PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 8, 2001
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) in collaboration with specified officials, to cooperate with the States to ensure that each State develops a medical disaster response plan regarding terrorist attacks that use biological or chemical weapons.Requires the Secretary to establish criteria that provide recommendations to the States for response plans which include provisions for: (1) a comprehensive assessment of State and local government response capabilities; (2) storage and distribution of pharmaceuticals in coordination with the Office of Emergency Preparedness and the CDCP designed to provide supplies for every victim within 24 hours of diagnosis; (3) training medical personnel; and (4) hospitals and medical personnel to conduct emergency drills.Directs the Secretary to request that the States submit proposed response plans to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, who shall coordinate the evaluation of such plans and the provision to the States of recommendations regarding plan modifications.
People & committees
Rep. Watson, Diane E. [D-CA-32] · D–CA
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 Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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: Jan 2, 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.3269 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.3269 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.3269 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.3269 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.