PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 3, 2018
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2018
This bill amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to expand activities under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to include: (1) gathering information on community resilience (i.e., the ability of a community to prepare for, recover from, and adapt to earthquakes); (2) publishing a systematic set of maps of active faults and folds, liquefaction susceptibility, susceptibility for earthquake-induced landslides, and other seismically induced hazards; and (3) continuing the development of the Advanced National Seismic System, including earthquake early warning capabilities.
With respect to earthquake hazard reduction activities, the bill revises or expands the duties of: (1) the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, (2) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), (3) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (4) the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and (5) the National Science Foundation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Government Accountability Office shall complete a review of federal earthquake hazard risk reduction efforts.
NIST and FEMA must jointly convene a committee of experts to assess and recommend options for improving seismic safety standards for federal buildings. The USGS must submit to Congress a five-year management plan for the continued operation of the Advanced National Seismic System.
People & committees
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA-48] · R–CA
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 Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and 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 Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and 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 Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and 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 11, 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.6650 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.6650 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.6650 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.6650 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.