Christopher Reeve Testimony: March 5, 2002
In a Senate hearing on the subject of "The Dangers of Cloning and The Promise of Regenerative Medicine", Christopher Reeve testified before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in favor of the United States government to allow human cloning.
The Chairman: We look forward to working closely with you.
We are privileged today to welcome a really outstanding group of experts before the committee.
First of all, I would like to welcome Christopher Reeve to our hearing this morning. I think that for all Americans, his abilities have made him not only an extraordinarily successful actor but, as I have said other times, his courage has made him an American hero. We are enormously appreciative of his willingness to come to the committee. He has been a tireless advocate and a man of extraordinary courage, and he lets all of us know that you do not have to be a Senator to make a big difference in life; all you have to do is have the courage of Christopher Reeve.
We welcome you here to the committee, and we look forward to having you lead off the discussion.
Dr. Paul Berg is one of America's foremost medical researchers. He is currently the Cahill Professor of Cancer Research at Stanford University. His fundamental discoveries in genetic research paved the way for countless new medications developed by the biotech industry. Dr. Berg's contributions to medical progress have been recognized by numerous awards, including a Nobel Prize in 1980.
Dr. Tom Murray has devoted his career to providing ethical guidance for new developments in medicine. He is currently president of The Hastings Center, one of the leading institutes for medical ethics in the United States. Dr. Murray was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and has also served on the Ethics Committee of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and on the Ethics Board of the Human Genome Project.
We welcome you, Dr. Murray.
Ms. Judy Norsigian is a founding member of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, publishers of the "Our Bodies, Ourselves" series of books. She is a dedicated advocate for women's health issues, and she will describe to the committee her concerns about cloning.
I want to extend a very warm personal welcome to someone who is highly regarded and respected in our own community.
Dr. Stuart Newman is a professor of cell biology and anatomy at the New York Medical College in Valhalla, NY, where he conducts research in developmental biology. Dr. Newman has written extensively on concerns about the biotechnology industry and new developments in genetic research.
We want to thank you so much for being here, Chris Reeve, and we look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER REEVE, CHRISTOPHER REEVE PARALYSIS FOUNDATION
Mr. Reeve: Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify this afternoon.
For the record, I am a C-2 ventilator-dependent quadriplegic, which means that I am paralyzed from the shoulders down and unable to breathe on my own. For the last 7 years, I have not been able to eat, wash, go to the bathroom, or get dressed by myself.
Some people are able to accept living with a severe disability. I am not one of them, and that is why I have a keen interest in research and am deeply disturbed by unreasonable attempts to block scientific progress.
The fact that the House of Representatives banned cloning last year without careful deliberation makes the Senate debate a matter of great urgency.
Because Senator Brownback has introduced a Senate version of the House bill, I wish to comment on some of his public statements. He has characterized embryonic stem cell research as "immoral and unnecessary." But in testimony before the Harkin-Specter subcommittee on January 24th of this year, he stated that he supports in vitro fertilization clinics. And when Senator Harkin asked if he was aware that the majority of excess fertilized embryos are routinely thrown into the garbage, his response was: "I think most of them are put up for adoption." That is simply not true.
And in a recent interview, Senator Brownback said he wants to cure ALS, and he added: "If we pursue the adult stem cell area where we all agree that we can do this, that it is the right thing to do." Again, this is not true. Experts in ALS research believe that embryonic stem cells are the beset and possibly the only hope for victims of that fatal condition.
Today, 100 million Americans suffer from serious or currently incurable diseases. Fifty-four million Americans are disabled . Our Government is supposed to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Beyond that, we have a moral responsibility to help others. Time is absolutely critical. If the Government forces scientists' attempt to make adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells, they might waste 5 years or more and fail. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands will have died.
Why do we need therapeutic cloning? As a layman, several important reasons come to mind. One, implantation of human embryonic stem cells is not safe unless they contain the patient's own DNA. Two, efforts, to repair central nervous system disorders may need to recapitulate the process of fetal development, and that could only be accomplished by human embryonic stem cells. Three, therapeutic cloning is done without fertilizing an egg. It can be strictly regulated. If we also enforce an absolute ban on reproductive cloning, we will not slide down the dreaded slippery slope into moral and ethical chaos.
Any powerful new technology comes with the possibility for abuse. But when we decide that the benefit to society is worth the risk, we take every possible precaution and go forward.
