Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning.

Mr. Speaker, last May, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a hearing on human cloning. The subcommittee was informed that research cloning of humans was unnecessary due to the exciting medical breakthroughs utilizing adult stem cells and other ethical avenues of research. We were told that scientists agree that cloning is dangerous and clones suffer from countless severe genetic disorders.

The Department of Justice informed us that it would be impossible to enforce a bill that allowed human cloning for the purpose of research and not reproduction. And we were warned by Dr. Zavos of Kentucky that unless a ban on human cloning was enacted, he and other rogue scientists would soon successfully clone humans.

Despite these warnings, researchers seeking to clone humans for research make hollow promises and offer false hope that such research will result in cures for numerous human ailments. The fact is human cloning is never necessary regardless of its intent, and better ethical research alternatives do exist.

Nearly every week, for example, new scientific breakthroughs utilizing adult stem cells are announced. Researchers report that they have grown an entire organ from adult stem cells. And just this week, scientists have announced that a type of cell found in blood can be turned into nearly any cell in the body.

These findings and others like them suggest that every one of us may carry our own ``repair kit'' that can be used to treat countless medical disorders and genetic diseases by allowing doctors to regrow organs and tissues from our own cells. And unlike destructive human cloning research that remains entirely speculative, adult stem cell therapies are already currently being used to treat a host of medical conditions.

There are no guarantees that allowing human cloning for research will produce cures or that cloned embryos will not be misused for other purposes. If we now permit the manufacturing of human embryos for human research, where do we draw the line? Do we only allow cloned embryos to grow for 5 days before they are destroyed in the process of extracting their stem cells? What about removing tissue from 5-week-old embryos? Should we consider harvesting the organs from 5-month-old fetuses? What will those who support destructive research claim is necessary next to advance science?

We must finally draw the line and stop the exploitation of all forms of human life. The science is clear. So is the moral issue. In my favorite movie, ``Rudy,'' a great scene has the priest telling Rudy there are two things in life he knows for sure, one is that there is a God, and, secondly, that he is not God.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Weldon-Stupak bill.

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

Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all

human cloning, as a number of other major nations have

already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary

Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This

bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the

creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same

policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245).

Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing

competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of

human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban

implanation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we

expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced

by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal in

2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill has

been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne

Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303.

In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted

inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would

each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument

is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in

more detail below.

president bush's position

President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all

human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In

remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the

Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to

destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be

used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28

State of the Union speech, the President said, ``Because no

human life should be started or ended as the object of an

experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity,

and pass a law against all human cloning.'' In a speech on

human cloning last year, President Bush warned that unless

such legislation is enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be

established in the United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/ news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html)

the situation in congress

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the

Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at

10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the

committee completes its work, the full House could take up

the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the

measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided

bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the

House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively

rejected (249-178) as substitute amendment, the Greenwood-

Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of

human embryos for research (roll call no. 302).

The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the

Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26

cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch-

Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it

has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate

Democrats.

The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP),

which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a

cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-

Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary

Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these

committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of

these diametrically conflicting approaches.

The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist

(R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday,

``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself

with the purpose being destruction, and that would include

the so-called research cloning. And remember, research,

cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no

demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you

ought to destroy life. . .''

The key differences between the two bills are discussed

below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning

issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the

specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit

have been widely misunderstood.

misconceptions and facts

Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak

legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the

Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.''

Reality: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the

Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in

the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``the use of nuclear

transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules,

DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs,

plants, or animals other than humans.'' [Sec. 2 of the

bill, at (d) in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface

added for emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to

``clone'' new skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are

perfectly okay under the Brownback-Landrieu bill.

Moreover, any cloning method that would produce stem cells

without first producing and killing a human embryo--as

some researchers have claimed that they eventually will be

able to do--is explicitly permitted by this language. In

addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills

place no restrictions on research of any kind on human ova

(``eggs'').

In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-

Feinstein legislation are alike

in that they would both permit cloning involving merely eggs,

cells, or tissues, but they differ on one proground issue:

The Hatch-Feinstein/Greenwood proposals would allow the use

of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone

human embryos, and the Brownback/Weldon legislation would

forbid the use of SCNT to clone human embryos.

Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about

``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the

argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to

clone human embryos.

Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not

involve creating human embryos.

Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a

developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something

that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in

2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to

obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who

clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the

bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the

embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning

researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.

Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current

disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/ Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html

To cite just one example here, a group of scientists,

ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called

``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for

research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania,

Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth

University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli

of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000

issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,

``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another

term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate

creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also

wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the

creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage

embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.''

In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's

Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy

recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations

regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial

public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful

SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The

product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone,

genetically virtually identical to the individual that was

the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic

clone of the donor.''

The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for

biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to

distinguish between two of the purposes for which human

embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and

``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The

Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is

here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html

The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because

whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing

embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic

cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been

demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as

discussed below), and the process is certainly not

``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which

is what the argument is about.

MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow

research only ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.''

REALITY: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology

text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg''

is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very

unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23

chromosomes. An ovum has no sex.

As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from

any species that is activated (whether by sexual

fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer,

SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of

that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no

such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg''

or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or

female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred

cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of

cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old

human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public

regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit

that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists

should enlist.

The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term

``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a

technical term for an embryo at an early stage of

development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another

word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos

produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is

what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned

mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one-

celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be

unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo

created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted

in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still

be unfertilized.

MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise

that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning

``reproductive cloning.''

REALITY: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the

Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most

Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It

will not become law. But that does not bother many of its

backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because

the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede

enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing

political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation

of human embryos for research.

Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology

industry lobby and its allies, the policy the Hatch-Feinstein

bill or the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is

far from a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the

substantial majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in

May 2002 found that 61% of the American people opposed

``cloning of human embryos for use in medical research'' (34%

approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill

is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls,

substantially higher numbers are opposed when it explained

that the human embryos will die in the research.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a

middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the

establishment of human embryo farms.

