PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 12, 2007
Christopher and Dana Reeve Quality of Life for Persons with Paralysis Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to permit the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH): (1) acting through the Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, to expand and coordinate NIH activities on paralysis research; (2) to award grants to plan, establish, improve, and provide basic operating support for Christopher Reeve Paralysis Research Consortia; (3) to educate and disseminate information and receive public comment on NIH programs and research regarding paralysis; (4) acting through the Director of the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Rehabilitation Research, to expand and coordinate NIH research with implications for enhancing daily function for persons with paralysis; and (5) to make grants to plan, establish, improve, and provide basic operating support for multicenter clinical trial networks to design clinical rehabilitation intervention protocols and measures of outcomes on paralysis.
Permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to study the health challenges associated with paralysis and other physical disabilities and carry out projects and interventions to improve the quality of life and long-term health status of individuals with such conditions. Permits the Secretary to award grants for activities related to paralysis, including to: (1) establish paralysis registries; and (2) disseminate information to the public. Allows the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to: (1) establish Paralysis Research, Education and Clinical Care Centers; and (2) award grants to medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to translate clinical findings and recommendations on paralysis into evidence-based best practices.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.446 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.446 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.446 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.446 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.