PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 521.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 20, 2004
Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to define and clarify the respective public transportation security roles and responsibilities of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Requires DOT's Federal Transit Administration to submit all public transportation security assessments to DHS and the Secretary to review and augment such assessments.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish security improvement priorities and to update them annually; (2) conduct assessments of all transit agencies considered to be at greatest risk of a terrorist attack, of local bus-only public transportation systems, and of selected rural transportation systems; and (3) use information collected to establish the process for developing security guidelines.
Directs the Secretary to award grants directly to public transportation agencies for allowable capital security improvements (including tunnel and perimeter protection systems and surveillance and communications equipment); and (2) operational security improvements (including security training for transit employees, drills, public awareness campaigns, and canine patrols for chemical, biological, or explosives detection).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) ensure that DOT receives appropriate and timely notification of all credible terrorist threats against U.S. public transportation assets; and (2) award grants for research, development, and demonstration of technologies and methods to reduce and deter terrorist threats or mitigate damages resulting from such attacks. Requires DHS to fund the reasonable costs of an Information Sharing and Analysis Center for Public Transportation.
People & committees
Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] · R–AL
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. 521.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Shelby. Without written report.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Shelby. Without written report.
Introduced in Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ordered to be reported an original measure.
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.2453 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.2453 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.2453 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.2453 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.