PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 17, 2020
Alerting Localities of Environmental Risks and Threats Act of 2020
This bill requires the owner or operator of a facility where hazardous chemicals are produced, used, or stored to hold a public meeting within 72 hours of the release of an extremely hazardous substance. The owner or operator must publish a notice in a local newspaper, giving at least 24 hours of notice before the public meeting. Such notice must be posted at a local library, other local government buildings, and on the facility's public website.
The bill also requires the owner or operator of a facility to hold an annual public meeting, where specified information regarding the extremely hazardous substances at the facility must be disclosed. Notice for such meeting must be published in a local newspaper at least a week in advance of the meeting. The bill provides for a civil penalty if such public meeting and notice requirements are not met.
People & committees
Rep. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE-At Large] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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.6527 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.6527 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.6527 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.6527 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.