PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 135.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 24, 1997
Amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to authorize appropriations for FY 1998 and 1999 to: (1) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to carry out the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; and (2) the Secretary of the Interior for such responsibilities as may be assigned to the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under such Act, with specified funds earmarked for the Global Seismic Network and for carrying out a competitive, peer-reviewed program under which FEMA, in close coordination with and as a complement to related activities of the USGS, awards grants to, or enters into cooperative agreements with, State and local governments and persons or entities from the academic community and the private sector. Earmarks funds for responsibilities under such Act for FY 1998 and 1999 for: (1) the National Science Foundation (NSF) for engineering research and geosciences research; and (2) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Requires the Director of USGS to: (1) conduct and report to the Congress on a program to develop a prototype real-time seismic warning system; and (2) provide for an assessment of and report to the Congress on regional seismic monitoring networks in the United States. Authorizes the Director of NSF to use funds made available under such Act to develop and make available to schools and local educational agencies for use by schools, at a minimal cost, earth science teaching materials that are designed to meet the needs of elementary and secondary school teachers and students. Requires the Director to conduct and report to the Congress on a project to improve the seismic hazard assessment of seismic zones. Requires the Director of FEMA to report to the Congress on the need for additional Federal disaster-response training capabilities that are applicable to earthquake response. Requires NSF, FEMA, USGS, and NIST to jointly develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to effectively use existing testing facilities and laboratories, upgrade facilities and equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic manner.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-9] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 135.
Committee on Resources discharged.
Committee on Resources discharged.
House Committee on Resources Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Aug. 1, 1997.
Reported by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 105-238, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 105-238, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to House Resources
Referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Science
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1514)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.2249 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.2249 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.2249 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.2249 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.