PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 2007
Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act of 2007 - Makes each of the 100 most populous U.S. urban areas eligible for a grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to award such grants after considering a study of how the variation in the output of models used for such awards can be apportioned to different sources of variation.
People & committees
Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-5] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E31)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 H.R.296 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.296 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.296 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.296 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.