![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in"
height="1.15625in"}**Legislative
Bulletin...........................................June 6, 2007**

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 2560** --- Human Cloning Prohibition Act

H.R. 2560 --- Human Cloning Prohibition Act (*DeGette, D-CO*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

In the 108^th^ Congress, an amendment to H.R. 534 (Human Cloning
Prohibition Act of 2003) containing almost identical language failed by
a vote of [174-231](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll037.xml). The
language in this amendment was identical to H.R. 801, a bill introduced
by Rep. Greenwood in the 108^th^ Congress.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 2560 would prohibit a cloned human
embryo from being implanted in a uterus. While the bill states that it
is unlawful "for any person to perform or attempt to perform human
cloning," it goes on to define "human cloning" as "the implantation of
the product of human somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology
into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus." The bill also
includes the following provisions and definitions:

-   Prohibits any person from shipping, mailing, transporting, or
    receiving the product of human SCNT technology knowing that such
    product is for the purpose of cloning a human embryo ***and***
    implanting he or she in a uterus. (emphasis added).

-   Defines "human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology" as
    "transferring the nuclear material of a human somatic cell into an
    egg cell from which the nuclear material has been removed or
    rendered inert."

-   Defines "person" to include a government entity, regarding the
    prohibited activity.

-   Provides for up to a 10 year prison term, a fine, or both for
    violations of this Act.

-   Provides for a civil penalty of up to \$10 million or "an amount
    equal to the amount of any gross pecuniary gain derived from such
    violation multiplied by 2" for violations of this Act. In other
    words, a civil penalty could be up to twice the amount of the profit
    gained from creating a cloned human ***and*** then implanting it in
    a uterus.

-   States that any property derived from or used to commit a violation
    under this Act may be subject to forfeiture to the U.S. Thus, under
    this provision, it appears that a cloned human that is illegally
    implanted in the uterus of a woman would be the property of the U.S.
    government.

**[Note]{.underline}:** This bill does not prohibit human cloning. By
defining "human cloning" so narrowly as to only include a cloned human
that is actually implanted in a uterus (see definitions above), the net
effect of the bill is to sanction the cloning of human embryos for
destructive research purposes. **Thus, under this bill, it would still
be *legal* to clone a human, just illegal to "grow" one in a woman's
womb. In effect, this bill is only a ban on pregnancy and live birth
using a cloned human embryo.**

**[Additional Information]{.underline}:** Canada, France, Germany, Italy
and 22 other countries have all enacted comprehensive bans on human
cloning, regardless of whether the cloned human embryo would be used for
research or reproduction purposes.

In 2005, the United Nations passed a declaration (by a vote of 84-34) to
"adopt all measures necessary to prohibit ***all forms of human
cloning*** inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the
protection of life." (emphasis added).

By allowing cloned human embryos to be created, but prohibiting their
implantation in the uterus and dubbing this later act "human cloning,"
the bill's authors are indirectly (and unintentionally) implying that a
human life beings upon implantation. Thus, a human embryo in the womb at
the earliest stage is a human being.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}: Conservatives will
likely have numerous concerns and objections to this bill. Conservatives
may be very concerned that bill represents the first time the U.S.
federal government explicitly would allow the creation of cloned human
embryos but *require* their destruction. Conservatives may be concerned
that the forfeiture clause would have the effect of making cloned babies
the property of the U.S. government. Conservatives may also be concerned
that this bill may lead to the exploitation of women, since women's eggs
are required for human cloning and the process of egg donation can have
serious side effects -- including infertility and death, in certain rare
cases. Conservatives may have concerns that this bill would make the
United States human cloning law one of the most liberal of all
industrialized nations, and would be more liberal than the United
Nations policy on human cloning.**

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 2560 was introduced on June 5,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which took
no official action.

**[Administration Policy]{.underline}:** A Statement of Administration
Policy (SAP) was issued on June 6^th^ stating the President's strong
opposition to H.R. 2560. The entire statement is as follows:

> **The President unequivocally opposes all forms of human cloning. The
> Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would
> prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the
> creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for
> research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life.
> [Thus, if legislation were presented to the President that permitted
> human embryos to be created, developed, and destroyed simply for
> research purposes, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto
> the bill]{.underline}.**

In a statement released by the Administration regarding passage of H.R.
534 in the 108^th^ Congress, the Administration also stated strong
opposition to any measure that would permit human embryos to be created
and then destroyed:

> "The Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would
> prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the
> creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for
> research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life.
> **Thus, the Administration would strongly oppose any substitute
> amendment that would permit human embryos to be created, developed,
> and destroyed solely for research purposes**" (emphasis added).
>
> ---Excerpt from OMB Statement of Administration Policy on the Human
> Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), February 26, 2003

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 2560 is
unavailable, though the bill is not likely to have any spending
implications.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}:** **Yes, as noted above, the bill represents
the first time the U.S. federal government explicitly would allow the
creation of cloned human embryos but *require* their destruction.**

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}:** No.

**[Outside Organizations Opposing]{.underline}**: This bill is being
[opposed]{.underline} by a variety of conservative and pro-family
organizations, including, but not limited to:

-   [AdvanceUSA](http://www.advanceusa.org/)

-   [Christian Coalition](http://www.cc.org/) \*

-   [Eagle Forum](http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/04-23-07.html) \*

-   [Family Research Council](http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=HOME) \*

-   [National Right to Life Committee](http://www.nrlc.org/) \*

-   [Traditional Values Coalition](http://www.traditionalvalues.org/) \*

-   [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops](http://www.usccb.org/)

> *\* Including the vote in annual Congressional Scorecard*

[]{.mark}

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports
contain "a statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

\###