To amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to reauthorize the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System.
Summary
HB3176 reauthorizes the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, a federal program originally established in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The bill updates the covered authorization period from 2019–2023 to 2026–2029 and revises the responsible federal references from the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA to the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce, respectively.
It also sets a specific funding level of $470,000 for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2029, replacing the prior authorization of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2023 through 2024. In practical terms, the bill continues federal support for volcano monitoring and early warning activities, which are intended to improve hazard detection, public safety, and emergency preparedness in volcanic regions.
Impact
The bill amends Section 5001(c) of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, extending and updating the statutory authorization for the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System. It changes the time frame and funding structure for the program and adjusts agency references in the underlying law, thereby maintaining a federal role in volcano monitoring and hazard warning coordination. The bill affects federal agencies involved in geologic and atmospheric monitoring, as well as states and communities exposed to volcanic risk.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, as it passed the House and was sent to the Senate without any recorded votes against it in the provided materials. No committee transcript or debate excerpts were provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or substantive floor controversy in the supplied context. The overall tone appears to be routine reauthorization of an existing public safety program.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes, it is not possible to identify named opponents or disputed provisions from the record here. Any potential concerns would likely center on the level of funding, the shift from open-ended authorization to fixed annual amounts, or the reassignment of administrative references, but those issues are not shown to have been debated in the supplied context.