The unfertilized eggs that will be used for nucleus transplantation will never leave the laboratory and will never be implanted in a womb. But if we do not make this research legal, if we do not use Government funding and oversight, it will happen privately, dangerous unregulated and uncontrolled.
And our country is about to lose its preeminence in science and medicine. We took a giant step backward in the 1970's when the NIH was not allowed to fund its in vitro research until an advisory commission could be formed to consider the issue. In the meantime, there was rapid progress in England, and the first test tube baby was born in 1978. For purely political reasons, we did not succeed and so far, 177,000 children have been conceived in 400 facilities around the country.
Today, human trials to defeat Parkinson's are underway in Sweden. In Israel, macrophages scavenger cells that eat debris in the body, are being used to repair the damaged spinal cord within 2 weeks of injury. The first human subject was a 19-year-old girl from Colorado. Last week, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom passed legislation permitting research on cloned human embryos for the second time.
Those are not rogue nations behaving irresponsibly. They are allies, no less moral than we are. If we act now, we still have a chance to catch up. I urge the Senate to defeat Senator Brownback's, bill S. 1899, and pass your bill, sir, S. 1758.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman: We are going to have 6-minute rounds. [Laughter.]
Mr. Reeve, let me ask you - we have heard a good deal about the slippery slope, that if we have research in this area, the next thing we will have is human cloning. We are all opposed to human cloning. This is raised in many instances as a red herring. We are opposed to it, Senator Feinstein - I do not know a Member of the United States who is not opposed. That is not what this debate is about. It is about what has been described earlier by this panel and what you have spoken so eloquently about.
Tell me, from your own experience working in this area, do you have concerns that if we see this kind of research go ahead, it will lead us onto a slippery slope, where we will end up going into human cloning and all of the illegitimate, horrific kinds of circumstances will take place?
Mr. Reeve: If you believe in the slippery slope here, it means that our entire society is perched on the slippery slope. It means that regulation has no value whatsoever, and that is not true.
Now, there are always consequences. We allow 16-year-olds to get driver's licenses, and a lot of them have accidents - but do we rescind the permission to drive a car at 16? No.
Look at nuclear energy. Right now, we are very concerned that rogue nations are going to get hold of nuclear technology and come back to haunt us - but we are not stopping our own nuclear capability. In fact, the administration is trying to enhance it.
Also, just on a daily basis, the Government is saying to people that, yes, there is a threat of terror, but fly and go to the theater and live your life and take that risk, because every day, you hear about fighter escorts having to take some airplane back to the airport because there was another bomb threat. People are boarding airplanes, passing security checkpoints, and then found to be carrying dangerous material - but still we go on.
So yes, you take a risk that somebody somewhere could get involved in creating a human out of reproductive cloning, but it is not at all likely, and to be afraid of pursuing therapeutic cloning is really going to be reprehensible, because you cannot use embryonic stem cells for therapy without being able to use therapeutic cloning - it will not work.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Frist?
Senator Frist: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the testimony of everybody today. It is helpful - although I am glad we are having the chance to talk further, because I do not think we have addressed what is fundamentally most important if we are going to legislate in this area, which I think we are, because everybody has said we ought to ban reproductive cloning. So we are going to be there.
To my satisfaction, none of you - Dr. Berg, Mr. Reeve, Dr. Newman - have clearly outlined the differences and distinctions between stem cell research and cloning. It is so basic, and we have got to do it. It is hard, because as soon as you talk about cloning, very quickly - Mr. Reeve, you do, and Dr. Berg - you immediately go to stem cells and embryonic stem cells and the promise and the hope, which is there, and I agree. But somehow, we need to recognize the differences between the two and ask what do we lose if we have a ban on research cloning, therapeutic cloning, regenerative cloning in humans at this stage, recognizing that we have not fully explored animal models completely at this juncture. What do we lose? Do we really pull back the promise of stem cell research - embryonic stem cell research, fetal stem cell research, adult stem cell research - by having a ban on cloning?
Again, I want to come back to that shortly, probably in a second round, because I do not think we have fully addressed it, and the temptation is to focus on embryonic stem cell research, which does have great promise, and I am a big advocate for that as we go forward.
