PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 19, 2012
Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to develop a scientific framework for research on recalcitrant cancers (cancer with a 5-year relative survival rate below 50%), which includes: (1) a review of the status of research, such as a summary of findings, identification of promising scientific advances, a description of the availability of qualified scientific researchers, and the identification of resources available to facilitate research; (2) identification of research questions that have not been adequately addressed; and (3) recommendations for actions to advance research and for appropriate benchmarks to measure progress on achieving such actions. Requires the Director to develop the framework within 18 months and review and update it every 5 years.
Requires the Director to identify within 6 months 2 or more recalcitrant cancers that have a 5-year relative survival rate of less than 20%, and are estimated to cause the death of at least 30,000 individuals in the United States per year. Authorizes the Director to identify additional such cancers and to consider additional metrics of progress (such as incidence and mortality rates) against such cancer.
Requires the Director to convene a working group for each identified cancer to provide expertise on, and assist in developing, a scientific framework under this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director to consider each relevant scientific framework developed under this Act when making recommendations for exception funding for grant applications.
People & committees
Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-14] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H6144-6145)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6144-6145)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 733.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6144-6147)
Mr. Pitts moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: 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.733 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.733 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.733 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.733 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.