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, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?
Mr. Barr. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?
Mr. Hutchinson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson, no. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?
Mr. Graham. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. Flake. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frank, aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
Mr. Weiner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the
chamber who wish to cast their vote or change their vote? The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other Members who wish to cast or
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 19 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment in the nature of
a substitute is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Amendment to H.R. 2505, offered by Ms. Jackson
Lee of Texas.
Ms. Lofgren. No, it's Mr. Conyers----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. This is the Lofgren amendment.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. And Ms. Lofgren.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Lofgren amendment.
The Clerk. I'm sorry. I don't have it.
Ms. Lofgren. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, as we have been discussing this
bill is--the underlying bill is incredibly overbroad. If we
wanted to pass a bill that prohibits human cloning, it would
sail through Congress. I think we'd have a unanimous vote of
this Committee. Instead, this bill not only prohibits human
cloning, but it also halts the progress of medical research.
The bill is overbroad that it would prohibit stem cell
research, and the current phase of stem cell research involves
harvesting stem cells from fertilized eggs.
However, many in the scientific community believe that once
this technology is perfected, the next phase will be to
duplicate a person's own tissue for tissue transplants and
other therapies.
The National Institute of Health released a study just this
month, on July 18th, which examined the potential of adult as
well as embryonic stem cells, and after surveying the current
state of the science, the NIH concluded that embryonic stem
cells have important advantages over adult stem cells. They can
develop into many more different cell types, they cannot be
generated in the same quantities in the laboratory, and they
are difficult and sometimes dangerous to extract from an adult
patient, especially stem cells located in the brain.
Further, it noted that somatic cell nuclear transfer, also
known as therapeutic cloning, would be an advantageous way of
creating stem cell transplants. It would not be rejected by the
body's immune system, eliminating the need for
immunosuppressive drugs.
The NIH, therefore, concluded that further research must be
allowed before we discard the potential benefits of embryonic
stem cells and nuclear transfer research. It wrote, and I
quote, ``Predicting the future of stem cell applications is
impossible, particularly given the very early stage of the
science of stem cell biology. To date, it is impossible to
predict which stem cells--those derived from the embryo, the
fetus, or the adult--or which methods for manipulating the
cells will best meet the needs of basic research and clinical
applications. The answers clearly lie in conducting more
research.''
You know, we have had a debate on Mr. Schiff's amendment,
and this amendment really puts the question even more starkly
than the prior amendment. Basically, the amendment says this:
``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit research or therapies
using human pluripotent stem cells derived from human
embryos.''
We know that the debate on cell research is ongoing.
Recently, the--I think it was just yesterday--the Pope advised
the President to eliminate stem cell research in America. And
there are those who--of the Catholic faith who feel that. There
are many others of other faiths who do not agree and who
believe that we should not stifle the advance of science that
will save so many in this world from disease and from lives of
pain and futility.
We know that the President has a decision make--to make. I
was actually very interested that Senator Orrin Hatch, who is
ardently pro-life and certainly a conservative, favors the
research and he says that, quote, ``A fetus developing in a
mother's womb is different than a frozen''--and again I quote,
``a frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a clinic.''
Similarly, former Senator Connie Mack from Florida, who's also
a pro-life conservative, said that, quote, ``Anyone who would
ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for
harm done to real live postnatal sentient beings who might be
helped by this research.''
I don't think we should pre-empt the Administration's
decision by approving this bill, or if we do, we need to
include this amendment that allows research to continue while
eliminating and prohibiting the cloning of human beings in a
reproductive sense.
I would note--and I think Congressman Schiff has included
the letter in the record, but some of the groups that are
opposing the underlying bill, unless it is amended to allow
research, include the Alliance for Aging Research, the American
Association for Cancer Research, the American Liver Foundation,
the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Biotechnology
Industry Association, the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma, and
Immunology, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
International, the Kidney Cancer Foundation, National AIDS
Treatment Advocacy Project, and on and on, including the
Wisconsin Research Institute.
I hope that we may adopt this very clear amendment that is
pro-science, but that also allows us to come together and ban
the reproductive cloning that is so troublesome to all of us.
And with that, I yield back----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek
recognition?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, this may well be a benign
amendment, but I'm going to ask my colleagues to oppose it for
two reasons.
The first is that, as I read the underlying bill, this
amendment is not necessary because the procedure, as described
by the gentlewoman from California, would not be prohibited by
the bill's language.
The second reason I urge my colleagues to oppose it is I
believe the language may be--and it may be unintentionally so--
too broad and too ambiguous. The gentlewoman's amendment starts
off with the word ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit'' and
ends with the phrase ``human embryos,'' with nothing in the
amendment that would describe how the human embryos are
obtained or why they're created. So I do have concerns about
the breadth of the language and also want to say that, as I
read the underlying language, it would--the procedure
described, if it is narrow, would not be prohibited by the--by
the bill.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. And, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to
the gentlewoman from California, particularly on the point of
her being able to point to language in the bill that would
prohibit this procedure that she has outlined in her amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. The National Institute of Health disagrees
with the comments just--you have just made indicating that the
bill would preclude somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known
as therapeutic cloning, which is why we would carve out and
protect researcher therapies using human pluripotent stem cells
that are derived from human embryos.
If the bill--the underlying bill eliminates cloning, and
cloning is the insertion of the DNA into an egg that has been
emptied out, and that process can be used to attempt to derive
an embryo that would then result in a live birth, with
disastrous results, as we know, from the animal
experimentation, or instead, that process might be used to
develop a cluster of cells that is undifferentiated, without
organs, and is then utilized to develop into skin, into neurons
that can be used as therapies. But the actual insertion of DNA
into the denuded egg is the same at the outset, and without a
save for science, your bill would--would outlaw that, and that
is not only my view but the view of the National Institute of
Health.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I will just reclaim my time and
state again that it's perhaps that we do have a disagreement on
both the meaning of the amendment as well as the meaning of the
underlying language is yet another reason to oppose this
amendment. And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts,
for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Mr. Frank. To strike the requisite number of----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized----
Mr. Frank [continuing]. Words.
Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I am in my 21st year, and I am
waiting for the occasion on which someone argues against an
amendment on the grounds that it is unnecessary and persuades
me that that is, in fact, the reason for the opposition.
The notion that you would oppose an amendment solely
because it is unnecessary leaves me skeptical for a number of
reasons.
First, we are not, either as politicians or as lawyers, as
most of us are, professions inherently opposed to repetition.
The profession that has given the world ``belt and
suspenders,'' ``cease and desist,'' ``lewd and lascivious''--
none of which, I should say, apply to this bill--hardly has
standing to complain that language might be unnecessary.
In my experience, people oppose language on the grounds
that it is unnecessary because they find it inconvenient
because it--opposing it would require them to get more specific
than they want to about a particular case. Sometimes people
have been part of a coalition that has drawn up a bill and
aren't empowered, unilaterally agree to change. That's their
right. But I just want to make it very clear both in this
particular instance and as a general legislative principle. The
argument that something is unnecessary is never a valid
argument for legislation. Repetition does not harm. The paper's
pretty cheap that we use to print it. It's a pretty small
amendment. It probably wouldn't even cost us to print even one
more page.
So the fact that it's unnecessary is hardly a reasonable
proposal. And, indeed, we know that it is important, and courts
have told us this, that they want us to be clear and not to be
ambiguous. There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to
the meaning. The gentlewoman from California has cited the
National Institutes of Health. People who are not opposed to
this would have no objection to the amendment. There needs to
be something more than the claim of lack of necessity.
