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 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Securing the Cities Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to establish the Securing the Cities program to enhance the ability of the United States to detect and prevent terrorist attacks and other high consequence events utilizing nuclear or other radiological materials that pose a high risk to homeland security in high-risk urban areas.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Under such program, the DNDO shall:
assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in designing and implementing, or enhancing existing, architectures for coordinated and integrated detection and interdiction of nuclear or other radiological materials that are out of regulatory control;
support the development of a region-wide operating capability to detect and report on nuclear and other radioactive materials out of regulatory control;
provide resources to enhance detection, analysis, communication, and coordination to better integrate state, local, tribal, and territorial assets into federal operations;
facilitate alarm adjudication and provide subject matter expertise and technical assistance on concepts of operations, training, exercises, and alarm response protocols;
communicate with, and promote sharing of information about the presence or detection of nuclear or other radiological materials among, appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in a manner that ensures transparency;
provide augmenting resources to enable state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to sustain and refresh their capabilities developed under the program; and
designate participating jurisdictions from among high-risk urban areas and other cities and regions, as appropriate, and notify Congress at least three days before designating or changing such jurisdictions.
The Comptroller General is required to submit an assessment evaluating the effectiveness of the program.
(Sec. 3) The DNDO shall report to Congress on the feasibility of developing model exercises to test the preparedness of jurisdictions participating in the program in meeting the challenges that may be posed by a range of nuclear and radiological threats.
People & committees
Rep. Donovan, Daniel M., Jr. [R-NY-11] · R–NY
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H796)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H796)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 655.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H796-797)
Mr. Donovan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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.
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.655 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.655 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.655 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.655 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.