PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Mar 30, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2009 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to expand the newborns and infants hearing loss program to include diagnostic services among the services provided.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to assist in the recruitment, retention, education, and training of qualified personnel and health care providers.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Includes within the purposes of such program: (1) prompt evaluation and diagnosis of children referred from screening programs; (2) appropriate education, audiological, and medical interventions for children identified with hearing loss; (3) developing efficient models to ensure that newborns and infants who are identified with a hearing loss through screening receive follow-up by a qualified health care provider; and (4) ensuring an adequate supply of qualified personnel to meet the screening, evaluation, and early intervention needs of children.
Requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), acting through the Director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, to establish a postdoctoral fellowship program to foster research and development in the area of early hearing detection and intervention.
Amends the definition of "early intervention" to require that families be given the opportunity to obtain the full range of appropriate early intervention services, educational and program placements, and other options for their child from highly qualified providers.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2015 for hearing screening programs and research.
People & committees
Rep. Capps, Lois [D-CA-23] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4078)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4078)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1246.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4078-4079)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 14.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-44.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-44.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Health Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1246 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1246 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1246 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1246 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.