Maritime Terminal Security Enhancement Act of 2006
Latest action. House Committee on Homeland Security Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 8, 2006.
Maritime Terminal Security Enhancement Act of 2006 - (Sec. 2) Directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to require the resubmission of a facility security plan for Coast Guard approval upon the transfer of ownership or operational control over a port terminal facility.
(Sec. 3) Directs the Commandant to require that the individual designated as the Facility Security Officer under a facility security plan be a U.S. citizen.
(Sec. 4) Directs the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating (Secretary) to issue regulations by July 1, 2006, that allow access to secure areas within ports and vessels only to maritime workers and merchant mariners who have been issued approved biometric transportation security cards.
(Sec. 5) Directs the Secretary, through the Commandant, to reassess foreign port compliance with international port security requirements and the effectiveness of antiterrorism measures maintained at those ports not less than every five years.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary, by July 1, 2006, to require, and develop the necessary forms and process for, enhanced crewmember identification credentials for U.S. and foreign merchant mariners on vessels that call on U.S. ports.
(Sec. 7) Directs the Secretary to issue implementing regulations for a long range vessel tracking system by April 1, 2007.
(Sec. 8) Directs the Secretary to establish a university-based Center for Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness.
(Sec. 9) States that a container shipped directly or via a foreign port may enter the United States only if it is: (1) scanned with specified equipment and a copy of the scan is provided to the Commandant; and (2) secured with a specified seal before being loaded on the vessel for shipment.
Directs the Commandant to establish standards for seals and scanning equipment.
Authorizes FY2007-FY2012 appropriations to carry out such container-related activities.
(Sec. 10) Authorizes the Secretary to require the owner or operator of a facility that is required to have a security plan and that is a cargo terminal to submit information, including contracts or other agreements that govern operations of such facilities, to the Secretary to determine if there is any security risk involving such owner or operator.
The summary continues for 1 more paragraph. Read it in full on Congress.gov
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Reported to House amended, Part I" stage on September 29, 2006. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on November 17, 2006: House Committee on Homeland Security Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 8, 2006.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 109th Congress (2005-06), 482 of the 10,701 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 4.5 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
FRANK LOBIONDO (R-NJ) introduced it on March 6, 2006, and 26 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 12 Democrats, 14 Republicans.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on March 6, 2006, 7493 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 7237 days ago, on November 17, 2006.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 109th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2007 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers