, no nerve impulses, no activity that we--
that we associate with human beings or for that matter with--
even with animals, if that is a live human being, I differ. I 
don't give it the same moral worth as a human being. And to me, 
the medical research, how can you say to somebody, who you 
could cure of a deadly disease, ``We will not cure you of this 
disease because you are not less important, but only as 
important as a clump of cells?''
    Mr. Hyde. Will my friend yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Hyde. I think what we----
    Mr. Frank. I will yield. I'm sorry. I will yield.
    Mr. Hyde. All right, thank you. I think what we overlook is 
this isn't an either/or situation. Stem cell research can 
continue, just not embryonic, but adult stem cells which are 
being used with immense efficacy in treating some of these 
horrible diseases, and we just ignore that and make this an 
either/or situation if we don't buy into destroying embryos for 
their stem cells.
    Mr. Frank. I yield back to the gentleman.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. But the fact is, adult stem cells 
may very well prove efficacious in certain ways. The scientists 
tell us that it is at this point not clear whether we can do 
everything with adult stem cells that we can do with--or for 
that matter with stem cells that you can get out of the 
umbilical cord or the placenta, as you can from an embryonic 
stem cell. And the fact is that we are choosing--if we do not 
permit that research and potentially the medical treatment, to 
forgo life--possibly to forgo life-saving techniques that you 
could do with one but not the other. We just don't know that at 
this point. And we can get scientists here to tell us both 
ways, but the truth is, we don't now.
    And the fundamental point comes back to this: either you 
believe--and I don't think it is congress's role to impose this 
belief, frankly--and by the way, the gentleman from Illinois 
talked about medical research being funded by the taxpayers or 
all views. We're not talking in this bill about taxpayer 
funding. We're talking about prohibiting, under penalty of 
criminal law, certain not only research, but therapy which will 
result from that research because of a certain belief which 
people are entitled to hold, but I don't think are entitled to 
impose on everyone else, namely that a clump of cells never 
implanted in a woman, with no heart, feelings, nerves, et 
cetera, is a human being.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Schiff.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Schiff. Request a roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Roll call will be ordered. Those in 
favor of the Schiff substitute will, as your names are called, 
answer aye, those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the 
role.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Gekas?
    Mr. Gekas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?
    Mr. Hutchinson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the 
chamber who wish to cast their vote or change their vote? The 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 19 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California. 
The clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Amendment to H.R. 2505, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
    Ms. Lofgren. No, it's Mr. Conyers----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This is the Lofgren amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. And Ms. Lofgren.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Lofgren amendment.
    The Clerk. I'm sorry. I don't have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentlewoman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, as we have been discussing this 
bill is--the underlying bill is incredibly overbroad. If we 
wanted to pass a bill that prohibits human cloning, it would 
sail through Congress. I think we'd have a unanimous vote of 
this Committee. Instead, this bill not only prohibits human 
cloning, but it also halts the progress of medical research. 
The bill is overbroad that it would prohibit stem cell 
research, and the current phase of stem cell research involves 
harvesting stem cells from fertilized eggs.
    However, many in the scientific community believe that once 
this technology is perfected, the next phase will be to 
duplicate a person's own tissue for tissue transplants and 
other therapies.
    The National Institute of Health released a study just this 
month, on July 18th, which examined the potential of adult as 
well as embryonic stem cells, and after surveying the current 
state of the science, the NIH concluded that embryonic stem 
cells have important advantages over adult stem cells. They can 
develop into many more different cell types, they cannot be 
generated in the same quantities in the laboratory, and they 
are difficult and sometimes dangerous to extract from an adult 
patient, especially stem cells located in the brain.
    Further, it noted that somatic cell nuclear transfer, also 
known as therapeutic cloning, would be an advantageous way of 
creating stem cell transplants. It would not be rejected by the 
body's immune system, eliminating the need for 
immunosuppressive drugs.
    The NIH, therefore, concluded that further research must be 
allowed before we discard the potential benefits of embryonic 
stem cells and nuclear transfer research. It wrote, and I 
quote, ``Predicting the future of stem cell applications is 
impossible, particularly given the very early stage of the 
science of stem cell biology. To date, it is impossible to 
predict which stem cells--those derived from the embryo, the 
fetus, or the adult--or which methods for manipulating the 
cells will best meet the needs of basic research and clinical 
applications. The answers clearly lie in conducting more 
research.''
    You know, we have had a debate on Mr. Schiff's amendment, 
and this amendment really puts the question even more starkly 
than the prior amendment. Basically, the amendment says this: 
``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit research or therapies 
using human pluripotent stem cells derived from human 
embryos.''
    We know that the debate on cell research is ongoing. 
Recently, the--I think it was just yesterday--the Pope advised 
the President to eliminate stem cell research in America. And 
there are those who--of the Catholic faith who feel that. There 
are many others of other faiths who do not agree and who 
believe that we should not stifle the advance of science that 
will save so many in this world from disease and from lives of 
pain and futility.
    We know that the President has a decision make--to make. I 
was actually very interested that Senator Orrin Hatch, who is 
ardently pro-life and certainly a conservative, favors the 
research and he says that, quote, ``A fetus developing in a 
mother's womb is different than a frozen''--and again I quote, 
``a frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a clinic.'' 
Similarly, former Senator Connie Mack from Florida, who's also 
a pro-life conservative, said that, quote, ``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.''
    I don't think we should pre-empt the Administration's 
decision by approving this bill, or if we do, we need to 
include this amendment that allows research to continue while 
eliminating and prohibiting the cloning of human beings in a 
reproductive sense.
    I would note--and I think Congressman Schiff has included 
the letter in the record, but some of the groups that are 
opposing the underlying bill, unless it is amended to allow 
research, include the Alliance for Aging Research, the American 
Association for Cancer Research, the American Liver Foundation, 
the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Biotechnology 
Industry Association, the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma, and 
Immunology, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation 
International, the Kidney Cancer Foundation, National AIDS 
Treatment Advocacy Project, and on and on, including the 
Wisconsin Research Institute.
    I hope that we may adopt this very clear amendment that is 
pro-science, but that also allows us to come together and ban 
the reproductive cloning that is so troublesome to all of us.
    And with that, I yield back----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, this may well be a benign 
amendment, but I'm going to ask my colleagues to oppose it for 
two reasons.
    The first is that, as I read the underlying bill, this 
amendment is not necessary because the procedure, as described 
by the gentlewoman from California, would not be prohibited by 
the bill's language.
    The second reason I urge my colleagues to oppose it is I 
believe the language may be--and it may be unintentionally so--
too broad and too ambiguous. The gentlewoman's amendment starts 
off with the word ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit'' and 
ends with the phrase ``human embryos,'' with nothing in the 
amendment that would describe how the human embryos are 
obtained or why they're created. So I do have concerns about 
the breadth of the language and also want to say that, as I 
read the underlying language, it would--the procedure 
described, if it is narrow, would not be prohibited by the--by 
the bill.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. And, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to 
the gentlewoman from California, particularly on the point of 
her being able to point to language in the bill that would 
prohibit this procedure that she has outlined in her amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. The National Institute of Health disagrees 
with the comments just--you have just made indicating that the 
bill would preclude somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known 
as therapeutic cloning, which is why we would carve out and 
protect researcher therapies using human pluripotent stem cells 
that are derived from human embryos.
    If the bill--the underlying bill eliminates cloning, and 
cloning is the insertion of the DNA into an egg that has been 
emptied out, and that process can be used to attempt to derive 
an embryo that would then result in a live birth, with 
disastrous results, as we know, from the animal 
experimentation, or instead, that process might be used to 
develop a cluster of cells that is undifferentiated, without 
organs, and is then utilized to develop into skin, into neurons 
that can be used as therapies. But the actual insertion of DNA 
into the denuded egg is the same at the outset, and without a 
save for science, your bill would--would outlaw that, and that 
is not only my view but the view of the National Institute of 
Health.
