PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 29, 2006
Project SeaHawk Implementation Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to establish or designate an interagency operational center for maritime and port security in each region designated by the Commandant as a Coast Guard sector. Declares that the purpose of each center is to facilitate day-to-day operational coordination, interagency cooperation, unity of command, and the sharing of intelligence information in a common mission to provide greater protection for port and intermodal transportation systems against acts of terrorism. Sets forth certain center requirements, including that each center be modeled on the Charleston Harbor Operations Center (popularly known as Project SeaHawk) administered by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina for the Port of Charleston located in Charleston, South Carolina.
Requires the head of each center to: (1) assist in implementation of maritime transportation security plans and transportation security incident response plans; (2) conduct short- and long-range vessel tracking and other maritime intelligence activities; and (3) be incorporated into the screening and high-risk cargo inspection programs carried out by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
People & committees
Rep. Brown, Henry E., Jr. [R-SC-1] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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: Nov 28, 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.5720 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.5720 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.5720 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.5720 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.