PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 28, 2015
Clinical Trial Cancer Mission 2020 Act
Amends the Public Health Service Act to revise clinical trial registry data bank provisions to specify that a device or drug clinical trial must be included in the clinical trial registry data bank regardless of whether it results in a positive or negative outcome.
Requires the responsible party of any clinical trials funded in whole or in part by the Department of Defense (DOD) to certify in all required grant or progress forms that the required submissions to the clinical trial registry data bank have been made. Requires DOD to verify that the clinical trial information has been submitted before releasing any remaining grant funds or funding future grants.
Makes a clinical trial grantee of the Department of Health and Human Services or DOD who fails to submit the required information to the data bank ineligible for the remaining grant funds or future funds. Makes the grantee liable for repayment of grant amounts already provided.
People & committees
Rep. Reed, Tom [R-NY-23] · R–NY
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: Aug 12, 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.617 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.617 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.617 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.617 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.