H. Con. Res. 54 (110th)Bill Overview

Support National Hurricane Museum and Science Center

Concurrent ResolutionEmergency Management|Arts, Culture, ReligionEmergency Management
Cosponsors
Support
Unknown
Introduced
Feb 5, 2007
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageIntroduced

Star Print ordered on the concurrent resolution.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Concurrent ResolutionWhat this resolution actually does

This resolution expresses the support of Congress for creating a National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana. It records Congress's encouragement of the local Creole Nature Trail board's efforts and highlights the educational and historical value of the proposed center. It does not create law, provide federal funding, or impose duties on the federal government; it is an official statement of support.

Passage rules

Concurrent resolutions are adopted by both the House and the Senate but are not sent to the President and do not have the force of law. They are nonbinding expressions of the chambers' view or intent.

This concurrent resolution expresses Congress's support and encouragement for creating a National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana, notes local Creole Nature Trail Board efforts, and cites Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and related educational goals.

It is an expression of support only and does not authorize funding or create legal obligations.

Passage0/100

Concurrent resolution is non‑binding and does not become law; content is uncontroversial but cannot be enacted as statute.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is well-constructed for a symbolic expression of congressional support. It clearly states the subject and reasoning and uses concise operative language to express encouragement for the creation of the proposed National Hurricane Museum and Science Center.

Contention12/100

Emphasis on climate science and social impacts versus neutral historical focus

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedFederal agencies · Local governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitCould increase regional tourism and related spending as visitors come to the museum and trail.
  • Potential benefitMay create construction jobs and permanent museum staffing positions during development and operation.
  • Potential benefitLikely provides education and outreach in meteorology, environmental science, history, and engineering.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesAs a non-binding resolution, it does not commit federal funds, limiting concrete impact.
  • Potential burdenMay raise public expectations despite no specified funding, schedule, or implementation plan.
  • Local governmentsConstruction and increased visitation could create local environmental impacts and land use pressures.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Emphasis on climate science and social impacts versus neutral historical focus
Progressive90%

Likely strongly supportive as a means to preserve history, educate about storms and climate impacts, and honor affected communities.

Would want the center to emphasize climate science, social impacts, and equitable community involvement.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Generally supportive as a noncontroversial cultural and educational project, but cautious about cost, oversight, and measurable public benefits.

Prefers clear governance and local leadership with transparent funding plans.

Leans supportive
Conservative80%

Likely supportive in principle as a local cultural and memorial effort, while insisting it remain a local initiative without new federal spending or mandates.

Skeptical if it promotes politicized climate messaging.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Still ahead

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood0/100

Concurrent resolution is non‑binding and does not become law; content is uncontroversial but cannot be enacted as statute.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether the Senate will bring the concurrent resolution to a vote
  • Local funding plan and federal funding requests are unspecified
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Emphasis on climate science and social impacts versus neutral historical focus

Concurrent resolution is non‑binding and does not become law; content is uncontroversial but cannot be enacted as statute.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is well-constructed for a symbolic expression of congressional support. It clearly states the subject and reasoning and uses concise operative langua…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis