Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 15, 2022
Heidi's Law
This bill revises the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs to include testing for methadone and newly identified drug substances.
The Department of Health and Human Services must revise the guidelines to (1) expand the opiate category on the list of substances authorized for testing to include methadone, and (2) add any new drugs which may not have been previously included on such list.
The Department of Transportation must update its regulations containing procedures for transportation employee workplace drug and alcohol testing programs to include testing for methadone and newly identified drug substances.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Oversight and Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.9599 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.9599 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.9599 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.9599 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.