PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-370.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 20, 1998
Correction Officers Health and Safety Act of 1998 - Amends the Federal criminal code to direct the Attorney General to cause each individual convicted of a Federal offense who is sentenced to incarceration for a period of six months or more to be tested for the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as appropriate, if such individual is determined to be at risk for infection with such virus in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Bureau of Prisons relating to infectious disease management. Requires the Attorney General: (1) to cause a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a Federal offense, or ordered detained before trial, to be tested for HIV if such person is believed to have intentionally or unintentionally transmitted HIV to any U.S. officer or employee or to any person lawfully present in a correctional facility who is not incarcerated there; (2) to communicate the test results to the person tested; (3) consistent with the guidelines, to inform any person who may have been exposed to such virus of the potential risk involved and, if warranted by the circumstances, that prophylactic or other treatment should be considered; and (4) if the results indicate the presence of HIV, to provide appropriate access for counselling, health, and support services to the affected officer, employee, or other person, and to the person tested. Declares that test results are inadmissible against the person tested in any Federal or State civil or criminal case or proceeding. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) issue rules to implement this Act which shall require that the test results be communicated only to the person tested, and, if the results indicate the presence of HIV, to correctional facility personnel consistent with the guidelines, and which provide procedures to protect the privacy of the person requesting the test and the person tested; and (2) provide to the States proposed guidelines for the prevention, detection, and treatment of incarcerated persons and correctional employees who have, or may be exposed to, infectious diseases in correctional institutions.
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-370.
Became Public Law No: 105-370.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H11701)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H11701)
Mr. Solomon asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 3832 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 3832 proposed by Senator Burns for Senator Hatch.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S12680)
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6935-6937)
Mr. Hyde moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-665.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-665.
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 Crime.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.2070 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.2070 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.2070 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.2070 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.