H. Rept. 108-18 - 108th Congress (2003-2004)
February 25, 2003, As Reported by the Judiciary Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 108-18 - HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2003




[House Report 108-18]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     108-18

======================================================================
 
                 HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

 February 25, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 534]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
human cloning, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Vote of the Committee............................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    10
Markup Transcript................................................    11
Dissenting Views.................................................    99

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 534, the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003,'' 
amends title 18, United States Code, by establishing a 
comprehensive ban on human cloning and prohibiting the 
importation of a cloned embryo, or any product derived from 
such embryo. Any person or entity that is convicted of 
violating this prohibition on human cloning is subject to a 
fine or imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both. In 
addition, H.R. 534 provides a civil penalty of not less than 
$1,000,000 for any person who receives a pecuniary gain from 
cloning humans. However, H.R. 534 does not prohibit the use of 
cloning technology to produce molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, 
organs, plants, or animals other than humans.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Cloning, which literally means to make a copy, is the 
asexual reproduction of a precise genetic copy of a molecule, 
cell, tissue, plant, or animal. The word ``cloning'' can be 
used as a generic term to describe several different techniques 
of cloning. Molecular cloning refers to the copying of DNA 
fragments. For example, the human gene for insulin has been 
cloned into bacteria to produce insulin for the treatment of 
diabetes. In addition, human cells are routinely cloned to 
study cancer or genetic diseases.
    The cloning technique that could possibly allow for the 
production of individuals who are genetically identical to an 
already existing individual is known as ``somatic cell nuclear 
transfer.'' This is the procedure that was used to clone Dolly 
the sheep in 1996, the first mammal ever to be cloned from an 
adult cell. Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves taking a 
mature but unfertilized egg, removing or deactivating its 
nucleus, and introducing a nucleus obtained from a specialized 
(somatic) cell of another adult organism. The egg is chemically 
treated so that it begins to behave as if fertilization has 
occurred. Once the egg begins to divide, the embryo is 
transferred to a female's uterus to initiate pregnancy. Since 
almost all the hereditary material of a cell is contained 
within its nucleus, the re-nucleated egg and the individual 
into which it develops are genetically identical to the 
organism that was the source of the transferred nucleus.
    The announcement of the birth of Dolly brought into sharp 
focus the future possibility of cloning human beings along with 
all its inherent moral, ethical, and legal implications. The 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) was ordered to 
review the legal and ethical issues involved in the cloning of 
human beings and delivered its recommendations in June 1997. 
The NBAC agreed that the creation of a child by somatic cell 
nuclear transfer is scientifically and ethically objectionable 
because: 1) the efficiency of nuclear transfer is so low and 
the chance of abnormal offspring is so high that 
experimentation of this sort in humans was premature; and 2) 
the cloning of an already existing human being may have a 
negative impact on issues of personal and social well being 
such as family relationships, identity and individuality, 
religious beliefs, and expectations of sameness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Cloning Human Beings, Report and Recommendations of the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (June, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, no clear regulations exist in the United States 
that would prevent a private group from attempting to clone a 
human being. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has 
announced that it has the authority to regulate human cloning, 
but that authority has been questioned by many experts and 
remains unclear today. According to the FDA, that authority 
comes in part from the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, which 
gives FDA the power to regulate ``biological products'' that 
are used to treat medical conditions. The FDA asserts that a 
human somatic cell clone (a cloned human embryo) is a 
``biological product'' intended to treat a medical condition, 
that condition being infertility.
    The FDA also says it can regulate human cloning under the 
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) because human somatic cell 
clones fall under the definition of ``drugs.'' The FD&C Act 
defines drugs as ``articles (other than food) intended to 
affect the structure or any function of the body.'' According 
to the FDA, a human somatic cell clone is an ``article'' that 
affects the structure and function of a woman's body by making 
her pregnant and would be subject to investigational new drug 
application requirements under the FD&C Act.
    Although recent announcements by Clonaid that it had 
produced the first human clone seem to be nothing more than a 
hoax, there are reputable scientists and physicians that have 
announced their intention to attempt to produce the first human 
clone. Therefore, with no clear regulations in place, it has 
become imperative that Congress act to prevent this ethically 
and morally objectionable procedure.
    Several other nations and international organizations have 
also enacted laws or issued policy statements prohibiting the 
cloning of human beings. Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, 
Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Norway, Peru, 
Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the 
United Kingdom already have laws or have announced plans to 
pass laws prohibiting the cloning of human beings. In addition, 
the Denver Summit of Eight, the Council of Europe, the World 
Health Organization, UNESCO's International Bioethics 
Committee, the European Commission, and the Human Genome 
Organization have called for a worldwide ban on the cloning of 
human beings.
    The possible production of a human clone raises a host of 
ethical questions. Cloning entails producing a person with a 
particular genetic code because of the attractiveness or 
usefulness of a person with that code. In this sense, by 
allowing human cloning, we are possibly legitimizing in 
principle the entire enterprise of designing children to suit 
parental or social purposes.
    It must also be recognized that any attempt at cloning a 
human being would be experimentation on the resulting child-to-
be. Each experiment runs a high risk of failure. In all the 
animal experiments, fewer than two to 3 percent of all cloning 
attempts succeeded. Not only are there fetal deaths and 
stillborn infants, but many of the so-called ``successes'' are 
in fact failures. As has only recently become clear, there is a 
very high incidence of major disabilities and deformities in 
cloned animals that attain live birth. Attempts to clone human 
beings carry massive risks of producing unhealthy, abnormal, 
and malformed children.
    It is well within Congress' power and prerogative to 
restrict or prohibit the means used by researchers that 
threaten interests in which the citizens of this country have a 
legitimate concern. As the National Bioethics Advisory 
Commission 1997 report pointed out, ``(b)ecause science is both 
a public and social enterprise and its application can have a 
profound impact, society recognizes that the freedom of 
scientific inquiry is not an absolute right. . . .''
    Some opponents of the bill would rather see a ban that 
would only prohibit cloning when there was an intent to 
initiate a pregnancy and would still allow scientists to clone 
human embryos for experimental purposes. This approach to 
prohibiting cloning would be much less effective and would 
inevitably be unenforceable. Once cloned embryos were produced 
and available in laboratories, it would be virtually impossible 
to control what was done with them. Stockpiles of cloned human 
embryos could be produced, bought and sold without anyone 
knowing it. Implantation of cloned embryos, a relatively easy 
procedure, would take place out of sight. At that point, 
governmental attempts to enforce a cloning ban would prove 
impossible to police or regulate. Creating cloned human 
children necessarily begins by producing cloned human embryos. 
The only effective way to prevent this is to prohibit all human 
cloning.
    Opponents of a complete ban on human cloning also argue 
that H.R. 534 would have a negative impact in the field of stem 
cell research. Recent successes that scientists have had with 
adult stem cells does not support this argument. Adult stem 
cells are already being used successfully for therapeutic 
benefit in humans. This includes treatments associated with 
various types of cancer, to relieve systemic lupus, multiple 
sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, anemias, immunodeficiency 
diseases, and restoration of sight through regeneration of 
corneas. Furthermore, initial clinical trials have begun to 
repair heart damage using the patient's own adult stem cells. 
Adult stem cells are making good on what are only promises of 
embryonic stem cells.
    Few issues have ever created such a unified public 
opposition as the possibility of producing human beings who are 
genetically identical to an already existing individual. It 
took 277 stillborn, miscarried or dead sheep to make one Dolly 
the first cloned sheep. That failure rate, which has remained 
steady since 1997, is not acceptable for human beings. H.R. 
534, by banning human cloning at any stage of development, 
provides the most effective protection from the dangers of 
abuse inherent in this rapidly developing field. By preventing 
the cloning of human embryos, there can be no possibility of 
cloning a human being.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 534 in the 108th Congress. 
H.R. 534 is identical to H.R. 2505 as reported by the Committee 
on the Judiciary in the 107th Congress. During the 107th, the 
Subcommittee on Crime held two hearings on June 7 and 19, 
2001.\2\ Testimony was heard from eight witnesses, representing 
eight organizations. The witnesses were: Dr. Leon R. Kass, 
Professor of Bioethics, The University of Chicago; Dr. David A. 
Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences, Indiana State University; 
Dr. Daniel Callahan, Director of International Programs for The 
Hastings Center; Robyn S. Shapiro, Esq., Professor of 
Bioethics, the Medical College of Wisconsin; Alex Capron, Esq., 
Professor of Law and Medicine, University of Southern 
California, School of Law; Dr. Jean Bethke Elshtain, Professor 
of Social and Political Ethics, The University of Chicago; 
Gerard Bradley, Esq., Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School; 
Dr. Thomas Okarma, President and CEO of the Geron Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Human Cloning: Oversight Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime 
of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. No. 40 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Consideration

    On February 12, 2003, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 534 without amendment 
by a recorded vote of 19 yeas to 12 nays, a quorum being 
present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to insert language 
in the bill that would provide an exemption to the prohibitions 
of the bill for the importation of any product derived from an 
embryo if such product is unable to develop into a full human 
being. The amendment was defeated by rollcall vote of 12 yeas 
to 19 nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Ms. Blackburn...................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment was offered by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Conyers 
to insert language in the bill that would provide an exception 
to the prohibitions of the bill for the transfer of nuclei from 
somatic cells into unfertilized eggs to derive embryonic stem 
cells, including new cell lines, in order to further scientific 
understanding of embryonic stem cells, or to pursue treatments 
or products using embryonic stem cells, if the transfer is not 
used or intended to be used to initiate a pregnancy. The 
amendment was defeated by rollcall vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Ms. Blackburn...................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Final Passage. The motion to report favorably the bill, 
H.R. 534, was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 19 yeas to 12 
nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Carter......................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Ms. Blackburn...................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             19              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

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

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 534 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

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

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 534, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 25, 2003.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 534, the Human 
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
Greg Waring (for the State and local impact), who can be 
reached at 225-3220, and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-
sector impact), who can be reached at 226-2940.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 534--Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.
    H.R. 534 would prohibit any person or entity from 
performing or attempting to perform human cloning, 
participating in the human cloning process, or shipping or 
importing an embryo produced by human cloning. Anyone 
prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 534 would be subject to 
both criminal and civil fines and up to 10 years in prison.
    Collections of criminal and civil penalties are recorded in 
the budget as governmental receipts (revenues), while criminal 
fines are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. 
Thus, H.R. 534 could affect direct spending and receipts. CBO 
expects there is little likelihood that many cases would be 
prosecuted under the bill. Therefore, we estimate that enacting 
this legislation would have a negligible effect on receipts and 
direct spending.
    H.R. 534 would impose both an intergovernmental mandate and 
a private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) because it would prohibit public and private 
entities from performing human cloning. The bill also would 
prohibit anyone from shipping or receiving a cloned embryo or 
any product derived from such an embryo. According to 
Government and industry sources, very little human cloning is 
currently being performed by public or private entities. CBO, 
therefore, estimates that the bill would impose minimal costs 
on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector 
over the next 5 years. Thus, the direct costs of the mandate 
would not exceed the thresholds established by UMRA ($59 
million for intergovernmental mandates and $117 million for 
private-sector mandates in 2003, adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any of the first 5 years after the mandate would 
take effect.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, Greg 
Waring (for the State and local impact), who can be reached at 
225-3220, and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-sector), who 
can be reached at 226-2940. This estimate was approved by 
Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

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

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

                         SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE

    Section 1 of the bill states the short title of the bill as 
the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.''

                SECTION 2: PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING

    Section 2 amends title 18, United States Code, by inserting 
after chapter 15, a new Chapter 16--Human Cloning. The new 
chapter 16 is comprised of two sections, numbered 301 and 302.

                       SECTION 301. DEFINITIONS.

    This section defines the terms ``human cloning'', ``asexual 
reproduction'', and ``somatic cell'' as used in the bill.

               SECTION 302. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

    Section 302 establishes a prohibition on human cloning. 
Section 302(a) states that it shall be unlawful for any person 
or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate 
commerce, knowingly, to perform or attempt to perform human 
cloning, to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning, 
or to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced by 
human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
    Section 302(b) provides that it shall be unlawful for any 
person or entity, public or private, knowingly to import for 
any purpose an embryo produced by human cloning, or any product 
derived from such embryo.
    Section 302(c) states that any person or entity that is 
convicted of violating the prohibition on human cloning shall 
be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. If such 
person or entity derived a pecuniary gain from the violation, 
then they would also be subject to a civil penalty of not less 
than $1,000,000, and not more than an amount equal to the 
amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is 
greater than $1,000,000.
    Section 302(d) emphasizes that nothing shall restrict areas 
of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this 
bill, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or 
other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other 
than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other 
than humans. This section also makes a clerical amendment to 
the table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States 
Code.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             PART I--CRIMES

Chap.                                                               Sec.
1.     General provisions.........................................     1
     * * * * * * *
301 Human Cloning...............................................

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING

Sec.
301. Definitions.
302. Prohibition on human cloning.

Sec. 301. Definitions

    In this chapter:
            (1) Human cloning.--The term ``human cloning'' 
        means human asexual reproduction, accomplished by 
        introducing nuclear material from one or more human 
        somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte 
        whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated 
        so as to produce a living organism (at any stage of 
        development) that is genetically virtually identical to 
        an existing or previously existing human organism.
            (2) Asexual reproduction.--The term ``asexual 
        reproduction'' means reproduction not initiated by the 
        union of oocyte and sperm.
            (3) Somatic cell.--The term ``somatic cell'' means 
        a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) 
        obtained or derived from a living or deceased human 
        body at any stage of development.

Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, 
knowingly--
            (1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
            (2) to participate in an attempt to perform human 
        cloning; or
            (3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo 
        produced by human cloning or any product derived from 
        such embryo.
    (b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any purpose 
an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from 
such embryo.
    (c) Penalties.--
            (1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity that 
        violates this section shall be fined under this title 
        or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
            (2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity that 
        violates any provision of this section shall be subject 
        to, in the case of a violation that involves the 
        derivation of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not 
        less than $1,000,000 and not more than an amount equal 
        to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, if 
        that amount is greater than $1,000,000.
    (d) Scientific Research.--Nothing in this section restricts 
areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by 
this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer 
or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells 
other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals 
other than humans.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Now, pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 534, the 
``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003'' for purposes of 
markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. 
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open 
for amendment at any point and all Members' statements may be 
submitted for the record.
    [The bill, H.R. 534, follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 
                    Congress From the State of Texas
    Mr. Chairman,
    Ninety percent of those Americans polled last year said reproducing 
human beings is not acceptable. The American public recognizes that 
cloning raises serious moral, ethical, and scientific questions.
    The method used to clone humans is very similar to the method used 
to clone animals. In order to successfully clone Dolly the sheep in 
1997, experiments had produced 277 stillborn, miscarried, or dead 
sheep. In addition, research has shown that in the rare instance when a 
cloned embryo does survive these odds and is actually born, there is a 
significant risk of birth defects, disformities, and early deaths.
    Scientists have not been able to show that these risks will be 
lowered in the near future. We should not allow the manufacturing of 
unhealthy, disabled, or dead children as a byproduct of 
experimentation.
    If we allow the practice of cloning, we are endorsing the practice 
of genetic engineering--human reproduction will become a manufacturing 
process through which children are custom made in science labs. And the 
living or deceased could be reproduced without their consent.
    There are too many scientific uncertainties and too many risks 
involved to allow the cloning of humans. The only way to prevent it is 
to prohibit this dangerous practice.
    Many other nations have taken steps to prohibit the cloning of 
humans. China, Argentina, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Spain, and 
the United Kingdom are just a few of the countries who already or are 
considering laws to ban human cloning.
    Groups like the Council of Europe, the World Health Organization, 
the European Commission, and the Human Genome Organization have called 
for a worldwide ban on the cloning of human beings.
    President Bush opposes the practice of cloning and has stated that, 
``I believe all human cloning is wrong . . . anything other than a 
total ban on human cloning would be unethical. Allowing cloning would 
be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are 
grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom 
specifications; and that's not acceptable.''
    The only way to ensure that a cloning ban is effective is to ban it 
entirely--H.R. 534 does just that. If we allow cloning for any reason, 
we will be unable to control what is done with cloned embryos. Anything 
other than a complete ban on cloning will be impossible to enforce.
    This bill does not ban research in the use of cloning techniques to 
produce molecules, DNA, tissues, organs, plants, or cells other than 
human embryos. What it does is ensure that human beings will not be 
cloned.
    We must not degrade the value of human life and we must not be 
reckless in our pursuit of science and technology.
    I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    [The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in 
                    Congress From the State of Iowa
    Chairman Sensenbrenner, I strongly support the Human Cloning 
Prohibition Act of 2003, H.R. 534 for the following reasons.
    I am unequivocally opposed to the cloning of human beings. The 
moral issues posed by human cloning, whether for reproduction or 
research, are profound and cannot be ignored.
    I submit that we either halt cloning at the beginning, or we risk a 
disastrous impact on the true value of human life. Today, we must be 
clear in our definitions and our intent, as ambiguity will surely lead 
to destructive ends.
    Some opponents of this cloning ban argue that so-called 
``therapeutic cloning'' should not be banned. In reality, the term 
``therapeutic cloning'' is a dangerous misnomer. In fact, it can 
accurately be termed destructive cloning. Creating cloned human embryos 
for research purposes is anything but therapeutic for the cloned life 
who is abused and then killed during the experimentation process.
    ``Therapeutic'' or destructive cloning creates a new human life for 
the express purpose of destroying him or her in order to do research. 
This practice violates the sanctity of human life. In my view, any 
scientific discoveries that might result from experimenting on cloned 
human embryos are ill-gotten gains that undermine the fundamental right 
to life.
    I am currently drafting a bill to protect cloned humans from the 
moment of inception in the event that cloning occurs illegally. I 
firmly believe that all human life is sacred and should be protected by 
the same laws, whether born or unborn.
    In the debate on cloning in this country, cloning advocates have 
attempted to sidestep the issue of personhood entirely. However, from 
the moment that human life comes into existence, either through sexual 
or asexual reproduction, developing humans are people of great worth 
and value. As such, all unborn children are entitled to the full 
protection under the law. I have been given no reason to abandon the 
belief that the unborn, including cloned embryos, are full-fledged 
members of our human community.
    While I am strongly opposed to destructive cloning, I want to be 
clear that I do not oppose scientific developments that may cure 
diseases, as long as human life is protected. I believe a fundamental 
principle of scientific research involving humans is to do no harm. In 
fact, science has developed several ways of exploring cures for 
diseases through techniques that do not harm human embryos.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner, I believe cloned human life should be 
protected at every stage of development from abuse and mistreatment at 
the hands of laboratory researchers. For this reason, I strongly 
support the House version of the cloning ban, over the any other 
version, which would permit destructive cloning.