The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been

emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the

House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and

Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to

Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a

presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not

believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be

treated differently, given that they both require the

creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . .

. the Administration could not support any measure that

purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing

research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that

he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ ThompsontoBrownback.pdf)

The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement

agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on

implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the

Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The

Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human

embryos are created, there is no practical way to

prevent some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no

remedy to apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted

here: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf

MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human

cloning'' or ``ban the closing of human beings.''

REALITY: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human

cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a

uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter

term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are

attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing

a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized

blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (Not counting

time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject

to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in

the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being

applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned

human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to

procure an abortion.

In other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but

the survival of human clones, which is a very different

thing.

Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear

transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,''

because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the

species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo

sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later

born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always

a member of the species Ovis aries).

As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a

``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want

to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement

that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human

beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it

amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the

species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (If not, what

species of being is it?)

It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize

cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22

statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to

ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy

life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a

cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added]

The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a

cloned human being is born, she should have the same status

as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently

are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002,

Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the

Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are

busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the

Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that

human being would even be the correct term for such an

individual heretofore unknown in nature.''

As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing

Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),

``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her--

won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to

humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will

never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and

walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ arecloneshuman.html)

MISCONCEPTION: Those who favor cloning for research would

never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age.

REALITY: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to

establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones,

there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology

industry would support such a limitation in a bill it

actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers

are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones.

For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to

giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned

humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development,

even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long

as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB

1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on

Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the

bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/ document/document020303c.asp)

Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from

cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and

from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were

widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so-

called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the

only two animal studies that have claimed to show

``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act. The passage of this bill is of utmost urgency as scientists in this country and around the world are making dangerous advances towards the creation of a cloned human being.

The science of human cloning may be difficult to explain and to understand to those of us who are not scientists, but its immorality is not without question. You do not have to be a scientist to know this is wrong. Whether produced for the intention of human reproduction or for the purpose of medical research, the fact remains the same: human cloning is simply wrong. It invariably requires the creation and killing of numerous human lives in the effort to produce either cloned cells for the purpose of research or cloned human beings.

Numerous ethical questions arise. Who, for example, would be the parents of a cloned human being? What rights would they have? And what about the potential to create human-animal hybrids through the transferring of human nuclear material into animal eggs? If we open the door to human cloning, these ethical problems will be unavoidable. Additionally, cloning cheapens all human life by making it a commodity, an object to tinker with, to alter, to change to a scientist's preset specifications. Manipulating the genetic outcomes of human reproduction render certain people desirable and others not. How then will society view these people determined less desirable? Are they of less human value?

In fact, if we do not enact a ban on human cloning, these situations I have described are just a few of the scenarios we will face in the near future. As one of the Nation's leading bioethicists, Dr. Leon Kass, has said, ``We are compelled to decide nothing less than whether human procreation is going to remain human, whether children are going to be made to order rather than begotten, and whether we wish to say yes in principle to the road that leads to the dehumanized hell of `Brave New World.' ''

The American people have spoken loud and clear on their view on this issue, as has the scientific community, our President, and this body of Congress last year. The national consensus is evident. Human cloning for any reason, whether for research or reproduction, should be prohibited.

Please join me in voting ``yes'' on the Weldon-Stupak bill and ``no'' on the Greenwood substitute.

National Right to Life

Committee, Inc.,

February 10, 2003.

Congress Resumes Action on Human Cloning Legislation this Week, As Supporters of Cloning Human Embryos Try to Fool Lawmakers, Journalists,

and the Public with Deceptive ``Egg-Speak''

introduction

Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all

human cloning, as a number of other major nations have

already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary

Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This

bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the

creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same

policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245).

Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing

competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of

human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban

implantation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we

expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced

by Rep. Jim Greeenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal

in 2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill

has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne

Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303.

In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted

inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would

each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument

is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in

more detail below.

president bush's position

President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all

human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In

remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the

Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to

destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be

used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28

State of the Union

speech, the President said, ``Because no human life should be

started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to

set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all

human cloning.'' In a speech on human cloning last year,

President Bush warned that unless such legislation is

enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be established in the

United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/ print/2002410-4.html)

the situation in congress

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the

Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at

10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the

committee completes its work, the full House could take up

the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the

measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided

bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the

House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively

rejected (249-178) a substitute amendment, the Greenwood-

Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of

human embryos for research (roll call no. 302)

The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the

Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26

cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch-

Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it

has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate

Democrats.

The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP),

which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a

cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-

Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary

Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these

committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of

these diametrically conflicting approaches.

The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist

(R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday,

``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself

with the purpose being destruction, and that would include

the so-called research cloning. And remember, research

cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no

demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you

ought to destroy life. . .''

The key differences between the two bills are discussed

below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning

issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the

specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit

have been widely misunderstood.

misconceptions and facts

Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak

legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the

Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.''

Reality: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the

Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in

the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``the use of nuclear

transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules,

DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs,

plants, or animals other than humans.'' [Sec. 2 of the

bill, at (d) in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface

added for emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to

``clone'' new skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are

perfectly okay under the Brownback-Landrieu bill.

Moreover, any cloning method that would produce stem cells

without first producing and killing a human embryo--as

some researchers have claimed that they eventually will be

able to do--is explicitly permitted by this language. In

addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills

place no restrictions on research of any kind on human ova

(``eggs'').

In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-

Feinstein legislation are alike in that they would both

permit cloning involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but

they differ on one profound issue: The Hatch-Feinstein/

Greenwood proposals would allow the use of the somatic cell

nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone human embryos, and

the Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT

to clone human embryos.

Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about

``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the

argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to

clone human embryos.

Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not

involve creating human embryos.

Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a

developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something

that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in

2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to

obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who

clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the

bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the

embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning

researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.

Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current

disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/ Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html.

The cite just one example here, a group of scientists,

ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called

``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for

research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania,

Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth

University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli

of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000

issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,

``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another

term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate

creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also

wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the

creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage

embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.''

In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's

Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy

recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations

regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial

public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful

SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The

product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone,

genetically virtually identical to the individual that was

the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic

clone of the donor.''

The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for

biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to

distinguish between two of the purposes for which human

embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and

``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The

Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is

here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html.

The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because

whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing

embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic

cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been

demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as

discussed below), and the process is certainly not

``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which

is what the argument is about.

Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow

research only on ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.''

Reality: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology

text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg''

is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very

unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23

chromosomes. An ovum has no sex.

As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from

any species that is activated (whether by sexual

fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer,

SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of

that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no

such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg''

or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or

female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred

cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of

cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old

human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public

regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit

that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists

should enlist.

The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term

``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a

technical term for an embryo at an early stage of

development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another

word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos

produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is

what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned

mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one-

celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be

unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo

created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted

in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still

be unfertilized.

Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise

that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning

``reproductive cloning.''

Reality: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the

Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most

Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It

will not become law. But that does not bother many of its

backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because

the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede

enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing

political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation

of human embryos for research.

Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology

industry lobby and its allies, the Hatch-Feinstein bill or

the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is far from

a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the substantial

majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in May 2002 found

that 61 percent of the American people opposed ``cloning of

human embryos for use in medical research'' (34 percent

approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill

is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls,

substantially higher numbers are opposed when it is explained

that the human embryos will die in the research.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a

middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the

establishment of human embryo farms.

The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been

emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the

House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and

Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to

Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a

presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not

believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be

treated differently, given that they both require the

creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . .

. the Administration could not support any measure that

purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing

research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that

he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ ThompsontoBrownback.pdf).

The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement

agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on

implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the

Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The

Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human

embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent

some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no remedy to

apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted here:

www.nrlc,org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf.

Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human

cloning'' or ``ban the cloning of human beings.''

Reality: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human

cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a

uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter

term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are

attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing

a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized

blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (not counting

time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject

to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in

the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being

applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned

human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to

procure an abortion.

It other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but

the survival of human clones, which is a very different

thing.

Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear

transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,''

because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the

species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo

sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later

born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always

a member of the species Ovis aries).

As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a

``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want

to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement

that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human

beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it

amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the

species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (if not, what

species of being is it?)

It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize

cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22

statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to

ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy

life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a

cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added]

The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a

cloned human being is born, she should have the same status

as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently

are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002,

Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the

Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are

busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the

Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human

being would even be the correct term for such an individual

heretofore unknown in nature.''

As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing

Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),

``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her--

won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to

humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will

never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and

walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ arecloneshuman.html).

Misconception: Those who favor cloning for research would

never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age.

Reality: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to

establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones,

there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology

industry would support such a limitation in a bill it

actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers

are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones.

For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to

giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned

humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development,

even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long

as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB

1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on

Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the

bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/ document/document020303c.asp).

Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from

cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and

from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were

widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so-

called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the

only two animal studies that have claimed to show

``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This bill criminalizes the act of cloning humans, importing cloned humans and importing products derived from cloned humans. It is what is needed, and it is what President Bush has asked for, a comprehensive ban against cloning people. It has bipartisan cosponsorship and was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on February 12.

Today we are considering more than the moral and ethical issues raised by human cloning. This vote is about providing moral leadership for a watching world. We have the largest and most powerful research community on the face of the earth and we devote more money to research and development than any other nation in the world. Although many other nations have already taken steps to ban human cloning, the world is waiting for the United States to set the moral tone against this experimentation.

Currently in the United States there are no clear rules or regulations over privately funded human cloning. Although the FDA has announced it has the authority to regulate human cloning through the Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act, this authority is unclear and has not been tested. The fact of the matter is that the FDA cannot stop human cloning, it can only begin to regulate it. This will be a day late and a dollar short for a clone that is used for research, harvesting organs, or born grotesquely deformed.

In November 2001, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts announced that they had cloned the first human embryo. Others have indicated that they are prepared to utilize existing technology to clone a human baby. On December 26, 2002, Clonaid announced the birth of the first cloned human baby. Although the Clonaid announcement appears to have been a hoax, there are a growing number of individuals who claim that they can and will clone a human being. In light of these announcements, it has become imperative that the Congress act immediately to prevent the cloning of human embryos from continuing.

Others argue that cloned humans are the key that will unlock the door to medical achievements in the 21st century. Nothing could be further from the truth. These miraculous achievements may be found through stem cell research but not from cloning. Let me be perfectly clear. H.R. 534 does not in any way impede or prohibit stem cell research that does not require cloned human embryos. This debate is whether or not it should be legal in the United States to clone human beings. Nothing more and nothing less.

While H.R. 534 does not prohibit the use of cloning techniques to produce molecules, tissues, organs, plants, DNA cells other than human embryos, and animals other than humans, it does prohibit the creation of cloned embryos. This is absolutely necessary to prevent human cloning because, as we all know, embryos become people. If scientists were permitted to clone embryos, they would eventually be stockpiled and mass marketed. In addition, it would be impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning. Let me repeat that. It would be impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning because once a cloned human embryo is implanted into a woman's uterus, it can grow and become a baby. Therefore, any legislative attempt to ban human cloning must include embryos.

