F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who will show how bipartisan support is for this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers, both of whom were on the Democratic side of the aisle, show very clearly the difference in values that are being enunciated in the two bills before the House today. On one hand, we hear support for the Greenwood bill, which really allows the FDA to license an industry for profit and clone human embryos. On the other hand, we hear those in favor of the Weldon bill, myself included, who say that we ought to ban the cloning of human embryos and the experimentation thereon. This is a question of values. I would point out that the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, during the Committee on the Judiciary debate, said, ``I have no moral compunction about killing that embryo for therapeutic or experimental purposes at all.'' Mr. Speaker, I think those who are interested in values should vote against Greenwood and should vote in favor of the Weldon bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns), who is an author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, it is time to clarify the record after this last speech. Number one, there is nothing in the Weldon bill that prevents the use of adult stem cells or stem cells from live births, including umbilical cords and placentas from being used for the research that the gentleman describes. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) talked about a Yale study. I have the Yale Bulletin Calendar of December 1, 2000 about the research on monkeys that were used to cure a spinal cord injury. Those were adult stem cells. They would be completely legal under this bill. Then we have heard from the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott), who seems to think we are having a religious seance here. The fact of the matter is there have been a number of things that are in derogation of the free enterprise system that this Congress and the people of the country have banned, including slavery. And I think that perhaps the time has come to ban the cloning of human embryos. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, again just to clarify the record. I am certain that the study of the gentleman from Michigan is a very valuable one. The fact is that it is not in point to this debate. This bill does not prevent research on embryonic stem cells. What it does do is it prevents research on cloned embryonic stem cells. There is a big difference. Secondly, once again going back to the adult stem cell research that was referred to by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), at Yale University, those were adult stem cells. She brought the issue up. We did not. Those were adult stem cells. And if they were human stem cells, they would not be banned by this bill. Now, finally, adult stem cells are already being used successfully for therapeutic benefits in humans. This includes treatments associated with various types of cancer, to relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, anemias, immunodeficiency disease, and restoration of sight through generation of corneas. Further, initial clinical trials have begun to repair heart damage using the patient's own adult stem cells. Somehow the word is out that adult stem cells are no good. I think this very clearly shows that adult stem cells are very useful for research, and furthermore, the bill does allow research on embryonic stem cells, just not the cloned ones. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 30 seconds. The statement that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) mentioned, did not say why they need to have cloned embryonic stem cells. I think we are talking about two different things here. What this bill does is, it prohibits research on cloned embryonic stem cells, not on uncloned embryonic stem cells. If there is a shortage of uncloned embryonic stem cells, I would like the people on the other side to let the House know about it. We have had not one scintilla of evidence either in this debate or the hearings or markup on the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is an extremely constructive amendment. The gentleman from Virginia offered it during Judiciary Committee consideration and withdrew it because of jurisdictional concerns. I would hope that the House would adopt this amendment because I believe it would put additional information on the table to help further clarify this very contentious debate.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit allows for the production of cloned embryos for the development of treatments designed to address a number of diseases. We just voted this down. This is a reworded Greenwood substitute amendment. The motion to recommit would allow the practice of creating human embryos solely for the purpose of destroying them for experimentation. This approach to prohibit human cloning would be ineffective and unenforceable. Once cloned embryos were produced and available in laboratories, it would be virtually impossible to control what is done with them. Stockpiles of cloned embryos would be produced, bought and sold without anyone knowing about it. Implantation of cloned embryos into a woman's uterus, a relatively easy procedure, would take place out of sight. At that point, governmental attempts to enforce a reproductive cloning ban would prove impossible to police or regulate. Creating cloned human children necessarily begins by producing cloned human embryos. If we want to prevent the latter, we should prevent the former. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) says that cloned embryos are necessary to prevent rejection during transplantation for diseases. That is not what the testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary says. Dr. Leon Kass, professor of bioethics at the University of Chicago, said that the clone is not an exact copy of the nucleus donor, and that its antigens, therefore, would provoke an immune reaction when transplanted and there still would be the problem of immunological rejection that cloning is said to be indispensable for solving. So the very argument in her amendment was refuted by Professor Kass's testimony. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2505, by banning human cloning at any stage of development, provides the most effective protection from the dangers of abuse inherent in this rapidly developing field. By preventing the cloning of human embryos, there can be no possibility of cloning a human being. 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 to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants or animals, other than humans. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a cloning bill; it is not a stem cell research bill. The scientific research is already preserved by H.R. 2505, which is the only real proposal before us that will prevent human cloning. Oppose the motion to recommit; pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, after 3 hours of debate, I am glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has finally cleared up one of the principal items we have been debating. He said the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor to ban stem cell research. He is right. The Weldon bill does not ban stem cell research. It does not ban it on adult stem cells, it does not ban it on embryonic stem cells, it bans it on cloned stem cells. This bill is a cloning bill. The substitute amendment is not. It will allow the creation of cloned embryos to be regulated and sold, and once a cloned embryo is implanted into the uterus of a woman and develops into a child, there really is not anything anybody can do about it. So the Weldon substitute has a loophole a mile wide to allow the creation of cloned human beings because they cannot keep track of the cloned embryos that the Weldon bill attempts to regulate. That is the fatal flaw of the Greenwood substitute. We heard quotes from three of our colleagues 5 years ago when we were debating a Labor-Health and Human Services bill. I have those quotes in front of me. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, ``I agree with our colleagues who say we should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research.'' The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said, ``No embryos will be created for research purposes.'' And the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, ``Lifting this ban would not allow for the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes.'' They were right 5 years ago. We should not be using cloned human embryos for research purposes. I ask Members to vote with them the way they voted 5 years ago and to adhere to that position, because if we do allow cloned human embryos to be used for research purposes, some of them will eventually become human beings. Mr. Speaker, the way to stop the slippery slope, going down this road into the ethical and moral abyss, is to reject the loophole-filled Greenwood substitute and pass the Weldon bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and since I have the right to close, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the chairman of the House Republican conference.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the definition of commercial fishing operation contained in section 1007 in the Senate bill is sufficiently tightly worded to prevent someone who uses a yacht for sport fishing and derives income therefrom from being able to protect the yacht under the bankruptcy code. That is what my concern is. What I am suggesting to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, my colleague, is that perhaps section 1007 should be looked at very closely to make sure we are not creating a loophole and that it not be treated as holy writ, not subject to any modification whatsoever.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?