SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 592 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE: CRIME

HEADLINE: CLONING PROHIBITION BODY ARMOR RESTRICTIONS(MARKUP)

TESTIMONY-BY: LAMAR SMITH, CONGRESSMAN

BODY:
Opening Statement for Chairman Lamar Smith

June 19, 2001 Legislative Hearing on

Human Cloning

H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172

Today the Subcommittee on Crime holds the second of two hearings on the issue of human cloning. In our last hearing, the Subcommittee focused on the ethical issues and possible consequences of cloning human beings. Today, we will examine the legal issues relating to the federal regulation of human cloning and hear testimony regarding two bills on the issue, H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172.

Testimony from our last hearing revealed that there are a growing number of groups who claim they can, and will, clone a human being. Currently, no clear regulations exist in the United States that would prevent a private group from attempting to create a human clone. Even though the Food and Drug Administration has asserted that it has the authority to regulate this activity, legal scholars have expressed doubt as to whether this claimed authority would stand a legal challenge. Furthermore, the consequences for any scientist who would ignore the FDA's claimed authority is unclear. For this reason, this Congress must act to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Legal challenges to any federal regulation of human cloning will be swift. Opponents will argue that any ban on human cloning will be unconstitutional because it unduly interferes with a scientific right of inquiry and denies a person's "fundamental right to reproductive freedom." I believe that these arguments will fail. Although Congress may not prohibit research in an attempt to prevent the development of new knowledge, it may restrict or prohibit the means used by researchers that threaten interests in which the citizens of this country have a legitimate concern. Furthermore, human cloning is not sexual reproduction, it is asexual replication for which there is no guaranteed "fundamental right."

The two bills before us today would prohibit the cloning of human beings, however, the scope of that prohibition is treated in very different and important ways. H.R. 1251, introduced by Congressman Greenwood of Pennsylvania, would only prohibit the use of human cloning technology when the intent of the scientist is to initiate a pregnancy. The prohibition in this bill would still allow for the cloning of human embryos for experimental purposes as long as the scientist creating that embryo does not intend to bring a fully mature human being into existence.

H.R. 1644, introduced by Congressman Weldon of Florida, goes beyond the Greenwood bill and prohibits the use of human cloning technology to produce a living human organism at any stage of development. The Weldon bill would make it a criminal act to clone a human embryo even if the scientist had no intention of trying to initiate a pregnancy.

I should point out that neither of these bills place any restrictions on the use of cloning technology to clone molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, organs, plants or animals. They would not interfere with the use of in vitro fertilization, the administration of fertility-enhancing drugs, or the use of other medical procedures to assist a woman in becoming or remaining pregnant.

Today we will hear from a panel of four witnesses who have extensive backgrounds in the field of law and bioethics. I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee on this important issue and I look forward to hearing their testimony. The Chair now recognizes Bobby Scott, the ranking Member for an opening statement.



LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2001