Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006
Latest action. Referred to the subcommitteeA smaller panel inside a standing committee with jurisdiction over a slice of its subject matter. Most hearings and the first markup usually happen here.Read the full definition (opens a new tab) on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish criteria for designating chemical sources, using specified risk factors, and evaluating the types of facilities (other than Department of Defense or Department of Energy facilities) in consideration; and (2) designate chemical sources already in existence.
Directs the Secretary to promulgate rules establishing a risk-based tier system of chemical sources, based on such criteria, which enables a chemical source to develop appropriate site-specific measures to meet the security performance standards established for the applicable tier. Requires such rules to provide guidance to the chemical source owner or operator on steps that would enable the source to move to a lower risk tier.
Directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations that require chemical source owners or operators to make vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency response plans.
Requires chemical sources regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA-regulated facilities) to comply with this Act.
Requires the Secretary to establish an office under the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection that shall be responsible for implementing and enforcing this Act.
Directs the Secretary to establish in each Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region an Infrastructure Protection Regional Security Office.
Establishes Area Security Committees for geographic areas designated by the Secretary, which shall prepare Area Security Plans for the Secretary's approval.
Directs the Secretary to conduct drills and exercises periodically in each area for which an Area Security Plan is required and under the site security plan and emergency response plans of relevant chemical sources.
Authorizes the Secretary to order mandatory security measures for a chemical source if the Secretary determines that additional measures are necessary to respond to a threat assessment or to a specific threat against the chemical sector.
Prescribes administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for failure to comply with an order or directive issued by the Secretary under this Act or with a site security plan.
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on March 16, 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 April 24, 2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
- 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?
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT) introduced it on March 16, 2006, and 1 member has since signed on as a cosponsor.
They are 1 Democrat.
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 16, 2006, 7483 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 7444 days ago, on April 24, 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