PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 2, 2011
Danny McIntosh Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986 to include within the definitions of "member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew" and "public safety officer" for purposes of eligibility for public safety officers' benefits an officially recognized or designated employee or volunteer member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew that: (1) is a public agency or a nonprofit entity serving the public that is officially authorized or licensed to engage in rescue activity or to provide emergency medical services and that is officially designated as a prehospital emergency medical response agency, and (2) is engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency medical services.
Cancels $12 million of unobligated balances available under the Department of Justice (DOJ) Assets Forfeiture Fund.
Makes this Act applicable to injuries sustained on or after June 1, 2009.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [R-PA-8] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.1668 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.1668 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.1668 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.1668 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.