There are no United States federal statutes
against cloning. Congress failed to pass legislation in the
1997-98 session. In 2001 the House of Representatives passed
a bill to ban both reproductive and research cloning, which
President Bush indicated he would sign. The Senate tabled the
legislation and a vote was never taken.
 Failure
to Pass Federal Cloning Legislation, 1997-1998
Failure
to Pass Federal Cloning Legislation, 2001-2003
Analysis
Failure to Pass Federal Cloning
Legislation, 1997-1998
In February 1997, one month after the Roslin Institute in Scotland
announced that they had cloned a sheep, President Clinton issued
an executive order prohibiting the use of federal funds for
human cloning. This provision is still in effect but has no
bearing on privately funded research and thus is largely symbolic.
In February 1998 a bill calling for a ban on human reproductive
cloning was introduced by Democratic Senators Feinstein (CA)
and Kennedy (MA). A competing bill, which would have banned
both human reproductive cloning and the creation of clonal embryos,
was introduced by Republican Senators Bond (MO), Frist (TN)
and Lott (MI). The Democratic bill was supported by the biotechnology
industry and biomedical research community, and the Republican
bill by anti-abortion groups and religious conservatives. No
other constituencies played a visible role in the lobbying.
One week after its introduction the Bond-Frist-Lott bill was
blocked by a filibuster, with a vote of 42 to 54 failing to
end debate. All 42 votes to end debate came from antiabortion
Republicans. No attempt was made subsequently to secure passage
of the Democratic bill.
Back to top
Failure to Pass Federal Cloning
Legislation, 2001-2003
In December 2000 and January 2001, two separate teams of scientists
announced their intentions to begin attempts to clone human
beings, sparking a second effort by US policymakers to secure
a ban on human cloning. Bills were introduced in the House and
Senate in April 2001.
As in 1998, bills backed by the Republican leadership would
ban both human reproductive cloning and research cloning, while
bills supported by the Democratic leadership would ban only
reproductive cloning.
In the House of Representatives, the two primary competing
bills were HR 2505 and HR 2172. Bill 2505, "The Human Cloning
Prohibition Action of 2001" was introduced by Representative
David Weldon (R-FL). It called for permanent bans on both the
creation of clonal embryos and their use to produce a fully
formed human clone. Bill 2172, the "Cloning Prohibition
Act of 2001" was introduced by Representative James Greenwood
(R-PA). This bill called for a 10-year moratorium on producing
cloned human beings followed by an automatic "sunset."
It also required that anyone intending to produce cloned human
embryos for research purposes inform the federal government,
and promise not to use them to produce fully formed human clones.
On July 31, the House of Representative passed the Weldon bill
by a vote of 265 to 162. Voting for the Weldon bill were 200
of 221 House Republicans, joined by 63 of 210 House Democrats,
plus two Independents. Democrats who voted for the Weldon bill
came almost entirely from conservative southern and western
districts, or from northern and eastern blue-collar districts.
However, 12 liberal House Democrats, 8 of whom had 100% pro-choice
voting records, did vote for the Weldon Bill. Four of these
Democrats were African-American, one was Hispanic-American and
two were Asian-American.
In April 2001 conservative Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced
a companion bill to the Weldon bill (S. 790). In 2002, the legislation
was tabled and a vote was never taken.
A similar scenario played out at the start of the following
Congressional session. On February 27, 2003, the House approved
by 241 to 155 a ban on both reproductive and research cloning,
sponsored by Rep. Weldon. A competing bill that would have banned
only reproductive cloning, introduced by by Reps. Greenwood
and Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.), failed by 174 to 231. Equvalent
bills were introduced into the Senate but not voted upon.
Back to top
Analysis
Why is it that the US, unlike many other nations, has not yet
been successful in enacting legislation to ban reproductive
cloning?
The need for such legislative policy is particularly great
in the US because of the absence of any effective system to
license private research laboratories, fertility clinics, or
other commercial operations involving human embryos and gametes.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has claimed jurisdiction
over human cloning, but is mandated by law to consider only
safety and efficacy, and not to consider social, political,
or moral issues.