Should human cloning ever prove successful, its potential applications and expected demands would undoubtedly and ultimately lead to a worldwide mass market for human clones. Human clones would be used for medical experimentation, leading to human exploitation under the good name of medicine. Parents would want the best genes for their children, creating a market for human designer genes. Again, governments would have to weigh in and decide questions such as what rights do human clones hold, who is responsible for them, who will ensure their health, and what interaction will clones have with their genealogical parent.

As most people know, Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996. Since that time, scientists from around the globe have experimentally cloned a number of monkeys, mice, cows, goats, lambs, bulls and pigs. It took 277 attempts to clone Dolly; 276 failures before success. These later experiments also produced a very low rate of success, a dismal 3 percent. Now some of the same scientists would like to add people, human beings, to this experimental list. As it turns out, Dolly the sheep was also a failure. It just took 6 years to realize it. On February 14, Dolly the sheep was euthanized as a result of complications linked to what some geneticists are speculating were signs of premature aging.

Human cloning is both ethically and morally offensive. It diminishes the careful balance of humanity that nature has installed in each of us. I believe we need to send a clear and distinct message to the watching world that America will not permit human cloning and that it does not support scientific research into cloning human embryos. This bill sends this message, by permitting cloning research on human DNA molecules, cells, tissues, organs, or animals but preventing the creation of cloned human embryos.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to unequivocally say no to human cloning by supporting H.R. 534. Stop human cloning and preserve the integrity of mankind and allow legitimate scientific research to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. As I recall, when Moses came down from the mountain, he had 10 commandments with him. One of them said thou shalt not murder and the other said thou shalt not steal, and I do not think anybody in their right mind would say that criminal laws saying that murder and theft are criminal in nature is imposing religious views on anybody. They are both wrong; they are both criminal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, what we just heard seems to indicate that the material we are talking about is ``just an egg.'' I would like to quote from Dr. John Gerhart, who is on the other side of this issue, he comes from Johns Hopkins University, at a press conference that was held yesterday by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the supporters of his amendment.

Dr. Gerhart said, ``I contend it is an embryo. I don't think anybody is saying that it is just an egg.''

This follows along with what President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission stated in June of 1997. The executive summary says, ``The Commission begins its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, during this general debate we have heard from the opponents of this legislation that scientific research would come to a screeching halt if a ban on cloning of human embryos is enacted. There would be no more stem cell research, there would be no in vitro fertilization, and on and on and on.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill itself in section 302(d) says, and I quote, ``Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.''

What this section says is that all of this type of scientific research that is going on now will be able to continue as long as cloned human embryos are not used. That is a big difference. If a scientist wants to create human embryos and peddle them around the world and around this country to make a profit, that will be prohibited. But if a scientist wants to do scientific research, including stem cell research, on material other than cloned human embryos, which include adult stem cells, then that will be able to continue to proceed.

This bill draws a line, a very reasonable line, between science and ethics. That reasonable line is whether a cloned human embryo is used. Should a cloned human embryo be created and used, yes, this bill criminalizes it, as it should; but if the research uses any other material besides cloned human embryos, the criminal penalties of this bill do not apply, and that research will be able to proceed.

I would hope that the Members of this House will listen to the fine points of this debate and ignore allegations that have been made that are not contained in the bill, and pass it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a constructive addition to the bill, I am prepared to support it, and urge that the Members adopt it. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the debate on whether or not human embryos should be cloned is one that goes across religious lines, it goes across philosophical lines, and it goes across political lines; and I certainly can respect those who come down on the other side of this piece of legislation. But this amendment in the nature of a substitute is the equivalent of a political knuckle ball thrown into the debate on whether or not human embryos should be cloned.

In June of 1997, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Committee issued its report entitled ``Cloning Human Beings.'' I referred to this in the general debate, but I want to refer to this again because this is the crux of the argument against the Greenwood substitute. The executive summary of President Clinton's blue ribbon commission states in part: ``The commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.''

The whole question around the Greenwood substitute amendment is how to police the cloned human embryos once they are created. Sure, some of them may be used for purposes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) described in his eloquent opening statement, but others can be implanted in utero and be developed to term. And what does the government do in that case when somebody for whatever purpose they want to announces that they have developed a cloned human being?

This substitute is a big mistake for a number of reasons, and it should not be supported. Most notably it would make the prohibitions against human cloning virtually impossible to enforce, as I have just described. It would foster the creation of cloned human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency of the Federal Government; and it would trump States that wish to prohibit cloning. As I have already stated, allowing the creation of cloned embryos by law would enable anyone to attempt to clone a human being. While most individuals do not have the scientific capacity to clone human embryos, once they have been cloned, there has been no mechanism for tracking them and to determine what use those cloned human embryos are being put to. In fact, one would logically expect an organization to authorize the cloned human embryos pursuant to this substitute to be prepared to produce an abundance of cloned embryos for research. Meanwhile, those without the capabilities to clone human embryos could easily implant any one of the legally cloned embryos if they had the opportunity and a child would develop.

The fact is any legislative effort in order to be effective to prohibit cloning must allow enforcement to occur before the cloned embryo is implanted. Otherwise, it is too late, and that is the big deficiency of the Greenwood substitute. The substitute attempts to draw a distinction between necessary scientific research in human cloning by authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services to administer a quasi-registry, quasi because the embryos are not in the custody of HHS. They are maintained by private individuals. However, let us be clear that the crux of this substitute is to invoke a debate on stem cell research. A political knuckle ball in this debate on stem cell research is a red herring.

Just read the bill. First, therapeutic cloning does not exist, not even for experimental tests on animals. Second, the substitute would require authorized researchers to destroy unused embryos, the first Federal mandate of its kind and a step that is extremely controversial. Third, H.R. 534 within its text allows for research using stem cells. Again, the bill does not prohibit stem cell research, notwithstanding the allegations by those who are opposed to it.

Currently, private organizations are able to conduct unfettered research on embryonic stem cells. Further, in August 2001, President Bush announced that Federal funds could be used for research on existing stem cell lines. H.R. 534 would do nothing to hinder that research.

