PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 19, 2021
Improving Memphis' Supply Chain Act
This bill requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to undertake a process, in coordination with the Federal Maritime Commission, to create a voluntary chassis pool operated by a private sector contractor at the rail ramps near Memphis, TN. (Chassis are special trailers used to transport shipping containers.)
DOT must solicit proposals from contractors to develop a model for operating such a pool. The proposals must address, among other matters, a sustainable fee structure, estimates of the number of chassis needed in the pool, and real property necessary to operate the pool.
If any contractors submit satisfactory proposals, DOT must (1) contract with one of them to operate the pool, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the pool within one year of its implementation. In the event there are no satisfactory proposals submitted, DOT must provide Congress with alternative options to improve the availability of chassis at the rail ramps.
People & committees
Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN] · R–TN
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 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.3268 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.3268 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.3268 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.3268 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.