Now, the second point the gentleman from Texas raised is a
substantive one, that it may be looser than it should be with
regard to the last phrase. If that's the case, I'd be prepared
to see--I assume the gentlewoman from California would be,
too--an amendment to the amendment that might tighten that part
up. But the notion that it is unnecessary to make the bill
clearer is never persuasive. What could the objection be? Pride
of authorship? I mean, it's--it's a bill that embodies the
values of its authors, but it did not strike me as great
literature. I don't think the gentlewoman's language, even if
you thought it was unnecessary, spoils the rhythm of the prose.
It will still stand as well as it did before.
No one argues against the bill because it really is
unnecessary. That's an argument given, as I said, when people
may want it to be more restrictive than it is.
Now, again, there is a second argument that the gentleman
made, namely, that ``derived from human embryos'' might be
inferred to mean a lessening of other restrictions. That I
assume could easily be fixed by language if that were, in fact,
an ambiguity. The gentlewoman from California might be tempted
to respond that it wouldn't be necessary to fix that. But I'm
sure in graciousness of spirit she would not object to a little
bit of a change in her language.
So the question should not be whether or not it is
unnecessary, whether or not the drafters were perfect, whether
or not an extra word or two might somehow spoil the meter,
spoil the literary symmetry. Let's have the debate on the
merits. If, in fact, there is agreement that there should be
allowed the sort of research that is described in the
amendment, let's adopt the amendment and resolve any possible
ambiguity. If people don't think there should be such research,
let them argue against it on the merits, and if they are
afraid, because of the last phrase, that it gets beyond where
it should be, let them deal with that.
But I would hope that we would not hide behind a wholly
unpersuasive claim of redundancy on a matter of this
importance.
I thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment of
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren. Those in favor
will signify by saying aye? Opposed, no? The noes appear to
have it----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested. Those
in favor of the Lofgren amendment will, as your names are
called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call
the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. Hyde. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Gekas?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?
Mr. Barr. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. Flake. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frank, aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
Mr. Weiner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote? The gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
Mr. Gekas. I wish to be recorded as no.
The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. Graham. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Hutchinson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California?
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there anybody else who wishes to
cast or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 18 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505, offered by Ms. Jackson
Lee of Texas. ``Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark
and the period which follows: Page 4''----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentlewoman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
There are many comments that have been made this morning
that I could readily associate myself with. I think the primary
issue is that there is general consensus around the question of
cloning, human cloning in particular.
I would have asked that this process take a longer period
of time, that hearings could have been held in the full
Committee. And I also want to acknowledge the work that Dr.
Weldon did on this legislation in working with and approaching
many of us to include or secure our support.
As I listen to the debate this morning, there is a great
sense of unreadiness on this legislation, and it seems a slight
bit of arrogance for us as mostly trained lawyers to ignore the
expertise of enormous scientific and medical reach that have
not in anger or not in an effort of bad faith have raised up
their voices in opposition to this particular legislation as it
relates to the finite and important aspect of medical research.
My amendment in particular deals specifically with the
question of in vitro fertilization and the great need that we
have in our community to provide for those couples desirous of
providing life to be able to proceed with a degree of safety
under the research that gives them that opportunity.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise that
10 percent of couples in this country, or 6 million couples,
experience infertility at any given time. In 1998, the last
year for which data is available, there were 80,000 recorded in
vitro fertilization attempts out of which 28,500 babies were
born; 28,500 families were able to provide the love and
nurturing to a child. Thousands of other children were
conceived and born as a result of what is now considered lower-
technology procedures such as intrauterine insemination.
Recent improvements in scientific advancement program
possible in more than half of the couples pursuing treatments.
Like the Schiff substitute, the language in my amendment makes
it explicitly clear that embryonic stem cell research and
medical treatments will not be banned or restricted for the
millions of Americans struggling with infertility.
This provision is very important. Infertility is a crucial
area of medicine in which we are developing cutting-edge
techniques that help our patients. It is and would be
irresponsible to cut short the ability of these procedures by
legislation that mistakenly eliminates the opportunity for this
kind of research.
Let me also offer to say that the American Infertility
Association, which engages in this kind of medical assistance,
realizes the importance of opposing human cloning. By letter
June 26, 2001, they clearly say that the American Infertility
Association is strongly opposed to human reproductive cloning.
But they go on to say that there is another legislative
initiative that we are not marking up, H.R. 2172, by Mr.
Greenwood, which makes it explicitly clear that other related
research and medical treatments will not be banned or
restricted. For the millions of Americans struggling with
infertility, this provision is very important.
My amendment speaks to this. My amendment bears
consideration and acceptance by this Committee because it
clarifies that it protects the very important research dealing
with infertility, giving 28,000 families and how many others
the opportunity to give birth where birth may not have been
possible.
I supported Mr. Schiff's amendment, the Lofgren amendment,
because every morning when I wake up, for those of us who claim
our personal religious beliefs, we are thankful for life. We
are thankful that we arise in good health. But what about those
who are suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injury, HIV/AIDS,
heart disease, stroke, and many, many others--Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's--who wake up every morning with the pain and
anguish of disease. What about those loving parents who wake up
every morning with the pain and anguish of those who are
desiring to be parents who cannot give birth?
I am frightened that our zealousness to do what all of us--
--
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time----
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Seemingly in this Committee
want us to do----
Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. Has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. To be able to not have
cloning----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would simply ask for the support of my
amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman
from Texas seek recognition?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment for the same reasons we
opposed the last amendment.
The first is I believe the language in this amendment is
too broad. If you look at line 5, you'll see the phrase ``any
form of sexual reproduction.'' I believe that phrase ``any
form'' at best is ambiguous, at worst is too broad.
The second reason to oppose this is because, once again,
it's not necessarily necessary. And I think there is a good
reason to oppose amendments or language that aren't considered
necessary, because, quite frankly, until you have studied the
language, you don't necessarily appreciate all the nuances of
the language. Language can oftentimes have unintended
consequences that may or may not be the intent of the author.
And, in any case, we shouldn't take a chance.
So I think it is legitimate to oppose an amendment or
oppose the addition of language that appears to be not
necessary simply because you are unsure.
So for those two reasons, both because the language is too
broad and the amendment is unnecessary, I urge my----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barr. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Colleagues to oppose it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barr. Will the gentleman yield down here to your right?
Mr. Smith. Oh, be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. Barr. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the gentleman's enunciation of a position that
I think is very constitutionally sound, and that is, we ought
to be opposing amendments and changes and proposals to U.S.
criminal law that are unnecessary. I think that is a very sound
reason, consistent with our whole form of republican--small
``r''--form of government.
I also have been around long enough--and I think most
Members have--to know that if somebody proposes an amendment or
a law that is unnecessary, there's frequently another reason
why they're doing it; that is, to come in through the back door
when they know that coming in through the front door would meet
with severe opposition.
This--this proposal, I agree with the gentleman, the
distinguished Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, is
unnecessary. There is nothing in the proposal before us this
morning that would prohibit--that would prohibit procedures and
research in the area of infertile couples, and, therefore, I
would join the distinguished Chairman in urging Members to vote
against this as being unnecessary and opening up yet another
can of worms.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition?
Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, in--I'd like to ask the gentlelady
from Texas a question about the meaning of the word ``sexual
reproduction.'' The term ``asexual reproduction'' is defined in
the bill. Do I understand ``sexual reproduction'' to mean that
it is the result of the DNA from two people and not one?