The bill would also not affect research using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are the other area of stem cell research which is much less controversial and which has been successful in over 45 clinical trials. In fact, adult stem cells have been utilized to treat multiple sclerosis, bone marrow disorders, leukemia, anemia, and cartilage defects, and immuno-deficiency in children.

Adult stem cells have been extracted from bone marrow, blood, skeletal muscle, the gastrointestinal tract, the placenta, and brain tissue to form bone marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat, liver, brain, nerve, blood, heart and other cells. H.R. 534 would not interfere with this work. It would not interfere with this work. But it prohibits the production of cloned embryos. It is a cloning bill, not a stem cell research bill.

Fourth, the substitute prohibits States from adopting laws that prohibit or more strictly regulate cloning within their borders. It is a Federal preemption. Try telling any of our constituents that they cannot ban human cloning through their State legislatures and I will tell you they will disagree.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the substitute contains a 10-year sunset provision. If this were to be enacted, Congress would have to go through this debate once again before the sunset occurs. The ethical and moral objections to human cloning will not change 10 years from now or 50 years from now or forever. However, the proponents of human cloning will continue to fight

for their right to produce human clones in America, and authorizing a subsequent ban on human cloning could become even more controversial.

That is why Members on both sides of the aisle should rise in opposition to the substitute, defeat it, and pass H.R. 534.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is way off base, and I can tell my colleagues from my own family experience how far off base he is.

My mother died of Alzheimer's disease. For the last year and a half of her life, she did not know who I was, she did not know who my wife was, she did not know who my sister was, or who my kids were. And to insinuate that those of us who disagree with the gentleman's amendment are Luddites and insensitive is flat-out wrong.

Furthermore, my beloved wife, who I have been married to for almost 26 years, has had a spinal cord injury. She has no sensitivity below her waist. She is a wonderful woman. She has given me two wonderful children, and we have lived day by day and minute by minute with that kind of a condition; and she and I are both in favor of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is trying to do because there is an ethical issue and there is a moral issue involved in this, which many people want to turn their backs on. But in my family we have to live with it every day and every minute, and we will until death do us part.

Now, the whole issue on this amendment, to get back to my initial remarks, is the policing of what is done with the cloned embryos that the Greenwood amendment allows. 99.99 percent of the people that do the experimentation on cloned embryos may do it in an entirely ethical manner. But all we need is one unethical person to implant a cloned embryo in utero and we have a cloned baby. And once that unethical person plants the cloned embryo in utero and it starts developing as a fetus, what does that gentleman's amendment do about it? Absolutely nothing. Are we going to throw somebody in jail for doing that? Are we going to throw the mother in jail for doing that? No way. The baby is going to be born, and we are going to have a cloned human being.

Again, Bill Clinton's bioethics panel said: ``The commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.''

Your substitute does not deal with this issue at all. That is why it is fatally flawed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, there is a snowstorm bearing down on this city. There are numerous Members who have asked me to speed this debate up so that they can get out of town and not be marooned here. I would ask the gentleman from Florida to have compassion on those Members and withdraw his unanimous consent request. If he persists, I am constrained to object.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of the bill.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Would it be true that the quicker the Members take their seats and calm down, the quicker we can vote and get to the airport?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this merely moves offshore what this bill bans in the United States. What it will do is create a huge financial incentive for those people and companies in foreign countries to take advantage of Americans. I do not think that we should be giving foreign companies that kind of financial advantage. If it is wrong to do here, we should prohibit the importation of these materials.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good, fair rule. It allows an honest debate of the issues. As many of my colleagues know, I am a physician. I still see patients once a month at the veterans clinic in my congressional district, and I practiced medicine for 15 years before I was elected to the House of Representatives. I took care of a lot of patients with paralysis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. I saw firsthand on a daily basis the hardship those people and their families went through.

Indeed, I wanted to share with all my colleagues that my father died of complications of diabetes disease. I had six uncles. When I was growing up as a kid, one of my favorite uncles was my Uncle John. He died of complications of Parkinson's disease. So if there were evidence to support the position being held by some people in this body and some people in the scientific community that there was great potential from therapeutic cloning, I would be the first to admit it. I would be the first person to acknowledge it. I could not deny it because it would be evident in the medical literature. But the fact of the matter is, the evidence is not there.

What we are debating today is the ethical parameters on the whole issue of regenerative medicine. For decades, doctors have had at their disposal surgical techniques to help people and make them well. They have had medications, drugs that they could use to make people well. And in the past 20 years, they have been making use of something called regenerative medicine using what is called stem cells. This bill, contrary to what some people say, does not ban stem cell research. It does not ban embryo stem cell research. It specifically bans the creation of cloned human embryos.

We voted on this very issue. We debated this issue on the floor of this House a year and a half ago. It was July of 2001. The progression of science is something that we need to include in this debate. I went through the medical literature just about the last 12 months; and I have about 88 studies showing adult stem cells in humans and that they have tremendous potential, that they are actually finding application in the treatment of 45 different diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could produce a study that shows that therapeutic cloning in humans has potential, but there is not even one study. Indeed, I wish I could introduce a study that shows that therapeutic cloning in animals has potential; but, likewise, there is not a single study even in animals. It has been tried in mice, and it has not worked. Therapeutic cloning has never been done.

We are debating here on the floor of the House therapeutic cloning as though therapeutic cloning exists, as though it is around the corner. Let us get realistic here. People are going to come to the floor, and they are going to suggest that we have to hold out therapeutic cloning because it is the only hope for these people. We are funding NIH $27 billion a year. We have thousands of researchers all over the Nation doing all kinds of research using all kinds of modalities, surgeries, therapies, medications; and this regenerative medicine issue is one little slice of what researchers are exploring to help these people with these conditions. We are essentially debating a subsegment of that. And some people will come down here and hold that up as though it is the only thing out there.

