HR-1806-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Joseph Morelle (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand and coordinate research on triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), a particularly aggressive subtype. It would also direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop and distribute public education materials about TNBC, and direct the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to disseminate information to healthcare providers. Funding for all three programs would be authorized for fiscal years 2026 through 2031, with specific dollar amounts left to future appropriations.
Who benefits
Women diagnosed with or at risk for triple-negative breast cancer, particularly African-American and Hispanic women who face disproportionately higher rates of TNBC. Women under 50, who are more commonly affected by TNBC than by other breast cancer subtypes. Healthcare providers who would receive updated clinical information. Researchers and academic institutions that could receive NIH grants. Nonprofit organizations and consumer groups that could partner with CDC on public education. Patients in communities with historically limited access to cancer information.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would bear the cost of the authorized appropriations, though the bill does not specify a dollar amount. Other NIH research programs that may compete for limited discretionary funding if overall NIH budgets are constrained. Other disease research advocates whose priorities may receive relatively less attention or funding. There are no direct regulatory burdens imposed on any private party.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that TNBC is a uniquely lethal and undertreated cancer subtype — it lacks the hormone and protein receptors targeted by most modern breast cancer therapies, leaving surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy as the only options, making early detection critical. They contend that African-American women are three times more likely to develop TNBC than White women, yet current research data on prevalence, treatment costs, and prevention in minority populations remains inadequate, as the bill's own findings document. Directing NIH, CDC, and HRSA to coordinate research and education specifically on TNBC would address a documented gap in both scientific knowledge and public awareness.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill authorizes open-ended spending — "such sums as may be necessary" — without specifying funding levels, accountability metrics, or measurable outcomes, making it difficult to evaluate whether the programs would be effective or cost-efficient. They contend that NIH already has broad authority to fund cancer research through the National Cancer Institute and existing minority health programs, and that creating a new statutory mandate for a single cancer subtype sets a precedent for disease-specific earmarks that could fragment research priorities and reduce NIH's flexibility to direct resources toward the highest-impact science.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to fund research and public health education under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). This type of conditional grant-making and agency direction raises no significant constitutional tension under existing doctrine; NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) affirmed Congress's wide latitude to spend on public health programs.
Checks and balances
Congress gains a new statutory mandate directing NIH, CDC, and HRSA to act; the Appropriations Committees retain control over actual funding levels, and the executive branch agencies retain discretion over how programs are designed and implemented.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously enacted disease-specific research mandates, including the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990, which directed CDC to create targeted screening and education programs for underserved women.