Senator Landrieu mentioned the technologies that are still allowed. It is very important for my colleagues and for the American people to know that a ban on research on human cloning, cloning of human organisms - the definition that is used is asexual reproduction - and there are some other qualifications in there - for a human organism, that that is what we are talking about. It does not in any way inhibit other types of research, and it is important for all of us to understand. For example, I will go through the list of things that can still continue and should still continue - nuclear transfer/cloning to produce any animal, any species other than a human being - again, animal models for cloning would continue and hopefully be supported federally and otherwise; cloning of DNA and of RNA would continue; cloning of protein or any other molecule would continue. Parthenogenesis - this gets into too much detail, but again, one of the arguments for cloning is to increase the supply of embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells. Right now, there are 78 embryonic stem cell lines that the President has been made available for federal research; some people argue for using leftover embryos that are going to be thrown away anyway to get embryonic stem cells, and another source would be cloning, and a third source is parthenogenesis, which we will not talk about today, but it will still be allowed. Androgenesis, where you put two sperm Nuclei into an enucleated egg would continue. Embryo splitting, what is called "induced twinning", would continue. Blastomere separation of an embryo to produce multiple embryos would continue. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis would continue. Human embryonic stem cell research on all existing stem cell lines would continue. And Dr. Berg, I mention that because you said there is a lot to learn there, in those 78 lines.
Mr. Berg: If we can have access to them.
Senator Frist: If you can have access to them; and as you know, there are nine applications right now. That is all that has been received. So there is a great surge out there, but nine are being considered right now, so people do have access to those lines.
Derivation of new human embryonic stem cell lines from leftover IVF embryos will continue. Creation of human embryos by fertilization for reproduction will continue. Any embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research, would continue. Placental stem cell research continues. Fetal tissue research continues. In vitro fertilization continues.
I go through that list not to drive the point home too much, but it is important to know that this does not lock down the sort of basic research that is important as we enter these uncharted territories. It does lock down an area - for the reasons that go back to the moral/ethical arena. It really comes down - and I am going to run out of time - but it comes down to the creation - and this is what bothers so many - one of the major ethical objections to human cloning, research cloning, is the purposeful creation of cloned human embryos which must then be destroyed in the experiment - and these are all experiments; they are investigations and research, but they are experiments - that you have to destroy the group of cells, the embryo, in the experiment. You create what many people, including myself, regard as life, and you then must destroy that as a necessary part of the experiment today - maybe not in the future, but at least today. I think that is what bothers so many people. There is something intrinsically morally wrong, offensive - you choose the word - about creating and destroying human living material for an experiment, especially before the basic investigations have been carried out in animals and animal models.
I am out of time, but I am going to come back in the second round to give people an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Reeve: May I make a comment, please?
Senator Dodd: Of course you can - this is my old neighbor from Connecticut. It is good to see you, Chris.
Mr. Reeve: Thank you, Senator Dodd.
In response to something that Dr. Frist said, I need to object, and that is that, Senator, you insist on separating therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cells. However, in my own case, I require re-myelination of nerves. That means replacing the conductive coat of fat, myelin, that allows electricity to come down, currents from the brain to the central nervous system for function. At the moment, only embryonic stem cells have the potential to do that, and experiments are being done now in larger animals demonstrating that.
In fact, a scientist at Washington University, Dr. John McDonald, whom I have been working with says that there is no way he would inject stem cells without being able to use my own DNA for safety reasons. So without the ability to use my own DNA, without that somatic cell transfer, I am out of luck.
The other thing is to please remember that therapeutic cloning, nucleus transplantation, is done with unfertilized eggs. You keep referring to destroying an embryo. I think that destroying an embryo is what happens when the leftovers from fertility clinics are thrown out. We can agree that they go to the garbage routinely. But to say that an unfertilized egg has the same status, I believe is incorrect, and I think that this is the line of research that holds so much promise and can also get us around the ethical quandary that we keep putting ourselves in. We are talking about an unfertilized egg that will never leave the lab, that will never be implanted in a womb, and that can be regulated. And it is crucial for research.
Senator Jeffords: Certainly. Let me interrupt and say that Mr. Reeve has to leave for a plane in a few minutes, and I would like to ask him if he has any comments he would like to make on the testimony thus far and also ask you a question.
I certainly commend you for your work, but personally, on behalf of the tens of thousands of people who will someday benefit from these research endeavors, in your statement, you rightly characterize this as "more than an abstract debate" and that "every moment we delay could mean a life or death sentence." Without this research, what alternatives would the disabled fall back upon that you are aware of, and are there any?
Mr. Reeve: Well, I would start with ALS, and I think you could bring in any responsible scientist from any respectable institution, and they will say that there is no hope at the present or projected for people with ALS other than human embryonic stem cells.
