PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2002
Chronic Wasting Disease Support for States Act of 2002 - Defines "chronic wasting disease" as a transmissible disease of the nervous system afflicting deer and elk.Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish and maintain the official national database for surveillance and monitoring data regarding chronic wasting disease. Makes the database available to Federal and State agencies, Indian tribes, foreign governments, institutions of higher education, and international wildlife authorities.Directs the Secretary of the Interior (through the U.S. Geological Survey) and the Secretary of Agriculture (through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) to develop surveillance and monitoring programs to identify: (1) the rate of infection; (2) the cause and extent of the spread of the disease; and (3) areas promoting spread of the disease. Requires the Secretaries to cooperate with State and tribal agencies in developing the monitoring programs. Authorizes the Secretaries to establish standards for the collection and assessment of data.Directs the Secretary of the Interior to allocate funds to State and tribal agencies for developing and implementing disease management strategies based upon: (1) the relative scope of incidence of the disease; (2) expenditures on disease management; (3) comprehensive and integrated programs for disease management between wildlife and agricultural agencies; and (4) rapid response to outbreaks.Directs the Secretary of the Interior (through the U.S. Geological Survey) to expand and accelerate research on the disease.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture: (1) to provide for the upgrading of Federal laboratories approved to process samples from the surveillance and monitoring programs; and (2) expand and accelerate research on the disease through the Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State Research grant programs.
People & committees
Rep. McInnis, Scott [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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
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: Aug 19, 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 H.R.4795 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.4795 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.4795 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.4795 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.