PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 7, 2008
Amends provisions of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (popularly known as the Ryan White Care Act [RWCA]) to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to administer certain RWCA grants in lieu of the chief elected official of an eligible area or state if the Secretary determines that the eligible area or state has substantially failed to make appropriate use of such grants during either of the two previous fiscal years.
Provides that the Secretary is not authorized to administer any such grant to an eligible area or state in consecutive fiscal years.
Requires the Secretary in making a determination under this Act to consider whether: (1) more than 5% of the grant funds awarded remained unobligated one year after the date on which the grant was made; (2) the eligible area or state has had additional requirements imposed on the grant under applicable federal regulations; or (3) the eligible area or state has had special conditions or restrictions imposed on the grant.
Allows the Secretary to delegate to a federal instrumentality or private entity the authority to administer such grant.
People & committees
Rescom. Fortuno, Luis G. [R-PR-At Large] · R–PR
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 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 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.5292 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.5292 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.5292 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.5292 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.