Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006
Latest action. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 8, 2006.
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) designate or exempt any chemical substance as a substance of concern; (2) establish and revise the threshold quantity for a chemical substance for purposes of identifying significant chemical facilities; and (3) require the submission of information regarding the quantities of substances of concern used, stored, manufactured, processed, or distributed by any chemical facility. Directs the Secretary, in making such determinations regarding substances of concern or threshold quantities, to consider the potential extent of death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health, the environment, critical infrastructure, national security, the national economy, or public welfare that would result from a terrorist release of the substance.
Requires the Secretary to maintain a list of chemical facilities deemed significant because they have more than the threshold quantity of a substance of concern or based on the following criteria: (1) the potential threat or likelihood that the facility will be the target of terrorism; (2) the potential extent and likelihood of death, injury or serious adverse effects to human health and safety or to the environment that could result from an incident; (3) the facility's proximity to population centers; (4) the potential threat caused by a person obtaining a substance of concern in furtherance of a terrorist act; and (5) the potential harm to critical infrastructure, national security, and the national economy from an incident.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) assign each facility on the list to one of at least four risk-based tiers, which shall include at least one high-risk tier; (2) prescribe regulations to establish standards, protocols, and procedures for vulnerability assessments and facility security plans for facilities on the list; (3) require high-risk facilities to conduct such assessments, implement such plans, and consult with their employees in developing such assessments and plans; (4) provide threat information to high-risk facilities; (5) conduct red team exercises at high-risk tier facilities to identify vulnerabilities, possible attack modes, and security plan weakness; and (6) establish security performance requirements for facilities in each risk-based tier, which must be increasingly stringent for each higher-risk tier. Specifies minimum requirements for the vulnerability assessments and security plans of high-risk facilities.
The summary continues for 8 more paragraphs. 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 Energy and Commerce 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?
DANIEL LUNGREN (R-CA) introduced it on June 28, 2006, and 10 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 5 Democrats, 5 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 June 28, 2006, 7379 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