PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 4, 1998
Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1998 - Provides for the establishment of a State one-call notification program to protect underground facilities from excavation damage. Outlines required elements of the program, including minimum standards and provisions for implementation and enforcement. Authorizes a State to maintain an alternate one-call notification program if it provides protection for public safety, the environment, or excavators that is equivalent to, or greater than, protection under a program that meets the minimum standards of this Act. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to study damage prevention practices associated with existing one-call notification systems in order to determine which systems practices appear to be the most effective in preventing damage to underground facilities and in protecting the public, the environment, excavators, and public service disruption. Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to assist qualifying States in improving their one-call notification programs. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Baker, Richard H. [R-LA-6] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
See H.R.2400.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E283)
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 21, 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.3318 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.3318 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.3318 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.3318 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.