Ms. Jackson Lee. That's correct.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of an area
that has been one of the leaders in in vitro fertilization, I
would be in strong support of this--this amendment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scott. I will yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me--and I appreciate the gentleman's
question, and I think it's a very important distinction
relating to the Chairman of the Subcommittee's comment about
necessity.
I would--I would make a different argument on my amendment
versus the underlying bill. The underlying bill is subject to
vast interpretation and broadness. That's the fear that we
have. And the necessity of our amendments are to clarify and to
distinctly articulate what is being prohibited and what is not.
So I'd make the case that we have to clarify because the
underlying bill is overly broad, and what we're doing in this
Committee today is unfairly impacting on legitimate and legal
and constitutionally sound research that is going on in our
country today, and in particular, as it relates to my
amendment, for those couples who have been longing to be able
to procreate and have been able to do it only because of this
major body of medical research.
When I leave this room today, I could not--and I assume the
inevitable is going to come, which is the passage of this
legislation out of this Committee. I am not sure whether
research in Mr. Scott's district or the work that's being done
in Ms. Lofgren's area or any of my good friends on the other
side of the aisle will be viable based upon this legislation.
I do know that the kind of work that is being done enabling
people to procreate who desire to do so is so vital and so
precious that I would beg to differ with the very simplistic
argument, with no disrespect to the distinguished gentleman,
that this is a question of not necessary. We are clarifying in
order to procreate or to provide opportunity for reproductive
activities, and I would yield back to the gentleman. I thank
him for his time.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek
the----
Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. I think that, while, clearly, the prior
amendment was essential, this amendment probably is wise. And I
want to go back to the prior amendment just briefly because I
think there is, potentially, an unintended effort to fuzz up
what this bill actually does.
If you look at Page 2, it defines human cloning as it means
``human asexual reproduction accompanied by introducing nuclear
material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized
or unfertilized ovocyte, whose nuclear material has been
removed or inactivated so as to produce a living organism at
any stage of development that is genetically virtually
identical to an existing or previously existing human
organism.''
And then the exception, the research exception is nothing,
because basically it says nothing in the section: ``Restricts
areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited,''
except the bill specifically prohibits the research.
So it's--it does not, it destroys stem cell research is
what this bill does, which is why we're trying to fix this.
Now, on the gentlelady's amendment, I think it is wise
because if you take a look at the definition on line 7,
fertilized or unfertilized, I think that that begs for
clarification. Are we going to allow infertile couples to
have--use in vitro fertilization or not?
And recently, as some of the Members may know from their
reading on this subject, there has been in vitro fertilization
that has resulted in the small transfer of mitochondrial
material that is not addressed in the underlying bill and I
think would be preserved under the gentlelady's amendment.
Because the mitochondrial slippage, if you will, theoretically
violates this act and yet is increasingly known--I don't think
it's new--but it has been discovered in terms of in vitro
fertilization.
And so the unintended consequence of this act might be to
bar couples from using in vitro. Now, people can have different
viewpoints on in vitro fertilization. I, personally, feel it's
a blessing to couples who want to have--have a child, to be
able to use science to do that. And, certainly, it is done
thousands of times across the country and has enriched families
enormously and is worthy of our protection from this draft that
really does, I think, put the procedure in some doubt.
And I would yield to the gentlelady from Texas if she had
different additional comments.
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. I appreciate the gentlelady. She,
very much, let me just say, for not using a redundancy, is at
the cutting edge of what this amendment is offering to do. I
just simply want to put into the record the explanation that
tracks your explanation from the American Infertility
Association.
And what they are saying is--I think I started to read it--
this language says----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Thank you. I'd like to read into
the record, ``Infertility is just one area of medicine where we
are developing cutting-edge techniques such as cytoplasmic
transfer and germ cell nuclear transfer to help our patients.
We would hate to see research in these procedures cut short by
legislation that mistakenly treats them as the equivalent of
reproductive cloning.''
And so I thank the gentlelady. I just simply want to say to
my colleagues take a breather, pause for a moment, don't make
conclusions, and let us look and work together to make sure
that we are not blocking these millions and millions of
individuals, families, couples who simply want to be able to
procreate and give birth.
I yield back. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Lofgren. I would yield further to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. Watt. No, no, no. I'll get my own----
Ms. Lofgren. Your own time.
Then I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
The question is on----
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Watt. Just for the purpose of asking the sponsor of the
amendment and my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, to
look at the language of the amendment and to look at the
language on Page 2, lines 14 through 17, and tell me--well,
maybe I--okay. I've got the wrong amendment. I'm sorry.
All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was looking at the
wrong, wrong bill. I thought there was a provision in here that
covered that, but I'll yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it.
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like a roll
call.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The roll call will be ordered.
Those in favor of the Jackson Lee amendment will, as your names
are called, answer aye; those opposed, no.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. Hyde. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Gekas?
Mr. Gekas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?
Mr. Barr. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?
Mr. Graham. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. Flake. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frank aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote?
The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other Members who wish to cast or
change their vote?
If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 17 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Scott. No. 5.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott.
Page 4, after line 8 insert the following: Section 3, Study by
General Accounting----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this authorizes a study by the
General Accounting Office to conduct and assess the need for
any amendments to this act. That study should include a
discussion of new developments in medical technology concerning
human cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, the need, if
any, for somatic cell nuclear transfer for--to produce medical
advances, current public attitudes and prevailing ethical views
concerning the use of somatic cell nuclear re--transfer----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scott. I yield.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let me say that I believe that the
gentleman from Virginia has a very good idea, but the timing
isn't quite right yet. Should this amendment be adopted in
Committee, this will necessitate a sequential referral to the
Commerce Committee, which I don't think we want to have.
I would be prepared to work with the gentleman from
Virginia between the time this bill is reported from Committee
and the time it comes up on the floor so that some type of GAO
study would be included in the final legislation if passed by
the House. And with that assurance, I would request him to
withdraw the amendment so we avoid the sequential.
Mr. Scott. So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield just----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman
from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. I'll yield.
Mr. Watt. I'm just wondering what the rationale for using
the General Accounting Office is. These seem to me to be areas
that would be more in the, in the knowledge and jurisdiction of
the NIH and also to inquire whether, if somebody other than the
General Accounting Office were used, would that also
necessitate a referral, a sequential referral? What triggers
the referral?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman from
Virginia will yield.
Mr. Scott. I will.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. What triggers the referral is a
request by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
the parliamentarians.
Mr. Watt. No, I mean----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Your Chairman has spent quite a bit
of time opposing those types of requests over at the
Parliamentarian's Office, as the gentleman from North Carolina
knows.
Mr. Watt. But I assume there is some substance in the
amendment that would trigger his belief that Commerce has
jurisdiction over it.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from Virginia
would further yield.
Mr. Scott. Yes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Commerce has jurisdiction over a
whole host of health care issues and legislation, including
what the NIH does. And if this is to oversee what the opinions
of that would be, that would trigger a sequential. The
Judiciary Committee has got exclusive jurisdiction over the
criminal code. So far the Commerce Committee has not claimed
jurisdiction over that, and I would hope that we could----
Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield----
Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. They're trying.
Mr. Watt [continuing]. Yield further?