I would also say that never in the history of science have we been given such a gift of being able to use cells that can become any tissue or cell type in the body for the purpose of healing. I think that if you do not have the combination of therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cells, you are going to be condemning a lot of people to unnecessary and death.
If I look around at what else is going on, for years just in the spinal cord community, there has been research on growth factors and Schwann cells, and there have been efforts to stop protein inhibitor, but they have not yet shown the same promise that the embryonic stem cells do, and at the moment, in two places, Washington University in St. Louis and the University of California at Irvine, researchers have been conducting very successful experiments using human embryonic stem cells in animal models in both the acute and chronic phases and getting recovery.
Of course, they are going to have to move to the higher animal forms before humans, but the promise is absolutely extraordinary, and I cannot think of any other kind of therapy that would be as effective and as promising as this is. And when I read articles or hear people say that the promise of human embryonic stem cells is dubious, I am very disturbed, because the only reason they get to say that is because the NIH has not been allowed to spend a single dollar on embryonic stem cell research. They have a budget now of $25 billion, and yet, because of lack of guidelines and because of the restrictions that have been imposed on the NIH so far, not one human embryonic stem cell project has been federally funded. That is why you are seeing such slow progress. And if we continue that way, I am going to be in this wheelchair for a long time that I do not need to be , and others like me.
Senator Jeffords: Thank you so much, and we thank you and your foundation for what you have done. I consider you a good friend, and it is a pleasure to see you here again today.
Mr. Reeve: Thank you, sir. I apologize for having to leave. Thank you.
Senator Frist: Thank you very much for being here. You have a voice and experience that other people do not have, and I appreciate you coming.
Senator Frist: Dr. Berg, one issue we did not develop - and I know you need to run, and we are not going to ask you the question now, but I will submit it for the record - it seems to me there are three arguments for therapeutic cloning. The first is this basic understanding of human development and life, science, and pursuit of knowledge. The second is this immunogenicity, which actually, Mr. Reeve mentioned - I think we need to clear that up, because I think there are some misconceptions about how important that is, and we need to address it. It is important, but as you now, with mitochondrial DNA, it is not perfect immunogenicity. I have been dealing with this a long time in heart transplants and lung transplants, immunosuppression - that is what I do - and the oversimplification that this is going to cure it all is false, and it is irresponsible for any of us to come out and give hope to people that this is going to cure that problem - not that you have done it - but it is one of the three arguments that are out there - basic human life, understanding it at the earliest cellular stage, which obviously I am in support of. The question is ethically, should be dive into it.
The second is this immunogenicity, and I will put a question in the record, but we need to make that a part of this record.
And the third is the supply issue in terms of do you really need to do cloning, this aspect of it, to have enough cells, or the tools that it provides - how powerful is it in terms of the research.
I will say that, Mr. Chairman, because I know you want to close the hearing now, and I will put it in writing as we go forward.
March 12, 2002
Hon. Edward Kennedy
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I would like to respond to an issue that came up at your hearing on The Dangers of Cloning and the Promise of Regenerative Medicine, held on March 5. There was a question raised on the immunological potential of somatic cell nuclear transfer, for which I would like to provide further detail.
Specific to spinal cord injured patients, immuno-suppressive drugs are not an option in a stem cell transplant procedure because of the increased risk of side effects. Spinal cord injuries cause many individuals to be more susceptible to respiratory infection due to an inability to clear secretions, limited chest movement, and a need for ventilation assistance. In addition, there is a greater risk of bladder infection and sepsis due to chronic catheterization. Some spinal cord patients who incur an infection are further compromised by the infection seeding around the heart. Urinary tract infections and skin breakdowns due to immobility are common causes of dsyreflexia, an event which often triggers heart attacks and strokes.
I have been told by Dr. John McDonald of Washington University in St. Louis, that because this immune system of a spinal cord patient is already so compromised, it would be irresponsible to transplant stem cells into an individual that did not match his or her own DNA. Although there is still a risk of rejection, no reputable doctor would prescribe Cyclosporin, the leading immuno-suppressive drug therapy, to a spinal cord injured patient because the risk of death is too great. Somatic cell nuclear transfer could dramatically improve the treatment efficacy of any stem cell transplant because it uses one's own genetic makeup. In addition, there is the potential of eliminating the risks and side effects associated with highly toxic immuno-suppressive agents.
If you need further information on this issue, or if I can be of assistance in the future, feel free to contact me. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Committee, and I look forward to our continued collaboration. Thank you.
Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER REEVE,
Chairman, Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation.
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, |