    And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I will just reclaim my time and 
state again that it's perhaps that we do have a disagreement on 
both the meaning of the amendment as well as the meaning of the 
underlying language is yet another reason to oppose this 
amendment. And I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
for what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Frank. To strike the requisite number of----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized----
    Mr. Frank [continuing]. Words.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I am in my 21st year, and I am 
waiting for the occasion on which someone argues against an 
amendment on the grounds that it is unnecessary and persuades 
me that that is, in fact, the reason for the opposition.
    The notion that you would oppose an amendment solely 
because it is unnecessary leaves me skeptical for a number of 
reasons.
    First, we are not, either as politicians or as lawyers, as 
most of us are, professions inherently opposed to repetition. 
The profession that has given the world ``belt and 
suspenders,'' ``cease and desist,'' ``lewd and lascivious''--
none of which, I should say, apply to this bill--hardly has 
standing to complain that language might be unnecessary.
    In my experience, people oppose language on the grounds 
that it is unnecessary because they find it inconvenient 
because it--opposing it would require them to get more specific 
than they want to about a particular case. Sometimes people 
have been part of a coalition that has drawn up a bill and 
aren't empowered, unilaterally agree to change. That's their 
right. But I just want to make it very clear both in this 
particular instance and as a general legislative principle. The 
argument that something is unnecessary is never a valid 
argument for legislation. Repetition does not harm. The paper's 
pretty cheap that we use to print it. It's a pretty small 
amendment. It probably wouldn't even cost us to print even one 
more page.
    So the fact that it's unnecessary is hardly a reasonable 
proposal. And, indeed, we know that it is important, and courts 
have told us this, that they want us to be clear and not to be 
ambiguous. There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to 
the meaning. The gentlewoman from California has cited the 
National Institutes of Health. People who are not opposed to 
this would have no objection to the amendment. There needs to 
be something more than the claim of lack of necessity.
    Now, the second point the gentleman from Texas raised is a 
substantive one, that it may be looser than it should be with 
regard to the last phrase. If that's the case, I'd be prepared 
to see--I assume the gentlewoman from California would be, 
too--an amendment to the amendment that might tighten that part 
up. But the notion that it is unnecessary to make the bill 
clearer is never persuasive. What could the objection be? Pride 
of authorship? I mean, it's--it's a bill that embodies the 
values of its authors, but it did not strike me as great 
literature. I don't think the gentlewoman's language, even if 
you thought it was unnecessary, spoils the rhythm of the prose. 
It will still stand as well as it did before.
    No one argues against the bill because it really is 
unnecessary. That's an argument given, as I said, when people 
may want it to be more restrictive than it is.
    Now, again, there is a second argument that the gentleman 
made, namely, that ``derived from human embryos'' might be 
inferred to mean a lessening of other restrictions. That I 
assume could easily be fixed by language if that were, in fact, 
an ambiguity. The gentlewoman from California might be tempted 
to respond that it wouldn't be necessary to fix that. But I'm 
sure in graciousness of spirit she would not object to a little 
bit of a change in her language.
    So the question should not be whether or not it is 
unnecessary, whether or not the drafters were perfect, whether 
or not an extra word or two might somehow spoil the meter, 
spoil the literary symmetry. Let's have the debate on the 
merits. If, in fact, there is agreement that there should be 
allowed the sort of research that is described in the 
amendment, let's adopt the amendment and resolve any possible 
ambiguity. If people don't think there should be such research, 
let them argue against it on the merits, and if they are 
afraid, because of the last phrase, that it gets beyond where 
it should be, let them deal with that.
    But I would hope that we would not hide behind a wholly 
unpersuasive claim of redundancy on a matter of this 
importance.
    I thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment of 
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren. Those in favor 
will signify by saying aye? Opposed, no? The noes appear to 
have it----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested. Those 
in favor of the Lofgren amendment will, as your names are 
called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Gekas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the 
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote? The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Gekas. I wish to be recorded as no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arkansas?
    Mr. Hutchinson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there anybody else who wishes to 
cast or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 18 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas. ``Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark 
and the period which follows: Page 4''----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
    There are many comments that have been made this morning 
that I could readily associate myself with. I think the primary 
issue is that there is general consensus around the question of 
cloning, human cloning in particular.
    I would have asked that this process take a longer period 
of time, that hearings could have been held in the full 
Committee. And I also want to acknowledge the work that Dr. 
Weldon did on this legislation in working with and approaching 
many of us to include or secure our support.
    As I listen to the debate this morning, there is a great 
sense of unreadiness on this legislation, and it seems a slight 
bit of arrogance for us as mostly trained lawyers to ignore the 
expertise of enormous scientific and medical reach that have 
not in anger or not in an effort of bad faith have raised up 
their voices in opposition to this particular legislation as it 
relates to the finite and important aspect of medical research.
    My amendment in particular deals specifically with the 
question of in vitro fertilization and the great need that we 
have in our community to provide for those couples desirous of 
providing life to be able to proceed with a degree of safety 
under the research that gives them that opportunity.
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise that 
10 percent of couples in this country, or 6 million couples, 
experience infertility at any given time. In 1998, the last 
year for which data is available, there were 80,000 recorded in 
vitro fertilization attempts out of which 28,500 babies were 
born; 28,500 families were able to provide the love and 
nurturing to a child. Thousands of other children were 
conceived and born as a result of what is now considered lower-
technology procedures such as intrauterine insemination.
    Recent improvements in scientific advancement program 
possible in more than half of the couples pursuing treatments. 
Like the Schiff substitute, the language in my amendment makes 
it explicitly clear that embryonic stem cell research and 
medical treatments will not be banned or restricted for the 
millions of Americans struggling with infertility.
    This provision is very important. Infertility is a crucial 
area of medicine in which we are developing cutting-edge 
techniques that help our patients. It is and would be 
irresponsible to cut short the ability of these procedures by 
legislation that mistakenly eliminates the opportunity for this 
kind of research.
    Let me also offer to say that the American Infertility 
Association, which engages in this kind of medical assistance, 
realizes the importance of opposing human cloning. By letter 
June 26, 2001, they clearly say that the American Infertility 
Association is strongly opposed to human reproductive cloning. 
But they go on to say that there is another legislative 
initiative that we are not marking up, H.R. 2172, by Mr. 
Greenwood, which makes it explicitly clear that other related 
research and medical treatments will not be banned or 
restricted. For the millions of Americans struggling with 
infertility, this provision is very important.
    My amendment speaks to this. My amendment bears 
consideration and acceptance by this Committee because it 
clarifies that it protects the very important research dealing 
with infertility, giving 28,000 families and how many others 
the opportunity to give birth where birth may not have been 
possible.
    I supported Mr. Schiff's amendment, the Lofgren amendment, 
because every morning when I wake up, for those of us who claim 
our personal religious beliefs, we are thankful for life. We 
are thankful that we arise in good health. But what about those 
who are suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injury, HIV/AIDS, 
heart disease, stroke, and many, many others--Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's--who wake up every morning with the pain and 
anguish of disease. What about those loving parents who wake up 
every morning with the pain and anguish of those who are 
desiring to be parents who cannot give birth?
    I am frightened that our zealousness to do what all of us--
--
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time----
    Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Seemingly in this Committee 
want us to do----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. Has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. To be able to not have 
cloning----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would simply ask for the support of my 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Texas seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment for the same reasons we 
opposed the last amendment.
    The first is I believe the language in this amendment is 
too broad. If you look at line 5, you'll see the phrase ``any 
form of sexual reproduction.'' I believe that phrase ``any 
form'' at best is ambiguous, at worst is too broad.