Let us get realistic. It has never been done. They tried it in mice, and it was published in ``Cell.'' For those who do not read the scientific literature, this is one of the most prestigious journals that cell biologists read. I will quote from the study. It says: ``Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders.'' They tried therapeutic cloning in a mouse model of disease and it failed dismally. So not only can we not produce a study that shows that it works, we can produce studies that show that it does not work.

I think the time has arrived for us to do the right thing. This is a moral and ethical decision. We are talking about scientists creating human embryos for the purpose of exploiting them and destroying them, and there is no scientific evidence today that this is justifiable.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the studies I referred to above.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend him for his leadership on this very, very important and critical issue.

As I mentioned in the debate on the rule, the science on so-called therapeutic cloning is going nowhere, so

why do all of these scientists say that they want to allow embryo cloning? Why do all of these biotechnology companies say they want to allow embryo cloning, even though the chairman of Geron, Thomas Okarma, is quoted on the issue of therapeutic cloning, and he is quoted as saying, ``The odds favoring success are vanishingly small, and the costs are daunting. It would take thousands of human eggs on an assembly line to produce a custom therapy for a single person.''

He goes on to say, ``This process is a nonstarter.''

So if this therapeutic cloning is such a nonstarter as Okarma says, why do the people in the biotech industries, why do all of these scientists say we have to allow this, we have to make this legal? What is the rationale behind all of this?

I will tell my colleagues what they want to do. They want to create human models of disease. Research scientists today in America, if they want to do research on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, they buy mice and they buy rats that have been engineered to manifest that disease, and what they want to do is they want to create human beings that are engineered to manifest these diseases.

Now, can we imagine that? They want to have shelves with diseases on them filled with human embryos and sell them for a profit to research labs, and that is where we are going with this issue.

Some people get up and ridicule this concept of a slippery slope, but that is exactly what we are on. Because I will tell my colleagues what is next. The artificial womb technology is there. It is available to us today. One can take these embryos and put them in these baths and one can grow them well beyond the embryonic stage, and that will be the next thing we will be debating and talking about in this Chamber if the positions held by some people who want to allow embryo cloning are allowed to move forward.

These are the same exact arguments that occurred in this House on fetal tissue research 10 years ago; and people got up and claimed, we have to allow this, it is the great potential of the future. It turned out to be an absolute bust. It was a disaster. It went absolutely nowhere. Therapeutic cloning is going nowhere. It has been a year and a half since we originally debated this issue. I placed a mountain of evidence before this body here showing that the adult stem cells are working out great, the embryo stem cells are going nowhere, the cloned stem cells are going absolutely nowhere. So why are we still here? Why are we debating this issue? It is because there are people who want to create human models of disease that they can sell for a profit. It is an abomination.

Vote for this bill. Vote against the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I again want to commend him for his work in this area and his eloquent statements on the floor.

I rise in very strong opposition to this substitute, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote against it and to vote in favor of the underlying bill.

Let me address, first out, one of the issues that seems to be implied by some of the discussion that I have heard so far, and that is, these embryos that are created through somatic cell nuclear transfer process are somehow not embryos or they are cells or they are cheek cells or they are stem cells. I am a scientist, a doctor. I am not an expert in this area, but I know a fair amount about it. I did research in molecular genetics as an undergraduate. I am a physician.

When a person does somatic cell nuclear transfer they are creating a human embryo. Indeed, President Clinton's Bioethics Council has said that, and President Bush's Bioethics Council has said that, a human embryo resulting from the nuclear transfer process is a human embryo. It is contrasted from a human embryo created by sexual reproduction, which is a unique embryo; whereas when we create a human embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer, we are essentially creating an identical duplicate or twin.

So let us do away with that issue here and now. This is very, very clearly a human embryo. That is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to allow to be created for research purposes. What will happen if we do that? What will happen if we go down that route?

I contend that a lot of things will happen that I think are very, very concerning. Number one, we are going to have a lot of research labs that will need eggs. Where will they get the eggs? They will have to get them from women. How do we get eggs from women? Well, we give them drugs that cause a phenomenon called superovulation. We have to do periodic ultrasounds to make sure they do not develop ovarian cysts, and they can get depression from those drugs; and then once the eggs are ripe, we have to give the woman a general anesthetic to harvest the eggs. And we will have these research labs that are going to need these large quantities of eggs, and this is why these biotech executives say this is a nonstarter in terms of developing so-called therapeutic cloning. The logistics of this are just unimaginable of how we would execute something like this.

One important thing I want to say, if we have all of these labs generating these eggs, we are going to have unscrupulous physicians implanting one of these in a woman, and we are going to usher in the very thing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Florida say they are against. They say they are against reproductive cloning, but our own Justice Department says there will be no way to police this. We will have all of these embryos in all of these labs, and the only way to prevent it is to stop it from the very, very beginning.

Might I also just reiterate, adult stem cell research is moving along very nicely. We have heard some very impassioned comments about Parkinson's disease. I want to quote from Dennis Turner, who had his Parkinson's disease treated successfully with adult stem cells. We cannot even produce one research study in a rat where we can cure Parkinson's disease with embryo stem cells or cloned stem cells. But I have got a real live human being here. He says, they were not fetal cells, they were my cells, so I would not have to take any anti- rejection medications the rest of my life. Dennis Turner previously could not even hold a newspaper, and now he is hardly on any medication at all. The adult stem cells are working great.

I say to my colleagues this alternative, this substitute, is unnecessary and unethical. We do not want to go down the path of creating human life for the purpose of exploiting it in the lab and then destroying it.

Vote no on this substitute. Vote yes on the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to get at this issue of eggs and how are you going to get them. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has implied that my concerns about women's donation are unfounded. Let me just underscore from the start that there are a lot of people on the left that have a lot of concern about this issue. One of the first people who came into my office to join forces with me on preparing this legislation was Judy Norsigian. She is pro-choice. She helped write the Boston Women's Health Cooperative book, ``Our Bodies, Ourselves.''

