PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 15, 2000
Emergency Response Employees Disease Protection Act of 2000 - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study and report to Congress on: (1) an estimate of the prevalence of hepatitis C among designated emergency response employees in the United States; and (2) the likely means through which such employees become infected with such disease in the course of performing their duties. Defines "designated emergency response employees" as firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians who are employees or volunteers of units of local government.Directs the Secretary to make grants to qualifying local governments for purposes of carrying out demonstration projects that: (1) train such employees in minimizing the risk of infection of hepatitis C in performing their duties; and (2) test such employees for infection with, and treat them for, the disease. Defines "qualifying local government" as a local government whose population of designated emergency response employees has a prevalence of hepatitis C that is not less than 200 percent of the national average for the prevalence of such disease in such populations. Conditions such grants on the local government maintaining confidentiality of information regarding testing or treatment. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on evaluations of such projects and provide recommendations for administrative or legislative initiatives regarding project activities.Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Brady, Robert A. [D-PA-1] · D–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 Health and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Jun 3, 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.3659 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.3659 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.3659 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.3659 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.