Mr. Scott. I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Watt. Now that I understand that won't address the
sequential referral issue, I still would like to have the
gentleman from Virginia tell me why he's using the General
Accounting Office, as opposed to some other agency to studying
the----
Mr. Scott. Well, frankly, because legislative counsel
suggested it. I would assume they would seek appropriate
guidance from NIH or the appropriate agencies to do the study.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I remember years ago, when I--6 years ago, as
a matter of fact, when I was elected to Congress and became a
Member of the Judiciary Committee, and a senior Member--
actually, there were Members from both sides of the aisle said,
you know, the Democrats and Republicans are our adversaries.
The Commerce Committee is our enemy, and that has sometimes
united us.
But I would argue that in this case a sequential referral
actually might be a good thing. There are sometimes the bills
that we pass benefit greatly from a review by the Commerce
Committee, and I think in this case, with the health care and
science expertise that's available in Commerce, and I would
argue, also, on the Science Committee, that sequential
referrals to Science and Commerce would be a good thing for
this legislation, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Scott. I withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Scott. No. 2.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R.----
Mr. Scott. It's short. She can read it in full, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would object. If she could go
ahead and read it, it's short.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the clerk----
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott.
Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark and the period
which follows.
Page 4, after line 4, insert the following:
``(e) Sunset.--The prohibitions of this section shall not
apply to any activity occurring on or after the expiration of
the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.''
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is self-explanatory. It establishes a 5-year sunset.
I think we've heard enough during the debate to know that this
is a very complicated area. We don't know what the research is
going to look like 5 years from now, and we really need to
revisit this in 5 years, and that's what the sunset would do,
and I would hope that we would adopt the sunset.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back? The
time is yielded back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
straightforward sunset. The reason is, simply, because it's
dangerous. We don't know what the status of human cloning is
going to be in 5 years, much less in 6 weeks or 6 months from
now. So, until we know what the future holds, we ought not
automatically sunset a very important bill.
Secondly, of course, and obviously Congress can, if it so
chooses, 5 years from now or at any point change the law after
we have knowledge, and sufficient knowledge, to know that we
are continuing to protect the experimentation with human
cloning.
So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on Amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, before I finish, I think I
responded to the gentleman from North Carolina that legislative
counsel suggested the GAO. I think it was my counsel that
suggested it. [Laughter.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The record will indicate the
correction.
Mr. Scott. I'd like to apologize to the GAO.
I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Scott. No. 4.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No. 4.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott.
Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark and the
period which follows.
Page 4, after line 4, insert the following----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that the provisions--
``prohibitions of this section shall not apply to the shipping,
receipt, or importation for use in medical treatment of any
product derived from an embryo, including, but not limited to,
pluripotent stem cells, if such product is unable to develop
into a full human being.''
Mr. Chairman, as we take whatever action we're going to
take in the United States, there will be other countries who
will be doing this research. We want to make sure that if there
are medications or medical treatments available and products in
other countries that cannot develop into a full human being, we
don't want to prohibit their importation into the United
States.
The language of the bill I think makes it clear that that
importation would be illegal, and I think the--that would deny
ill people of medical treatment which would be appropriate.
And, furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the FDA would have to
approve and have oversight of any of those treatments. So it's
not, I mean, you have FDA approval.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scott. I'll yield to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I think this is a good amendment, and one I
certainly intend to vote for. I would note that failing to
approve this amendment would mean that only the affluent who
could fly to Britain to get their treatment would get the
benefit of the research we will drive off-shore, and the middle
class and working people will have to suffer and not be able to
get the benefit of the treatment.
So, in addition to allowing all Americans, with the FDA's
certainly intrusion to make sure these are efficacious and
safe, this is a meritorious and very American type of thing to
do to allow everyone to benefit.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Scott. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes. The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment would provide an exemption to the
prohibitions of the bill for the importation of any product
derived from an embryo if such product is unable to develop
into a full human being.
Effectively, this exemption would allow for the importation
of stem cells derived from cloned embryos. By including this
amendment in this bill, we would be creating a financial
incentive for companies outside of the United States to produce
even more cloned human embryos in order to make a greater
profit in this country. With more cloned human embryos in the
world, it would only be a matter of time before they are
illegally being used to create a cloned human baby. If we want
to prevent cloned human children, we must seek to stop the
process at the beginning.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to return to this central issue
here, and that is, if we oppose human cloning, the only way to
do so is to oppose this amendment and support the underlying
bill.
I'll yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of
the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott,
numbered four.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, No. 3. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott
Amendment No. 3.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Scott.
Page 4, line 4, strike the close quotation mark----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this would--this would--the--it's
called a Family Preservation Exemption. ``The prohibitions of
this section shall not apply to any activity by a woman who
receives an embryo in her uterus if such activity was performed
with the intent to initiate her pregnancy.''
If this does not pass, then what we have passed is a bill
providing for criminal activity. If a mother is, in fact,
trying to get pregnant and uses one of these embryos, she will
be party to a criminal activity. There are enough problems
involved in this activity. I would hope that we would not jail
and fine women who are trying to get pregnant.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield for a question.
Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I'm trying to think of an example where this
might occur. Say, for example, a couple had been unable to
conceive, and they went and adopted an embryo to bring that--to
have a child, and the embryo had mitochondrial DNA from the
donor mother. Is the intent of the amendment to preclude
prosecution of the couple because of the presence of
mitochondrial DNA from the donor?
Mr. Scott. Exactly. Reclaiming my time. That's exactly the
point of the amendment.
The doctor or the scientist would be fully liable, but the
mother would not.
Ms. Lofgren. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Scott. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Smith, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment contains an exemption for
mothers from the prohibitions of cloning contained in the bill.
Although this amendment may appear benign at first glance, it
serves to protect women who knowingly participate in the
unethical experimentation on a child to be.
There are a number of legal, safe, and tested options
available to women today who want to have a child, but cannot,
for whatever reason. These women do not have to attempt the
implantation of a cloned embryo that has a greater than 98-
percent chance of not surviving the pregnancy, being malformed
or abnormal at birth, or having a greatly diminished life span
because of a genetic defect.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose
the cloning of human beings and oppose this amendment.
I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, No. 3.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it. The
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
If not, the question occurs on the motion to report the
bill H.R. 2505 favorably. The Chair notes a reporting quorum.
All in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Let's get a roll call, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The roll call will be ordered.
Those in favor of favorably reporting H.R. 2505 will, as
your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. Hyde. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Gekas?
Mr. Gekas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, aye. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Barr?
Mr. Barr. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barr, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Hutchinson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Graham?
Mr. Graham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham, aye. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Scarborough?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake?
Mr. Flake. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Conyers?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frank no. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote?
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Keller?
Mr. Keller. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa.
Mr. Issa. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any additional Members
who wish to record or change their votes? If not----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how my--how I am
recorded.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, you're recorded as a no.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 10 noes.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report again.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 11 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably
is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go
to conference pursuant to House rules.
Without objection, the staff is directed to make any
technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given
2 days, as provided by House rules, in which to submit
additional dissenting supplementary or minority views.
Dissenting Views
We strongly dissent from H.R. 2505 as reported by the
Judiciary Committee. We agree that human cloning--the
production of children genetically identical to existing or
previously existing human beings--is unsafe and unethical and
should be prohibited. However, we believe that manner in which
H.R. 2505 is written would extend the bill's prohibitions far
beyond the goal of banning human cloning and would prevent our
citizens from benefitting from ongoing or prospective stem cell
research.
