PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 9, 2005
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, consisting of: (1) the Center for Domestic Preparedness; (2) the National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; (3) the National Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training, Louisiana State University; (4) the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center, Texas A&M University; (5) the National Exercise, Test, and Training Center, Nevada test site; and (6) the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado.
Requires the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, to the fullest extent possible, to use the Consortium to support cooperative programs to achieve cost-effective delivery of equipment, technical assistance, training, and situational exercises.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12615-12616)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 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 S.1986 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 S.1986 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 S.1986 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 S.1986 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.