    The second reason to oppose this is because, once again, 
it's not necessarily necessary. And I think there is a good 
reason to oppose amendments or language that aren't considered 
necessary, because, quite frankly, until you have studied the 
language, you don't necessarily appreciate all the nuances of 
the language. Language can oftentimes have unintended 
consequences that may or may not be the intent of the author. 
And, in any case, we shouldn't take a chance.
    So I think it is legitimate to oppose an amendment or 
oppose the addition of language that appears to be not 
necessary simply because you are unsure.
    So for those two reasons, both because the language is too 
broad and the amendment is unnecessary, I urge my----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barr. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith [continuing]. Colleagues to oppose it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barr. Will the gentleman yield down here to your right?
    Mr. Smith. Oh, be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
    Mr. Barr. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I appreciate the gentleman's enunciation of a position that 
I think is very constitutionally sound, and that is, we ought 
to be opposing amendments and changes and proposals to U.S. 
criminal law that are unnecessary. I think that is a very sound 
reason, consistent with our whole form of republican--small 
``r''--form of government.
    I also have been around long enough--and I think most 
Members have--to know that if somebody proposes an amendment or 
a law that is unnecessary, there's frequently another reason 
why they're doing it; that is, to come in through the back door 
when they know that coming in through the front door would meet 
with severe opposition.
    This--this proposal, I agree with the gentleman, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, is 
unnecessary. There is nothing in the proposal before us this 
morning that would prohibit--that would prohibit procedures and 
research in the area of infertile couples, and, therefore, I 
would join the distinguished Chairman in urging Members to vote 
against this as being unnecessary and opening up yet another 
can of worms.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, in--I'd like to ask the gentlelady 
from Texas a question about the meaning of the word ``sexual 
reproduction.'' The term ``asexual reproduction'' is defined in 
the bill. Do I understand ``sexual reproduction'' to mean that 
it is the result of the DNA from two people and not one?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That's correct.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of an area 
that has been one of the leaders in in vitro fertilization, I 
would be in strong support of this--this amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I will yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me--and I appreciate the gentleman's 
question, and I think it's a very important distinction 
relating to the Chairman of the Subcommittee's comment about 
necessity.
    I would--I would make a different argument on my amendment 
versus the underlying bill. The underlying bill is subject to 
vast interpretation and broadness. That's the fear that we 
have. And the necessity of our amendments are to clarify and to 
distinctly articulate what is being prohibited and what is not.
    So I'd make the case that we have to clarify because the 
underlying bill is overly broad, and what we're doing in this 
Committee today is unfairly impacting on legitimate and legal 
and constitutionally sound research that is going on in our 
country today, and in particular, as it relates to my 
amendment, for those couples who have been longing to be able 
to procreate and have been able to do it only because of this 
major body of medical research.
    When I leave this room today, I could not--and I assume the 
inevitable is going to come, which is the passage of this 
legislation out of this Committee. I am not sure whether 
research in Mr. Scott's district or the work that's being done 
in Ms. Lofgren's area or any of my good friends on the other 
side of the aisle will be viable based upon this legislation.
    I do know that the kind of work that is being done enabling 
people to procreate who desire to do so is so vital and so 
precious that I would beg to differ with the very simplistic 
argument, with no disrespect to the distinguished gentleman, 
that this is a question of not necessary. We are clarifying in 
order to procreate or to provide opportunity for reproductive 
activities, and I would yield back to the gentleman. I thank 
him for his time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek 
the----
    Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think that, while, clearly, the prior 
amendment was essential, this amendment probably is wise. And I 
want to go back to the prior amendment just briefly because I 
think there is, potentially, an unintended effort to fuzz up 
what this bill actually does.
    If you look at Page 2, it defines human cloning as it means 
``human asexual reproduction accompanied by introducing nuclear 
material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized 
or unfertilized ovocyte, 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.''
    And then the exception, the research exception is nothing, 
because basically it says nothing in the section: ``Restricts 
areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited,'' 
except the bill specifically prohibits the research.
    So it's--it does not, it destroys stem cell research is 
what this bill does, which is why we're trying to fix this.
    Now, on the gentlelady's amendment, I think it is wise 
because if you take a look at the definition on line 7, 
fertilized or unfertilized, I think that that begs for 
clarification. Are we going to allow infertile couples to 
have--use in vitro fertilization or not?
    And recently, as some of the Members may know from their 
reading on this subject, there has been in vitro fertilization 
that has resulted in the small transfer of mitochondrial 
material that is not addressed in the underlying bill and I 
think would be preserved under the gentlelady's amendment. 
Because the mitochondrial slippage, if you will, theoretically 
violates this act and yet is increasingly known--I don't think 
it's new--but it has been discovered in terms of in vitro 
fertilization.
    And so the unintended consequence of this act might be to 
bar couples from using in vitro. Now, people can have different 
viewpoints on in vitro fertilization. I, personally, feel it's 
a blessing to couples who want to have--have a child, to be 
able to use science to do that. And, certainly, it is done 
thousands of times across the country and has enriched families 
enormously and is worthy of our protection from this draft that 
really does, I think, put the procedure in some doubt.
    And I would yield to the gentlelady from Texas if she had 
different additional comments.
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. I appreciate the gentlelady. She, 
very much, let me just say, for not using a redundancy, is at 
the cutting edge of what this amendment is offering to do. I 
just simply want to put into the record the explanation that 
tracks your explanation from the American Infertility 
Association.
    And what they are saying is--I think I started to read it--
this language says----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Thank you. I'd like to read into 
the record, ``Infertility is just one area of medicine where we 
are developing cutting-edge techniques such as cytoplasmic 
transfer and germ cell nuclear transfer to help our patients. 
We would hate to see research in these procedures cut short by 
legislation that mistakenly treats them as the equivalent of 
reproductive cloning.''
    And so I thank the gentlelady. I just simply want to say to 
my colleagues take a breather, pause for a moment, don't make 
conclusions, and let us look and work together to make sure 
that we are not blocking these millions and millions of 
individuals, families, couples who simply want to be able to 
procreate and give birth.
    I yield back. I thank the gentlelady.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would yield further to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. No, no, no. I'll get my own----
    Ms. Lofgren. Your own time.
    Then I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    The question is on----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Just for the purpose of asking the sponsor of the 
amendment and my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, to 
look at the language of the amendment and to look at the 
language on Page 2, lines 14 through 17, and tell me--well, 
maybe I--okay. I've got the wrong amendment. I'm sorry.
    All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was looking at the 
wrong, wrong bill. I thought there was a provision in here that 
covered that, but I'll yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like a roll 
call.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The roll call will be ordered. 
Those in favor of the Jackson Lee amendment will, as your names 
are called, answer aye; those opposed, no.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Gekas?
    Mr. Gekas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the 
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote?
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 17 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Scott. No. 5.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott. 
Page 4, after line 8 insert the following: Section 3, Study by 
General Accounting----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this authorizes a study by the 
General Accounting Office to conduct and assess the need for 
any amendments to this act. That study should include a 
discussion of new developments in medical technology concerning 
human cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, the need, if 
any, for somatic cell nuclear transfer for--to produce medical 
advances, current public attitudes and prevailing ethical views 
concerning the use of somatic cell nuclear re--transfer----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let me say that I believe that the 
gentleman from Virginia has a very good idea, but the timing 
isn't quite right yet. Should this amendment be adopted in 
Committee, this will necessitate a sequential referral to the 
Commerce Committee, which I don't think we want to have.
    I would be prepared to work with the gentleman from 
Virginia between the time this bill is reported from Committee 
and the time it comes up on the floor so that some type of GAO 
study would be included in the final legislation if passed by 
the House. And with that assurance, I would request him to 
withdraw the amendment so we avoid the sequential.
    Mr. Scott. So moved, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield just----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. I'll yield.
