PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 27, 2017
Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity for Children Act or the RACE for Children Act
This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements for sponsors of certain drugs and biological products for adult cancer to assess the use of their medications in pediatric populations. (Currently, applications for FDA approval of new medications or new uses of medications must include pediatric assessments of safety and effectiveness for claimed indications, with exceptions.) The pediatric assessment for medications, including orphan drugs, that are used to treat cancer in adults and target a molecule germane to pediatric cancer must assess the safety and effectiveness of the medication for pediatric cancer. The bill limits waivers of pediatric assessments for medications that target a molecule germane to a pediatric cancer for which there is a need for additional treatment options.
The FDA may require the sponsor of an approved medication that targets a molecule germane to pediatric cancer to complete a pediatric assessment if: (1) the medication is used for a substantial number of pediatric cancer patients, or (2) there is reason to believe the medication would have a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing therapies for pediatric cancer patients.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The FDA committee that reviews requests for pediatric studies must implement a plan to achieve earlier submission of pediatric studies. (Currently, completion of pediatric clinical studies requested by the FDA extends the patents or marketing exclusivity period for a medication by six months, with exceptions.)
The FDA must act within 120 days on proposed pediatric study requests and proposed amendments to requests.
People & committees
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.456 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 S.456 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 S.456 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 S.456 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.