PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Held at the desk.
Congressional Research Service
Version 55 · Passed Senate · Jan 5, 2026
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025
This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and expands the activities federal agencies must conduct under the program, including activities relating to secondary effects of earthquakes and post-earthquake infrastructure performance.
NEHRP is a coordinated earthquake hazards reduction program of four federal agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Science Foundation. Under NEHRP, these agencies are required to conduct various activities relating to earthquakes, including advancing warning systems, hazard reduction measures, and research to improve understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill expands the scope of the activities under NEHRP, including requiring the agencies to
improve understanding of and develop resilience measures for secondary effects and multiple hazards associated with earthquakes, such as tsunamis and fires;
improve post-earthquake functional recovery, which means maintaining or restoring the pre-earthquake functionality of buildings and lifeline infrastructure systems (e.g., infrastructure for water, electricity, and transportation); and
assist public entities with developing an inventory, and conducting seismic performance evaluation, of infrastructure with high seismic risk.
Additionally, the bill specifically includes tribal governments in the activities conducted under NEHRP.
People & committees
Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S7-10)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5-10)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 183.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cruz with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 119-74.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cruz with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 119-74.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.320 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.320 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.320 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.320 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.