The bill before us is so sweeping that it would not only
ban reproductive cloning, but all uses of nuclear transfer--
also known as therapeutic cloning--for research or medical
treatment. This block treatments designed to help persons
suffering from Alzheimer's, diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's
disease, heart disease, or spinal cord injury, to name but a
few. If this bill passes into law, it would ban those stem cell
treatments that would be most effective and that would not
require the use of dangerous immunosuppresive drugs. The bill
is so broadly written that it bans the importation of
lifesaving medicines from other countries if their production
is in any way derived from nuclear transfer. This means that if
another nation's scientists used stem cell research to develop
a cure for cancer, it might be illegal for persons living in
this country to benefit from the drug. In addition, the
legislation could operate to ban legal and unobjectionable
infertility treatments.
It is for these reasons that the legislation is opposed by
numerous national organizations that represent patients, such
as the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, the Coalition
of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, the National Patient
Advocate Foundation, the Alliance for Aging Research, the
American Infertility Association, the Juvenile Diabetes
Research Foundation International, the Lymphoma Research
Foundation of America and the Society for Women's Health
Research. The legislation is also strongly opposed by a wide
variety of medical researchers, including the American
Association for Cancer Research, the American Liver Foundation,
the American Physiological Society, the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, the Kidney Cancer Foundation, the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Federation of
American Societies for Experimental Biology.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter From 43 Organizations and One Individual to Speaker
Dennis Hastert (July 23, 2001) (on file with the minority staff of the
House Judiciary Committee) [hereinafter ``Patients' Letter'']; Letter
from Dr. Robert R. Rich, President, Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology, to Ranking Member Conyers (July 23, 2001) (on
file with the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee)
[hereinafter ``FASEB Letter'']
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Legislation and Democratic Concerns
H.R. 2505 makes human somatic cell nuclear transfer into an
egg a Federal felony. This process consists of removing or
inactivating the nuclear material of an egg and transferring
into the egg the nuclear material and DNA from one or more
human somatic cells (cells with the full complement of genes).
There is no requirement that the transfer produce a child. The
bill therefore criminalizes a scientific research process that
takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of the
researcher or of the inability for this process to result in
the birth of a cloned child.\2\ The penalty for violating these
provisions includes sanctions of a criminal fine and/or
imprisonment for up to 10 years, and a civil penalty of at
least $1 million.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The bill contains a ``scientific research'' exception for the
use of cloning techniques to produce copies of DNA, tissues, organs,
plants, or animals other than humans, but the research uses of nuclear
transfer remain forbidden. Even if the oocyte had been modified so that
it could not develop into a full human being, it would still be illegal
to perform the transfer.
\3\ In cases involving a pecuniary gain, the civil penalty is to be
no less than $1 million and no more than twice the gross gain, if that
sum exceeds $1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful knowingly to
attempt to perform nuclear transfer, to participate in such an
attempt, or to ship, receive, or import for any purpose the
embryos produced by nuclear transfer or products derived from
such embryos. The importation of such products is prohibited
regardless of whether they are capable of developing into a
full human being; an American with an otherwise incurable
disease therefore would be prohibited from importing a stem
cell treatment developed abroad, where nuclear transfer
research might be protected, if the stem cells were in any way
derived from therapeutically cloned embryos.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This broad prohibition on the import of medical treatments was
not present in the original version of the bill, H.R. 1644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By imposing these prohibitions, the bill would extend the
reach of the criminal law into areas of pure scientific
research. Currently, the Federal Government attempts to shape
scientific research mainly through conditions on Federal
funding. Making a Federal felony of somatic cell nuclear
transfer (which takes place entirely in a petri dish, with no
human or animal subjects) would represent an unprecedented
intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific process and
would constrain the influence of the National Institutes of
Health in the funding of stem cell research.
If H.R. 2505 were to pass into law in its present form it
would be difficult, if not impossible, for our nation to
benefit from stem cell research that is currently ongoing or
that would take place in the future. This is because the only
practical means of developing breakthroughs in stem cell
research into treatments is through the use of somatic cell
nuclear transfer. The bill prohibits the importation of safe
and effective medical treatments, and it would use the criminal
law to interfere with the scientific process and with advanced
infertility treatments. For these and the reasons set forth
herein, we dissent from the legislation.
I. Democrats Would Support a Ban on Human Cloning, But H.R. 2505 Goes
Too Far
This Congress can and should outlaw the practice of human
cloning. Experiments in animal cloning have revealed
exceptionally high rates of deformities and birth defects, and
the use of this procedure in humans has been almost unanimously
rejected by the scientific community as unsafe to both mother
and child.\5\ Beyond issues of safety, using human cloning to
produce a child would raise significant ethical problems,
bringing the status of the child into question and raising
severe dangers of abuse.\6\ No pressing need exists to allow
such cloning, and we believe it is appropriate for Congress to
make the practice illegal. This is why at markup, Democrats
unanimously voted in favor of the Schiff substitute--based on
the Greenwood/Deutsch legislation \7\--which would have, among
other things, focused the bill on reproductive cloning and
banned the implantation of a cloned embryo. Unfortunately, the
Schiff substitute was defeated on a party-line vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See generally Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research:
Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations,
House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statements of
Mark E. Westhusin, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University, and
Rudolf Jaenisch, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology); Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut, Don't Clone Humans!, 291
Science at 2552 (March 30, 2001); FASEB Letter, at 1. To date, the only
intentions to clone human beings have been expressed by a small number
of groups and individuals far from the mainstream of the scientific
community. Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: Oversight Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, House Comm. on
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of Rael, leader of
the Raelian movement).
\6\ A child who has the exact genetic makeup of another would have
an unclear status under family law, and the attempt to duplicate an
existing person would severely compromise the individuality of the
cloned child. Additionally, human cloning might be misused by parents,
who might place expectations on a cloned child's future (e.g., if the
child is the clone of a basketball star).
\7\ H.R. 2608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, we cannot support the overbroad approach taken
by H.R. 2505. A ban on human cloning does not need to include a
ban on nuclear transfer research. The former brings a new child
into the world; the latter is concerned only with the study of
embryonic development and the curing of disease. The majority
has argued that such research lies on a ``slippery slope'' that
leads to reproductive cloning and beyond; but there is no sense
in which reproductive cloning is the logical ``next step''
after nuclear transfer research. Nothing links the pursuit of
stem-cell research to the deliberate creation of human beings.
Even if such a link existed, Congress would still be perfectly
capable of saying ``this far, and no further.''
The technique of in vitro fertilization has not brought the
elimination of parenthood and the armies of test-tube babies
that were originally feared; instead, it has allowed for
millions of Americans to do what they were once told was
impossible--to have a child of their own. In the same way,
Congress can permit nuclear transfer research without accepting
as necessary consequences the worst fears of its critics.
