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 · Dec 16, 2011
Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to prescribe regulations requiring each motor carrier owning or leasing at least one motorcoach transporting passengers subject to DOT jurisdiction to display prominently in each motorcoach an understandable letter grade rating system allowing motorcoach passengers to compare the safety performance of motorcoach operators. Requires that such regulations also require motor carriers and any person selling motorcoach tickets to display the rating system in all announcements, advertisements, and points of sale for such motorcoach services and operations.
Defines "motorcoach" as the term "over-the-road bus" is defined under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, except that "motorcoach": (1) includes a motor vehicle used to transport passengers that has a gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds, and (2) excludes a bus used in public transportation that is provided by a state or local government or a school bus.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.2023 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.2023 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.2023 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.2023 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.