    Mr. Watt. I'm just wondering what the rationale for using 
the General Accounting Office is. These seem to me to be areas 
that would be more in the, in the knowledge and jurisdiction of 
the NIH and also to inquire whether, if somebody other than the 
General Accounting Office were used, would that also 
necessitate a referral, a sequential referral? What triggers 
the referral?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman from 
Virginia will yield.
    Mr. Scott. I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. What triggers the referral is a 
request by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
the parliamentarians.
    Mr. Watt. No, I mean----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Your Chairman has spent quite a bit 
of time opposing those types of requests over at the 
Parliamentarian's Office, as the gentleman from North Carolina 
knows.
    Mr. Watt. But I assume there is some substance in the 
amendment that would trigger his belief that Commerce has 
jurisdiction over it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from Virginia 
would further yield.
    Mr. Scott. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Commerce has jurisdiction over a 
whole host of health care issues and legislation, including 
what the NIH does. And if this is to oversee what the opinions 
of that would be, that would trigger a sequential. The 
Judiciary Committee has got exclusive jurisdiction over the 
criminal code. So far the Commerce Committee has not claimed 
jurisdiction over that, and I would hope that we could----
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. They're trying.
    Mr. Watt [continuing]. Yield further?
    Mr. Scott. I would yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Watt. Now that I understand that won't address the 
sequential referral issue, I still would like to have the 
gentleman from Virginia tell me why he's using the General 
Accounting Office, as opposed to some other agency to studying 
the----
    Mr. Scott. Well, frankly, because legislative counsel 
suggested it. I would assume they would seek appropriate 
guidance from NIH or the appropriate agencies to do the study.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I remember years ago, when I--6 years ago, as 
a matter of fact, when I was elected to Congress and became a 
Member of the Judiciary Committee, and a senior Member--
actually, there were Members from both sides of the aisle said, 
you know, the Democrats and Republicans are our adversaries. 
The Commerce Committee is our enemy, and that has sometimes 
united us.
    But I would argue that in this case a sequential referral 
actually might be a good thing. There are sometimes the bills 
that we pass benefit greatly from a review by the Commerce 
Committee, and I think in this case, with the health care and 
science expertise that's available in Commerce, and I would 
argue, also, on the Science Committee, that sequential 
referrals to Science and Commerce would be a good thing for 
this legislation, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
    Mr. Scott. I withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Scott. No. 2.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R.----
    Mr. Scott. It's short. She can read it in full, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would object. If she could go 
ahead and read it, it's short.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the clerk----
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott. 
Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark and the period 
which follows.
    Page 4, after line 4, insert the following:
    ``(e) Sunset.--The prohibitions of this section shall not 
apply to any activity occurring on or after the expiration of 
the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.''
    [The amendment follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the 
amendment is self-explanatory. It establishes a 5-year sunset. 
I think we've heard enough during the debate to know that this 
is a very complicated area. We don't know what the research is 
going to look like 5 years from now, and we really need to 
revisit this in 5 years, and that's what the sunset would do, 
and I would hope that we would adopt the sunset.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back? The 
time is yielded back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
straightforward sunset. The reason is, simply, because it's 
dangerous. We don't know what the status of human cloning is 
going to be in 5 years, much less in 6 weeks or 6 months from 
now. So, until we know what the future holds, we ought not 
automatically sunset a very important bill.
    Secondly, of course, and obviously Congress can, if it so 
chooses, 5 years from now or at any point change the law after 
we have knowledge, and sufficient knowledge, to know that we 
are continuing to protect the experimentation with human 
cloning.
    So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on Amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, before I finish, I think I 
responded to the gentleman from North Carolina that legislative 
counsel suggested the GAO. I think it was my counsel that 
suggested it. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The record will indicate the 
correction.
    Mr. Scott. I'd like to apologize to the GAO.
    I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Scott. No. 4.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No. 4.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott.
    Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark and the 
period which follows.
    Page 4, after line 4, insert the following----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that the provisions--
``prohibitions of this section shall not apply to the shipping, 
receipt, or importation for use in medical treatment of any 
product derived from an embryo, including, but not limited to, 
pluripotent stem cells, if such product is unable to develop 
into a full human being.''
    Mr. Chairman, as we take whatever action we're going to 
take in the United States, there will be other countries who 
will be doing this research. We want to make sure that if there 
are medications or medical treatments available and products in 
other countries that cannot develop into a full human being, we 
don't want to prohibit their importation into the United 
States.
    The language of the bill I think makes it clear that that 
importation would be illegal, and I think the--that would deny 
ill people of medical treatment which would be appropriate.
    And, furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the FDA would have to 
approve and have oversight of any of those treatments. So it's 
not, I mean, you have FDA approval.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I'll yield to the gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think this is a good amendment, and one I 
certainly intend to vote for. I would note that failing to 
approve this amendment would mean that only the affluent who 
could fly to Britain to get their treatment would get the 
benefit of the research we will drive off-shore, and the middle 
class and working people will have to suffer and not be able to 
get the benefit of the treatment.
    So, in addition to allowing all Americans, with the FDA's 
certainly intrusion to make sure these are efficacious and 
safe, this is a meritorious and very American type of thing to 
do to allow everyone to benefit.
    And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes. The gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment would provide an exemption to the 
prohibitions of the bill for the importation of any product 
derived from an embryo if such product is unable to develop 
into a full human being.
    Effectively, this exemption would allow for the importation 
of stem cells derived from cloned embryos. By including this 
amendment in this bill, we would be creating a financial 
incentive for companies outside of the United States to produce 
even more cloned human embryos in order to make a greater 
profit in this country. With more cloned human embryos in the 
world, it would only be a matter of time before they are 
illegally being used to create a cloned human baby. If we want 
to prevent cloned human children, we must seek to stop the 
process at the beginning.
    Mr. Chairman, I also want to return to this central issue 
here, and that is, if we oppose human cloning, the only way to 
do so is to oppose this amendment and support the underlying 
bill.
    I'll yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of 
the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, 
numbered four.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, No. 3. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 
Amendment No. 3.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott.
    Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this would--this would--the--it's 
called a Family Preservation Exemption. ``The prohibitions of 
this section shall not apply to any activity by a woman who 
receives an embryo in her uterus if such activity was performed 
with the intent to initiate her pregnancy.''
    If this does not pass, then what we have passed is a bill 
providing for criminal activity. If a mother is, in fact, 
trying to get pregnant and uses one of these embryos, she will 
be party to a criminal activity. There are enough problems 
involved in this activity. I would hope that we would not jail 
and fine women who are trying to get pregnant.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield for a question.
    Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I'm trying to think of an example where this 
might occur. Say, for example, a couple had been unable to 
conceive, and they went and adopted an embryo to bring that--to 
have a child, and the embryo had mitochondrial DNA from the 
donor mother. Is the intent of the amendment to preclude 
prosecution of the couple because of the presence of 
mitochondrial DNA from the donor?
    Mr. Scott. Exactly. Reclaiming my time. That's exactly the 
point of the amendment.
    The doctor or the scientist would be fully liable, but the 
mother would not.
    Ms. Lofgren. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment contains an exemption for 
mothers from the prohibitions of cloning contained in the bill. 
Although this amendment may appear benign at first glance, it 
serves to protect women who knowingly participate in the 
unethical experimentation on a child to be.
    There are a number of legal, safe, and tested options 
available to women today who want to have a child, but cannot, 
for whatever reason. These women do not have to attempt the 
implantation of a cloned embryo that has a greater than 98-
percent chance of not surviving the pregnancy, being malformed 
or abnormal at birth, or having a greatly diminished life span 
because of a genetic defect.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose 
the cloning of human beings and oppose this amendment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, No. 3.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it. The 
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    If not, the question occurs on the motion to report the 
bill H.R. 2505 favorably. The Chair notes a reporting quorum.
    All in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Let's get a roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The roll call will be ordered.