    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. I seek recognition to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard. The clerk 
will----
    Mr. Nadler. The objection wasn't heard. You don't know what 
it is yet.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I was----
    Mr. Nadler. Could I state it, sir?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Is 
there objection?
    Mr. Nadler. I want to state an objection, yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The objection is heard. The clerk 
will----
    Mr. Nadler. I'd like--Mr. Chairman, I think I'm entitled to 
state what the objection is.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman has been around long 
enough to know to reserve the right to object----
    Mr. Nadler. I reserve the right to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The Chair will restate the UC 
request.
    Without objection the bill will be considered as read and 
open for amendment at any point. Is there objection?
    Mr. Nadler. I reserve the right to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this 
is that--forget the merits of the bill for the moment. We'll 
discuss that I assume in a few minutes. But this bill is being 
brought here without any consideration by the Subcommittee and 
without a public hearing. That's a violation of regular order. 
This is a new Congress, and we should, especially on a bill of 
this moment, observe regular order. There should have been a 
hearing, either at the Subcommittee or Committee levels. There 
should have been probably a markup at the Subcommittee. That 
you could dispense with, but at least a hearing.
    Now, I understand that we are changing the rules of the 
House and of the Committee to roll votes and I would object to 
that, but we've already approved that. But to violate regular 
order on a bill of this moment, as the very first bill we're 
considering--I hope this isn't the precedent that we're going 
to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. In light of additional cases, I would hope that 
you might reconsider and schedule a hearing on this bill, and 
then we can have a proper markup.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We didn't have Subcommittees in 
this Committee until a few moments ago when the rules were 
adopted, creating the Subcommittees and the Members were 
appointed on both sides of the aisle. The Chair certainly 
desired there to be public hearings on this bill or any other 
bill, but the issue is very bluntly this, and that is, is that 
the leadership intends to bring this bill out with or without 
Committee recommendation and Committee consideration the week 
after the Presidents' Day recess, and one of the reasons why I 
have scheduled a markup on this legislation is so that the 
Committee can put its oar in. There was kind of extenuating 
circumstances because the Chair intended to organize the 
Committee last Thursday, and that had to be canceled as a 
result of the memorial service for the astronauts that died in 
Columbia. So we got jammed and lost a week as a result of the 
tragedy that occurred and the commemoration that happened up at 
the cathedral.
    So it is my hope that we will be able to have Committee 
consideration and hearings on practically all of the major 
bills that come before us, but because of the reasons just 
stated, we didn't have a hearing. I can say that if we can't 
report this bill out because of procedural objections, what 
will happen to this bill is the same thing that's happening to 
the Welfare Bill this week, and that is there will be no 
Committee consideration and it will be brought up on the floor.
    The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. I thank the Chairman for his explanation and I 
apologize for forgetting to say ``reserve the right to object'' 
earlier today. It's been a long time since last year.
    Let me just say that I appreciate the Chairman's 
explanation. And we certainly didn't have Subcommittees. We 
still could have held a hearing, but the really unfortunate 
thing about what the Chairman just explained to us, the 
determination of the leadership on this bill and the TANF bill, 
to bring up a bill with or without Committee consideration. I 
would hope that we will follow decent order. The rights of the 
minority, frankly, the rights of the American people to hear a 
discussion of all these different bills and of the various 
viewpoints, are frustrated if the leadership of the House, 
never mind the leadership of the Committee, but if the 
leadership of the House insists on bringing up bills without 
consideration by Committees, without markup, without hearings, 
and I would hope this would be the last time--I understand the 
extenuating circumstances, and I would hope that this will be 
the last time that that will happen if there aren't extenuating 
circumstances in the future, and with that, I'll withdraw my 
reservation.
    Mr. Conyers. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you and 
I know that we may--we have in the past reached a point in time 
where we have to reflect our congressional responsibilities. 
Now, with all due respect for the leadership of the House of 
Representatives, there is no way that they can determine, for 
whatever reasons they may reach these determinations, when any 
duly constituted Committee shall or shall not have hearings. 
Hearings are an inherent right of the process of the House of 
Representatives. They are not arbitrary. They are not reached 
at the disposition of any one particular person in the House of 
Representatives. And it seems to me that we have reached a very 
important point in time at the beginning of the 108th Congress, 
where we decide who's running the House Judiciary Committee.
    The Chairman and----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No doubt about it, I am.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, I'm happy to hear that because I was 
worried about the response, because if you are, and no doubt 
about it, then I, as the Ranking Member of this Committee, have 
to beseech you to listen to the requests of your colleagues who 
serve on this Committee under you. We need hearings on each and 
every bill, no exceptions, that comes before the Judiciary 
Committee, starting with this one. And so if you are in charge, 
this is--there's no more perfect time or place than for us to 
discuss what the person in charge does about the hearing on 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.
    I propose that we have hearings at the earliest convenience 
that the Chairman--at the Subcommittee level, and then that we 
have full Committee hearings, and then if it is the will of the 
majority of the Members on this Committee, we report the bill 
out as amended or we don't report it out. And that is a 
proposal that I have to put before you at this present moment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman will yield.
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. As I told the gentleman from New 
York, this is our chance of having Committee input on this 
legislation because if the leadership brings the bill to the 
floor as they have with the TANF bill, and as they did during 
the previous Chairman's tenure in office as Chairman of this 
Committee, then we lose whatever input we can have and the 
opportunity to file a Committee report which may or may not 
include dissenting or additional views, as the Members desire.
    Given the timeframe that we have and what happened last 
week as a result of the tragedy involving the space shuttle, 
unfortunately, there wasn't time for a hearing, but I, you 
know, am very willing to protect the rights of the Members to 
the best I can, and that's why we're having a markup today.
    Is there objection to considering the bill as read and 
open----
    Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard and the clerk 
will read.
    The Clerk. H.R. 534, To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit human cloning.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. Short Title.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Prohibition 
Act of 2003.''
    Section 2. Prohibition on Human Cloning
    (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting after chapter 15, the following:
    Chapter 16--Human Cloning.
    Section 301. Definitions
    In this chapter:
    (1) Human Cloning. The term ``human cloning'' means human 
asexual reproduction accomplished by introducing nuclear 
material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized 
or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed 
or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any stage 
of development) that is genetically virtually identical to an 
existing or previously existing human organism.
    (2) Asexual Reproduction. The term ``asexual reproduction'' 
means reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and 
sperm.
    (3) Somatic Cell. The term ``somatic cell'' means a diploid 
cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived 
from a living or a deceased human body at any stage of 
development.
    Section 302. Prohibition on human cloning.
    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, 
knowingly----
    (1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
    (2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; 
or
    (3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced 
by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
    (b) Importation.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any purpose 
an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from 
such embryo.
    (c) Penalties.--
    (1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity that violates 
this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
more than 10 years, or both.
    (2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity that violates any 
provision of this section shall be subject to, in the case of a 
violation that involves the derivation of a pecuniary gain, a 
civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 and not more than an 
amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, 
if that amount is greater than $1,000,000.
    (d) Scientific Research.--Nothing in this section restricts 
areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by 
this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer 
or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells 
other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals 
other than humans.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to chapter 15 the following:
    16. Human Cloning . . . . 301.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on reporting the 
bill favorably.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Question on a point of information on the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Which point?
    Mr. Nadler. On page 3, lines 16 through 18, actually 
starting line 9. It says, ``It shall be unlawful for any 
person,'' etc., ``knowingly,'' line 16, ``to ship or receive 
for any purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any 
product derived from such embryo.''
    My question is, does that mean that if research were 
conducted abroad, in England let's say----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Oh, the gentleman will strike the 
last word and is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. No, I'm asking a question. This is not----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, this is part of the debate, 
so.
    Mr. Nadler. No, it's not a debate. I want to ask a 
question. I will then strike the last word.
    The question is simply, does it or does it not mean the 
following: that if research were conducted abroad and if what 
they call therapeutic cloning was done, and if let's say a 
vaccine for cancer were developed, that it would be a crime 
under this bill to import that vaccine--not embryos, but a 
product derived--to import that vaccine to give to cancer 
patients? Would that be a crime under this bill or would it 
not, under this section?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman--who wishes to 
answer this? The gentleman from North Carolina move to strike 
the last word?
    Mr. Coble. If the product----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Coble. If the product was derived from a human cloned 
embryo, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yield back his time?
    Mr. Coble. Yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This debate on this 
bill can be summarized very simply. This is a debate based on 
the majority's inclusion in this bill of a religious 
conviction, and that religious conviction, which is held by 
some denominations but not by others, is that at the moment of 
conception, or rather at the moment--at the moment of the 
formation of a cell with 46 chromosomes, whether by conception 
or by cloning techniques, a new human life is formed.
    Now, I'm not going to debate that point. From a religious 
point of view some denominations think yes. Other 
denominations, such as apparently Senator Hatch said the 
Mormons, for instance, think no. We should not be criminalizing 
fields of research which could yield all kinds of benefits for 
humanity and for people, not to mention criminalizing the 
importation of vaccines or other cures for diseases that may be 
developed abroad because we adopt one religion or several 
religions, but one religious view of an unanswerable question, 
which is when life begins.
    If you read the Bible, for example, it says if you, if you 
attack a woman deliberately and the fetus dies, you should pay 
her compensation. Obviously it's not considered that the fetus 
at that point for all purposes was a human being because 
otherwise it would be murder. But I'm not saying that we should 
adopt the biblical view. I'm saying it's no business of ours to 
adopt any religious point of view and seek to impose it on 
everyone else, which is what this bill does. And we can debate 
from here to kingdom come when life begins, and people will say 
from a scientific point of view it begins when a cell has the 
potential to start dividing and create a new organism. Well, 
one can as easily argue that from a scientific point of view 
life never begins, because the DNA just keeps dividing and 
recombining, divides every few minutes and recombines once a 
generation, but it goes on and on and on. We have the DNA of 
our ancestors.
    When one become an individual life people will differ on. 
This bill, by prohibiting reproductive cloning, which I think 
most Members would agree we probably ought to do, and 
therapeutic cloning, if that is the correct term, which simply 
means the creation of a 1-celled or a 5-celled organism which 
you then use for research or for curing diseases, which from my 
point of view is not a human being--and I understand this comes 
into the abortion debate. If it's a human being the moment it's 
one cell, then obviously you shouldn't have abortion because 
it's murder. If it isn't a human being right away, then maybe 
you should have abortion permitted. It's a whole different 
debate. We've been through that the last 40 years.
    But this bill is really a fundamentalist bill. It goes as 
far as you can go and says the moment you have one cell capable 
of dividing and--capable of potential life, that that is a 
life, that it should be murder, and that we should criminalize 
all aspects of that.
    Personally, I think that's wrong. I think that's a--it's 
a--people can choose as a matter of religion or conscience to 
believe that, but Congress ought not to impose that view on the 
many millions of people who as a religious view in this country 
do not believe that, and we should not limit the research and 
we should not condemn to death--and if you're talking about a 
right to life, what do you say about a bill that to save 
single-celled organisms, single-celled organisms with no brain, 
no senses, no feeling, no anything, will condemn to death 
thousands of tens of thousands of people, of fully developed 
human beings for lack of the product, for lack of the vaccines, 
for lack of the drugs, for lack of the products that could be 
developed using this? This bill sentences to death tens of 
thousands, maybe millions of people over generations to an 
early death because of--because--and it does so in the name of 
imposing a particular religious view on the entire United 
States.
    It's wrong morally. It's wrong in terms of imposing a 
religious view. People are entitled to their religious views. 
They're entitled to conduct themselves accordingly. But no one 
should impose that religious view on all of society. I urge the 
rejection of this bill as drafted unless it is amended to limit 
it to what is called reproductive cloning.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The bill will now be considered for 
amendment by section. The clerk will read Section 1.
    The Clerk. Section 1. Short Title.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Prohibition 
Act of 2003.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any amendments to Section 
1?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Schiff, seek recognition?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
534, offered by Mr. Schiff. Strike all after the enacting 
clause and insert the following.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is reserved. The 
clerk will continue to read.
    The Clerk. Section 1, Short Title----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, may the bill be considered as 
read?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute is considered as read.
    Does the gentleman from North Carolina wish to make a point 
of order?
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order in 
that it's not an amendment to Section 1.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does anybody else wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on the point of 
order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized on the point of order.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, the bill is in the nature--the 
amendment is in the nature of a substitute which would affect 
Section 1. It would affect all sections, but that would also 
include Section 1.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the Chair is prepared to 
rule. Only Section 1 is open to amendment since we are using 
the regular and unanimous consent was not granted, and since 
material other than in Section 1 is proposed to be amended by 
this amendment, the point of order of the gentleman from North 
Carolina is sustained, and the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is not in order.
    Mr. Watt. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
will state his parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Watt. Would the Chair inform us at what point Mr. 
Schiff's amendment would be in order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman would yield, the 
answer is amendments in the nature of a substitute, when 
there's no unanimous consent granted, takes place at the end of 
the reading of the clerk.
    Are there amendments----
    Mr. Watt. Would the Chairman--the Chairman is ruling that 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute is not going to be 
in order during this markup?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, that's not what the Chairman 
said.
    Mr. Watt. I'm sorry. I misunderstood, but----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. When unanimous consent is not 
granted and the bill has to be read, then amendments in the 
nature of a substitute are in order at the end of the reading 
of the clerk of the text of the bill that has been introduced.
    Are there any amendments to Section 1?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no amendments to 
Section 1, the clerk will read Section 2.
    The Clerk. Section 2. Purposes. It is the purpose of this 
Act to prohibit human cloning and to protect important areas of 
medical research including stem cell research.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. I think my amendment No. 1, on page 4, line 16 
is in this section.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Because there is no unanimous 
consent to consider Section 2 read and open for amendment at 
any point, the gentleman from Virginia will have to offer his 
amendment at the proper time, and the clerk will continue to 
read.
    Mr. Scott. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Scott. Could the Chairman advise me when the proper 
time would be for this amendment on page 4, line 16?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair cannot because the Chair 
hasn't seen his amendment.
    Mr. Scott. It's page 4, line 16.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, that may be a good time to 
propose your amendment then, on page 4, line 16, and the clerk 
will continue to read.
    The Clerk. In this chapter:
    (1) Human Cloning.--The term ``human cloning'' means human 
asexual reproduction accomplished by introducing nuclear 
material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized 
or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed 
or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any stage 
of development) that is genetically virtually identical to an 
existing or previously existing human organism.
    (2) Asexual Reproduction.--The term ``asexual 
reproduction'' means reproduction not initiated by the union of 
oocyte and sperm.
    (3) Somatic Cell.--The term ``somatic cell'' means a 
diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or 
derived from a living or a deceased human body at any stage of 
development.
    Section 302. Prohibition on human cloning.
    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, 
knowingly----
    (1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
    (2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; 
or
    (3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced 
by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
    (b) Importation--It shall be unlawful for any person or 
entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any purpose 
an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from 
such embryo.
    (c) Penalties.--
    (1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity that violates 
this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
more than 10 years, or both.
    (2) Civil penalty.--Any person or entity that violates any 
provision of this section shall be subject to, in the case of a 
violation that involves the derivation of a pecuniary gain, a 
civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 and not more than an 
amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, 
if that amount is greater than $1,000,000.
    (d) Scientific Research.----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    The Clerk. Nothing in this----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at line 10.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. As the Chair stated in response to 
the gentleman from Virginia, amendments to Section 2 are not in 
order until the clerk finishes the reading of Section 2. Then 
they are in order. The clerk will continue to read.
    The Clerk. 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.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to chapter 15 the following:
    16. Human Cloning . . . . 301.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments to Section 2?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to Section 2.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Amendment No. 1.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Scott 1.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 534 offered by Mr. Scott, page 
4, line 16----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, let's--since we're reading 
everything, we can read your amendment too.
    The clerk will continue to read.
    Mr. Watt. Is that an objection, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That is an objection from the 
Chair.
    Mr. Watt. All right.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will continue to read.
    The Clerk. Strike the close quotation mark and the period 
that follows.
    Page 4, after line 16 insert the following:
    (e) Exemption of Medical Treatment--The prohibitions of 
this section do not apply to the shipping, receipt, or 
importation----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I now ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment----
    Mr. Watt. I object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The clerk will continue to 
read.
    The Clerk.--for use in medical treatment of any product 
derived from an embryo (including pluripotent stem cells) if 
such product is unable to develop into a full human being.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this--the 
bill would ban not only the importation of embryos produced 
under the broad definition of cloning, but also ban the 
importation of, ``any product derived from such embryo.'' And 
that's even where it is impossible for the product to be 
developed into a full human being. What this means is, that if 
a life-saving medicine or therapeutic product is developed in 
one of the many countries outside the United States that allows 
nonreproductive research or therapeutic cloning, only those 
wealthy enough to travel there and pay for the product can be 
saved.
    That's both unnecessary to prevent human cloning and 
structurally unfair, because even though the bill might 
prohibit research involving nuclear transfer techniques, it 
would still be legal in Great Britain and elsewhere, were 
research is likely to produce significant medical advances. 
However, under the terms of this bill, Americans would be 
prohibited from importing stem cells or other medical 
treatments developed abroad simply because they were originally 
derived from a cloned embryo. That would not be beneficial 
medically. That would not prevent beneficial medically 
acceptable treatments that could save or improves lives for 
thousands of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, 
heart disease, cerebral palsy or a host of other conditions 
currently thought to be incurable.
    If the medical science produced--if medical science 
produces a miracle cure for one of these diseases, the United 
States Government should not stand in the way or require its 
citizens to travel outside its borders for such life-saving 
techniques, and so this amendment would not require FDA 
oversight of medical treatment, nor promote the importation of 
treatments that are ineffective or unsafe. It would merely 
remove those aspects of the bill which would keep safe and 
effective medical treatments out of the hands of Americans who 
desperately need them.
    I would hope that we would adopt this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Coble. I won't take 5 minutes.
    This amendment would provide an exemption to the 
prohibition to the bill for the importation of any product 
derived from an embryo if such product is unable to develop 
into a full human being.
    Effectively, Mr. Chairman, I think this exemption would 
allow for the importation of stem cells derived from cloned 
