PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 29, 2014
Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2014 - Provides that: (1) specified diseases, including heart disease, lung disease, and specified cancers, of federal employees employed in fire protection activities for a minimum of five years shall be presumed to be proximately caused by such employment if the employee is diagnosed with the disease within 10 years of the last active date of employment in fire protection activities; (2) the disability or death of such an employee due to such a disease shall be presumed to result from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty; and (3) such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. Allows such presumption for fire protection employees who contract any uncommon infectious disease, including but not limited to tuberculosis, hepatitis A, B, or C, or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), regardless of the length of employment of such employee.
Defines an "employee in fire protection activities" as a firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue worker, ambulance personnel, or hazardous material worker, who: (1) is trained in fire suppression; (2) has the legal authority and responsibility to engage in fire suppression; (3) is engaged in the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires or response to emergency situations where life, property, or the environment is at risk; and (4) performs such activities as a primary responsibility of his or her job.
Directs the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to examine the implementation of this Act and appropriate scientific and medical data related to the health risks associated with firefighting and to report to Congress on: (1) an analysis of the injury claims made under this Act, (2) an analysis of the available research related to the health risks associated with firefighting, and (3) recommendations for any administrative or legislative actions necessary to ensure that those diseases most associated with firefighting are included in the presumption created by this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 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 S.2266 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 S.2266 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 S.2266 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 S.2266 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.