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 4, 2007
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish an independent panel to assess the homeland security needs of the National Capital Region. Requires the panel to: (1) determine whether the definition of National Capital Region used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should be modified to include additional areas, including jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia along Interstate Routes 270, 95, and 66; and (2) determine whether those jurisdictions should be taking actions to prepare for a terrorist attack in the Region, including the construction of necessary facilities, and if so, to make recommendations for appropriate funding.
People & committees
Rep. Bartlett, Roscoe G. [R-MD-6] · R–MD
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.
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: Nov 15, 2019. 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.64 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.64 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.64 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.64 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.