PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 107.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jul 21, 2011
Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties on persons who traffic in counterfeit goods or services if: (1) the offense involved a military good or service that malfunctioned, failed, or was compromised and could reasonably be foreseen to cause serious bodily injury or death, disclosure of classified information, impairment of combat operations, or other significant harm to a member of the Armed Forces or to national security; and (2) the person had knowledge that the good or service is falsely identified as meeting military standards or is intended for use in a military or national security application.
Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to: (1) review and amend federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements to reflect the intent of Congress to increase penalties for defendants that sell infringing products to, or for the use by or for, the Armed Forces or a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency or for use in critical infrastructure or in national security applications; and (2) consider an appropriate offense level enhancement and minimum offense level for offenses that involve a product that is used to maintain or operate critical infrastructure or that is used by or for an entity of the federal government or a state or local government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security.
Requires the Commission, in accordance with emergency authority under the Sentencing Act of 1987, to promulgate such guidelines and policy statements no later than 180 days after this Act's enactment and amend such guidelines to achieve consistency with other guideline provisions and applicable law.
People & committees
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 107.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-922.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.1228 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.1228 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.1228 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.1228 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.