PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 30, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 28, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Pediatric Research Consortia Establishment Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), acting through the Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to public or nonprofit private entities to pay all or part of the cost of planning, establishing, and providing basic operating support for up to 20 national pediatric research consortia. Requires the Director of NIH to take unmet research needs into account when making awards under this Act.
Declares that research conducted under this Act shall supplement, but not replace, research that is otherwise conducted or supported as part of the comprehensive pediatric research portfolio.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires consortia to conduct basic, clinical, behavioral, social, or translational research, as well as training in, and demonstration of, advanced diagnostic and treatment methods relating to pediatrics.
Requires the Director of NIH to: (1) provide for the coordination of information and ensure regular communication between consortia; and (2) require periodic reports on the activities of the consortia.
Requires each consortium under this Act to be formed from a collaboration of cooperating institutions with a lead institution, meeting requirements that may be prescribed by the Director of NIH.
Declares that payments made under this Act may be provided for a period of five years and extended for additional five-year periods with enhanced funding opportunities based on an appropriate scientific review of the operations.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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 9/28/2010 H7177)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 9/28/2010 H7177)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7379)
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. 758.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7177-7178)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 380.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-640.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-640.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings 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.758 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.758 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.758 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.758 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.