embryos. By including this amendment in the bill, we would be 
creating a financial incentive for companies outside the United 
States to produce more cloned human embryos in order to make a 
greater profit from the sale of stem cells in the United 
States. With more cloned human embryos in the world, it would 
only be a matter of time, it appears to me, before they are 
illegally being used to create a cloned human baby. If we want 
to prevent cloned human children, we must seek to stop the 
process at the beginning. If this amendment were agreed to, it 
would create an easy opportunity for a scientist or a company 
to avoid the prohibition on cloning.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott 
Amendment. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Watt. Can we have a rollcall vote?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall is demanded. Pursuant to 
the authority granted to the Chair by the Committee rules, the 
vote on the Scott amendment will be postponed, and will be 
taken at the end of offering of all of the amendments to this 
bill.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    The gentleman from Virginia have another amendment?
    Mr. Scott. I have another amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 534 offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia. Add at the end of the bill the following:
    Section 3. Study by the General Accounting Office.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is reserved.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, could the amendment be considered 
as read?
    Mr. Watt. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will continue to read the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. (a) In General.--The General Accounting Office 
shall conduct a study to assess the need (if any) for amendment 
of the prohibition on human cloning as defined in Section 301 
of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, which 
study should include--
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment 
is----
    Mr. Watt. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Mr. Watt. I object then. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
reserve the right to object to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the clerk will continue to 
read then.
    Mr. Watt. Reserving the right to object, may I be heard?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I withdraw my unanimous consent 
request. The clerk will continue to read.
    The Clerk. (1) a discussion of new developments in medical 
technology concerning human cloning and somatic cell nuclear 
transfer, the need (if any) for somatic cell nuclear transfer 
to produce medical advances, current public attitudes and 
prevailing ethical views concerning the use of somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, and potential legal implications of research 
in somatic cell nuclear transfer; and
    (2) a review of any technological developments that may 
require that technical changes be made to Section 2 of this 
Act.
    (b) Report.--The General Accounting Office shall transmit 
to the Congress, within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act, a report containing the findings and conclusions of 
its study, together with recommendations for any legislation or 
administrative actions which it considers appropriate.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes, and I would ask him to yield.
    Mr. Scott. I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia offered 
a similar amendment when the Committee considered this 
legislation last year, and at the time of consideration, I 
stated that I thought that his amendment was a good idea, and I 
still believe this amendment is a good idea. However, the 
consequence of this Committee offering the amendment or 
adopting the amendment at this point in time will trigger a 
sequential referral to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    I would make the same offer that I made to the gentleman 
from Virginia last year, in that I would support the right of 
the gentleman to offer his amendment on the floor when this 
bill comes up before the Rules Committee, so that we don't have 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce ending up having 
jurisdiction over Judiciary Committee matters, it he would 
withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate your cooperation, and ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments to Section 2? The gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 534, offered by Ms. Lofgren 
and Mr. Conyers.
    Page 4, after line 10, insert the following:
    (d) Exceptions.--The prohibitions of this section do not 
apply to the transfer of nuclei from somatic cells into 
unfertilized eggs to derive embryonic stem cells----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as----
    Mr. Watt. Objection.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. An objection is heard, and the 
clerk will continue to read.
    The Clerk. --including new cell lines, in order to further 
scientific understanding of embryonic stem cells, or to pursue 
treatments or products using embryonic stem cells, if the 
transfer is not used or intended to be used to initiate a 
pregnancy.
    Page 4, line 1, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e).''
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think if this bill were limited to a ban on reproductive 
cloning, this would be a very short markup because I believe 
that every Member of this Committee is opposed to cloning a 
child and would vote to prohibit it under law, but the bill 
before us goes much farther. It cuts the leg out of promising 
medical research, it prohibits therapeutic cloning, also known 
as somatic cell nuclear transfer.
    Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves taking an 
unfertilized egg, removing or deactivating its nucleus and 
introducing a nucleus obtained from a special somatic cell, 
such as a skill cell. 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 how and why diseases occur.
    Therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with cloning a human 
being. There is no fertilization of the egg by sperm, there's 
no implantation in the uterus, there is no pregnancy, there is 
no child. Therapeutic cloning has everything to do with saving 
lives and discovering cures to some of the most debilitating 
injuries and diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, 
Huntington's disease, M.S., epilepsy, Tay-Sachs, mental 
retardation, sickle cell anemia and even kidney failure.
    As has been mentioned by my colleague from New York, there 
are those who have religious beliefs that are at odds with 
therapeutic cloning. It seems to me that if you object on 
religious grounds to being cured of disease because you object 
to therapeutic cloning, fine, don't get your disease cured, but 
don't force millions of families affected by Alzheimer's or 
other diseases to sacrifice their hopes for your belief.
    Should an embryonic stem cell, with no central service 
system and no chance of developing into a fetus, have the same 
rights as a person suffering from diabetes? I don't think so.
    I have heard from numerous people around the country in 
support of this amendment, including, and I ask that the 
letters be made a part of the record, Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Ms. Lofgren. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the 
Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, the Biotechnology 
Industry Organization, the Society for Women's Health Research, 
the Alliance for Aging Research, the Coalition for the 
Advancement of Medical Research, the Kirsch Foundation, and 
individuals who are suffering severe illness who hope that, 
through the advancement of science, they may one day find a 
cure.
    I would note that being in support of therapeutic cloning 
and medical research is not out there. It's not some far-out 
thing to do. Recently, as has been reported in the paper, 
former First Lady Nancy Reagan wrote to Senator Orrin Hatch 
expressing her support for therapeutic stem cell research, and 
I'll quote just part of the letter that former First Lady Nancy 
Reagan wrote to Senator Hatch. She says:
    ``I'm writing to offer my support for stem cell research 
and to tell you I'm in favor of new legislation to allow the 
ethical use of therapeutic cloning. Like you, I support a 
complete ban on reproductive cloning. However, I believe that 
embryonic stem cell research, under appropriate guidelines, may 
provide our scientists with many answers that are now beyond 
our grasp.''
    ``Orrin, there are so many diseases that can be cured or at 
least helped that we can't turn our back on this. We've lost so 
much time already. I can't bear to lose any more.''
    As this Committee knows, former President Ronald Reagan is 
himself suffering severely from the march of Alzheimer's, and 
just yesterday we passed, I believe without a single no vote, a 
celebration of President Reagan's birthday, his 92nd birthday. 
I would hope that, while celebrating the former President's 
birthday, we might also think about what steps we could take so 
that he and others suffering from diseases like his might have 
the hope of a cure.
    We do know that the current state of events is insufficient 
for scientific research. This bill before us, without the 
amendment I have offered, would take the bold step of banning 
all Federal, as well as privately funded research, on embryonic 
stem cells, and it would also criminalize the importation of 
cures developed from therapeutic cloning.
    The amendment before us would not permit reproductive 
cloning. It would not let the Raelian's or anyone else clone a 
human being. It would simply protect important medical 
research.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment would 
make substantial and fundamental changes to the enforcement 
provisions of the underlying bill. Specifically, the 
prohibition of human cloning would be changed from banning all 
human cloning to only prohibiting human cloning with the intent 
to initiate a pregnancy. This approach is unenforceable, it 
seems to me. Once cloned embryos are produced and available in 
laboratories, I think it would be virtually impossible to 
control what is done with them at this point.
    In its testimony last year, the Department of Justice 
spokesman said that enforcing such a limited ban would put law 
enforcement in the unenviable position of having to impose new 
and unprecedented scrutiny over physicians in fertility clinics 
and/or research facilities to ensure that only fertilized 
embryos were being transferred to would-be mothers and not 
cloned embryos.
    Dr. Leon Cass testified at a hearing in the 107th Congress 
that stockpiles of cloned human embryos could be produced, 
bought and sold without restrictions. Implantation of cloned 
embryos, a relatively simple procedure, I'm told, would 
inevitably take place. Attempts to enforce a cloning ban would 
improve near to impossible to monitor. Creating human--strike 
that. Creating cloned human children necessarily begins by 
producing cloned human embryos. If we want to prevent cloned 
children, we need to prevent cloned embryos.
    It has been argued that H.R. 534 would have a negative 
impact on scientific research. This argument is unsupported 
both by the language bill and the testimony received by the 
Crime Subcommittee during the last Congress. The language of 
the bill specifically states that nothing shall restrict areas 
of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this 
bill, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or 
other cloning techniques used to produce molecules, DNA, cells, 
other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals 
other than humans.
    Any cloning experience runs the risk of high failure. In 
all of the animal experiments, fewer than 2 to 3 percent of all 
cloning attempts succeeded. There were numerous fetal deaths 
and stillborn deaths--stillborn births.
    Based on these experiments, cloning human beings also 
carries massive risks of producing unhealthy, abnormal and 
malformed children. The only way to prevent this from happening 
is to adopt the restrictions on human cloning, as set forth in 
H.R. 534.
    As Professor Bradley, I think from Notre Dame, I believe, 
testified, the only effective way to prohibit human 
reproductive cloning is to prohibit all human cloning. 
Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health and the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission have expressed serious concerns 
over creating embryos specifically for research purposes.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment 
and support the provisions of the underlying bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from New York seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. To strike the last word on this.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment, as Mr. Coble said, goes to the heart of the 
bill and really simply says that we should not utilize this 
bill to prohibit development of embryonic stem cells from 
cloned embryos, if you will, for scientific research. Mr. Coble 
incorrectly states that this bill will not prevent scientific 
research, and he reads from the bill when he says it shall not 
prevent scientific research except for what is specifically 
prohibited, which is almost all scientific research is 
specifically prohibited.
    All scientific research with embryonic stem cells or any 
other products derived from a clone cell is specifically 
prohibited, which is a very large area of research, indeed, and 
that's not debatable. That's a fact.
    This bill seeks to prevent a large area of research, and 
the question is should we do so.
    Now, I want to address that because we keep saying that it 
is said that--let me address one other thing. Mr. Cass, whom 
the President and some others think is an eminent bioethicist 
and others think is a quack, has said that if you allow so-
called therapeutic cloning, how can you prevent--it becomes 
almost impossible to prevent reproductive cloning.
    Well, that, frankly, is absurd. Because the fact is you're 
going to, whether you prevent therapeutic cloning or not, 
whether you prohibit therapeutic cloning or not, you're going 
to have to, if you want to prohibit so-called reproductive 
cloning, you're going to have to watch what's going on, but you 
don't have to watch what's going on in every petri dish. It 
would be a crime to implant an embryo in a human, in a woman's 
uterus. That's a crime. That you could see, and that's a very 
clear act, and either you do it or you don't do it. And if you 
make it criminal, as I think most of us agree it should be, 
it's a very clear thing to look at. You don't have to examine 
what's in the petri dishes.
    So the slippery slope argument doesn't really apply. The 
real argument that applies, as I said, again, and I think 
people should be honest enough to admit that the real impetus 
for the ban in this bill on therapeutic cloning, so-called, is 
the feeling that a one-celled organism, a zygote, is a human 
being. That's what the right-to-life movement says, that's what 
some of the anti-abortion people say. They're entitled to their 
view, but that's--and if you agree with that, then this bill 
makes sense. If you don't agree with that, this bill doesn't 
make sense.
    I want to read from an article in the March 14, I think 
it's in The Washington Post, March 14 of last year. ``The 
Nation's largest orthodox Jewish organizations declared their 
support yesterday for allowing scientists to clone human 
embryos for medical research, breaking with some conservative 
Christian groups on a topic of hot debate in the Senate.''
    ``Nathan Diament, the Orthodox Union's director of Public 
Policy said that `he hopes the State will help people to 
understand that there is a religiously informed moral basis for 
supporting this research that is at least as strong as the 
religiously informed moral basis for opposing it.''
    ``Edward Reichman, an orthodox rabbi and physician at 
Einstein College of Medicine in New York said the Jewish 
position is that a `fertilized embryo in a petri dish does not 
have the same status of human life,' and if such an embryo can 
be used to cure diseases and save lives, `that is something we 
would welcome with open arms.''
    ``Muslim groups, Mormons and some mainline Protestant 
denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the 
Presbyterian Church, have supported such stem cell research.''
    ``Opponents of the procedure argued that it involves the 
destruction of life, and in the words of Cardinal Theodore 
McCarrick of Washington, beckons scientists to `take on the 
role of God and reduce humans to mere spare parts.''
    ``Adin Steinsaltz, an Israeli rabbi and renowned Talmudic 
scholar, said Jews generally reject the notion that human 
beings should not `interfere with the handiwork of God.' We 
believe that mankind is given not only the permission, but the 
admonition to make the world better,'' he said.
    Now, my point from quoting this is not to say that any of 
these people I just quoted are right or wrong, but these are 
all different religious views, they're legitimate religious 
views, and it is wrong, it is wrong morally, it is wrong 
politically, it is wrong ethically to use political power in 
this Congress, in this Committee, to codify a particular 
religious view and to criminalize people with different 
religious views and to criminalize the conduct of people with 
different religious views, conduct that may save thousands and 
tens of thousands of human lives.
    That's what this bill does. This amendment would correct 
that. Hopefully, this and several other amendments would 
correct that, but without this amendment or similar amendments, 
this bill adopts a particular religious view, says, in effect, 
to many people in this country, maybe the majority, we think 
your religious view is wrong and unethical or immoral or wrong, 
and we're going to use political power to impose a particular 
religious view so that we cannot cure you or your mother or 
your father of many different diseases and that you should have 
an early death.
    This, frankly, is not only a wrong bill, but for that 
reason it's an immoral bill, and I support the amendment.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. And I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a journey well-traveled. Let me make it perfectly 
clear that the quack-like, circus-like presentations of the 
last couple of months, with the suggestion that there are 
hidden clone babies all over the Nation was an unpleasant 
experience. It was not enhancing to the needs of science, 
medical research. To my knowledge, the cloned baby or babies, 
as has been noted, have yet to be produced. The presentations 
were unscientific, at best, circus-like more often.
    We should, as a collective body, with the responsibilities 
of upholding the Constitution, abhor that and pass legislation 
that denies that. We tried to get that consensus and 
understanding in the last session when we reviewed this very 
same legislative initiative. Unfortunately, we come again 
without the wisdom of the many, many victims who have been 
helped by stem cell research; the many physicians and 
scientists who are doing straight, direct and effective 
research around the Nation, who are begging us to allow them to 
continue to do research to save lives.
    Specifically, I rise to support the Zoe Lofgren amendment, 
which clearly is precise, and distinctive and understandable. 
It exempts therapeutic cloning of stem cells for research into 
some of the most horrific injuries and disabling diseases. 
There are well-known personalities that all of us have seen who 
have spent most of their lives, since their terrible injury, 
trying to educate us on what the value of stem cell research 
means.
    Where we go today is an insult to them and a threat to 
their lives because the legislation will not allow us to 
contain it for what we want to contain it for, and that is to 
suggest to the world that this Congress stands against human 
cloning, to stand on the values and the principles of this 
country and human dignity, but yet we mix and match and 
undermine.
    And I believe that the Zoe Lofgren legislation or 
amendment, clearly enunciating that reproductive cloning is 
wrong and should be banned, we could not get more obvious than 
that, suggesting that this legislation, however, hampers 
research, why don't we have an opportunity to have an array of 
doctors here from all walks of life expressing to us how 
important this therapeutic research is to their work?
    I will have to leave this hearing because I am a few doors 
away in the Senate dealing with the tragedy of the Columbia 
seven, men and women who were willing to offer their lives, 
sacrifice their lives so that enormous research could be done 
in space to save our lives in diabetes and other areas, of 
course--diabetes, stroke, heart disease, cancer. And it seems 
to me that we do a disservice to those brave souls willing to 
sacrifice their lives for research that would help us by not 
passing this amendment that gets us squarely on the point, and 
that is the point that we abhor, that we find intolerable and 
illegal human cloning, but that we want therapeutic stem cell 
research to go forward.
    I would rise enthusiastically to support her amendment as I 
leave, and I also want to put on the record that I support the 
Scott amendment, the Lofgren-Nadler and Schiff, even though I 
will not be here, and of course I know that the votes have not 
been taken, and I oppose final passage.
    I would be happy to yield to the distinguished gentlelady 
from California.
    [The prepared staement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for yielding.
    I would just like to note we have focused quite often on 
the needs of those who are suffering from illnesses and the 
need for their cures that may come through therapeutic cloning 
solutions. However, the gentlelady from Texas has touched on 
another issue which also deserves our attention, and that is 
the role of the United States leading the world in science and 
in research.
    And I think it's worth pointing out that the cutting-edge 
research undertaken by the University of California in San 
Francisco has now been moved off-shore to Great Britain because 
of the threats that those scientists felt from the actions that 
the Administration and this Congress is either taking or 
discussing.
    I think it's important that we do not become the scientific 
backwater of the world because we have established a theocracy 
here.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from California seek recognition?
    Mr. Schiff. Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute which mirrors the 
Feinstein-Hatch bill in the Senate, but as this amendment is 
substantially similar to what my colleague from California, Zoe 
Lofgren, has offered, in the interest of time and because my 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is rather lengthy, and 
I would not want to indulge the Committee to have to read the 
entire amendment, I will waive the offering of that amendment 
and instead voice my support for my colleague's amendment from 
California.
    I'd like to use my time to not repeat some of the ground 
that's been covered, but rather address some of the points that 
the opposition to this amendment has made. After all, both the 
base bill and the amendment do much the same thing in that they 
ban cloning for reproductive purposes. The only area of 
substantial distinction is whether we should ban somatic cell 
nuclear transfer for therapeutic purposes, and there are 
basically three arguments that are made against this amendment 
and against this principle.
    The first is that other stem cells will do. We don't need 
to use somatic cell nuclear transfer. We can use other stem 
cells. We can use adult stem cells. The fact of the matter is 
that at the present state of the science, there is no adequate 
substitute for this research, important research and 
therapeutic technique, and why is that true? Because when you 
transfer the nuclear material into the egg from the donor, it 
has the donor's genetic information, and that means that it 
won't be rejected by the donor.
    So we have, really, a choice between two lines of 
treatment; one, where we don't transfer the nuclear material, 
and it is likely to be rejected, and you have to use very 
destructive immunosuppressant drugs; or, two, you can use the 
nuclear transfer technology, and it won't be rejected because 
basically the body believes it is from the same body as the 
donor.
    This is an enormous advantage. Now, it may be that science 
catches up with us. It may be that through research with 
somatic cell nuclear transfer that we learn how we can 
differentiate adult stem cells so that this is no longer 
necessary, but we can't get there from here without this 
important scientific research. So other stem cell techniques 
will not do. They are not an adequate substitute, and I'd like 
to introduce in the record the statement of 40 Nobel Laureates 
in Science supporting this Feinstein-Hatch analogous 
legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the statement 
will be included in the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Schiff. Second, the argument is made by my colleagues 
that this will increase the likelihood of abuse, that law 
enforcement won't be able to tell, when they go into a 
laboratory, where the nucleus has been transferred, where it 
hasn't, and this will impede law enforcement.
    Well, by this argument, we should shut down all fertility 
clinics because you can conduct this kind of work in any 
fertility clinic that does in vitro fertilization. No one would 
suggest that we ought to prohibit fertility treatments because 
of potential abuse. That is simply not a compelling argument.
    The only argument that is compelling at all is the argument 
that life has begun, and on this point, each of us brings into 
this Committee, and none of us are going to be persuaded by the 
other, a philosophical moral view about when life begins. But I 
think the reason why the Senate has bipartisan support for this 
therapeutic exception is that, while we cannot agree when life 
begins, many of us can, nonetheless, agree that that is a very 
personal, moral decision, that we should not use the coercive 
power of the Government to decide for others that essential 
question. That is not susceptible to a scientific answer.
    So should we use the coercive effect of the Government, the 
criminal penalties of the Government to say that because I feel 
or someone else feels that life begins at a certain point that 
we will prevent those who feel differently from obtaining 
treatment that may save their lives?
    Now, I don't happen to think that life begins with a 
somatic cell nuclear transplant. At one level, you could say 
that a living cell is life, and life begins even before 
conception or before nuclear transfer, but even if I felt 
otherwise, I would agree, I think, with Senator Hatch and many 
who share that view, but nonetheless feel that the coercive 
power of the Government should not be used to decide that 
question for others in a way that inhibits their ability to 
receive needed treatment.
    Those that do feel that way can take a principled stand 
say, ``I won't use the benefit of any of this research that has 
utilized this scientific research. I won't accept it because of 
the way it was generated.'' That's a principled view, but 
that's different from saying, ``I will deny to all others who 
see this question differently the ability to get treated for 
the diseases that they suffer.''
    And so I urge support for Zoe Lofgren's amendment. I urge 
support for the Senate bill introduced by Senators Hatch and 
Feinstein.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Pence. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Indiana seek recognition?
    Mr. Pence. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to express my respect and appreciation for the 
authors of this amendment and the sincerity of their purpose. 
The gentlelady from California and I got to spend some time 
together on September 11th, 2001, in which we forged a 
friendship, and I have since come to appreciate her compassion 
and her deep commitment to the betterment of the lives of 
American families, and so I don't question the intention, Mr. 
Chairman, of the authors of this amendment, but I do question 
it's wisdom.
    We have heard reference to opposition to this amendment and 
opposition to therapeutic cloning as being an example of the 
advent of theocracy in America or the advent of imposing 
religion through Government power, and I would rather offer 
that humility before even nascent human life is at the very 
center of what has been unique and special about Western 
civilization, that whenever, as the gentleman from California 
just alluded, whenever one slices this issue of when life 
begins, there is no question but that we are dealing, at 
minimum, with nascent human life.
    And I am of a mind, as, in my view, has been the 
overwhelming majority of intellectual thinking throughout the 
history of Western civilization, that consolidated power, 
Government power, the power of individuals acting in a 
collective way ought to back ever and always slowly away from 
the awesome power of human life, that history is pockmarked, 
sadly, with hundreds, if not thousands, of instances of formal 
Government power intruding itself on even nascent human life 
and trampling the rights of individuals. There is almost no 
Government action of which we can be more confident, with the 
study of 5,000 years-plus of recorded human history, that 
governments, if given the ability to trample on human beings, 
trample on human beings.
    And so I would oppose this amendment simply on the basis of 
counseling humility, counseling respect for moral traditions 
and offering very sincerely that I don't believe this is a 
question of religion, per se, but it is a question that we're, 
and it's a very unique thing to see the agreement on this panel 
on any issue, leaving aside the issue of human cloning, where 
we all agree, but to hopefully, Mr. Chairman, produce a bill 
today which would not include an exception that would, in my 
humble opinion, nullify much of what we hope to accomplish in 
this body in putting a strong and humble stand down of respect 
for nascent human life.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
    Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Speaking in support of the amendment offered by 
Congresswoman Lofgren and urge its acceptance by this 
Committee. It would exempt research for therapies derived from 
embryonic stem cells from the ban proposed under H.R. 534.
    This research is a critical tool in the battle against 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord 
injuries and other debilitating and sometimes life-ending 
conditions. We know that scientists have made tremendous 
strides in recent years with technologies that were not even 
imagined only a few years ago, and much of this research is 
very exciting in its potential to heal the sick and to improve 
the quality of life for patients around the world.
    I am hopeful that in the coming months and years, 
researchers will learn more about the unique properties of 
embryonic stem cells, what they can do for patients with 
debilitating diseases.
    I'm proud also that a number of the existing stem cell 
lines that are eligible for use in federally supported research 
were developed in the congressional district that I represent, 
and I strongly support the research that scientists at the 
University of Wisconsin are advancing.
    Medical research focuses on preventing disease, curing 
disease, slowing the progress of disease, lengthening life and 
easing pain. Cloning for the purposes of medical research is 
not the same as cloning for the purposes of reproduction. I am 
opposed to the latter, I think that is the consensus, but I 
believe that if there is a possibility that therapeutic cloning 
could provide a cure that would save the lives of millions of 
patients who suffer every day with terrible diseases, then we 
should do everything we can to encourage this research.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield 
back my remaining time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Lofgren 
amendment.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested and 
will be granted, and pursuant to the provision of Committee 
rules, the vote on this question will be postponed.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
and this amendment is co-sponsored by Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the Nadler-
Jackson Lee amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 534, offered by Mr. Nadler and 
Ms. Jackson Lee.
    ``Page 4, line 16, strike the close quotation mark and the 
period that follows.''
    ``Page 4, after line 16, insert the following:''
    ``(e) Exceptions----''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment would address a very serious 
problem arising from the intersection of this legislation and 
President Bush's limitations on stem cell research. We all know 
that the President issued an order limiting stem cell research 
to the 70 or so cell lines in existence as of August 9, 2001.
    This legislation takes that order and sets it in stone with 
regard to embryonic stem cells, but one problem is that of the 
70 lines grandfathered by President Bush's order, only a 
handful, certainly less than 10, in fact, are usable 
scientifically. One problem with the small number of lines is 
that it in no way represents the genetic diversity of our 
population.
    The lines which are in existence are all from either 
Singapore, Scandinavia, India and the University of Wisconsin. 
They are all derived from people who are of a sufficient level 
of affluence to be seeking in vitro fertilization. Not 
surprisingly, there are few, if any, cell lines derived, for 
example, from African Americans. The researchers using these 
cells have told us so, among them Professor Irving Weissman of 
the Stanford University Stem Cell Institute, and the chair of 
the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Stem Cells has 
informed us of this fact.
    This means that it is next to impossible to use the stem 
cell lines that are in existence that were grandfathered under 
the President's order to research or potentially to cure 
diseases which are particularly prevalent in people of 
particular racial or ethnic groups, such as, for example, 
sickle cell diseases in African Americans or Tay-Sachs disease 
for Ashkenazic Jews.
    The Institute of Medicine study explains in detail that the 
fewer cell lines that are available to researchers the lower 
the genetic diversity they represent. As a result, Ms. Jackson 
Lee and I are offering an amendment which would amend the bill 
to permit additional stem cell research solely for the purpose 
of creating genetically diverse stem cell lines for different 
population groups so that all population groups may be hopeful 
of cures for diseases which may be particularly prevalent in 
their genetic population group.
    We already have a digital divide. The last thing we need is 
a biotech divide. This amendment would help make sure that the 
research that is being done is not done in any sort of 
discriminatory basis, not with any intent, but in effect that's 
what the President's order would do, and if codified by this 
bill would do because there is simply not genetic diversity in 
those fewer than 10 stem cell lines.
    I hope Members on both sides of the aisle would join in 
approving this common-sense amendment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Coble. This is popularly known as the SCNT approach. 
This amendment, Mr. Chairman and Members, would add a provision 
to the bill which, in effect, states that nothing in this act 
shall prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to 
produce stem cells.
    I oppose the amendment for two reasons. Number one, the 
amendment is unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing in this 
bill that would prohibit stem cell research that does not 
require the cloning of humans. The language of the bill 
specifically states that nothing shall restrict areas of 
scientific research not specifically prohibited by this bill, 
including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other 
cloning techniques used to produce molecules, DNA cells, other 
than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants or animals other 
than humans.
    The second reason I oppose the amendment is that I believe 
the language is too broad. The amendment cites the medical 
procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is the 
procedure by which cloned human embryos are created. It may be 
unintentional, but I believe that the language could be 
interpreted to create a loophole for the production of cloned 
human embryos from stem cell research purposes.
    If it is intentional, then I think that what the sponsor 
may be trying to create is an exception to the bill for what 
has been called therapeutic cloning. This would amount to a 
partial ban on human cloning that I believe would be 
unenforceable.
    As I have stated earlier, Mr. Chairman and Members, once 
cloned embryos are produced and available in laboratories, it 
is virtually impossible to control what is done with them. In 
his testimony last year, and I have said this before, but I 
want to emphasize it, the Department of Justice spokesman said 
that enforcing such a limited ban would put law enforcement in 
the unenviable position of having to impose new and 
unprecedented scrutiny over physicians and fertility clinics 
and/or research facilities to ensure that only fertilized 
embryos were being transferred to would-be mothers and not 
cloned embryos.
    Creating cloned human children, as I said earlier, and I 
apologize for repeating it, but it begins by producing cloned 
human embryos. And if we want to prevent cloned children, we 
need to, by necessity, prevent cloned embryos, and I urge my 
colleagues to----
    Mr. Nadler. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Coble. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The gentleman partially misstates 
the amendment and partially understands it correctly. Let me 
just clarify.
    This, indeed, would create, I won't call it a loophole, I 
will call it an exception, and permit the cloning of single 
cells for the purpose of generating stem cells, but not for the 
purpose of generating any stem cells--that was a prior 
amendment--for the purpose of generating only stem cells 
necessary to have genetically diverse embryonic cell lines, and 
that's what the amendment does, and it was intentional, and 
that's exactly the purpose of the amendment.
    And I would simply add one other thing. Again, I must state 
that if the Justice Department is worried about how to enforce 
whether a clinic is implanting in a woman's uterus a cloned 
embryo, as opposed to a noncloned embryo, they have to be just 
as worried about, and have just as much intrusive, not more/not 
less intrusion to look into the lab to see if they're creating 
a cloned embryo, whether therapeutic cloning is legal or 
whether therapeutic cloning is illegal.
    The key act is implantation in the uterus. You have to 
check that whether you adopt one version of this bill or the 
other version of this bill. There's no difference there.
    I yield back. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from North 
Carolina yield back?
    Mr. Coble. Yes, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Alabama seek recognition?
    Mr. Bachus. To oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler, in advocating for the 
previous amendment, read a statement, and I think when he read 
it, I think one thing it does highlight for both sides what the 
issue is. What he quoted from a few minutes ago was The 
Washington Post, an article by Alan Cooperman, March 13, 2002. 
And what Mr. Nadler read, and let me read it again because it 
basically distills what this whole debate is about, and you 
have to fall out on one side or the other because we're going 
to have to vote in a few minutes on this amendment and on the 
previous one.
    It says, ``The Nation's largest orthodox Jewish 
organizations declared their support yesterday for allowing 
scientists to clone human embryos for medical research, 
breaking with some conservative Christian groups on a topic of 
hot debate in the Senate.''
    I would agree with Mr. Nadler that, you know, we don't have 
to, I mean, it's not a religious argument, it's just we could 
actually read that. Another way to read it is some 
organizations declared their support yesterday for allowing 
scientists to clone human embryos for medical research, 
breaking with other groups on a topic of hot debate. I mean, 
one side or the other, that's what----
    Now, let me quote another quote out of this article, 
because this is the essence of all of this.
    ``The approach endorsed yesterday by,'' one of the groups, 
the head of that organization said, and here is the whole 
issue, ``We must be careful to distinguish between cloning for 
therapeutic purposes which ought to be pursued and cloning for 
reproductive purposes which we oppose.''
    That's absolutely what we're talking about here. Now, some 
of us don't believe that scientists should clone human embryos 
for any purpose. Now, that's how I'm going to vote. Others 
believe that scientists ought to be able to, in his words, 
``clone human embryos for medical research.''
    That's what we're going to be voting on. Some people say we 
can distinguish, and there's a difference, and you know you can 
be for one, but there's a distinction between cloning for 
therapeutic purposes, which is okay, and cloning for 
reproductive purposes, which we oppose.
    I am going to vote, because I think that cloning for, if 
cloning is wrong, it's wrong for any purpose. But I can, I 
mean, I respect the gentleman's opinion that you can say that 
cloning for some purposes is okay, cloning of human embryos, 
cloning for other purposes is morally wrong. I disagree. I just 
don't see the distinction, and that's what we're going to be 
voting on.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. Whether or not we will allow scientists, in the 
words of The Washington Post or this group, whether we're going 
to allow scientists to clone human beings for medical research 
or for whatever other purposes. I'm opposed to it.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I would yield.
    Mr. Nadler. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
agree with the gentleman that that is the crux of the debate 
here. The point I was trying to make, let me read, again, one 
sentence from the same article. This is right after the one 
that you read before at the top of the page. His name is Edward 
Reichman, ``an orthodox rabbi and physician,'' and so forth, 
``said the Jewish position, the Jewish religious position is 
that a `fertilized embryo in a petri dish does not have the 
same status of human life,' and if such an embryo can be used 
to cure diseases and save lives, `that is something we would 
welcome with open arms.' ''
    The nub of this whole question is does one consider a 
fertilized embryo in a petri dish as a human life or not? If 
one does, then obviously cloning in order to generate an embryo 
and then a cell line which will be destroyed is murder. If one 
does not think that's a human life, then it's a scientific 
procedure which may be a good thing to develop cures.
    So the nub of the question is does an embryo in a petri 
dish have the status of human life. The point or not. The point 
I was making before is that you could name half a dozen 
religious groups that say, yes; you can name half a dozen 
religious groups, including the one that happened to be in this 
article, that say, no. And my point is that that's a religious 
question, really. Science can give you no answer to it. You 
could debate it endlessly in science. And a religious view 
should not be, in my view, imposed on people of all religious 
views in this society by Government, and that's the point why I 
oppose this bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman----
    Mr. Bachus. Would the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Nadler. I yield back, of course.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman now has 
expired.
    The question is on the Nadler----
    Mr. Nadler. And I thank the gentleman.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I wanted, I don't know that I'll use the 
entire 5 minutes, but I think, clearly, we understand the 
disagreements that are among us here, but I think that Mr. 
Nadler's amendment also draws attention to a narrower issue. As 
we know, there are some stem cells that currently exist that 
are being utilized for research purposes. The President made a 
large announcement about that the summer before last.
    When those stem cells were devised, those researchers who 
were doing the lab work I don't think ever envisioned that that 
would be the end of it, that it was only going to be those few 
research opportunities, and as I understand it, as is often the 
case in science research, the donors of the skin cells and the 
like tend to be graduate students at a university.
    They did not do a survey of the genetic richness of 
society, understanding that that would be a necessity, and so I 
think that you would find, at least the reports that I have 
written, is that those stem cells do not necessarily 
accommodate genetic differences that might be prevalent, 
although not 100 percent, in certain Asian populations or in 
certain African populations or, for example, Tay-Sachs, which 
is often a genetic defect that might be found in Jewish people 
from the Mediterranean area.
    And so what Mr. Nadler's amendment is saying is address the 
genetic narrowness that exists on the current stem cell 
panoply. I think we should go farther, as my amendment would 
have done, but I would hope that we could search, those of us 
who disagree with my amendment, and I have heard you, might 
sort through whether really it is fair that the full richness 
of American society, the genetic richness that is often 
connected, although not completely, with the origins of where 
one's family, what continent one's family originally came from 
would not be represented on the current stem cell lines, and 
therefore there would be a discriminatory result for cures that 
might result from even the research that the President says he 
approves of.
    And so that is I think the specific point that Mr. Nadler 
is making, and I think it's a good one, and it deserves the 
consideration of those who even disagreed with the broader 
amendment that I offered a while ago, and I would yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 534, offered by Ms. Sanchez.
    Page 4, line 16, strike the close quotation mark and the 
period which follows.
    Page 4, after line 16, insert the following:
    ``(e) Sunset. The prohibitions of this section do not apply 
to any activity occurring on----''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes. And before recognizing you, it is my 
understanding that this is the last amendment; am I correct?
    The chair will state that we will vote on the postponed 
votes immediately after the voice vote on the Sanchez 
amendment. So I would ask the staff on both sides to summon the 
Members because we will be voting shortly.
    The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The proposed amendment is a sunset provision to H.R. 534, 
and what it allows is Congress to, after a 3-year period, to 
revisit the many issues that we've been discussing today.
    Research in cell technologies, including in the field of 
embryonic stem cells, has been described as having vast 
potential for medical use and for curing what we thought were 
incurable diseases. However, we currently know very little 
about the exact mechanisms of cell development or about the 
potential for clinical treatments using these technologies.
    Given the pace of scientific research here and abroad, in 3 
years, I'm sure we will likely know far more about the medical 
uses of these technologies to cure diseases and save lives.
    The state of scientific knowledge and medical technology is 
changing rapidly, and over time could make the laws that we 
enact today obsolete. Congress, I believe, deserves the 
opportunity to review this legislation after an appropriate 
time so that we do not make a legal change that is permanent to 
govern science that is constantly in flux.
    In its comprehensive report on human cloning, the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended a sunset of a 3- to 
5-year range. The report called the sunset provision critical 
because it would guarantee that Congress would return to these 
issues and reconsider them in light of new scientific 
developments.
    This amendment is a modest step to do that, and I urge the 
Committee's consideration for this amendment.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I want to oppose the 
gentlelady's----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Coble.--oppose the amendment offered by the gentlelady 
from California, and I will not take 5 minutes.
    This amendment contains, as the gentlelady said, a 3-year 
sunset provision so that none of the prohibitions on human 
cloning would be in effect 3 years after enactment of the bill. 
I oppose the amendment because, obviously, we don't know what 
the status of our bio technological capabilities are going to 
be 3 years from now, much less 6 months or even 6 weeks from 
now.
    So, until we're in a position to know what the future 
holds, I think we should avoid automatically sunsetting any 
legislation, certainly one of this significance.
    Secondly, Congress can, as we all know, if it chooses, 3 
years from now or at any point, change the law after we have 
had an opportunity to reexamine the issue and have sufficient 
knowledge to know that we are continuing to protect people from 
unethical experimentation procedures, and for those reasons, 
Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Coble. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott. What purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from North 
Carolina is right. We don't know what the status will be the 
next year or the year after that or the year after that, and 
that's why we need to revisit the issue, and why I support the 
amendment.
    There is a clear consensus on cloning of--reproductive 
cloning for live human beings, but the research on diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and others is alive and well, 
and we need to revisit. If this bill is to pass, we really need 
to revisit it, and a 3-year period would give us ample time.
    This is a fast-moving area. Every day there's more news and 
more research, and it would be unfortunate if we locked 
ourselves in to a perpetual ban on this kind of research. So I 
would hope that the amendment from the gentlelady from 
California would be adopted.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no further amendments, 
consideration will resume of those amendments which were 
debated earlier today and upon which the votes were postponed.
    The votes will be taken in the following order:
    First, the Scott amendment, relative to importation, upon 
which the noes prevailed by a voice vote;
    Second, the Lofgren amendment, relative to therapeutic 
cloning, upon which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
    The clerk will re-report, redesignate the Scott amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 534, offered by Mr. Scott.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on adoption of the 
Scott amendment.
    Those in favor will, as your names are called, answer aye; 
those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there Members in the chamber 
who wish to cast or change their votes?
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. I have not reported.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green has not reported.
    Mr. Green. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further Members in the 
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote? If not, the 
clerk will report.
    The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will try again.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 19 nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is now on agreeing to the amendment relative 
to therapeutic cloning offered by the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren, upon which the noes prevailed by a 
voice vote.
    Those in favor of the Lofgren amendment will, as your names 
are called, answer aye; those opposed, no, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there Members in the chamber 
who wish to cast or change their vote?
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no further Members who 
wish to cast or change their vote, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 19 nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is on reporting the bill favorably. A 
reporting quorum is present.
    Those in favor of reporting the bill favorably will say 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes have it.
    A recorded vote is requested. Those in favor of reporting 
the bill favorably will, as your names are called, answer aye; 
those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn?
    Mrs. Blackburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the 
chamber who wish to cast or change their votes?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 19 ayes and 12 nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably 
is agreed to.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, 
and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by the House 
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental 
or minority views.
    The chair thanks the Members for their cooperation. We 
don't have to come back this afternoon. Have a good lunch, and 
the Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                            Dissenting Views

