PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Apr 5, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act - (Sec. 3) Amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States, transplant centers, qualified organ procurement organizations or other public or private entities to reimburse travel, subsistence, and incidental nonmedical expenses incurred by individuals toward making living organ donations.
(Sec. 4) Directs the Secretary to establish a public education program to increase awareness about organ donation and the need to provide for an adequate rate of donations. Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) make peer-reviewed grants to, or contracts with, public and nonprofit private entities for studies and demonstration projects to increase organ donation and recovery rates, including living donations; (2) make grants to States for organ donor awareness, public education, and outreach activities and programs designed to increase the number of organ donors within the State; and (3) support the development and dissemination of educational materials to inform health care professionals about organ, tissue, and eye donation issues.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary to award matching grants to qualified organ procurement organizations and hospitals to establish programs coordinating organ donation activities of eligible hospitals and qualified organ procurement organizations. (Defines "eligible hospital" as a hospital that performs significant trauma care, or a hospital or consortium of hospitals that serves a population base of not fewer than 200,000 individuals.) Requires a grantee to: (1) establish joint organ procurement organization and hospital designated leadership responsibility and accountability; (2) develop agreed upon project performance goals; (3) collaboratively design and implement a data collection process to provide ongoing project feedback; and (4) contribute at least 30 percent of the grant amount awarded. Requires the Secretary, within three years, to evaluate the extent to which the programs have increased the rate or organ donation.
(Sec. 5) Directs the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to: (1) develop scientific evidence supporting increased organ donation and improved recovery, preservation, and transportation of organs; and (2) support research to develop a uniform clinical vocabulary, to apply information technology to support clinical operations of organ procurement organizations, to enhance the skills of the organ procurement workforce, and to assess organ recovery, preservation, and transportation technologies.
Authorizes appropriations for FY 2005 through 2009.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to report on organ donation and recovery activities.
(Sec. 7) Authorizes the Secretary to establish and maintain mechanisms to evaluate the long-term effects associated with living organ donations by individuals who have served as living donors.
(Sec. 8) Directs the Secretary to report to Congress on the ethical implications of increasing cadaveric donations.
(Sec. 9) Eliminates certain grant authority with respect to qualified organ procurement organizations.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Michael [R-FL-9] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-216.
Became Public Law No: 108-216.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the Senate, considered, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3172)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, considered, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S3172)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 2 (Roll no. 76). (text: CR 3/23/2004 H1335-1336)
House roll call 76 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 2 (Roll no. 76).(text: CR 3/23/2004 H1335-1336)
House roll call 76 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1393)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3926.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1335-1339)
Mr. Rogers (MI) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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: Apr 7, 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.3926 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.3926 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.3926 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.3926 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.