Indeed, I think some of the concern about this issue is why I think seven Democrats, seven or eight Democrats with a perfect voting record with NARAL, supported my bill in the 107th Congress and it is over this concern. The gentleman from Pennsylvania implied it's ridiculous, women aren't going to be lining up. The issue is essentially this. If you are going to start doing a lot of this experimentation, you are going to need a lot of eggs because not every egg you put the nucleus in and then zap it with electricity begins to divide and form an embryo. There is a fairly high failure rate if you

actually read the research articles, which I have done. There is a pretty high failure rate. So you are going to need lots of eggs to create a few embryos and you are going to need a lot of women to get a lot of eggs.

And who will donate their eggs? Well, it is going to be women who will do it for money. It is a painful procedure. Women do this right now. The fertility clinics frequently deal with women who are older and their eggs are not very viable and so they pay typically coeds to donate some of their eggs so that some of these older women can actually have a baby. It is already going on today. But it is going on today on a very limited level and it is going on today for what I think is an ethically and morally appropriate purpose: somebody wants to have a baby, somebody struggling with infertility. But now we are going to be talking about creating these eggs for this research.

The research, Mr. Chairman, is going nowhere. I have read the reports. It is not going to ever lead to any cures. The reason the biotech industry wants the Greenwood amendment to prevail and does not want my position to prevail is because they want to create human models of disease so that we can get away from using rats and mice as our models for disease. To me, this is a huge issue. You are talking about creating human embryos, modifying them genetically to preprogram them with diseases, and then selling them for a profit by the biotech industry.

I said before, it is an abomination. If you do not think that is an abomination, I do not know what you think is. To me it is absolutely ghastly.

Let me just close by again saying all of this research can proceed with animal models unfettered under the provisions of the bill that the chairman has brought to the floor. You can continue with animal research. You can clone DNA. You can clone animals. You can clone cells. You just cannot create a human embryo under the provision of this legislation. I think it is the right thing to do. I think that morally it is the correct thing to do. I would again encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his very eloquent remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman for his work in this area, and I thank him for yielding me this time.

The Greenwood substitute purports to be a ban on human cloning. It is a moratorium on human cloning. It is a 10-year prohibition that sunsets; and it allows unfettered, essentially, the creation of human embryos in the lab for the purpose of research; and then it requires their destruction, essentially, through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer or human cloning.

We have never gone in this direction before where we are actually talking about creating human embryos in the lab for exploiting them and destroying them. There have been a few labs in different places in the country that have tried to do this. One successfully. There are fertility clinics that have so-called excess embryos, and some of them have made those embryos available for stem cell research. This bill does not affect that. That would be permissible to move forward.

The question before us is, is the Greenwood substitute a real ban on human cloning? I contend it is not. It would still allow the creation of clones in the lab in embryonic form, and I believe very strongly that it will usher in what the supporters of the substitute claim that they do not want to see and that is reproductive cloning, because we will have all of these labs generating these embryos and eventually one of them or more will find its way into unscrupulous hands, will be implanted, and will result in reproductive cloning.

Might I also add that there are some people who want to allow this research to move forward so that they can some day be able to do reproductive cloning. At a hearing we had on this issue, I had Dr. Brian Cohen testify before the committee, and he repeatedly said, ``We are opposed to reproductive cloning at this time.'' He kept saying ``at this time.'' And I finally asked him, ``What do you mean by 'at this time'?'' And he is the executive director, or the president, of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; and then he went on to basically say that if they can work through all of the problems with cloning that they would some day like to be able to do it. And what will happen, what will be next with that? I contend that the age of eugenics will have arrived. There will be people who will then want to manipulate these embryos for the purpose of creating a human with preintended specifications, specifying size, height, weight, athletic performance, intellectual capabilities; and it will open a Pandora's box of frightful potentialities that I feel that we as a civilization do not want to open up, and therefore I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the substitute and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that much of what has been said today in support of this bill has nothing to do with protecting the country from the ills outlined.

What is somatic cell nuclear transfer? A woman donates an egg, a patient donates a skin cell. Perhaps the nucleus is removed from the egg. The DNA from the skin cell is inserted into the egg. The egg is stimulated to divide into eight cells, and those are the stem cells.

What has been talked about in terms of embryo experimentation is certainly legal if this bill were to pass and instead of a skin cell there was a sperm that began that cell division, if we had in vitro fertilization, we could experiment all we wanted.

So I think where we are going with this proposal is apparently a plan to outlaw in vitro fertilization in the United States. I think we ought to be clear about that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I, like the authors of H.R. 534, believe that we should outlaw human cloning. If we wanted to pass a bill that only prohibits human cloning, it would sail through Congress on a voice vote. But this bill goes too far. It halts the progress of medical research by banning somatic cell nuclear transfer for research and medical treatments. This research has promise for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and others. This bill criminalizes a scientific research process that takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of the researcher or the inability of this process to result in the birth of a cloned child. The penalty for violating these provisions includes sanctions of a criminal fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years and a civil penalty of at least $1 million. This would represent an unprecedented intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific process.

I think the science teachers of America may be pretty appalled at what they hear and see on this floor today. I think much that has been said and will be said reflects a profound ignorance about the science, about the current role of the FDA in their regulatory practices, but also Americans need to ask themselves why the proponents of this bill want to ban this research, and I think the answer is simple: They want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country.

This country reflects the diverse religious beliefs found all over the world. Some, like the authors of this bill, believe that all cloning is wrong. Others believe that research cloning should be allowed. These are all legitimate views, but I think it is wrong to use the political power of one group to criminalize the beliefs of another.

