PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 21, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 9, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Community Counterterrorism Preparedness Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to carry out a grant program for emergency response providers to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the most likely terrorist attack scenarios, including active shooters against major metropolitan areas.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DHS shall provide to eligible applicants: (1) unclassified information on such scenarios, and (2) information on training and exercises best practices. Recipients may use grants to conduct training and exercises consistent with preventing, preparing for, and responding to such scenarios.
Emergency response providers in jurisdictions that are currently receiving, or that previously received, funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative may apply for such a grant.
Eligible applicants receiving funding under the program may include in funded activities neighboring jurisdictions that would be likely to provide mutual aid in response to terrorist attack scenarios.
Grant applications must include a description of how the applicant will work with community partners such as schools, places of worship, and businesses when conducting permitted activities.
DHS shall make funds provided under this bill available for use by a grant recipient for a period of at least 24 months.
People & committees
Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 30 (Roll no. 537). (text: CR 09/20/2016 H5703)
House roll call 537 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 30 (Roll no. 537).(text: CR 09/20/2016 H5703)
House roll call 537 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5764-5765)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5859.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5703-5708)
Mr. McCaul moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 586.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-754.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-754.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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.5859 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.5859 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.5859 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.5859 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.