    We strongly dissent from H.R. 534 as reported by the 
Judiciary Committee. We agree that human cloning--the 
production of children genetically identical to existing or 
previously existing human beings--is unsafe and unethical and 
should be prohibited. However, H.R. 534 would extend the bill's 
prohibitions far beyond the goal of banning human cloning and 
would prevent our citizens from benefitting from ongoing or 
prospective stem cell research.
    We must also object to the Committee considering this 
legislation without the benefit of a hearing this Congress. 
This is inappropriate for any piece of major legislation, but 
is particularly objectionable in the case of a life and death 
issue concerning complex and rapidly evolving technology. We 
also have five new members on our Committee and they are 
entitled to learn about this issue first hand. By not 
conducting a hearing, the Majority has done a disservice to the 
Committee, the Congress and the American people.
    The bill before us is so sweeping that it would not only 
ban reproductive cloning, but all uses of nuclear transfer--
also known as therapeutic cloning--for research or medical 
treatment. This would block treatments designed to help persons 
suffering from Alzheimer's, diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's 
disease, heart disease, or spinal cord injury, to name but a 
few. If this bill passes into law, it would interfere with both 
privately and publicly funded stem cell research and would go 
so far as to ban a technique that could allow patients 
receiving stem cell treatments to avoid taking dangerous 
immunosuppressive drugs. The bill is so broadly written that it 
bans the importation of lifesaving medicines from other 
countries if their production is in any way derived from 
nuclear transfer. This means that if another nation's 
scientists used stem cell research to develop a cure for 
cancer, it would be illegal for persons living in this country 
to benefit from the drug. In addition, the legislation could 
operate to ban legal and unobjectionable infertility 
treatments. We further object that this bill would enforce 
genetic discrimination in stem cell research by limiting any 
future research to existing lines that in no way represent the 
genetic diversity of the human population.
    It is for these reasons that numerous national 
organizations that represent patients and research institutions 
oppose this legislation and support H.R. 801 which would ban 
human cloning without endangering therapeutic cloning and stem 
cell research. These organizations include the Coalition for 
the Advancement of Medical Research, University of Wisconsin at 
Madison, Columbia University Health Sciences Division, American 
Society for Reproductive Medicine, Cancer Research and 
Prevention Foundation, Rett Syndrome Research Foundation, 
National Venture Capital Association, American Society of 
Hematology, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, 
Association of American Medical Colleges, Christopher Reeve 
Paralysis Foundation, American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, Hadassah, Resolve, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric 
AIDS Foundation, Association of American Universities, Alliance 
for Aging Research, Children's Neurobiological Solutions 
Foundation, Project A.L.S.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letters From 27 Organizations to Representative Jim Greenwood 
(February, 2003). On file with the House Judiciary Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Legislation and Democratic Concerns
    H.R. 534 makes human somatic cell nuclear transfer into an 
egg a Federal felony. This nuclear transfer process consists of 
removing or inactivating the nuclear material of an egg and 
transferring into the egg the nuclear material and DNA from one 
or more human somatic cells (cells with the full complement of 
genes). There is no requirement that the transfer produce a 
child. The bill therefore criminalizes a scientific research 
process that takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the 
intent of the researcher or of the inability for this process 
to result in the birth of a cloned child.\2\ The penalty for 
violating these provisions includes sanctions of a criminal 
fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years, and a civil 
penalty of at least $1 million.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The bill contains a ``scientific research'' exception for the 
use of cloning techniques to produce copies of DNA, tissues, organs, 
plants, or animals other than humans, but the research uses of nuclear 
transfer remain forbidden. Even if the oocyte had been modified so that 
it could not develop into a full human being, it would still be illegal 
to perform the transfer.
    \3\ In cases involving a pecuniary gain, the civil penalty is to be 
no less than $1 million and no more than twice the gross gain, if that 
sum exceeds $1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful knowingly to 
attempt to perform nuclear transfer, to participate in such an 
attempt, or to ship, receive, or import for any purpose the 
embryos produced by nuclear transfer or products derived from 
such embryos. The importation of such products is prohibited 
regardless of whether they are capable of developing into a 
full human being; an American with an otherwise incurable 
disease therefore would be prohibited from importing a stem 
cell treatment developed abroad, where nuclear transfer 
research might be protected, if the stem cells were in any way 
derived from therapeutically cloned embryos.
    By imposing these prohibitions, the bill would extend the 
reach of the criminal law into areas of pure scientific 
research. Currently, the Federal Government attempts to shape 
scientific research mainly through conditions on Federal 
funding. Making a Federal felony of somatic cell nuclear 
transfer (which takes place entirely in a petri dish, with no 
human or animal subjects) would represent an unprecedented 
intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific process.
    If H.R. 534 were to pass into law in its present form it 
would be difficult, if not impossible, for our nation to 
benefit from stem cell research that is currently ongoing or 
that would take place in the future. This is because somatic 
cell nuclear transfer holds the promise of leading to further 
breakthroughs in stem cell research that would bring the fruits 
of this research to the bedside to help patients. The bill 
prohibits the importation of safe and effective medical 
treatments, and it would use the criminal law to interfere with 
the scientific process and with advanced infertility 
treatments. For these and the reasons set forth herein, we 
dissent from the legislation.

