PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 30, 2008
Next Generation Radiation Screening Act of 2008 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require: (1) the Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enter into an agreement regarding the minimum required functionality for the deployment of Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors (ASP) by CBP; and (2) the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide Congress with the signed memorandum of understanding between the Office and CBP.
Directs the Secretary to develop quantitative metrics that demonstrate any significant increased operational effectiveness of deploying ASP in primary and secondary screening sites. Requires such metrics to include: (1) a quantitative definition of "significant increase in operational effectiveness"; (2) all relevant threat materials; (3) all relevant masking scenarios; and (4) cost-benefit analysis in accordance with the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Permits the Secretary, in determining whether to certify that ASP shows a significant increase in operational effectiveness, to consider: (1) relevant reports on ASP from the Government Accountability Office (GAO); and (2) assessments of ASP by the Independent Review Team led by the Homeland Security Institute in consultation with the National Archives.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes appropriations to the Director for FY2009 and for each subsequent fiscal year for the Securing the Cities Initiative.
People & committees
Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-3] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 7/29/2008 H7180-7181)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 7/29/2008 H7180-7181)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7596)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Bilirakis objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5531.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7180-7182)
Mr. Thompson (MS) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 487.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 110-764.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 110-764.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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: Apr 7, 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.5531 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.5531 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.5531 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.5531 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.