PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.2692 / 103rd Congress

Federal Emergency Response Improvement Act of 1993

Executive Comment Requested from DOD, FEMA.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 1993

Federal Emergency Response Improvement Act of 1993 - Expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) the Federal Government should give immediate attention to developing a broad risk-based strategy for improving Federal readiness and response to major disasters; (2) the all hazards approach is the best way to prepare the United States for all threats; (3) the American Red Cross and other volunteer organizations make valuable contributions in responding to disasters; and (4) State and local responses to disasters and emergencies must be strengthened and maintained. Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require: (1) the President or his designee to conduct and complete an inventory of critical resources related to emergency assistance that are available to the Government; (2) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a certification program to encourage States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters; and (3) the President to establish systems for the use of volunteers and management of donated goods during disasters. Directs the President to establish a Domestic Crisis Monitoring Unit, headed by a member of the National Security Council, to: (1) monitor potential disasters and emergencies; (2) notify the President and Federal agencies of impending disasters and emergencies when it deems necessary; and (3) ensure effective, rapid, and immediate Federal agency response to disasters. Provides for the establishment of disaster strike teams. Mandates restructuring of FEMA in order to implement an all hazards approach to disaster management and use defense-related resources for disasters.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Peterson, Douglas (Pete) [D-FL-2] · D–FL

Committees

  • Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
  • Armed Services Committee
3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Executive Comment Requested from DOD, FEMA.

  2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

  3. Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

  4. Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

  5. Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.

  6. Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

  7. Introduced in House

  8. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.2692 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.2692 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.2692 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.2692 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.

View full prompt & sources