    Those in favor of favorably reporting H.R. 2505 will, as 
your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Gekas?
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, aye. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Hutchinson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank no. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the 
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote?
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any additional Members 
who wish to record or change their votes? If not----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how my--how I am 
recorded.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, you're recorded as a no.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 10 noes.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report again.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 11 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably 
is agreed to.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules.
    Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 
technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 
2 days, as provided by House rules, in which to submit 
additional dissenting supplementary or minority views.

                            Dissenting Views

    We strongly dissent from H.R. 2505 as reported by the 
Judiciary Committee. We agree that human cloning--the 
production of children genetically identical to existing or 
previously existing human beings--is unsafe and unethical and 
should be prohibited. However, we believe that manner in which 
H.R. 2505 is written would extend the bill's prohibitions far 
beyond the goal of banning human cloning and would prevent our 
citizens from benefitting from ongoing or prospective stem cell 
research.
    The bill 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. This block treatments designed to help persons 
suffering from Alzheimer's, diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's 
disease, heart disease, or spinal cord injury, to name but a 
few. If this bill passes into law, it would ban those stem cell 
treatments that would be most effective and that would not 
require the use of dangerous immunosuppresive drugs. The bill 
is so broadly written that it bans the importation of 
lifesaving medicines from other countries if their production 
is in any way derived from nuclear transfer. This means that if 
another nation's scientists used stem cell research to develop 
a cure for cancer, it might be illegal for persons living in 
this country to benefit from the drug. In addition, the 
legislation could operate to ban legal and unobjectionable 
infertility treatments.
    It is for these reasons that the legislation is opposed by 
numerous national organizations that represent patients, such 
as the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, the Coalition 
of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, the National Patient 
Advocate Foundation, the Alliance for Aging Research, the 
American Infertility Association, the Juvenile Diabetes 
Research Foundation International, the Lymphoma Research 
Foundation of America and the Society for Women's Health 
Research. The legislation is also strongly opposed by a wide 
variety of medical researchers, including the American 
Association for Cancer Research, the American Liver Foundation, 
the American Physiological Society, the Biotechnology Industry 
Organization, the Kidney Cancer Foundation, the American 
Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Federation of 
American Societies for Experimental Biology.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letter From 43 Organizations and One Individual to Speaker 
Dennis Hastert (July 23, 2001) (on file with the minority staff of the 
House Judiciary Committee) [hereinafter ``Patients' Letter'']; Letter 
from Dr. Robert R. Rich, President, Federation of American Societies 
for Experimental Biology, to Ranking Member Conyers (July 23, 2001) (on 
file with the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee) 
[hereinafter ``FASEB Letter'']
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Legislation and Democratic Concerns
    H.R. 2505 makes human somatic cell nuclear transfer into an 
egg a Federal felony. This process consists of removing or 
inactivating the nuclear material of an egg and transferring 
into the egg the nuclear material and DNA from one or more 
human somatic cells (cells with the full complement of genes). 
There is no requirement that the transfer produce a child. The 
bill therefore criminalizes a scientific research process that 
takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of the 
researcher or of the inability for this process to result in 
the birth of a cloned child.\2\ 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The bill contains a ``scientific research'' exception for the 
use of cloning techniques to produce copies of DNA, tissues, organs, 
plants, or animals other than humans, but the research uses of nuclear 
transfer remain forbidden. Even if the oocyte had been modified so that 
it could not develop into a full human being, it would still be illegal 
to perform the transfer.
    \3\ In cases involving a pecuniary gain, the civil penalty is to be 
no less than $1 million and no more than twice the gross gain, if that 
sum exceeds $1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful knowingly to 
attempt to perform nuclear transfer, to participate in such an 
attempt, or to ship, receive, or import for any purpose the 
embryos produced by nuclear transfer or products derived from 
such embryos. The importation of such products is prohibited 
regardless of whether they are capable of developing into a 
full human being; an American with an otherwise incurable 
disease therefore would be prohibited from importing a stem 
cell treatment developed abroad, where nuclear transfer 
research might be protected, if the stem cells were in any way 
derived from therapeutically cloned embryos.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ This broad prohibition on the import of medical treatments was 
not present in the original version of the bill, H.R. 1644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By imposing these prohibitions, the bill would extend the 
reach of the criminal law into areas of pure scientific 
research. Currently, the Federal Government attempts to shape 
scientific research mainly through conditions on Federal 
funding. Making a Federal felony of somatic cell nuclear 
transfer (which takes place entirely in a petri dish, with no 
human or animal subjects) would represent an unprecedented 
intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific process and 
would constrain the influence of the National Institutes of 
Health in the funding of stem cell research.
    If H.R. 2505 were to pass into law in its present form it 
would be difficult, if not impossible, for our nation to 
benefit from stem cell research that is currently ongoing or 
that would take place in the future. This is because the only 
practical means of developing breakthroughs in stem cell 
research into treatments is through the use of somatic cell 
nuclear transfer. The bill prohibits the importation of safe 
and effective medical treatments, and it would use the criminal 
law to interfere with the scientific process and with advanced 
infertility treatments. For these and the reasons set forth 
herein, we dissent from the legislation.

 I. Democrats Would Support a Ban on Human Cloning, But H.R. 2505 Goes 
                                Too Far

    This Congress can and should outlaw the practice of human 
cloning. Experiments in animal cloning have revealed 
exceptionally high rates of deformities and birth defects, and 
the use of this procedure in humans has been almost unanimously 
rejected by the scientific community as unsafe to both mother 
and child.\5\ Beyond issues of safety, using human cloning to 
produce a child would raise significant ethical problems, 
bringing the status of the child into question and raising 
severe dangers of abuse.\6\ No pressing need exists to allow 
such cloning, and we believe it is appropriate for Congress to 
make the practice illegal. This is why at markup, Democrats 
unanimously voted in favor of the Schiff substitute--based on 
the Greenwood/Deutsch legislation \7\--which would have, among 
other things, focused the bill on reproductive cloning and 
banned the implantation of a cloned embryo. Unfortunately, the 
Schiff substitute was defeated on a party-line vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See generally Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: 
Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, 
House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statements of 
Mark E. Westhusin, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University, and 
Rudolf Jaenisch, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology); Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut, Don't Clone Humans!, 291 
Science at 2552 (March 30, 2001); FASEB Letter, at 1. To date, the only 
intentions to clone human beings have been expressed by a small number 
of groups and individuals far from the mainstream of the scientific 
community. Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: Oversight Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, House Comm. on 
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of Rael, leader of 
the Raelian movement).
    \6\ A child who has the exact genetic makeup of another would have 
an unclear status under family law, and the attempt to duplicate an 
existing person would severely compromise the individuality of the 
cloned child. Additionally, human cloning might be misused by parents, 
who might place expectations on a cloned child's future (e.g., if the 
child is the clone of a basketball star).
    \7\ H.R. 2608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By contrast, we cannot support the overbroad approach taken 
by H.R. 2505. A ban on human cloning does not need 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 the curing of disease. The majority 
has argued that such research lies on a ``slippery slope'' that 
leads to reproductive cloning and beyond; but there is no sense 
in which reproductive cloning is the logical ``next step'' 
after nuclear transfer research. Nothing links the pursuit of 
stem-cell research to the deliberate creation of human beings. 
Even if such a link existed, Congress would still be perfectly 
capable of saying ``this far, and no further.''
    The technique of in vitro fertilization has not brought the 
elimination of parenthood and the armies of test-tube babies 
that were originally feared; instead, it has allowed for 
millions of Americans to do what they were once told was 
impossible--to have a child of their own. In the same way, 
Congress can permit nuclear transfer research without accepting 
as necessary consequences the worst fears of its critics.
