PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 28, 2005
Safe Communities Act of 2005 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide cost-sharing grants to states and local governments for: (1) development or revision of land use planning statutes, and state or local comprehensive planning documents, in those states or local governments that have not adequately incorporated strategies to mitigate natural and human-caused hazards, including terrorism; (2) creation or revision of state land use statutes and local comprehensive land use plans in those states or local governments that have land use statutes that incorporate risk-reduction and natural and human-caused hazard mitigation; and (3) development or revision of multi-state land use plans.
Sets forth eligible grant purposes, including: (1) developing a comprehensive land use plan and integrating natural hazard mitigation and security plan elements into state and local comprehensive plans; (2) assessing, inventorying, or mapping critical public infrastructure; (3) developing geographical information systems; (4) acquiring scenario planning, or risk assessment technology; (5) reviewing building codes, zoning, land use regulations, and related state legislation; (6) implementing crime prevention through environmental design initiatives; (7) assessing land use risk; (8) incorporating mitigation and security elements in transportation plans, facilities, and operations; (9) encouraging interagency cooperation; particularly between first-responders and state and local planning agencies; and (10) identifying natural hazard areas and integrating them into comprehensive plan updates.
Directs the Secretary to analyze comprehensive land use and community planning practices in order to reduce natural hazard and terrorism threats, including: (1) integration of federal facility security with local and regional plans; (2) examination of the impacts of security strategies, facilities, and design on a community's physical and social environment; and (3) integration of mapping and risk-assessment tools and strategies.
People & committees
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] · D–OR
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, Science, and Technology.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1679)
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 15, 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.3524 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.3524 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.3524 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.3524 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.