PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-47.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jul 30, 1997
Amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to authorize appropriations for FY 1998 and 1999 to: (1) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to carry out the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; and (2) the Secretary of the Interior for such responsibilities as may be assigned to the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under such Act, with specified funds earmarked for the Global Seismic Network and for carrying out a competitive, peer-reviewed program under which FEMA, in close coordination with and as a complement to related activities of the USGS, awards grants to, or enters into cooperative agreements with, State and local governments and persons or entities from the academic community and the private sector. Earmarks funds for responsibilities under such Act for FY 1998 and 1999 for: (1) the National Science Foundation (NSF) for engineering research and geosciences research; and (2) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Requires the Director of USGS to: (1) conduct and report to the Congress on a program to develop a prototype real-time seismic warning system; and (2) provide for an assessment of and report to the Congress on regional seismic monitoring networks in the United States. Authorizes the Director of NSF to use funds made available under such Act to develop and make available to schools and local educational agencies for use by schools, at a minimal cost, earth science teaching materials that are designed to meet the needs of elementary and secondary school teachers and students. Requires the Director to conduct and report to the Congress on a project to improve the seismic hazard assessment of seismic zones. Requires the Director of FEMA to report to the Congress on the need for additional Federal disaster-response training capabilities that are applicable to earthquake response. Requires NSF, FEMA, USGS, and NIST to jointly develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to effectively use existing testing facilities and laboratories, upgrade facilities and equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic manner.
People & committees
Sen. Frist, William H. [R-TN] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-47.
Became Public Law No: 105-47.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 0 (Roll no. 395).
House roll call 395 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 0 (Roll no. 395).
House roll call 395 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7321-7322)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Condit objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7298-7301)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in 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 Voice Vote.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8524-8526)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 141.
Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator McCain with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-59.
Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator McCain with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-59.
Committee on Commerce. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5701)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.910 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.910 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.910 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.910 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.