To better understand the real issue involved in this debate, it is important to understand what research cloning is. Somatic cell nuclear transfer has six steps: a woman donates an egg; a patient donates a somatic cell, like a skin cell; the nucleus is removed from the egg; the nucleus from the patient's skin cell is inserted into the egg; the egg is then stimulated to induce it to divide; the egg begins to divide, creating stem cells that are identical to the patient's own cells.

So we are talking about the creation of cells in a petri dish, not bringing a child into this world. That is why research cloning is supported by some of the most ardent pro-life conservatives like Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack, who said, ``Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for harm done to real live postnatal sentient beings who might be helped by this research.''

Why is this process important? Scientists believe that these stem cells are less likely to be rejected after transplant since they have the same genetic properties as the recipient. They could also help scientists learn why diseases occur. They also have important advantages over adult stem cells which cannot develop into as many cell types and which cannot be generated in the same quantities in the lab. That is why this bill is opposed by almost every organization representing patients and researchers, including Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, the Biotechnology Industry Association, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research.

I have heard the words that we are going down a ``slippery slope'' used by the proponents of this bill, but in fact the slippery slope is that being suggested by those who call six cells in a petri dish the equivalent of me or my mother. If it is murder to use somatic cell transfer and to create six cells for research purposes, then it must also be mass murder to have in vitro fertilization and discard the cells that are not later utilized by the couple using IVF. So the slippery slope is to eliminate in vitro fertilization in this country.

This debate really boils down to one question: Should an embryonic stem cell with no central nervous system, no chance of developing into a fetus have the same rights as a child suffering

from juvenile diabetes? I do not think so. I urge you not to rob sick Americans of their hope for a cure.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would note before yielding to my colleague from California a letter received from the Senior Pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church and the Legislative Director of the United Church of Christ, where it is said, ``While it is imperative that we as a Nation and as a people of faith proceed with caution, it is also important that we do what we can to alleviate the suffering of others. We believe that to ban this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.''

I think it is important that we recognize the diversity of religious viewpoints on when life begins and not impose just one viewpoint on the country.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter referred to.

February 26, 2003.

Hon. James Greenwood,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Greenwood: As members of the religious

community, we would like to commend you for your leadership

on stem cell research. Your recognition of the great promise

of stem cell research and your support for legislation that

allows therapeutic cloning offer great hope for those

suffering from juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's disease,

Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and other

ailments.

This is a difficult issue for all of us, and we understand

the complex decision you face in considering any legislation

that involves human cloning. While it is imperative that we

as a nation and as people of faith proceed with great

caution, it is also important to do what we can to alleviate

the suffering of others. Therefore, we believe that to ban

this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.

Like most, we are opposed to the practice of reproductive

human cloning. A ban on this practice would be both welcome

and appropriate. Therapeutic cloning, however, requires

careful review. We are pleased that you considered this issue

in its entirety and took into account the countless

individuals who could be saved and whose pain could be

alleviated by this medical research. We have a duty to do

what we can to help our fellow man, and you have demonstrated

your commitment to doing so through your leadership on this

issue.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Hershel Billet,

President, Rabbinical Council of America, New York, NY.

Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell,

Director of Religion, Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua,

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished scientist and Member of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a leader of the New Democrats and someone who has distinguished himself on the issue of medical research.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has led efforts to promote science in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this bill. We have taken a consensus and we all agree that human cloning should be outlawed and warped it into a vehicle to impose one religious viewpoint on the scientists of this country. Not only is this wrong, but it will force scientists to flee our shores, will bring down the veil of ignorance to our country, and will remove us as having the leading scientific edge in the world for this biotechnology research.

I urge all Members to vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I first yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, this bill not only ties the hands of our medical researchers; it prevents Americans from utilizing cures developed in other countries. There is no doubt that if this bill becomes law, we will lose our most talented medical researchers. They will flock to other countries that continue to allow therapeutic cloning; and hopefully, one day, they will help to develop cures to some of the worst diseases known to humankind.

What happens when a British researcher develops a cure for Alzheimer's or is able to regenerate insulin-producing cells in children with juvenile diabetes or learns how to generate nervous system cells that can restore spinal cord function after paralysis? Sick Americans should have access to these cures. But H.R. 534 prevents the importation of any products derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. It would make it a crime for a terminally-ill person to receive medical care in America if the cure was developed using this science abroad.

That is both unnecessary and unfair. The motion to recommit is simple. It will ensure that cures developed in other countries are available to Americans suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, MS, severe burns, and other diseases.

If cures to these debilitating diseases are found, Congress should not stand in the way or require its citizens to travel to other countries to benefit from them.

There have been lots of argument today about a slippery slope. There is no slippery slope in this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have been deeply troubled by many of the arguments I have heard today. I am troubled that some Members think they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans. I am troubled that in return, some of the most vulnerable members of society, like children suffering from juvenile diabetes, would be forced potentially to give up their best hope for a cure.

This country is a democracy; it is not a theocracy. I understand that some Members of this House have religious beliefs that are guiding them. My advice to them would be, if you object to the cures that are developed using this technology of therapeutic cloning, fine, do not use the cure. But do not try and deny other Americans cures to deadly diseases because of your own religious beliefs. That is simply an improper role for Congress to take.

Therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with cloning a child. There is no fertilization with sperm, there is no implantation into the uterus, there is no pregnancy, there is no child.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a scientific method where researchers create new stem cells in a petri dish. To listen to some of the debate today, one would see that there would be a picture painted that very tiny babies in test tubes are being the subject of this research. That is completely false. These are eight cells on a petri dish that can give lifesaving cures to Americans and others throughout the world who are suffering horrendous diseases.

I think we ought to take the advice of Senator Hatch and former First Lady Nancy Reagan who wrote, ``The embryonic stem cell research, under appropriate guidelines, may provide our scientists with many answers that are now beyond our grasp. There are so many diseases that can be cured, or at least helped, that we can't turn our backs on this.''

Do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who might be able to benefit from cures made abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.