    The majority has also argued that a ban on reproductive 
cloning alone would be unenforceable. However, it has not for a 
moment explained how the government could enforce the 
prohibitions in H.R. 2505. Anyone who is willing to break the 
law to clone a child will surely be willing to break the law to 
create an embryo. If a ban on the surgical procedure of 
implanting embryos into the uterus is unenforceable, a ban on a 
procedure that takes place in a petri dish in the privacy of a 
scientific laboratory is even more so. The process of nuclear 
transfer is relatively simple, and the embryos it creates are 
indistinguishable in all respects (except for their genetic 
makeup) from embryos created through in vitro fertilization. As 
Dr. Panos Michael Zavos testified, the technology to conduct 
nuclear transfer exists ``in every IVF high-tech laboratory 
across the world,'' 55 of which are located in New York City 
alone.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: Oversight Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, House Comm. on 
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of Dr. Panos Michael 
Zavos).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without putting police in the laboratory, there is no way 
for the government to prevent in advance an individual bent on 
violating the law; it can only rely on the deterrent effect of 
criminal penalties should the violation become known. The steps 
of implantation and gestation and the birth of a cloned child 
would clearly alert law enforcement to the violation, and a 
prohibition narrowly focused on reproductive cloning would 
provide the needed deterrent. Moreover, because H.R. 2505 lacks 
any prohibition on the implantation of a cloned embryo into a 
woman's uterus, under its terms law enforcement would be 
helpless to prevent human cloning after the embryo stage. As a 
result, a narrowly focused ban would be just as effective in 
preventing human cloning, but would not have the unfortunate 
consequence of criminalizing lifesaving research.

  II. H.R. 2505 Would Prevent Lifesaving Research in the United States

    The understanding of the workings of stem cells--the 
flexible cells that regenerate the body's tissue \9\--has 
advanced dramatically since 1998, when J.A. Thompson and other 
scientists first isolated stem cells from human embryos.\10\ 
These undifferentiated cells \11\ are the body's jacks-of-all-
trades; they have the unique ability to become any kind of 
tissue found in the body--anything from blood or bone to nerves 
and heart muscles. As a result, embryonic stem cells offer 
immense potential to treat what have been thought to be 
incurable conditions by replacing the body's damaged tissue 
with healthy new cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ``A stem cell is a special kind of cell that has a unique 
capacity to renew itself and to give rise to specialized cell types. 
Although most cells of the body, such as heart cells or skin cells, are 
committed to conduct a specific function, a stem cell is uncommitted 
and remains uncommitted, until it receives a signal to develop into a 
specialized cell. Their proliferative capacity combined with the 
ability to become specialized makes stem cells unique.'' National 
Institutes of Health, Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future 
Research Directions (June 2001) [hereinafter ``NIH Report''], at ES-1. 
Stem cells can be derived from any embryo, whether created from sexual 
(e.g., in vitro fertilization) or asexual (e.g., nuclear transfer) 
reproduction.
    \10\ J.A. Thompson et al., Embryonic stem cell lines derived from 
human blastocysts, 282 Science 1145-7 (1998).
    \11\ Soon after the embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus, its 
cells begin to differentiate, changing their form to match the function 
they will perform in the fetus. Some will become muscle cells, others 
nerve cells, others skin cells. Embryonic stem cells are the original 
cells that have not yet differentiated and chosen their function; they 
therefore hold the potential to repair any of the body's organs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its recent report on the uses of stem cells, the 
National Institutes of Health described their medical potential 
as ``enormous.'' \12\ It concluded that transplants of stem 
cells could be used to treat conditions as varied as 
Parkinson's disease, chronic heart disease, end-stage kidney 
disease, and liver failure.\13\ Rheumatoid arthritis, 
osteoporosis, and severe burns might all find new 
treatments.\14\ Stem cells could repair damage to the nervous 
system from spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and 
Alzheimer's.\15\ Insulin-producing cells could be introduced to 
treat diabetes.\16\ Brain damage due to stroke could be reduced 
or reversed.\17\ Replacement therapies could be created for 
autoimmune diseases such as lupus.\18\ Survivors of heart 
attacks could be given healthy cardiovascular cells to heal 
damaged heart tissue and restore them to health.\19\ Cancer 
patients who undergo severe chemotherapy could receive stem 
cell transplants to restore their blood cells and immune 
systems--and specialized new treatments could be developed to 
target and destroy individual cancer cells.\20\ New treatments 
could even be discovered to restore function to paralyzed 
limbs, or to treat the degeneration caused by ALS (also known 
as Lou Gehrig's disease).\21\ Finally, some have held out the 
hope of generating entire transplantable organs (bones, 
kidneys, and even hearts) through stem cell research.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ NIH Report, at 66.
    \13\ NIH Report, at ES-4.
    \14\ NIH Report, at 65; Robert P. Lanza et al., The Ethical 
Validity of Using Nuclear Transfer in Human Transplantiation, 284 
Journal of the American Medical Association 3715 (Dec. 27, 2000) 
[hereinafter ``Lanza et al.''].
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Stem cells could be used to treat diabetes by replacing the 
damaged insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. The discovery of a 
stem-cell treatment for diabetes, for which there is currently no cure, 
would be a significant advance:

      Each year, diabetes affects more people and causes more 
      deaths than breast cancer and AIDS combined. Diabetes is 
      the seventh leading cause of death in the United States 
      today, with nearly 200,000 deaths reported each year. The 
      American Diabetes Association estimates that nearly 16 
      million people, or 5.9 percent of the United States 
      population, currently have diabetes. (NIH Report, at 67.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ NIH Report, at 77. The report states that ``Just a decade ago, 
neuroscience textbooks held that neurons in the adult human brain and 
spinal cord could not regenerate. Once dead, it was thought, central 
nervous system neurons were gone for good.'' New research and the 
possibilities of stem cell treatments promise to reverse that long-held 
medical dogma. Id.
    \18\ NIH Report, at 62. The report notes that lupus, a disease in 
which the immune system attacks the body's own cells, affects more than 
239,000 Americans, over 90 percent of whom are women. African-American 
and Hispanic women are disproportionately affected. Currently, no 
treatment exists for the disease. Id.
    \19\ NIH Report, at 87. Today, more than 4.8 million Americans 
suffer from congestive heart failure, with 400,000 new cases each year. 
Nearly 1.1 million Americans a year suffer from heart attacks. Stem 
cell treatments to repair the heart and circulatory system could 
therefore target ``a major cause of death and disability in the United 
States.'' Id.
    \20\ NIH Report, at ES-5.
    \21\ NIH Report, at 79.
    \22\ Lanza et al., at 3715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nuclear transfer research of the type banned by H.R. 2505 
would be at the foundation of any medical treatment that took 
advantage of these discoveries. Like all transplants, stem cell 
treatments run the risk of being rejected by the patient's 
immune system. In fact, because stem cell transplants are so 
limited, they would be easy for the immune system to overwhelm. 
In its report, the NIH noted that there is a ``very high'' 
potential for immune rejection of these transplants; 
``Modifications to the cells, to the immune system, or both 
will be a major requirement for their use.'' \23\ However, the 
NIH also found that if the stem cells were obtained from 
embryos produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer, they would 
bear the patient's DNA and would appear to the patient's body 
like his or her own cells, removing the risk of immune 
rejection. The transplant could then take place without the use 
of dangerous immunosuppressive drugs--``a labor intensive, but 
truly customized therapy.'' \24\ Nuclear transfer techniques 
are vital to realizing the potential of stem cell treatments 
and moving the science from the petri dish to the doctor's 
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ NIH Report, at ES-5.
    \24\ NIH Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2505 goes beyond banning reproductive cloning to ban 
research in somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is that 
the bill would cut off scientific developments that are 
granting new hope to millions of Americans who have been told 
there is no cure. Without the use of nuclear transfer, these 
stem cell developments will likely remain in the laboratory and 
will not be used to help patients.
