PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4846-4848)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 23, 2002
Chronic Wasting Disease State Support 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 a modeling program to predict the spread of the disease.Directs the Secretary of the Interior (through the U.S. Geological Survey) to conduct a surveillance and monitoring program on Federal lands to identify: (1) the rate of infection in wild herds of deer and elk; (2) the cause and extent of the spread of the disease; and (3) areas promoting the disease.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and maintain a web site that displays surveillance and monitoring program data and modeling information.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop: (1) guidelines for the collection of animal tissue samples; (2) a protocol to be used in the assessment of samples in the laboratory; and (3) a program for the inspection of laboratories conducting chronic wasting disease tests.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture (through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) to develop a program to identify: (1) the rate of infection in captive herds of deer and elk; (2) the cause and extent of the spread of the disease; and (3) areas promoting 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 program.Requires the Secretaries to enter a cooperative agreement and develop a grant program to allocate funds to State agencies responsible for wildlife management to develop and implement long term strategies to address the disease.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4846-4848)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4846)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.2560 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.2560 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.2560 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.2560 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.