The majority has also argued that a ban on reproductive
cloning alone would be unenforceable. However, it has not for a
moment explained how the government could enforce the
prohibitions in H.R. 2505. Anyone who is willing to break the
law to clone a child will surely be willing to break the law to
create an embryo. If a ban on the surgical procedure of
implanting embryos into the uterus is unenforceable, a ban on a
procedure that takes place in a petri dish in the privacy of a
scientific laboratory is even more so. The process of nuclear
transfer is relatively simple, and the embryos it creates are
indistinguishable in all respects (except for their genetic
makeup) from embryos created through in vitro fertilization. As
Dr. Panos Michael Zavos testified, the technology to conduct
nuclear transfer exists ``in every IVF high-tech laboratory
across the world,'' 55 of which are located in New York City
alone.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: Oversight Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, House Comm. on
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of Dr. Panos Michael
Zavos).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without putting police in the laboratory, there is no way
for the government to prevent in advance an individual bent on
violating the law; it can only rely on the deterrent effect of
criminal penalties should the violation become known. The steps
of implantation and gestation and the birth of a cloned child
would clearly alert law enforcement to the violation, and a
prohibition narrowly focused on reproductive cloning would
provide the needed deterrent. Moreover, because H.R. 2505 lacks
any prohibition on the implantation of a cloned embryo into a
woman's uterus, under its terms law enforcement would be
helpless to prevent human cloning after the embryo stage. As a
result, a narrowly focused ban would be just as effective in
preventing human cloning, but would not have the unfortunate
consequence of criminalizing lifesaving research.
II. H.R. 2505 Would Prevent Lifesaving Research in the United States
The understanding of the workings of stem cells--the
flexible cells that regenerate the body's tissue \9\--has
advanced dramatically since 1998, when J.A. Thompson and other
scientists first isolated stem cells from human embryos.\10\
These undifferentiated cells \11\ are the body's jacks-of-all-
trades; they have the unique ability to become any kind of
tissue found in the body--anything from blood or bone to nerves
and heart muscles. As a result, embryonic stem cells offer
immense potential to treat what have been thought to be
incurable conditions by replacing the body's damaged tissue
with healthy new cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``A stem cell is a special kind of cell that has a unique
capacity to renew itself and to give rise to specialized cell types.
Although most cells of the body, such as heart cells or skin cells, are
committed to conduct a specific function, a stem cell is uncommitted
and remains uncommitted, until it receives a signal to develop into a
specialized cell. Their proliferative capacity combined with the
ability to become specialized makes stem cells unique.'' National
Institutes of Health, Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future
Research Directions (June 2001) [hereinafter ``NIH Report''], at ES-1.
Stem cells can be derived from any embryo, whether created from sexual
(e.g., in vitro fertilization) or asexual (e.g., nuclear transfer)
reproduction.
\10\ J.A. Thompson et al., Embryonic stem cell lines derived from
human blastocysts, 282 Science 1145-7 (1998).
\11\ Soon after the embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus, its
cells begin to differentiate, changing their form to match the function
they will perform in the fetus. Some will become muscle cells, others
nerve cells, others skin cells. Embryonic stem cells are the original
cells that have not yet differentiated and chosen their function; they
therefore hold the potential to repair any of the body's organs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its recent report on the uses of stem cells, the
National Institutes of Health described their medical potential
as ``enormous.'' \12\ It concluded that transplants of stem
cells could be used to treat conditions as varied as
Parkinson's disease, chronic heart disease, end-stage kidney
disease, and liver failure.\13\ Rheumatoid arthritis,
osteoporosis, and severe burns might all find new
treatments.\14\ Stem cells could repair damage to the nervous
system from spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and
Alzheimer's.\15\ Insulin-producing cells could be introduced to
treat diabetes.\16\ Brain damage due to stroke could be reduced
or reversed.\17\ Replacement therapies could be created for
autoimmune diseases such as lupus.\18\ Survivors of heart
attacks could be given healthy cardiovascular cells to heal
damaged heart tissue and restore them to health.\19\ Cancer
patients who undergo severe chemotherapy could receive stem
cell transplants to restore their blood cells and immune
systems--and specialized new treatments could be developed to
target and destroy individual cancer cells.\20\ New treatments
could even be discovered to restore function to paralyzed
limbs, or to treat the degeneration caused by ALS (also known
as Lou Gehrig's disease).\21\ Finally, some have held out the
hope of generating entire transplantable organs (bones,
kidneys, and even hearts) through stem cell research.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NIH Report, at 66.
\13\ NIH Report, at ES-4.
\14\ NIH Report, at 65; Robert P. Lanza et al., The Ethical
Validity of Using Nuclear Transfer in Human Transplantiation, 284
Journal of the American Medical Association 3715 (Dec. 27, 2000)
[hereinafter ``Lanza et al.''].
\15\ Id.
\16\ Stem cells could be used to treat diabetes by replacing the
damaged insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. The discovery of a
stem-cell treatment for diabetes, for which there is currently no cure,
would be a significant advance:
Each year, diabetes affects more people and causes more
deaths than breast cancer and AIDS combined. Diabetes is
the seventh leading cause of death in the United States
today, with nearly 200,000 deaths reported each year. The
American Diabetes Association estimates that nearly 16
million people, or 5.9 percent of the United States
population, currently have diabetes. (NIH Report, at 67.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NIH Report, at 77. The report states that ``Just a decade ago,
neuroscience textbooks held that neurons in the adult human brain and
spinal cord could not regenerate. Once dead, it was thought, central
nervous system neurons were gone for good.'' New research and the
possibilities of stem cell treatments promise to reverse that long-held
medical dogma. Id.
\18\ NIH Report, at 62. The report notes that lupus, a disease in
which the immune system attacks the body's own cells, affects more than
239,000 Americans, over 90 percent of whom are women. African-American
and Hispanic women are disproportionately affected. Currently, no
treatment exists for the disease. Id.
\19\ NIH Report, at 87. Today, more than 4.8 million Americans
suffer from congestive heart failure, with 400,000 new cases each year.
Nearly 1.1 million Americans a year suffer from heart attacks. Stem
cell treatments to repair the heart and circulatory system could
therefore target ``a major cause of death and disability in the United
States.'' Id.
\20\ NIH Report, at ES-5.
\21\ NIH Report, at 79.
\22\ Lanza et al., at 3715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear transfer research of the type banned by H.R. 2505
would be at the foundation of any medical treatment that took
advantage of these discoveries. Like all transplants, stem cell
treatments run the risk of being rejected by the patient's
immune system. In fact, because stem cell transplants are so
limited, they would be easy for the immune system to overwhelm.
In its report, the NIH noted that there is a ``very high''
potential for immune rejection of these transplants;
``Modifications to the cells, to the immune system, or both
will be a major requirement for their use.'' \23\ However, the
NIH also found that if the stem cells were obtained from
embryos produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer, they would
bear the patient's DNA and would appear to the patient's body
like his or her own cells, removing the risk of immune
rejection. The transplant could then take place without the use
of dangerous immunosuppressive drugs--``a labor intensive, but
truly customized therapy.'' \24\ Nuclear transfer techniques
are vital to realizing the potential of stem cell treatments
and moving the science from the petri dish to the doctor's
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NIH Report, at ES-5.
\24\ NIH Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2505 goes beyond banning reproductive cloning to ban
research in somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is that
the bill would cut off scientific developments that are
granting new hope to millions of Americans who have been told
there is no cure. Without the use of nuclear transfer, these
stem cell developments will likely remain in the laboratory and
will not be used to help patients.
By banning nuclear transfer techniques, H.R. 2505 would
also cut off research in new areas of regenerative medicine. As
researcher Thomas Okarma testified before the Subcommittee on
Crime, it may soon be possible to turn a differentiated cell
(such as a skin cell) back into an undifferentiated state,
essentially creating compatible stem cells from the patient's
own body. This procedure would avoid any need to use nuclear
transfer and would not involve embryos in any way, offering the
possibility of new medical treatments that would avoid the
controversies that have accompanied stem-cell research.