           I. DEMOCRATS WOULD SUPPORT A BAN ON HUMAN CLONING,
                       BUT H.R. 534 GOES TOO FAR

    This Congress can and should outlaw the practice of human 
cloning. Experiments in animal cloning have revealed 
exceptionally high rates of deformities and birth defects, and 
the use of this procedure in humans has been almost unanimously 
rejected by the scientific community as unsafe to both mother 
and child.\4\ Beyond issues of safety, using human cloning to 
produce a child would raise significant ethical problems, 
bringing the status of the child into question and raising 
severe dangers of abuse.\5\ No pressing need exists to allow 
such cloning, and we believe it is appropriate for Congress to 
make the practice illegal. This is why at markup, Democrats 
voted in favor of the amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren which 
would have exempted research in therapeutic cloning from the 
ban and focused the bill on reproductive cloning. 
Unfortunately, the Lofgren amendment was defeated on a party-
line vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See generally Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: 
Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, 
House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statements of 
Mark E. Westhusin, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University, and 
Rudolf Jaenisch, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology); Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut, Don't Clone Humans!, 291 
Science at 2552 (March 30, 2001); FASEB Letter, at 1. To date, the only 
intentions to clone human beings have been expressed by a small number 
of groups and individuals far from the mainstream of the scientific 
community. Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: Oversight Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, House Comm. on 
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of Rael, leader of 
the Raelian movement).
    \5\ A child who has the exact genetic makeup of another would have 
an unclear status under family law, and the attempt to duplicate an 
existing person would severely compromise the individuality of the 
cloned child. Additionally, human cloning might be misused by parents, 
who might place expectations on a cloned child's future (e.g., if the 
child is the clone of a basketball star).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By contrast, we cannot support the overbroad approach taken 
by H.R. 534. A ban on human cloning does not need to include a 
ban on nuclear transfer research. The former brings a new child 
into the world; the latter is concerned only with the study of 
embryonic development and the curing of disease. The Majority 
has argued that such research lies on a ``slippery slope'' that 
leads to reproductive cloning and beyond; but there is no sense 
in which reproductive cloning is the logical ``next step'' 
after nuclear transfer research. Nothing links the pursuit of 
stem-cell research to the deliberate creation of human beings. 
Even if such a link existed, Congress would still be perfectly 
capable of saying ``this far, and no further.''
    The technique of in vitro fertilization has not brought the 
elimination of parenthood and the armies of test-tube babies 
that were originally feared; instead, it has allowed for 
millions of Americans to do what they were once told was 
impossible--to have a child of their own. In the same way, 
Congress can permit nuclear transfer research without accepting 
as necessary consequences the worst fears of its critics.
    The Majority has also argued that a ban on reproductive 
cloning alone would be unenforceable. However, it has not for a 
moment explained how the government could enforce the 
prohibitions in H.R. 534. Anyone who is willing to break the 
law to clone a child will surely be willing to break the law to 
create an embryo. If a ban on the surgical procedure of 
implanting embryos into the uterus is unenforceable, a ban on a 
procedure that takes place in a petri dish in the privacy of a 
scientific laboratory is even more so. As Dr. Panos Michael 
Zavos testified before the committee in the 107th Congress, the 
technology to conduct nuclear transfer exists ``in every IVF 
high-tech laboratory across the world,'' 55 of which are 
located in New York City alone.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research: Oversight Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, House Comm. on 
Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of Dr. Panos Michael 
Zavos).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without putting police in the laboratory, there is no way 
for the government to prevent in advance an individual bent on 
violating the law; it can only rely on the deterrent effect of 
criminal penalties should the violation become known. The steps 
of implantation and gestation and the birth of a cloned child 
would clearly alert law enforcement to the violation, and a 
prohibition narrowly focused on reproductive cloning would 
provide the needed deterrent. Moreover, because H.R. 534 lacks 
any prohibition on the implantation of a cloned embryo into a 
woman's uterus, under its terms law enforcement would be 
helpless to prevent human cloning after the embryo stage. As a 
result, a narrowly focused ban would be just as effective in 
preventing human cloning, but would not have the unfortunate 
consequence of criminalizing lifesaving research.

             II. H.R. 534 WOULD PREVENT LIFESAVING RESEARCH
                          IN THE UNITED STATES

    The understanding of the workings of stem cells--the 
flexible cells that regenerate the body's tissue \7\--has 
advanced dramatically since 1998, when J.A. Thompson and other 
scientists first isolated stem cells from human embryos.\8\ 
These undifferentiated cells \9\ are the body's jacks-of-all-
trades; they have the unique ability to become any kind of 
tissue found in the body--anything from blood or bone to nerves 
and heart muscles. As a result, embryonic stem cells offer 
immense potential to treat what have been thought to be 
incurable conditions by replacing the body's damaged tissue 
with healthy new cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``A stem cell is a special kind of cell that has a unique 
capacity to renew itself and to give rise to specialized cell types. 
Although most cells of the body, such as heart cells or skin cells, are 
committed to conduct a specific function, a stem cell is uncommitted 
and remains uncommitted, until it receives a signal to develop into a 
specialized cell. Their proliferative capacity combined with the 
ability to become specialized makes stem cells unique.'' National 
Institutes of Health, Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future 
Research Directions (June 2001) [hereinafter ``NIH Report''], at ES-1. 
Stem cells can be derived from any embryo, whether created from sexual 
(e.g., in vitro fertilization) or asexual (e.g., nuclear transfer) 
reproduction.
    \8\ J.A. Thompson et al., Embryonic stem cell lines derived from 
human blastocysts, 282 Science 1145-7 (1998).
    \9\ Soon after the embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus, its 
cells begin to differentiate, changing their form to match the function 
they will perform in the fetus. Some will become muscle cells, others 
nerve cells, others skin cells. Embryonic stem cells are the original 
cells that have not yet differentiated and chosen their function; they 
therefore hold the potential to repair any of the body's organs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its report on the uses of stem cells, the National 
Institutes of Health described their medical potential as 
``enormous.'' \10\ It concluded that transplants of stem cells 
could be used to treat conditions as varied as Parkinson's 
disease, chronic heart disease, end-stage kidney disease, and 
liver failure.\11\ Rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, and 
severe burns might all find new treatments.\12\ Stem cells 
could repair damage to the nervous system from spinal cord 
injury, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's.\13\ Insulin-
producing cells could be introduced to treat diabetes.\14\ 
Brain damage due to stroke could be reduced or reversed.\15\ 
Replacement therapies could be created for autoimmune diseases 
such as lupus.\16\ Survivors of heart attacks could be given 
healthy cardiovascular cells to heal damaged heart tissue and 
restore them to health.\17\ Cancer patients who undergo severe 
chemotherapy could receive stem cell transplants to restore 
their blood cells and immune systems--and specialized new 
treatments could be developed to target and destroy individual 
cancer cells.\18\ New treatments could even be discovered to 
restore function to paralyzed limbs, or to treat the 
degeneration caused by ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig's 
disease).\19\ Finally, some have held out the hope of 
generating entire transplantable organs (bones, kidneys, and 
even hearts) through stem cell research.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ NIH Report, at 66.
    \11\ NIH Report, at ES-4.
    \12\ NIH Report, at 65; Robert P. Lanza et al., The Ethical 
Validity of Using Nuclear Transfer in Human Transplantiation, 284 
Journal of the American Medical Association 3715 (Dec. 27, 2000) 
[hereinafter ``Lanza et al.''].
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Stem cells could be used to treat diabetes by replacing the 
damaged insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. The discovery of a 
stem-cell treatment for diabetes, for which there is currently no cure, 
would be a significant advance:

      Each year, diabetes affects more people and causes more 
      deaths than breast cancer and AIDS combined. Diabetes is 
      the seventh leading cause of death in the United States 
      today, with nearly 200,000 deaths reported each year. The 
      American Diabetes Association estimates that nearly 16 
      million people, or 5.9 percent of the United States 
      population, currently have diabetes. (NIH Report, at 67.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ NIH Report, at 77. The Report states that ``Just a decade ago, 
neuroscience textbooks held that neurons in the adult human brain and 
spinal cord could not regenerate. Once dead, it was thought, central 
nervous system neurons were gone for good.'' New research and the 
possibilities of stem cell treatments promise to reverse that long-held 
medical dogma. Id.
    \16\ NIH Report, at 62. The Report notes that lupus, a disease in 
which the immune system attacks the body's own cells, affects more than 
239,000 Americans, over 90 percent of whom are women. African-American 
and Hispanic women are disproportionately affected. Currently, no 
treatment exists for the disease. Id.
    \17\ NIH Report, at 87. Today, more than 4.8 million Americans 
suffer from congestive heart failure, with 400,000 new cases each year. 
Nearly 1.1 million Americans a year suffer from heart attacks. Stem 
cell treatments to repair the heart and circulatory system could 
therefore target ``a major cause of death and disability in the United 
States.'' Id.
    \18\ NIH Report, at ES-5.
    \19\ NIH Report, at 79.
    \20\ Lanza et al., at 3715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nuclear transfer research of the type banned by H.R. 534 
would be at the foundation of any medical treatment that took 
advantage of these discoveries. Like all transplants, stem cell 
treatments run the risk of being rejected by the patient's 
immune system. In fact, because stem cell transplants are so 
limited, they would be easy for the immune system to overwhelm. 
In its report, the NIH noted that there is a ``very high'' 
potential for immune rejection of these transplants; 
``Modifications to the cells, to the immune system, or both 
will be a major requirement for their use.'' \21\ However, the 
NIH also found that if the stem cells were obtained from 
embryos produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer, they would 
bear the patient's DNA and would appear to the patient's body 
like his or her own cells, removing the risk of immune 
rejection. The transplant could then take place without the use 
of dangerous immunosuppressive drugs--``a labor intensive, but 
truly customized therapy.'' \22\ Nuclear transfer techniques 
are vital to realizing the potential of stem cell treatments 
and moving the science from the petri dish to the doctor's 
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ NIH Report, at ES-5.
    \22\ NIH Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 534 goes beyond banning reproductive cloning to ban 
research in somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is that 
the bill would cut off scientific developments that are 
granting new hope to millions of Americans who have been told 
there is no cure. Forty Nobel Laureates, millions of patients, 
and even former First Lady Nancy Reagan, have recognized the 
therapeutic potential of these stem cell treatments derived 
from nuclear transfer techniques. In fact, the former First 
Lady recently used the occasion of husband's 92nd birthday to 
express her support for new legislation to allow the use of 
therapeutic cloning while banning reproductive cloning.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Letter from Nancy Reagan to Senator Orrin Hatch, January 29, 
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By banning nuclear transfer techniques, H.R. 534 would 
additionally cut off research in new areas of regenerative 
medicine. As a leading researcher testified before the 
Subcommittee on Crime in the 107th Congress, it may soon be 
possible to turn a differentiated cell (such as a skin cell) 
back into an undifferentiated state, essentially creating 
compatible stem cells from the patient's own body. This 
procedure would avoid any need to use nuclear transfer and 
would not involve embryos in any way, offering the possibility 
of new medical treatments that would avoid the controversies 
that have accompanied stem-cell research. However, he testified 
that some nuclear transfer research will be ``essential'' for 
the early stages of understanding how stem cells gain their 
flexibility, and would be ``a critical step to improve the 
usefulness of adult stem cells'' as well.\24\ Nuclear transfer 
research would also provide a greater understanding of 
embryonic development that could be used to determine the 
causes of (and perhaps to prevent) birth defects, miscarriages, 
and juvenile diabetes.\25\ The Federation of American Societies 
for Experimental Biology has echoed the NIH's language in 
describing such research: ``The potential for treating human 
disease in this exciting area of regenerative medicine is 
enormous.'' \26\ However, all of these promising advances would 
be blocked by H.R. 534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Human Cloning: Hearings on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 Before the 
House Subcomm. on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of Thomas 
Okarma, CEO of Geron, Inc.).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ FASEB Letter, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Somatic cell nuclear transfer could also help our 
scientists better understand genetic causes of disease. We know 
that certain diseases, such as breast cancer, have a genetic 
component. By using SCNT, scientists could create cells that 
actually contain these genetic diseases and study their 
development. By comparing this to development of healthy cells, 
scientists could learn more about the progression of diseases 
which could lead to new cures and treatments. This too would be 
stopped by enactment of H.R. 534.
    The Majority has sought to establish that the use of 
embryonic or cloned stem cells would be unethical when an 
alternative, namely adult stem cells, is available.\27\ 
However, the studies necessary for regenerative medicine could 
not be accomplished with adult stem cells. Additionally, after 
surveying the current state of the science, the NIH concluded 
that embryonic stem cells have important advantages over adult 
stem cells: the latter cannot develop into as many different 
cell types; they cannot be generated in the same quantities in 
the laboratory; and they are difficult and sometimes dangerous 
to extract from an adult patient (especially stem cells located 
in the brain).\28\ Given the very real benefits that this 
research could hold for those suffering Americans who are 
already living, it is appropriate for Congress at the very 
least to permit such research to go on in the private 
sector.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ The Ethics of Human Cloning: Hearing Before the House Subcomm. 
on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of David Prentice, Professor of 
Life Sciences, Indiana State University). Cells with similar properties 
known as ``embryonic germ cells'' can also be obtained from aborted 
fetuses, but these will not necessarily be compatible with the 
patient's immune system. Furthermore, their source of origin makes them 
no less controversial to the Majority.
    \28\ NIH Report, at ES-9-10. It is important to note that at the 
stage when embryonic stem-cell research normally occurs, the embryos 
are less than 14 days old and consist of a tiny ball of 
undifferentiated cells, without organs or internal structure, let alone 
a nervous system, nerve impulses, feelings, or the capacity to feel 
pain. Even in the womb, the great majority of early embryos--as many as 
80 percent--never develop into a human being. Furthermore, the 
separation of an embryo into twins or triplets frequently does not 
occur until after this stage of development, implying that the embryos 
cannot meaningfully be ascribed personal identity, uniqueness, or 
individuality. Lanza et al. As a number of prominent scientists and 
bioethicists have agreed, ``The line established by gastrulation and 
the appearance of the primitive streak is a clear one, as is the line 
between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.'' Id. Even anti-choice 
Sen. Orrin Hatch has indicated that one should not equate a fetus in 
the womb, ``with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart, with an 
embryo in a freezer.'' Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Morality and Medicine: 
Reconsidering Embryo Research, N.Y. Times (July 1, 2001), sec. 4, at 1. 
Great Britain has permitted research involving embryos since 1990, and 
no abuse of research involving human subjects has occurred, nor has 
anyone suggested that it should. Lanza et al.
    \29\ As Ronald M. Green, director of the Ethics Institute at 
Dartmouth College and former president of the Society of Christian 
Ethics, wrote to the Committee, H.R. 2505--the bill considered in the 
107th Congress--should be rejected because it would go beyond a ban on 
human cloning to ``prohibit several other very research directions of 
possibly great medical benefit.'' See Letter from Ronald M. Green to 
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers (July 23, 2001) (on 
file with the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee) 
[hereinafter ``Green Letter''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, H.R. 534 would prohibit this valuable 
research and leave no viable alternative, and it would do so 
permanently. At the markup, the Majority claimed that as the 
science progresses, researchers might convince a future 
Congress to repeal the research prohibition.\30\ But Congress 
should never establish a permanent criminal prohibition with an 
eye towards repealing it a few years later. Biomedical research 
progresses at an amazing speed; indeed, human pluripotent stem 
cells were first isolated in November 1998. Further advances 
are occurring at a dizzying pace, and a complete medical 
revolution may well occur within the next 5 years. It is for 
this reason that Rep. Linda Sanchez offered an amendment that 
would have made this bill sunset after 3 years, but it was 
defeated in a party line vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ This argument was made by Rep. Coble when the Majority 
rejected Rep. Sanchez' amendment to provide for a 3-year sunset as 
recommend by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. The argument 
was also made by the Majority's witness at our hearings in the 107th 
Congress. Human Cloning: Hearings on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 Before the 
House Subcomm. on Crime, 107th Cong. (2001) (Statement of Alexander M. 
Capron, member of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The maximum penalty for conducting nuclear transfer 
research under H.R. 534 is 10 years imprisonment. Legalizing 
nuclear transfer research after its potential has been realized 
would bring about the absurd result that the prison sentences 
would outlast the prohibitions--that scientists who practice 
nuclear transfer after its legalization would be hailed as 
miracle workers and perhaps even afforded Federal funding, 
while their colleagues who first pioneered the techniques would 
still be in jail.
    It is unclear how the effectiveness of nuclear transfer 
could be demonstrated to the Majority's satisfaction. We 
already have significant evidence regarding the potential of 
embryonic or cloned stem cells from animal research. While 
research involving human embryonic stem cells might continue, 
there will be no evidence regarding the effectiveness or 
suitability for testing of human stem cells obtained through 
nuclear transfer. We will never know what results might have 
been obtained had nuclear transfer research been legal, and if 
a permanent ban is placed on the research, we will never know 
enough to justify its decriminalization in the Majority's eyes.

