Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006
Latest action. By Senator Collins from Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed written report. Report No. 109-332. Additional views filed.
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - (Sec. 3) Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish criteria for designating chemical sources using specified risk factors and evaluating types of facilities; (2) designate existing chemical sources; and (3) promulgate rules establishing a risk-based tier system of chemical sources that enables a source to develop appropriate site-specific measures to meet the security performance standards for the applicable tier. Requires such rules to provide guidance on steps that would enable the source to move to a lower risk tier.
(Sec. 4) Directs the Secretary to: (1) promulgate regulations that require chemical source owners to make vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency response plans; (2) provide state and local officials and a source owner with relevant threat information; (3) provide guidance to assist source owners in complying with this Act; and (4) review assessments and plans to determine compliance and provide written notice regarding compliance to owners.
Prohibits the Secretary from disapproving a site security plan based on the presence or absence of a particular security measure if it satisfies the security performance standards established for the applicable tier. Provides for temporary security measures.
Permits the development and implementation of coordinated assessments and plans if more than one chemical source is operating at a single location or at contiguous locations. Requires site security plans to include security measures that, in combination, are sufficient to deter a terrorist incident or a substantial threat of such an incident and that increase the security of automated systems.
Requires chemical sources regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act to comply with this Act.
(Sec. 5) Requires the owner of a chemical source to retain a copy of the vulnerability assessment, site security plan, and emergency response plan for at least five years after approval by the Secretary. Grants the Secretary the right to enter the premises of a chemical source and any premises on which a required record is located. Requires the Secretary to conduct facility security audits and inspections to ensure and evaluate compliance with this Act.
The summary continues for 18 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 Senate with amendment(s)" stage on June 26, 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 September 11, 2006: By Senator Collins from Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed written report. Report No. 109-332. Additional views filed.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the Senate
- Passage by the House
- 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?
Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced it on December 19, 2005, and 7 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 6 Democrats, 1 Republican.
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 December 19, 2005, 7570 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 7304 days ago, on September 11, 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
- SenateIn committee, no floor vote yet
- HouseAwaits Senate passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers