PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 22, 2001
Drug Free Borders Act of 2001 - Amends the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 to authorize appropriations for the United States Customs Service for: (1) noncommercial and commercial operations; (2) the air and marine interdiction program; (3) Customs Service automation modernization; and (4) the construction, improvement, and expansion of Customs Service facilities.Earmarks amounts for: (1) the acquisition and deployment of narcotics detection equipment (including maintenance and support of such equipment, training of personnel, new technologies, and certain internal management improvements) along the United States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border, and the Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports; (2) additional new agents, inspectors, and canine enforcement officers (including, as deemed necessary, import specialists, entry specialists, intelligence analysts, and other administrative and support personnel) along such borders; and (3) Phase One and Phase Two of the Air and Marine Modernization Plan (air and marine drug interdiction operations).Directs the President to submit a plan for funding the acquisition and operation by the Customs Service of tethered aerostat radar systems currently operated by the Department of the Air Force and scheduled for replacement in FY 2002.Revises Federal customs provisions to provide for the appointment of the Commissioner of the Customs Service to a term of five years (with successive five year appointments thereafter).Directs the Commissioner to establish, within the Office of Internal Affairs of the Customs Service, an internal compliance program designed to enhance the performance of the Customs Service mission to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, and in particular, implementation of the Customs Modernization Act.Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to revise certain country of origin marking requirements with respect to imported articles to subject any person who destroys, removes, alters, or obliterates such mark to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.
People & committees
Sen. Gramm, Phil [R-TX] · R–TX
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 Finance.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S356)
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.92 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.92 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.92 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.92 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.