PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2533-2534)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 14, 2011
Requires the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP): (1) to report on whether the methodologies and technologies used by CBP to screen for and detect the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in municipal solid waste are as effective as those used to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering the United States through commercial motor vehicle transport; and (2) if such waste screening measures are less effective, to report on the actions CBP will take to achieve the same level of effectiveness.
Bars entry of such waste into the United States if such actions are not fully implemented within a specified period following such report until such screening measures are certified to be as effective for such waste as for other items entering U.S. commerce.
People & committees
Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] · D–MI
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2533-2534)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2533)
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: Jan 14, 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.860 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.860 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.860 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.860 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.