PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 27, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 9, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Pacific Northwest Earthquake Preparedness Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to: (1) develop a plan for the purchase and installation of an earthquake early warning system for the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and (2) identify the funds necessary for its implementation. Such zone is the landward-dipping fault that is approximately 684 miles long, separates the Juan de Fuca and North America plates, and stretches along the western coast of the United States from Cape Mendocino, California, to Northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) The President shall establish an Earthquake and Tsunami Task Force for the purpose of developing a comprehensive strategy and recommendations on how the nation should prepare and plan for, mitigate against, respond to, recover from, and more successfully adapt to an earthquake, tsunami, or combined earthquake and tsunami event in such zone. Such recommendations shall include recommendations on: (1) administrative or legislative changes and funding required to implement the strategy, and (2) the order of priority for implementation of the strategy.
The Task Force shall enter into an agreement with the National Academies for developing recommendations for a federal research strategy to advance scientific understanding of a zone earthquake and resulting tsunami preparedness.
(Sec. 4) FEMA shall be responsible for the nation's efforts to reduce the loss of life and property, and to protect the nation, from an earthquake, tsunami, or combined earthquake and tsunami event by developing the ability to prepare and plan for, mitigate against, respond to, recover from, and more successfully adapt to such an event.
(Sec. 5) The bill amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize recipients to use hazard mitigation assistance to conduct activities to help reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering in any area affected by earthquake hazards, including making improvements to:
regional seismic networks in support of building a capability for earthquake early warning;
geodetic networks in support of building a capability for earthquake early warning; and
seismometers, Global Positioning System receivers, and associated infrastructure in support of building a capability for earthquake early warning.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 11 (Roll no. 196). (text: CR H2450-2451)
House roll call 196 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 11 (Roll no. 196).(text: CR H2450-2451)
House roll call 196 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2454-2455)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 654.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2450-2452)
Mr. Barletta moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 12.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-30.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-30.
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E91)
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: Apr 7, 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.654 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.654 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.654 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.654 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.