Perhaps the two most obvious differences between the US and
other countries are the persistent divisiveness in this country
about abortion, and the strength of its biotech lobby. These
two factors were critical in undermining Congressional attempts
to pass anti-cloning legislation in 1997-98, and are obstructing
the second wave of such attempts in 2001 to 2003.
1997-1998 Anti-Cloning Measures
During Senate consideration of anti-cloning legislation in
1998, the biotechnology industry lobbied strongly against the
Republican bill that would have banned both reproductive and
research cloning, arguing that it would limit medical research.
While the biotech industry officially supported the Feinstein-Kennedy
bill, outlawing reproductive cloning only, it made no effort
to secure its passage after the Republican bill was defeated
on the Senate floor.
The second major impediment to passage of cloning legislation
in 1998 was its entanglement with the politics of abortion.
Anti-choice advocates, opposed to any form of embryo research
or manipulation, supported the more comprehensive Republican
bill. Pro-choice advocates, hesitant to question the merits
of research cloning out of fear that this might elevate the
moral status of embryos, supported the Feinstein-Kennedy bill.
To overcome these polarized positions would have required tremendous
motivation, energy, and leadership. Unfortunately, few Senators
saw an urgent need to enact legislation. While the story of
Dolly had captured worldwide attention, many scientists and
biotech representatives argued that no serious scientist was
proposing to clone a human being, and that such an effort would
not and could not occur for a long time. Senator Kennedy played
a key role in advocating this position to his fellow Senators
during the floor debate:
"It should be clear to everyone that there is absolutely
no need to act tomorrow to prevent cloning of a human being.
No reputable scientist wants to clone human beings. Scientifically,
it cannot be done yet." (Congressional Record, February
10, 1998, Page S561).
During the brief Senate floor debate in 1998, the issue was
framed as one pitting medical progress against the rights of
the embryo. Very few comments addressed the larger ethical and
social implications of research cloning, its eugenic potential,
or alternative research avenues. Unsurprisingly, the final vote
on the Republican bill fell predominantly along pro-choice versus
antiabortion lines, with all 42 votes in its favor cast by antiabortion
Republicans.
Back to top
2001-2003 Anti-Cloning Measures
By 2001, few people were arguing that human cloning was a distant
prospect. In both parties, the need to ban reproductive cloning
was accepted, though some legislators limited their concerns
to the manifest physical dangers that cloning would pose both
to cloned children and to the women intending to become pregnant
with them.
The major feature of the 2001-2003 Congressional debates on
cloning was again the divisive politics of research cloning.
The July 2001 passage in the House of the Weldon bill by a
vote of 265 to 162 was stronger than expected. Twelve pro-choice
Democrats voted for the Weldon bill. However, the vote was otherwise
polarized largely along pro-choice/pro-life lines.
A similar situation took shape in the Senate. Sam Brownback
(R-KS), a conservative abortion opponent, introduced a Weldon
companion bill (S. 790) that would ban both reproductive and
research cloning. Pro-choice Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu
(LA) joined him as a co-sponsor, but most of the bill's support
came from anti-choice Republicans.
The major competing bill (S. 1758), which would ban reproductive
cloning but explicitly approve research cloning, was introduced
by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA).
Several anti-choice Republicans, including Orrin Hatch (UT),
indicated they would vote for it, but otherwise it was largely
supported by pro-choice Democrats.
By late March, both bills appeared to be a few votes short
of a majority. In June, both supporters and opponents of embryo
cloning offered compromises. Senators Specter and Harkin contemplated
incorporating additional regulations and controls into their
bills, which in their initial forms granted biotech researchers
a nearly unrestricted green light. Senators Brownback and Landrieu
tested support for a moratorium rather than the permanent ban
for which they initially called.
However, there was not enough compromise to break the existing
deadlock and so the Senate chose to put off a vote.
Back to top | 
Highlighted Topics
