PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 21, 2017
Securing America's Facilities, Equipment and Rail: Taking Responsibility for American National Security in Transit Act or the SAFER TRANSIT Act
This bill amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to reauthorize through FY2020 the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program and other specified activities related to public transportation security.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must: (1) develop a Local Transit Security Instructor Training Program, and (2) take steps necessary to ensure that the Federal Air Marshal Service uses its resources to cover the highest-risk flights.
DHS shall direct the Directorate of Science and Technology to prioritize research of scalable, cost-effective technology solutions to detect chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive threats abroad public transportation that are capable of continuous, real-time detecting of, and alerting passengers and operating personnel to, such threats.
People & committees
Rep. Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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 H.R.2975 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 H.R.2975 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 H.R.2975 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 H.R.2975 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.