    By banning nuclear transfer techniques, H.R. 2505 would 
also cut off research in new areas of regenerative medicine. As 
researcher Thomas Okarma testified before the Subcommittee on 
Crime, it may soon be possible to turn a differentiated cell 
(such as a skin cell) back into an undifferentiated state, 
essentially creating compatible stem cells from the patient's 
own body. This procedure would avoid any need to use nuclear 
transfer and would not involve embryos in any way, offering the 
possibility of new medical treatments that would avoid the 
controversies that have accompanied stem-cell research. 
However, Okarma testified that some nuclear transfer research 
will be ``essential'' for the early stages of understanding how 
stem cells gain their flexibility, and would be ``a critical 
step to improve the usefulness of adult stem cells'' as 
well.\25\ Nuclear transfer research would also provide a 
greater understanding of embryonic development that could be 
used to determine the causes of (and perhaps to prevent) birth 
defects, miscarriages, and juvenile diabetes.\26\ The 
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology has 
echoed the NIH's language in describing such research: ``The 
potential for treating human disease in this exciting area of 
regenerative medicine is enormous.'' \27\ However, all of these 
promising advances would be blocked by H.R. 2505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Human Cloning: Hearings on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 Before the 
House Subcomm. on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of Thomas 
Okarma, CEO of Geron, Inc.).
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ FASEB Letter, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The majority has sought to establish that the use of 
embryonic or cloned stem cells would be unethical when an 
alternative, namely adult stem cells, is available.\28\ 
However, the studies necessary for regenerative medicine could 
not be accomplished with adult stem cells. Additionally, after 
surveying the current state of the science, the NIH concluded 
that embryonic stem cells have important advantages over adult 
stem cells: the latter cannot develop into as many different 
cell types; they cannot be generated in the same quantities in 
the laboratory; and they are difficult and sometimes dangerous 
to extract from an adult patient (especially stem cells located 
in the brain).\29\ Given the very real benefits that this 
research could hold for those suffering Americans who are 
already living, it is appropriate for Congress at the very 
least to permit such research to go on in the private 
sector.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ The Ethics of Human Cloning: Hearing Before the House Subcomm. 
on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of David Prentice, Professor of 
Life Sciences, Indiana State University). Cells with similar properties 
known as ``embryonic germ cells'' can also be obtained from aborted 
fetuses, but these will not necessarily be compatible with the 
patient's immune system. Furthermore, their source of origin makes them 
no less controversial to the majority.
    \29\ NIH Report, at ES-9-10. It is important to note that at the 
stage when embryonic stem-cell research normally occurs, the embryos 
are less than 14 days old and consist of a tiny ball of 
undifferentiated cells, without organs or internal structure, let alone 
a nervous system, nerve impulses, feelings, or the capacity to feel 
pain. Even in the womb, the great majority of early embryos--as many as 
80 percent--never develop into a human being. Furthermore, the 
separation of an embryo into twins or triplets frequently does not 
occur until after this stage of development, implying that the embryos 
cannot meaningfully be ascribed personal identity, uniqueness, or 
individuality. Lanza et al. As a number of prominent scientists and 
bioethicists have agreed, ``The line established by gastrulation and 
the appearance of the primitive streak is a clear one, as is the line 
between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.'' Id. Even anti-choice 
Sen. Orrin Hatch has indicated that one should not equate a fetus in 
the womb, ``with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart, with an 
embryo in a freezer.'' Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Morality and Medicine: 
Reconsidering Embryo Research, N.Y. Times (July 1, 2001), sec. 4, at 1. 
Great Britain has permitted research involving embryos since 1990, and 
no abuse of research involving human subjects has occurred, nor has 
anyone suggested that it should. Lanza et al.
    \30\ As Ronald M. Green, director of the Ethics Institute at 
Dartmouth College and former president of the Society of Christian 
Ethics, wrote to the Committee, H.R. 2505 should be rejected because it 
would go beyond a ban on human cloning to ``prohibit several other very 
research directions of possibly great medical benefit.'' See Letter 
from Ronald M. Green to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member 
Conyers (July 23, 2001) (on file with the minority staff of the House 
Judiciary Committee) [hereinafter ``Green Letter''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, H.R. 2505 would prohibit this valuable 
research and leave no viable alternative, and it would do so 
permanently. At the markup, the majority claimed that as the 
science progresses, researchers might convince a future 
Congress to repeal the research prohibition.\31\ But Congress 
should never establish a permanent criminal prohibition with an 
eye towards repealing it a few years later. Biomedical research 
progresses at an amazing speed; indeed, human pluripotent stem 
cells were first isolated in November 1998. Further advances 
are occurring at a dizzying pace, and a complete medical 
revolution may well occur within the next 5 years. Yet the 
maximum penalty for conducting nuclear transfer research under 
H.R. 2505 is 10 years imprisonment. Legalizing nuclear transfer 
research after its potential has been realized would bring 
about the absurd result that the prison sentences would outlast 
the prohibitions--that scientists who practice nuclear transfer 
after its legalization would be hailed as miracle workers and 
perhaps even afforded Federal funding, while their colleagues 
who first pioneered the techniques would still be in jail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ This argument was made by Rep. Smith when the Majority 
rejected a Scott amendment to provide for a 5-year sunset as recommend 
by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. The argument was also 
made by the Majority's witness at our hearings. Human Cloning: Hearings 
on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 Before the House Subcomm. on Crime, 107th 
Cong. (2001) (Statement of Alexander M. Capron, member of the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is unclear how the effectiveness of nuclear transfer 
could be demonstrated to the majority's satisfaction. We 
already have significant evidence regarding the potential of 
embryonic or cloned stem cells from animal research. While 
research involving human embryonic stem cells might continue 
(although slowly, if the President chooses to deny Federal 
funding to such research and push it into the private sector), 
there will be no evidence regarding the effectiveness or 
suitability for testing of human stem cells obtained through 
nuclear transfer. We will never know what results might have 
been obtained had nuclear transfer research been legal, and if 
a permanent ban is placed on the research, we will never know 
enough to justify its decriminalization in the majority's eyes.

   III. H.R. 2505 Would Prevent U.S. Citizens From Benefitting From 
                  Lifesaving Research Performed Abroad

    We also cannot support H.R. 2505 because the shipping, 
receipt and importation provisions are overbroad and would 
block Americans' access to lifesaving medical treatments 
produced abroad. In the original version of the bill, these 
provisions prohibited only the shipping, receipt or importation 
of cloned embryos--a prohibition, if too expansive, at least 
reasonably related to the bill's flawed definition of human 
cloning. However, the new provisions inserted in H.R. 2505 
would block not only the importation of cloned embryos, but 
also of any product ``derived'' from such embryos, even if 
these products (such as stem cell-grown nerve tissue to restore 
paralyzed limbs) were unable to develop into a full human 
being. Moreover, since the critical term ``derived'' is not in 
any way elaborated on, under a plausible ``fruits-of-the-tree'' 
doctrine, the bill might even ban the importation of synthetic 
medicines modeled on proteins originally derived through this 
process.
    Representative Scott unsuccessfully offered an amendment to 
create an exemption for the shipping, receipt or importation of 
products to be used in medical treatment. Products that entered 
the country under this amendment would still have been required 
to undergo scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration. 
Rejection of the Scott amendment clearly demonstrates that the 
legislation would keep safe and effective medical treatments 
out of the hands of U.S. citizens, even if the treatments have 
no chance whatsoever of being used for human cloning.
