PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 14, 1999
Victims of Rape Health Protection Act - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to reduce by ten percent the funds available to a State under the drug control grant program unless such State demonstrates that in its laws or regulations with respect to a defendant against whom a rape charge is brought, such State requires that: (1) the defendant be tested for HIV if the nature of the crime would have placed the victim at risk of HIV and the victim requests such a test; (2) the defendant be so tested within 48 hours after the information or indictment is presented and that the test results be made immediately available to the victim; (3) the defendant undergo any appropriate follow-up tests and that those test results be made immediately available to the victim; and (4) if results indicate that the defendant has HIV, such fact may be considered in the judicial proceedings conducted for the crime.Allows funds reduced for noncompliance with such requirements to be redistributed to complying States.
People & committees
Rep. Weldon, Dave [R-FL-15] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 380 - 19 (Roll no. 505). (text: CR H8583)
House roll call 505 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 380 - 19 (Roll no. 505).(text: CR H8583)
House roll call 505 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8589-8590)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3088.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8583-8588)
Mr. Canady moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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 20, 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.3088 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.3088 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.3088 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.3088 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.