PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jun 6, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
10,000 Trained by 2010 Act - Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award competitive grants for basic research on innovative approaches to improve health care information systems.
Requires the Director to award competitive, multi-year grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) to establish multidisciplinary Centers for Informatics Research for conducting cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research to generate innovative approaches in health care information. Allows IHEs to partner with one or more government laboratories and for-profit or nonprofit institutions. Requires the Director to convene an annual meeting of the Centers to foster collaboration and cooperation between Center participants.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director to award competitive grants to IHEs to establish or improve undergraduate and master's degree health care information programs, attract students to such programs, and provide them with experience in government or industry related to their studies. Requires the Director to evaluate this grant program within three years of establishing it.
Requires the Director to award grants under the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 for the purposes of two existing grant programs that provide funds to associate-degree-granting IHEs for: (1) improving education in advanced technology, science, and mathematics; and (2) establishing centers of excellence in such subjects that serve as information clearinghouses and models for other educational institutions. Limits the use of these new grants to improving health information education.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2011.
People & committees
Rep. Wu, David [D-OR-1] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Star Print ordered on the bill.
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 H6024-6025)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6024-6025)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1467.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6024-6026)
Mr. Wu moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 104.
Reported by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-172.
Reported by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-172.
Ordered to be Reported.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 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.1467 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.1467 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.1467 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.1467 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.