To amend title II of the Public Health Service Act to include as an additional right or privilege of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (and their beneficiaries) certain leave provided under title 10, United States Code to commissioned officers of the Army (or their beneficiaries).
- Sponsor
- Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill standardizes leave policies for Public Health Service commissioned officers by aligning them with those of the U.S. Army, aiming for parity across uniformed services.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to extend the leave provisions currently applicable to commissioned officers of the Army under Chapter 40 of Title 10, U.S. Code, to commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS) and their beneficiaries. It also repeals the existing PHS-specific leave section, thereby standardizing leave policies across these uniformed services. The effect is to ensure PHS officers receive the same leave benefits as Army officers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill promotes equity and consistency across the uniformed services by ensuring that PHS commissioned officers receive the same leave benefits as their counterparts in the Army. This standardization can improve morale, recruitment, and retention within the PHS, recognizing their critical contributions to public health and national security.
Opponents contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against standardizing administrative benefits like leave across uniformed services, as it generally promotes fairness and reduces administrative complexity. Potential concerns, if any, might relate to unforeseen administrative burdens during the transition or minor fiscal impacts, though these are generally considered negligible compared to the benefits of parity.
The bill is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and complete understanding of its provisions.
Section 1(a)
Extension of Military Leave Benefits to PHS Officers
This provision integrates Chapter 40 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which outlines leave policies for Army commissioned officers, into the Public Health Service Act. This means that PHS commissioned officers and their beneficiaries will now be subject to the same rules regarding annual leave, sick leave, parental leave, and other forms of authorized absence as those serving in the Army.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that aligning PHS officer leave with Army standards ensures equitable treatment across uniformed services, recognizing the similar demands and sacrifices made by PHS personnel. This parity is crucial for recruitment, retention, and morale, making the PHS a more attractive career path.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it aims to standardize benefits across uniformed services, which is generally seen as fair and administratively efficient. Any potential opposition would likely focus on minor administrative adjustments rather than the principle itself.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is balancing the unique operational needs of the PHS with the desire for uniformity across all uniformed services. While standardization simplifies administration and promotes equity, it might require minor adjustments to PHS-specific operational protocols.
Section 1(b)
Repeal of Section 219 of the Public Health Service Act
This section repeals the existing Section 219 of the Public Health Service Act, which previously governed leave for PHS officers. This repeal is a conforming amendment, ensuring that the new Title 10 leave provisions are the sole governing authority for PHS commissioned officers' leave, preventing conflicting regulations.
The bill incorporates "Chapter 40, Leave" from Title 10, United States Code, into the Public Health Service Act. This means the specific details of leave entitlements for PHS officers are not explicitly stated in H.R. 2846 but are instead found by reference in a separate, extensive body of law.
Section 1(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for incorporating existing bodies of law without reprinting them, promoting brevity and consistency across related statutes. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Supporters argue that incorporating by reference is an efficient legislative technique that avoids redundancy and ensures that PHS officers' leave policies automatically align with any future changes made to military leave policies under Title 10.
Case against: Critics might argue that incorporating by reference makes the law less accessible to the average reader or even to PHS officers themselves, requiring them to navigate multiple legal texts to understand their entitlements fully.
Estimated impact: This provision fundamentally changes the legal framework governing leave for approximately 6,000 commissioned officers of the PHS, aligning their benefits with those of the Army.