PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 2, 1996
Drug-Free Workplace and Public Safety Assurance Act of 1996 - Amends the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to exclude from the definition of qualified individual with a disability, with respect to safety-sensitive employment functions, individuals who have a record or history of the habitual or regular use of illegal drugs or of the abuse of alcohol, or of clinical alcoholism. Makes conforming amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
People & committees
Rep. Zeliff, William H., Jr. [R-NH-1] · R–NH
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 Employer-Employee Relations.
Referred to the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
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: Mar 23, 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.4017 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.4017 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.4017 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.4017 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.