PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 1, 2008
National Improvised Explosive Device Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2008 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Office for Bombing Prevention, which shall have primary responsibility within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for enhancing the nation's ability, and coordinating its efforts, to deter, detect, prevent, protect against, intercept, and respond to terrorist improvised explosive device (IED) attacks. Transfers to the Office all functions of the current Office for Bombing Prevention of DHS's Office of Infrastructure Protection.
Directs the Secretary of DHS to ensure that a Homeland Security Advisory Council subcommittee, to be known as the Senior Advisory Committee on Improvised Explosive Device Prevention and Response, is established. Requires the Committee to: (1) provide policy guidance and recommendations; (2) develop best practices, training, and basic operational procedures; (3) promote interoperability and information sharing between the federal government and IED first responders; and (4) meet annually to review grant applications under the Bomb Prevention and Response Grant Program (established by this Act) and provide advice on proposed grant allocations.
Requires the Secretary's annual report on progress in achieving compliance with the correction of Coast Guard identified vulnerabilities in port security and compliance with Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans to include: (1) the identification of modifications necessary in funding to ensure the correction of capability gaps identified by the Coast Guard and the dive team component of the national analysis database on the capabilities of IED first responders (required to be maintained by the Office for Bombing Prevention); and (2) an assessment of progress in completing assessments for the dive team component for all applicable ports.
People & committees
Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] · D–CT
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3714-3715)
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 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.2960 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.2960 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.2960 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.2960 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.