However, Okarma testified that some nuclear transfer research
will be ``essential'' for the early stages of understanding how
stem cells gain their flexibility, and would be ``a critical
step to improve the usefulness of adult stem cells'' as
well.\25\ Nuclear transfer research would also provide a
greater understanding of embryonic development that could be
used to determine the causes of (and perhaps to prevent) birth
defects, miscarriages, and juvenile diabetes.\26\ The
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology has
echoed the NIH's language in describing such research: ``The
potential for treating human disease in this exciting area of
regenerative medicine is enormous.'' \27\ However, all of these
promising advances would be blocked by H.R. 2505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Human Cloning: Hearings on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 Before the
House Subcomm. on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of Thomas
Okarma, CEO of Geron, Inc.).
\26\ Id.
\27\ FASEB Letter, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority has sought to establish that the use of
embryonic or cloned stem cells would be unethical when an
alternative, namely adult stem cells, is available.\28\
However, the studies necessary for regenerative medicine could
not be accomplished with adult stem cells. Additionally, after
surveying the current state of the science, the NIH concluded
that embryonic stem cells have important advantages over adult
stem cells: the latter cannot develop into as many different
cell types; they cannot be generated in the same quantities in
the laboratory; and they are difficult and sometimes dangerous
to extract from an adult patient (especially stem cells located
in the brain).\29\ Given the very real benefits that this
research could hold for those suffering Americans who are
already living, it is appropriate for Congress at the very
least to permit such research to go on in the private
sector.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The Ethics of Human Cloning: Hearing Before the House Subcomm.
on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of David Prentice, Professor of
Life Sciences, Indiana State University). Cells with similar properties
known as ``embryonic germ cells'' can also be obtained from aborted
fetuses, but these will not necessarily be compatible with the
patient's immune system. Furthermore, their source of origin makes them
no less controversial to the majority.
\29\ NIH Report, at ES-9-10. It is important to note that at the
stage when embryonic stem-cell research normally occurs, the embryos
are less than 14 days old and consist of a tiny ball of
undifferentiated cells, without organs or internal structure, let alone
a nervous system, nerve impulses, feelings, or the capacity to feel
pain. Even in the womb, the great majority of early embryos--as many as
80 percent--never develop into a human being. Furthermore, the
separation of an embryo into twins or triplets frequently does not
occur until after this stage of development, implying that the embryos
cannot meaningfully be ascribed personal identity, uniqueness, or
individuality. Lanza et al. As a number of prominent scientists and
bioethicists have agreed, ``The line established by gastrulation and
the appearance of the primitive streak is a clear one, as is the line
between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.'' Id. Even anti-choice
Sen. Orrin Hatch has indicated that one should not equate a fetus in
the womb, ``with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart, with an
embryo in a freezer.'' Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Morality and Medicine:
Reconsidering Embryo Research, N.Y. Times (July 1, 2001), sec. 4, at 1.
Great Britain has permitted research involving embryos since 1990, and
no abuse of research involving human subjects has occurred, nor has
anyone suggested that it should. Lanza et al.
\30\ As Ronald M. Green, director of the Ethics Institute at
Dartmouth College and former president of the Society of Christian
Ethics, wrote to the Committee, H.R. 2505 should be rejected because it
would go beyond a ban on human cloning to ``prohibit several other very
research directions of possibly great medical benefit.'' See Letter
from Ronald M. Green to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member
Conyers (July 23, 2001) (on file with the minority staff of the House
Judiciary Committee) [hereinafter ``Green Letter''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, H.R. 2505 would prohibit this valuable
research and leave no viable alternative, and it would do so
permanently. At the markup, the majority claimed that as the
science progresses, researchers might convince a future
Congress to repeal the research prohibition.\31\ But Congress
should never establish a permanent criminal prohibition with an
eye towards repealing it a few years later. Biomedical research
progresses at an amazing speed; indeed, human pluripotent stem
cells were first isolated in November 1998. Further advances
are occurring at a dizzying pace, and a complete medical
revolution may well occur within the next 5 years. Yet the
maximum penalty for conducting nuclear transfer research under
H.R. 2505 is 10 years imprisonment. Legalizing nuclear transfer
research after its potential has been realized would bring
about the absurd result that the prison sentences would outlast
the prohibitions--that scientists who practice nuclear transfer
after its legalization would be hailed as miracle workers and
perhaps even afforded Federal funding, while their colleagues
who first pioneered the techniques would still be in jail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ This argument was made by Rep. Smith when the Majority
rejected a Scott amendment to provide for a 5-year sunset as recommend
by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. The argument was also
made by the Majority's witness at our hearings. Human Cloning: Hearings
on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 Before the House Subcomm. on Crime, 107th
Cong. (2001) (Statement of Alexander M. Capron, member of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unclear how the effectiveness of nuclear transfer
could be demonstrated to the majority's satisfaction. We
already have significant evidence regarding the potential of
embryonic or cloned stem cells from animal research. While
research involving human embryonic stem cells might continue
(although slowly, if the President chooses to deny Federal
funding to such research and push it into the private sector),
there will be no evidence regarding the effectiveness or
suitability for testing of human stem cells obtained through
nuclear transfer. We will never know what results might have
been obtained had nuclear transfer research been legal, and if
a permanent ban is placed on the research, we will never know
enough to justify its decriminalization in the majority's eyes.
III. H.R. 2505 Would Prevent U.S. Citizens From Benefitting From
Lifesaving Research Performed Abroad
We also cannot support H.R. 2505 because the shipping,
receipt and importation provisions are overbroad and would
block Americans' access to lifesaving medical treatments
produced abroad. In the original version of the bill, these
provisions prohibited only the shipping, receipt or importation
of cloned embryos--a prohibition, if too expansive, at least
reasonably related to the bill's flawed definition of human
cloning. However, the new provisions inserted in H.R. 2505
would block not only the importation of cloned embryos, but
also of any product ``derived'' from such embryos, even if
these products (such as stem cell-grown nerve tissue to restore
paralyzed limbs) were unable to develop into a full human
being. Moreover, since the critical term ``derived'' is not in
any way elaborated on, under a plausible ``fruits-of-the-tree''
doctrine, the bill might even ban the importation of synthetic
medicines modeled on proteins originally derived through this
process.
Representative Scott unsuccessfully offered an amendment to
create an exemption for the shipping, receipt or importation of
products to be used in medical treatment. Products that entered
the country under this amendment would still have been required
to undergo scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration.
Rejection of the Scott amendment clearly demonstrates that the
legislation would keep safe and effective medical treatments
out of the hands of U.S. citizens, even if the treatments have
no chance whatsoever of being used for human cloning.
We fear that such a prohibition may have less to with human
cloning than with elevating the status of an embryo above that
of live-born human beings.\32\ There is no risk that an
American hospital might try to clone a human using stem cells
from abroad. If researchers in Great Britain (where nuclear
transfer research is legal and government-funded) were to
discover a stem-cell-based cure for cancer, the majority would
ban its importation simply because it was originally derived
through nuclear transfer. In other words, the majority is
willing to sacrifice the lives and health of millions of
suffering Americans in order to protect frozen embryos or out
of a vague fear that someone, somewhere, might perform human
cloning. For a bill intended to protect our humanity, that
rationale strikes us as somewhat ironic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The only argument offered by the majority in defense of these
provisions was that an exemption for medical treatment might provide a
financial incentive to create more embryos through nuclear transfer.