       III. H.R. 534 WOULD PREVENT U.S. CITIZENS FROM BENEFITTING
               FROM LIFESAVING RESEARCH PERFORMED ABROAD

    We also cannot support H.R.534 because the shipping, 
receipt and importation provisions are overbroad and would 
block Americans' access to lifesaving medical treatments 
produced abroad. The provisions in H.R. 534 would block not 
only the importation of cloned embryos, but also any product 
``derived'' from such embryos, even if these products (such as 
stem cell-grown nerve tissue to restore paralyzed limbs) were 
unable to develop into a full human being. Moreover, since the 
critical term ``derived'' is not in any way elaborated on, 
under a plausible ``fruits-of-the-tree'' doctrine, the bill 
might even ban the importation of synthetic medicines modeled 
on proteins originally derived through this process in any way 
shape or form.
    Representative Scott unsuccessfully offered an amendment to 
create an exemption for the shipping, receipt or importation of 
products to be used in medical treatment. Products that entered 
the country under this amendment would still have been required 
to undergo scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration. 
Rejection of the Scott amendment clearly demonstrates that the 
legislation would keep safe and effective medical treatments 
out of the hands of U.S. citizens, even if the treatments have 
no chance whatsoever of being used for human cloning.
    We fear that such a prohibition may have less to do with 
human cloning than with elevating the status of an embryo above 
that of live-born human beings.\31\ There is no risk that an 
American hospital might try to clone a human using stem cells 
from abroad, and the Scott Amendment would have required that 
any imported material derived from a cloned embryo not be 
capable of producing a child. If researchers in Great Britain, 
where nuclear transfer research is legal and government-funded, 
were to discover a stem-cell-based cure for cancer, the 
Majority would ban its importation simply because it was 
originally derived through nuclear transfer. In other words, 
the Majority is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of 
millions of suffering Americans in order to protect frozen 
embryos out of a vague fear that someone, somewhere, might 
perform human cloning. For a bill purported to protect our 
humanity, that rationale strikes us as somewhat ironic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ The only argument offered by the Majority in defense of these 
provisions was that an exemption for medical treatment might provide a 
financial incentive to create more embryos through nuclear transfer. 
This argument is a red herring. If a British university discovers a 
cure for cancer or diabetes that relies on stem-cell research, it will 
have quite enough of a financial incentive already. Additionally, the 
absolute number of embryos should be irrelevant. If the Majority holds 
that legalizing nuclear transfer in the U.S. will make a ban on human 
cloning unenforceable, the same should hold true in Britain, and anyone 
who wishes to perform human cloning can simply travel there. Extra 
incentives to discover a cure for a terrible disease will not make the 
birth of a cloned child any more likely--they will only hasten the day 
when a cure arrives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IV. H.R. 534 WOULD INTERFERE WITH STEM CELL RESEARCH--BOTH PRIVATELY 
         FUNDED AND FUNDED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

    The legislation's proponents would have us believe H.R. 534 
has nothing to do with stem cell research and would not disrupt 
scientific advances being made in this important and much-
discussed area. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    There are several reasons why the legislation would 
interfere with and undermine stem cell research. First is the 
fact that stem cells can be derived from embryos created by 
both sexual and asexual (e.g., nuclear transfer) means. As a 
basic and fundamental matter, by banning all forms of asexual 
reproduction based on cell nuclear transfer, the legislation 
would quite obviously limit stem cell research. It goes without 
saying that it will be more difficult to conduct stem cell 
research if one of the most promising techniques for developing 
stem cells--therapeutic cloning--is criminalized.
    Second, if research were performed based solely on stem 
cells derived from sexual means (such as additional embryos 
formed through in vitro fertilization), it will be difficult to 
derive any practical benefit from the research without the 
benefit of nuclear transfer. If a scientist were to use IVF-
derived stem cells to design a treatment for Alzheimer's 
disease, it still could not easily be applied to any patients 
without the utilization of therapeutic cloning. This is 
because, as we have noted above, scientists can greatly reduce 
the risk of immune rejection if we use stem cells which bear a 
patient's own DNA derived from therapeutic cloning rather than 
adult stem cells. This means that the potential benefits of 
President Bush's August, 2001 order permitting the use of 
existing stem cell lines for research purposes would also be 
snuffed out by this law by limiting the ability to translate 
research into real disease therapies.
    This conclusion is supported by the NIH in their July 18, 
2001, study finding that embryonic stem cells have important 
advantages over adult stem cells. The NIH recognized that adult 
stem cells cannot develop into as many different cell types; 
they cannot be generated in the same quantities in the 
laboratory; and they are difficult and sometimes dangerous to 
extract. It is also critical to note that the NIH has 
specifically stated that somatic cell nuclear transfer would be 
a ``truly customized'' way of creating stem cell transplants 
that would not be rejected by the body's immune system.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ NIH Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, although the NIH does not presently conduct research 
using human somatic cells, that decision has been made 
voluntarily by scientists and the executive branch, not 
statutorily by Congress. By passing a one-size fits all ban, we 
will permanently and inflexibly ban the practice, tying the 
hands of future scientists and the Administration alike. This 
is in direct contradiction of the NIH's own conclusion that it 
is premature to discard the potential benefits of new forms of 
stem cell research.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ NIH Report, at ES-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, because the legislation prohibits the shipping, 
receipt, or importation of embryos produced abroad by nuclear 
transfer or of products derived from such embryos, NIH would 
not be able to benefit from many forms of research conducted 
abroad involving stem cells. This would put our own scientists 
at a distinct disadvantage compared to other nations' 
researchers in the race to develop cures for crippling and 
fatal diseases. At present there is no law which prevents the 
NIH from acquiring foreign products in any way derived from 
therapeutic cloning techniques. H.R. 534, however, provides an 
inflexible and permanent ban which restricts our own 
Administration.
    Finally, if the Majority did not believe that the bill 
would undermine stem cell research, they would have had little 
reason to reject the Lofgren amendment exempting stem cell 
research from the bill's prohibitions. If we truly want to 
insure that stem cell research is not interrupted, we would 
carve the activity from out of the bill's reach. However, the 
Majority rejected this notion, in a straight party-line vote.

V. H.R. 534 WOULD BAN LEGAL AND UNOBJECTIONABLE INFERTILITY TREATMENTS 
                AND TECHNIQUES OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION

    H.R. 534 further exceeds its mandate to prohibit human 
cloning by bringing the heavy penalties of the criminal law to 
bear on infertility treatments that have nothing to do with 
human cloning. Over the past 4 years, the process of 
``ooplasmic transfer'' has been used in connection with in 
vitro fertilization to help more than 30 infertile couples 
conceive a healthy child.\34\ The process involves the 
replacement of some of the cytoplasm (the fluid that 
constitutes the bulk of a cell) in an infertile woman's egg 
with cytoplasm from a healthy donor egg or other cell. The 
original egg has been fertilized with genetic material from the 
husband and will develop normally, thanks to the infusion of 
healthy cytoplasm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Infertility Treatment Leaves Kids With Extra DNA, Reuters (May 
7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the definition of ``human cloning'' in H.R. 534 is 
so overbroad as to likely ban this procedure. The bill includes 
under the definition the introduction of any ``nuclear 
material'' from ``one or more human somatic cells'' into an egg 
whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated. Yet the 
technique described above (and possibly other techniques of in 
vitro fertilization as well) could introduce into the 
fertilized egg some of the donor cell's mitochondria, the 
``power plants'' that float in the cytoplasm and generate 
energy for the cell. Mitochondria are unique because they have 
their own DNA and reproduce on their own. Thus, the 
introduction of mitochondria from a healthy, mature cell into a 
fertilized egg would yield a new organism that is genetically 
virtually identical to the pre-transfer egg, yet with slightly 
different mitochondrial DNA. It might therefore be considered 
to be ``human cloning,'' even though the resulting child would 
have genes from both parents, and would bring 10-year jail 
sentences on the participants under H.R. 534.
    At the very least, a ban on this technique of in vitro 
fertilization is a plausible reading of H.R. 534. Passage of 
H.R. 534 without including a protection for in vitro 
fertilization runs the risk that future courts will find 
accepted and beneficial fertility treatments in violation of 
the criminal law, and that infertile couples will be denied a 
safe and effective means of conceiving children.

      VI. H.R. 534 WOULD FREEZE IN PLACE STEM CELL RESEARCH BUILT
                       ON GENETIC DISCRIMINATION

    Another problem with this legislation is that it freezes in 
place a regime of permitted stem cell research built on genetic 
discrimination. President Bush has issued an order limiting 
stem cell research to the seventy or so existing stem cell 
lines as of August 9, 2001.\35\ H.R. 534 would take that 
directive and set it in stone with regard to embryonic stem 
cells. Of the estimated 70 stem cell lines grand-fathered by 
President Bush's order, only a handful are usable.\36\ As a 
recent Institute of Medicine study explained in detail, the 
resulting problem is that the fewer cell lines available to 
researchers, the lower the genetic diversity they 
represent.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ National Institute of Health, ``Notice of Criteria For Federal 
Funding of Research on Existing Human Embryonic Stem Cells and 
Establishment of NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry'', November 7, 
2001, http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-
005.html
    \36\ Ted Ages, Coming Clean on Stem Cells, The Scientist, January 
21, 2003. http://www.camradvocacy.org/fastaction/news.asp?id=488
    \37\ ``Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (2002)'', 
p.48. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076307/html/1.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal health officials have reported that the stem cell 
lines in existence are from only 10 companies and research 
laboratories located in Singapore, Scandinavia, India, 
Australia and the United States.\38\ These existing stem cell 
lines have been cultivated primarily from embryos left over 
from in-vitro clinics where the clientele, and thus the 
resulting embryos, tend not to represent the genetic, racial 
and ethnic diversity of the human population. Not surprisingly, 
there are few, if any, lines derived from African Americans. As 
Professor Irv Weissman of Stanford University has stated, ``to 
really understand disease, we must also research diseased 
cells, which these lines do not represent. Nor do they 
represent diversity of our population. Genetic diseases 
discriminate. Disease that plague minority populations are 
almost certainly not represented in the 64 approved stem cell 
lines''. \39\ This means that it is next to impossible to 
research diseases which are more prevalent in people of 
particular racial or ethnic groups, such as sickle cell disease 
among African Americans or Tay Sachs among Jews. Weissman 
contends that the only way to create more diverse stem cell 
lines is through somatic cell nuclear transfer. However, this 
bill would make such a practice a crime, and would consequently 
create a biotech divide in which significant segments of our 
population would be excluded from the benefits of this 
innovative research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Brian Vastag. Suddenly, 64 Stem Cell Lines, 286 JAMA 1163 
(2001).
    \39\ Irv Weissman, It Doesn't Have to Be This Way, 3 Cures Now 2 
(February 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representatives Nadler and Jackson Lee offered an amendment 
that was rejected that would have amended H.R. 534 to permit 
additional stem cell research solely for the purpose of 
creating genetically diverse cell lines. This amendment would 
have helped to ensure that the research that is being done is 
not done on a discriminatory basis. For this reason, the more 
than 300,000 members of Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization 
and the Steven and Michele Kirsch foundation have written in 
strong support of such an amendment.\40\ However, the Majority 
has argued that this amendment would create a loophole in the 
bill that would permit the cloning of human beings. However, 
the amendment would have done nothing of the sort in creating 
an exemption that would allow only for the cloning of single 
cells for the purpose of generating genetically diverse 
embryonic stem cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Letter from Bonnie Lipton, National President of Hadassah to 
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (February 21, 2003); and Letter from 
Susan E. Frank, Vice President of Public Policy of Kirsch Foundation to 
Congressman John Conyers, Jr (February 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    Because it far exceeds its mission of prohibiting human 
cloning, H.R. 534 can be seen as an attempt to do secretly what 
the Administration would hesitate to do publicly: ban the use 
of stem-cell-based treatments in the United States. If H.R. 534 
becomes law, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
derive any practical benefit from stem cell research, because 
we would be unable to implement its discoveries through nuclear 
transfer or therapeutic cloning.
    Under H.R. 534, the new discoveries and medical cures 
resulting from stem cells will be off-limits to Americans who 
cannot afford to travel abroad to countries where nuclear 
transfer research is still pursued. The production of such 
treatments would be prohibited domestically, and the 
importation of even a cancer cure from abroad would carry a 10-
year prison sentence. Furthermore, the vagueness and 
overbreadth of H.R. 534 run the risk of prohibiting legitimate 
and uncontroversial techniques of in vitro fertilization that 
could help thousands of couples conceive their own children. 
The legislation also freezes in place a stem cell research 
regime that genetically discriminates. H.R. 534 represents far 
more than a ban on human cloning: it represents an intrusion of 
the criminal law into scientific progress, and it should be 
rejected.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Rick Boucher.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Tammy Baldwin.
                                   Adam B. Schiff.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.