19–006

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 emVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
2

1 Cloning Human Beings, Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory 

Commission (June, 1997). 

bryo, 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

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 

3

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 apVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
4

2 Human Cloning: Oversight Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Committee 

on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. No. 40 (2001). 

plication 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 

5

Elshtain, Professor of Social and Political Ethics, The University of 

Chicago; Gerard Bradley, Esq., Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law 

School; Dr. Thomas Okarma, President and CEO of the Geron Corporation. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On 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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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 

6

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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

7

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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 

8

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. 

9

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. 

10

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

* * * * * * *

16. Human Cloning ........................................................................................ 301

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 16—HUMAN CLONING

Sec. 

301. Definitions. 

302. Prohibition on human cloning.

§ 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. 

§ 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.—

11

(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:]

12


I534A.eps
13


I534B.eps
14


I534C.eps
15


I534D.eps
16

[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.

17


CNN1.eps
18


CNN2.eps
19

[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. 

20

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. 

21

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. 

22

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.—

23

(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. 

24

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 

25

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 

26

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 

27

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. 

28

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:]

29


A534A.eps
30

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 amendVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
31

ment 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. 

32

(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:]

33


A534B1.eps
34


A534B2.eps
35

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:]

36


A534C.eps
37

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:]

38


German.eps
39


Aldige.eps
40


Werner1.eps
41


Werner2.eps
42


Biegel.eps
43


Perry.eps
44


Mang.eps
45


Frank.eps
46


Mellitz.eps
47


Sud.eps
48

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 

49

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 

50

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.’’

51

‘‘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.

52


Post1.eps
53


Post2.eps
54


IPA1A.eps
55


IPA1B.eps
56


IPA2A.eps
57


IPA2B.eps
58


OPED1.eps
59


OPED2.eps
60

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. 

61

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:]

62


Lee1.eps
63


Lee2.eps
64


Lee3.eps
65


Lee4.eps
66


Lee5.eps
67


Lee6.eps
68


Lee7.eps
69

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 FeinsteinHatch 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 

70

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:]

71


Nobel1.eps
72


Nobel2.eps
73


Nobel3.eps
74


Nobel4.eps
75


Nobel5.eps
76


Nobel6.eps
77


Nobel7.eps
78


Nobel8.eps
79


Nobel9.eps
80


Nobel10.eps
81

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 

82

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. 

83

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 NadlerJackson 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:]

84


A534E.eps
85

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 TaySachs 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 

86

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 

87

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 purVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
88

poses 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. 

89

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, TaySachs, 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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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. Sa ́nchez. 

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:]

90


A534D.eps
91

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 Sa ́nchez 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. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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 exVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
92

perimentation 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? 

93

[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. 

94

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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? 

95

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

96

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? 

97

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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 

98

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.] 

(99)

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 

100

1Letters From 27 Organizations to Representative Jim Greenwood (February, 2003). On file 

with the House Judiciary Committee. 2The 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. 

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

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

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 treatVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
101

4See 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). 

ments. 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 partyline vote. 

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 

102

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). 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). 9Soon 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. 10 NIH Report, at 66. 

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

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. 

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 condiVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
103

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. 14Stem 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. 20Lanza et al., at 3715. 21 NIH Report, at ES–5. 

tions as varied as Parkinson’s disease, chronic heart disease, endstage 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

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 

104

22 NIH Report, at 17. 23Letter from Nancy Reagan to Senator Orrin Hatch, January 29, 2003. 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. 26FASEB Letter, at 2. 

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. 

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

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. 

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, nameVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
105

27The 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 stemcell 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’’]. 30This argument was made by Rep. Coble when the Majority rejected Rep. Sa ́nchez’ 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). 

ly 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

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 Sa ́nchez offered an 

amendment that would have made this bill sunset after 3 years, 

but it was defeated in a party line vote. 

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 leVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
106

31The 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. 

galization 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 stemVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
107

32 NIH Report, at 17. 

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. 

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

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. 

108

33 NIH Report, at ES–10. 34 Infertility Treatment Leaves Kids With Extra DNA, REUTERS (May 7, 2001). 

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

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. 

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 

109

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 36Ted 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 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). 

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

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. 

Representatives Nadler and Jackson Lee offered an amendment 

that was rejected that would have amended H.R. 534 to permit adVerDate Dec 13 2002 01:46 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR018.XXX HR018
110

40Letter 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). 

ditional 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. 

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-cellbased 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. SA ́ NCHEZ.

Æ