PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-426.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 15, 2008
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Organ Transplant Authorization Act of 2008 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to increase the maximum amount of funds provided for the establishment and operation of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for any fiscal year.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to request that the Executive Director of the Network report to Congress on the effects of the heart allocation policy change of 2006. Conditions increased funding on submission of such a report.
People & committees
Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-426.
Became Public Law No: 110-426.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H10807)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H10807)
Ms. DeGette asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H10807)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10421-10422)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 9/23/2008 H8668)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 9/23/2008 H8668)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9913)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Burgess objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6469.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8668-8670)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: Dec 5, 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.6469 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.6469 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.6469 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.6469 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.