PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 427.
Congressional Research Service
Version 08 · Reported to House, Part I · Dec 12, 2019
Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2019
This bill reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program until May 1, 2025. The CFATS program requires chemical facilities to assess and address their threat vulnerabilities.
The bill requires DHS to (1) verify information submitted by a covered chemical facility prior to assigning such facility a lower risk tier or determining that it no longer presents a high level of security risk, and (2) develop a voluntary program for chemical facilities to address potential security risks.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DHS shall, among other things (1) provide for an annual review of a facility's compliance with its emergency response plan; (2) make necessary information available to state, local, and regional fusion centers and state and local government officials to ensure that emergency response providers are prepared; (3) establish a Chemical Security Advisory Committee to advise DHS on the implementation of this bill; and (4) study how to improve training and support for local emergency response providers in areas with high concentrations of covered facilities in how to respond to a terrorist attack on a chemical facility.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency shall (1) conduct a review of potential effects of attacks on covered chemical facilities or other critical infrastructure, and (2) establish a secure communications and information technology infrastructure or platform that allows facility owners and operators to voluntarily report on emerging threats.
The Government Accountability Office shall evaluate the effectiveness of DHS risk-based performance standards.
People & committees
Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] · D–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 427.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 116-341, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 116-341, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3256 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3256 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3256 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3256 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.