This argument is a red herring. If a British university discovers a
cure for cancer or diabetes that relies on stem-cell research, it will
have quite enough of a financial incentive already. Additionally, the
absolute number of embryos should be irrelevant. If the majority holds
that legalizing nuclear transfer in the U.S. will make a ban on human
cloning unenforceable, the same should hold true in Britain, and anyone
who wishes to perform human cloning can simply travel there. Extra
incentives to discover a cure for a terrible disease will not make the
birth of a cloned child any more likely--they will only hasten the day
when a cure arrives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. H.R. 2505 Would Interfere With Stem Cell Research--Both Privately
Funded and Funded by the National Institutes of Health
The legislation's proponents would have us believe H.R.
2505 has nothing to do with stem cell research and would not
disrupt scientific advances being made in this important and
much-discussed area. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are several reasons why the legislation would
interfere with and undermine stem cell research. First is the
fact that stem cells can be derived from embryos created by
both sexual and asexual (e.g., nuclear transfer) means. As a
basic and fundamental matter, by banning all forms of asexual
reproduction based on cell nuclear transfer, the legislation
would quite obviously limit stem cell research. It goes without
saying that it will be more difficult to conduct stem cell
research if one of the most promising techniques for developing
stem cells--therapeutic cloning--is criminalized.
Second, if research were performed based solely on stem
cells derived from sexual means (such as additional embryos
formed through in vitro fertilization), it will be difficult to
derive any practical benefit from the research without the
benefit of nuclear transfer. If a scientist were to use IVF-
derived stem cells to design a treatment for Alzheimer's
disease, it still could not be easily applied to any patients
without the utilization of therapeutic cloning. This is
because, as we have noted above, scientists can greatly reduce
the risk of immune rejection if we use stem cells which bear a
patient's own DNA derived from therapeutic cloning rather than
adult stem cells.
This conclusion is supported by the NIH in their July 18,
2001, study finding that embryonic stem cells have important
advantages over adult stem cells. The NIH recognized that adult
stem cells cannot develop into as many different cell types;
they cannot be generated in the same quantities in the
laboratory; and they are difficult and sometimes dangerous to
extract. It is also critical to note that the NIH has
specifically stated that somatic cell nuclear transfer would be
a ``truly customized'' way of creating stem cell transplants
that would not be rejected by the body's immune system.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ NIH Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, although the NIH does not presently conduct research
using human somatic cells, that decision has been made
voluntarily by scientists and the executive branch, not
statutorily by Congress. By passing a one-size fits all ban, we
will permanently and inflexibly ban the practice, tying the
hands of future scientists and the Administration alike. This
is in direct contradiction of the NIH's own conclusion that it
is premature to discard the potential benefits of new forms of
stem cell research.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ NIH Report, at ES-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, because the legislation prohibits the shipping,
receipt, or importation of embryos produced abroad by nuclear
transfer or of products derived from such embryos, NIH would
not be able to benefit from many forms of research conducted
abroad involving stem cells. This would put our own scientists
at a distinct disadvantage compared to other nations'
researchers in the race to develop cures for crippling and
fatal diseases. At present there is no law which prevents the
NIH from acquiring foreign products in any way derived from
therapeutic cloning techniques. H.R. 2505, however, provides an
inflexible and permanent ban which restricts our own
Administration.
Finally, if the majority did not believe that the bill
would undermine stem cell research, they would have had little
reason to reject the Lofgren-Conyers amendment exempting stem
cell research from the bill's prohibitions. If we truly want to
insure that stem cell research is not interrupted, we would
carve the activity from out of the bill's reach. However, the
majority rejected this notion, in a straight party-line vote.
V. H.R. 2505 Would Ban Legal and Unobjectionable Infertility Treatments
and Techniques of in vitro Fertilization
H.R. 2505 further exceeds its mandate to prohibit human
cloning by bringing the heavy penalties of the criminal law to
bear on infertility treatments that have nothing to do with
human cloning. Over the past 4 years, the process of
``ooplasmic transfer'' has been used in connection with in
vitro fertilization to help more than 30 infertile couples
conceive a healthy child.\35\ The process involves the
replacement of some of the cytoplasm (the fluid that
constitutes the bulk of a cell) in an infertile woman's egg
with cytoplasm from a healthy donor egg or other cell. The
original egg has been fertilized with genetic material from the
husband and will develop normally, thanks to the infusion of
healthy cytoplasm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Infertility Treatment Leaves Kids With Extra DNA, Reuters (May
7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the definition of ``human cloning'' in H.R. 2505
is so overbroad as to likely ban this procedure. The bill
includes under the definition the introduction of any ``nuclear
material'' from ``one or more human somatic cells'' into an egg
whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated. Yet the
technique described above (and possibly other techniques of in
vitro fertilization as well) could introduce into the
fertilized egg some of the donor cell's mitochondria, the
``power plants'' that float in the cytoplasm and generate
energy for the cell. Mitochondria are unique because they have
their own DNA and reproduce on their own. Thus, the
introduction of mitochondria from a healthy, mature cell into a
fertilized egg would yield a new organism that is genetically
virtually identical to the pre-transfer egg, yet with slightly
different mitochondrial DNA. It might therefore be considered
to be ``human cloning,'' even though the resulting child would
have genes from both parents, and would bring 10-year jail
sentences on the participants under H.R. 2505.
At the very least, a ban on this technique of in vitro
fertilization is a plausible reading of H.R. 2505. However,
when Representative Jackson Lee offered an amendment to clarify
the bill's intent and explicitly exempt in vitro fertilization
and other fertility treatments from the prohibitions, it was
defeated on a party-line vote.\36\ Passage of H.R. 2505 without
including a protection for in vitro fertilization runs the risk
that future courts will find accepted and beneficial fertility
treatments in violation of the criminal law, and that infertile
couples will be denied a safe and effective means of conceiving
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The amendment offered by Representative Schiff, which
contained a similar exemption in its rule of construction, was also
defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Because it far exceeds its mission of prohibiting human
cloning, H.R. 2505 can be seen as an attempt to do secretly
what the Administration would hesitate to do publicly: to ban
the use of stem-cell-based treatments in the United States. If
H.R. 2505 becomes law, it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to derive any practical benefit from stem cell
research, because we would be unable to implement its
discoveries through nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning.
Under H.R. 2505, the new discoveries and medical cures
resulting from stem cells will be off-limits to Americans who
cannot afford to travel abroad to countries where nuclear
transfer research is still pursued. The production of such
treatments would be prohibited domestically, and the
importation of even a cancer cure from abroad would carry a 10-
year prison sentence. Furthermore, the vagueness and
overbreadth of H.R. 2505 run the risk of prohibiting legitimate
and uncontroversial techniques of in vitro fertilization that
could help thousands of couples conceive their own children.
H.R. 2505 represents far more than a ban on human cloning: it
represents an intrusion of the criminal law into the research
process, and it should be rejected.
John Conyers, Jr.
Howard L. Berman.
Jerrold Nadler.
Robert C. Scott.
Melvin L. Watt.
Zoe Lofgren.
Maxine Waters.
Robert Wexler.
Tammy Baldwin.
Adam B. Schiff.
News Reports | Biography | Fundraising | Online Shop | Autobiography
Movie Reviews | Contact Info | Have Your Say | Photo Gallery | Song Lyrics
Transcripts | Mailing Lists | Interviews | Other Websites | About Us | Search
This page is Copyright © 1999-2005, Steven Younis. All Rights Reserved
Jump to Steven Younis' unofficial Superman Homepage
|
