PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 323.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Dec 14, 2015
Nicholas and Zachary Burt Memorial Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015
(Sec. 4) This bill directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish a grant program to provide assistance to states or tribal organizations that require compliant carbon monoxide alarms to be installed in dwelling units.
A "compliant carbon monoxide alarm" is an alarm that complies with: (1) the Standard for Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms of the American National Standards Institute and UL (ANSI/UL 2034) or a successor standard, and (2) the Standard for Gas and Vapor Detectors and Sensors of the American National Standards Institute and UL (ANSI/UL 2075) or a successor standard.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In selecting grant recipients, the CPSC must give favorable consideration to states or tribal organizations that: (1) require compliant alarms in specified facilities with fuel-burning appliances or attached garages, including educational facilities, childcare facilities, health care facilities, adult dependent care facilities, government buildings, restaurants, theaters, lodging establishments, or dwelling units; and (2) have strategies to protect vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, or low-income households.
States or tribal organizations receiving grants may use such funds to: (1) purchase and install such alarms in dwelling units of low-income families or elderly persons, childcare facilities, public schools, senior centers, or student dwelling units owned by public universities; (2) train state, tribal, or local fire code enforcement officials regarding compliance and installation; or (3) educate the public about the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The CPSC must report to Congress regarding the implementation of such grant program.
People & committees
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] · D–MN
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. 323.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 114-179.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 114-179.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.1250 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.1250 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.1250 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.1250 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.