PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 22, 2011
Border Health Security Act of 2011 - Amends the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act to revise the duties of the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission to include serving as an independent and objective body to both recommend and implement initiatives that solve border health issues.
Authorizes a member of the Commission to provide advice or recommendations to Congress concerning issues that are considered by the Commission.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the members of the Commission, to award grants to eligible entities to improve the health of individuals residing in the United States-Mexico Border Area.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to award grants under the Early Warning Infectious Disease Surveillance project to eligible entities for infection disease surveillance activities in the United States-Mexico Border Area.
Requires the Commission to: (1) prepare a binational strategic plan to guide the operations of the Commission, and (2) develop and approve an operational work plan and budget based on the strategic plan.
Requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an evaluation of Commission activities.
Requires the Secretary to enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine for a study concerning binational health infrastructure, with respect to the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada (including trauma and emergency care), and health insurance efforts.
Authorizes the Secretary to coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) in establishing a health alert system that: (1) alerts clinicians and public health officials of emerging disease clusters and syndromes along the United States-Mexico Border Area; and (2) is alerted to signs of health threats, disasters of mass scale, or bioterrorism along the United States-Mexico Border Area.
People & committees
Rep. Reyes, Silvestre [D-TX-16] · D–TX
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 the Western Hemisphere.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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.2298 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.2298 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.2298 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.2298 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.