PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 797.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 10, 2004
High Risk Nonprofit Security Enhancement Act of 2004 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) enter into contracts for security enhancements and technical assistance for nonprofit organizations; and (2) issue Federal loan guarantees in connection with loans made by financial institutions to nonprofit organizations for such assistance.
Directs the Secretary to designate high-risk nonprofit organizations eligible for contracts or loans based on the vulnerability of the specific site of the nonprofit to international terrorist attacks. Sets forth criteria for vulnerability determinations.
Authorizes the use of federally guaranteed funds borrowed from lending institutions for technical assistance and security enhancements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires each State to designate a State agency to evaluate applications for assistance and transmit qualifying applications to the Secretary.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) select applications for assistance, giving preference to nonprofit organizations determined to be at greatest risk of international terrorist attack; and (2) execute contracts for the highest priority applicants until available funds are expended, followed by loan guarantees.
Requires nonprofit organizations granted assistance to use certified contractors selected from a list maintained by the Secretary.
Authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to local governments to offset incremental costs associated with law enforcement in areas with a high concentration of nonprofit organizations.
Establishes within the Department of Homeland Security the Office of Community Relations and Civic Affairs to administer grant programs for nonprofit organizations and local law enforcement assistance.
People & committees
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 797.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins under authority of the order of the Senate of 10/11/04 with amendments. With written report No. 108-408. Minority views filed.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins under authority of the order of the Senate of 10/11/04 with amendments. With written report No. 108-408. Minority views filed.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3580-3581)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3579-3580)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.2275 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.2275 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.2275 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.2275 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.