U.S. House Committee Rejects Amendment To Erect Barrier to Human Cloning in the U.S.

WASHINGTON (June 29, 2005) ? An amendment to enact a barrier to human cloning in the United States was rejected by the powerful Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 16.

The committee rejected, 29-36, an NRLC-backed amendment offered by pro-life Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fl.) that would have required any state, university, corporation, or other entity to refrain from involvement in human cloning in order to remain eligible for funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Weldon offered the amendment during the committee's consideration of a $602 billion appropriations bill for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which includes $28.5 billion in funding for NIH. (The text of the Weldon Amendment appears in a box on page 15.)

Some researchers wish to use the process of cloning (technically called "somatic cell nuclear transfer") to create human embryos and kill them to obtain their stem cells for research or use them in other forms of research that would kill them. This is sometimes called "therapeutic cloning."

In 2001 and 2003, the full House passed a bill to ban the creation of human embryos by cloning, sponsored by Weldon and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), but that legislation has never been passed by the Senate. If Weldon had succeeded in attaching his amendment to this DHHS appropriations bill, it could have forced Senate action on the issue. President Bush supports a ban.

Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, sent a letter to committee members urging them to oppose the amendment. The AAAS website quoted Leshner as saying that the amendment "would be tantamount to a law banning research cloning by anyone in this country," and "could force this vital research out of the United States and seriously impede the progress of scientific advances to improve human welfare."

Some committee members opposed the amendment because they said it would interfere with "stem cell research." Others claimed that they supported the policy goal, but opposed the amendment on grounds that such a controversial provision might entangle the funding bill itself.