PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 2, 2003
National Preparedness Standards Act - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish clearly defined standards and guidelines for Federal, State, and local government emergency preparedness and response capability, including standards and guidelines for training, interoperable communication systems, and response equipment. Requires such standards to be: (1) sufficiently flexible to allow local government officials to set priorities based on their needs, while reaching nationally-determined preparedness levels within a fixed time period; and (2) measurable and subject to Federal audit.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) determine minimum essential emergency preparedness and response capabilities for each State; (2) measure the progress of each State in achieving such capabilities and in complying with standards issued by the Secretary; and (3) include in the FY 2005 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security a separate minimum essential emergency preparedness and response capability standard for metropolitan areas and for rural areas with respect to weapons of mass destruction and terrorism-related disaster equipment and training.
People & committees
Rep. Shays, Christopher [R-CT-4] · R–CT
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 Preparedness and Response.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security (Select), 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 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security (Select), 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 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security (Select), 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 18, 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.3227 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.3227 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.3227 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.3227 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.