    We fear that such a prohibition may have less to with human 
cloning than with elevating the status of an embryo above that 
of live-born human beings.\32\ There is no risk that an 
American hospital might try to clone a human using stem cells 
from abroad. If researchers in Great Britain (where nuclear 
transfer research is legal and government-funded) were to 
discover a stem-cell-based cure for cancer, the majority would 
ban its importation simply because it was originally derived 
through nuclear transfer. In other words, the majority is 
willing to sacrifice the lives and health of millions of 
suffering Americans in order to protect frozen embryos or out 
of a vague fear that someone, somewhere, might perform human 
cloning. For a bill intended to protect our humanity, that 
rationale strikes us as somewhat ironic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ The only argument offered by the majority in defense of these 
provisions was that an exemption for medical treatment might provide a 
financial incentive to create more embryos through nuclear transfer. 
This argument is a red herring. If a British university discovers a 
cure for cancer or diabetes that relies on stem-cell research, it will 
have quite enough of a financial incentive already. Additionally, the 
absolute number of embryos should be irrelevant. If the majority holds 
that legalizing nuclear transfer in the U.S. will make a ban on human 
cloning unenforceable, the same should hold true in Britain, and anyone 
who wishes to perform human cloning can simply travel there. Extra 
incentives to discover a cure for a terrible disease will not make the 
birth of a cloned child any more likely--they will only hasten the day 
when a cure arrives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IV. H.R. 2505 Would Interfere With Stem Cell Research--Both Privately 
         Funded and Funded by the National Institutes of Health

    The legislation's proponents would have us believe H.R. 
2505 has nothing to do with stem cell research and would not 
disrupt scientific advances being made in this important and 
much-discussed area. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    There are several reasons why the legislation would 
interfere with and undermine stem cell research. First is the 
fact that stem cells can be derived from embryos created by 
both sexual and asexual (e.g., nuclear transfer) means. As a 
basic and fundamental matter, by banning all forms of asexual 
reproduction based on cell nuclear transfer, the legislation 
would quite obviously limit stem cell research. It goes without 
saying that it will be more difficult to conduct stem cell 
research if one of the most promising techniques for developing 
stem cells--therapeutic cloning--is criminalized.
    Second, if research were performed based solely on stem 
cells derived from sexual means (such as additional embryos 
formed through in vitro fertilization), it will be difficult to 
derive any practical benefit from the research without the 
benefit of nuclear transfer. If a scientist were to use IVF-
derived stem cells to design a treatment for Alzheimer's 
disease, it still could not be easily applied to any patients 
without the utilization of therapeutic cloning. This is 
because, as we have noted above, scientists can greatly reduce 
the risk of immune rejection if we use stem cells which bear a 
patient's own DNA derived from therapeutic cloning rather than 
adult stem cells.
    This conclusion is supported by the NIH in their July 18, 
2001, study finding that embryonic stem cells have important 
advantages over adult stem cells. The NIH recognized that adult 
stem cells cannot develop into as many different cell types; 
they cannot be generated in the same quantities in the 
laboratory; and they are difficult and sometimes dangerous to 
extract. It is also critical to note that the NIH has 
specifically stated that somatic cell nuclear transfer would be 
a ``truly customized'' way of creating stem cell transplants 
that would not be rejected by the body's immune system.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ NIH Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, although the NIH does not presently conduct research 
using human somatic cells, that decision has been made 
voluntarily by scientists and the executive branch, not 
statutorily by Congress. By passing a one-size fits all ban, we 
will permanently and inflexibly ban the practice, tying the 
hands of future scientists and the Administration alike. This 
is in direct contradiction of the NIH's own conclusion that it 
is premature to discard the potential benefits of new forms of 
stem cell research.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ NIH Report, at ES-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, because the legislation prohibits the shipping, 
receipt, or importation of embryos produced abroad by nuclear 
transfer or of products derived from such embryos, NIH would 
not be able to benefit from many forms of research conducted 
abroad involving stem cells. This would put our own scientists 
at a distinct disadvantage compared to other nations' 
researchers in the race to develop cures for crippling and 
fatal diseases. At present there is no law which prevents the 
NIH from acquiring foreign products in any way derived from 
therapeutic cloning techniques. H.R. 2505, however, provides an 
inflexible and permanent ban which restricts our own 
Administration.
    Finally, if the majority did not believe that the bill 
would undermine stem cell research, they would have had little 
reason to reject the Lofgren-Conyers amendment exempting stem 
cell research from the bill's prohibitions. If we truly want to 
insure that stem cell research is not interrupted, we would 
carve the activity from out of the bill's reach. However, the 
majority rejected this notion, in a straight party-line vote.

V. H.R. 2505 Would Ban Legal and Unobjectionable Infertility Treatments 
                and Techniques of in vitro Fertilization

    H.R. 2505 further exceeds its mandate to prohibit human 
cloning by bringing the heavy penalties of the criminal law to 
bear on infertility treatments that have nothing to do with 
human cloning. Over the past 4 years, the process of 
``ooplasmic transfer'' has been used in connection with in 
vitro fertilization to help more than 30 infertile couples 
conceive a healthy child.\35\ The process involves the 
replacement of some of the cytoplasm (the fluid that 
constitutes the bulk of a cell) in an infertile woman's egg 
with cytoplasm from a healthy donor egg or other cell. The 
original egg has been fertilized with genetic material from the 
husband and will develop normally, thanks to the infusion of 
healthy cytoplasm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Infertility Treatment Leaves Kids With Extra DNA, Reuters (May 
7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the definition of ``human cloning'' in H.R. 2505 
is so overbroad as to likely ban this procedure. The bill 
includes under the definition the introduction of any ``nuclear 
material'' from ``one or more human somatic cells'' into an egg 
whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated. Yet the 
technique described above (and possibly other techniques of in 
vitro fertilization as well) could introduce into the 
fertilized egg some of the donor cell's mitochondria, the 
``power plants'' that float in the cytoplasm and generate 
energy for the cell. Mitochondria are unique because they have 
their own DNA and reproduce on their own. Thus, the 
introduction of mitochondria from a healthy, mature cell into a 
fertilized egg would yield a new organism that is genetically 
virtually identical to the pre-transfer egg, yet with slightly 
different mitochondrial DNA. It might therefore be considered 
to be ``human cloning,'' even though the resulting child would 
have genes from both parents, and would bring 10-year jail 
sentences on the participants under H.R. 2505.
    At the very least, a ban on this technique of in vitro 
fertilization is a plausible reading of H.R. 2505. However, 
when Representative Jackson Lee offered an amendment to clarify 
the bill's intent and explicitly exempt in vitro fertilization 
and other fertility treatments from the prohibitions, it was 
defeated on a party-line vote.\36\ Passage of H.R. 2505 without 
including a protection for in vitro fertilization runs the risk 
that future courts will find accepted and beneficial fertility 
treatments in violation of the criminal law, and that infertile 
couples will be denied a safe and effective means of conceiving 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ The amendment offered by Representative Schiff, which 
contained a similar exemption in its rule of construction, was also 
defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    Because it far exceeds its mission of prohibiting human 
cloning, H.R. 2505 can be seen as an attempt to do secretly 
what the Administration would hesitate to do publicly: to ban 
the use of stem-cell-based treatments in the United States. If 
H.R. 2505 becomes law, it would be difficult, if not 
impossible, to derive any practical benefit from stem cell 
research, because we would be unable to implement its 
discoveries through nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning.
    Under H.R. 2505, the new discoveries and medical cures 
resulting from stem cells will be off-limits to Americans who 
cannot afford to travel abroad to countries where nuclear 
transfer research is still pursued. The production of such 
treatments would be prohibited domestically, and the 
importation of even a cancer cure from abroad would carry a 10-
year prison sentence. Furthermore, the vagueness and 
overbreadth of H.R. 2505 run the risk of prohibiting legitimate 
and uncontroversial techniques of in vitro fertilization that 
could help thousands of couples conceive their own children. 
H.R. 2505 represents far more than a ban on human cloning: it 
represents an intrusion of the criminal law into the research 
process, and it should be rejected.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Tammy Baldwin.
                                   Adam B. Schiff.

                                
