Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 2868, Chemicial Facility Anti-Terrorism Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time.
In 2006, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the authority to promulgate risk-based security performance standards for chemical facilities that use or store chemicals.
I am glad that Mr. LUNGREN of California is here, because he was intimately involved with the legislation that ultimately became law.
The DHS subsequently issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), requiring chemical facilities to report the types and amounts of chemicals housed on sites. The legislative authority for CFATS was scheduled to sunset this year in October. The underlying bill, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, makes permanent the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate security at chemical plants.
I believe it's important to address the sunsetting of the existing CFATS program at the Department of Homeland Security. However, I have concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment, perhaps even higher unemployment in the future, that it could endanger economic recovery.
Of particular concern is the IST, the inherently safer technology, provisions included in this legislation. IST allows the Federal Government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST. This was all the more worrisome when a witness from the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department employs no specialists with IST expertise and that there is no future funding planned.
Now, I first learned how IST may hurt job creation and how, in fact, it may increase unemployment from a small business in my district, Allied Universal Corporation, that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.
I was informed that the IST is an attempt by the Federal Government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy. It will cost Allied alone, this corporation that employs people in my community, hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and in staff time alone.
It is not a good use of resources. It has no tangible benefit as manufacturing struggles to survive in this economy. Furthermore, the underlying bill reduces existing protections on information regarding chemical facilities, and it reduces the penalties for the disclosure of security information.
These regulations that we are talking about today were thoughtfully included following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, of our government is to protect the citizenry. By making chemical facilities less secure, we endanger the security of our neighborhoods and of our communities. By easing penalties for unlawfully disclosing sensitive information, we increase our vulnerability. To make matters worse, the majority includes these provisions in a bill that is supposed to help prevent attacks.
As I said before, I am glad Mr. LUNGREN is here. He can explain the process by which the current regulations came into being, the amount of discussion, negotiation, and consensus that led to those regulations coming into effect, and really how unfortunate now this attempt at an imposition of further or different regulations is.
Mr. Speaker, later this week the Congress is expected to consider health care bills. I would like to take this moment to compare today's rule on the chemical facility bill with the rule expected on the health care bills.
Today's rule allows 10 amendments, five from the majority and five from the minority, on a bill that costs approximately $900 million. Although the rule is not open, it's important to admit that the rule allows some debate on the underlying issues. The rule expected later this week on the health care legislation will probably include an amendment written by the Speaker. Perhaps that's the only amendment that will be allowed. We'll see. And that bill spends about $1.3 trillion, I believe.
It seems that the more money Congress spends, the more likely we seem to have a closed debate process. And that, I believe, is contrary to the way the majority promised to run this House.
On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee came to the floor and said that the new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge was echoed in a document written by the distinguished Speaker called a New Direction for America, where she stated, and, by the way, the statement is still on her Web site: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''
After contrasting today's rule with the expected health care rule in a few days, today's rule might look fair, but really it's not. It blocks amendments from both sides of the aisle from receiving a full and fair debate on the House floor that was, as I pointed out, promised by the Speaker.
During the hearing in the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, made a motion to allow an open rule on this legislation that's being brought to the floor; in other words, a rule that would allow all Members the ability to offer any amendment for a vote by the full House. If the Rules Committee had approved the motion, it would have been their first open rule this Congress. Unfortunately, the motion was voted down by a majority on the Rules Committee. The majority used to criticize us when we were in the majority for not allowing more open rules. They have offered none.
This rule that is bringing the underlying legislation to the floor today also gives the majority the authority to allow consideration of bills under suspension of the rules until Saturday. Suspension bills, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are usually noncontroversial bills, but the suspension authority has in the past been used to pass bills with obviously minimal debate and sometimes as a way to block the minority from offering amendments or a motion to recommit.
Now, in the past, a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee referred to that process as ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our responsibilities and rights as serious legislators.''
It's interesting how it's wrong when they're in the minority, but once they're in the majority, it's right.
ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORPORATION,
Miami, FL, October 23, 2009.
Re H.R. 2868.
Hon. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN DIAZ-BALART: My company is a small business as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. It operates a chemical manufacturing and distribution facility in your district (8350 NW 93 Street, Miami, FL). employing individuals and providing materials to a number of industries critical to our nation's and state's economy and public health. I am writing to express my opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act, which will be scheduled for a House floor vote within days. This legislation will make significant changes to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which took effect just two and a half years ago.
Security is a major priority for Allied Universal Corp. We are members of the Chlorine Institute and National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD). which requires our participation in the Responsible Distribution Process, an environmental, health. safety. and security management program. My company has spent substantial resources on security upgrades in recent years. and will continue to do so going forward under the current CFATS regulations. I do not embellish when I state that a significant amount of our company's capital budget and personnel time has been spent on security improvement projects. and will continue to be spent as Allied works to address the Department of Homeland Security's identified security risks for our facility.
I am concerned that H.R. 2868 is too prescriptive and includes requirements that are not appropriate for all facilities. Security is very important, but a command and control type regulation would not benefit the nation let alone the thousands of businesses that must comply with the regulation. For example, the requirement to conduct an assessment of inherently safer technologies (1ST). or Methods to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack, could easily cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and staff time. This is not a good use of resources for a chemical manufacturing and distribution facility like mine, which stocks products based on our customers' needs and operates on extremely tight margins. I am also concerned about other mandates in the bill and the fact that state and local measures are not preempted, which is critical for a national security program. No federal preemption would cause much confusion, not to mention additional staff time and resources that could otherwise be allocated to other pressing needs (i.e. one state may have stricter regulations, causing my company to allocate more resources to the facility in that state rather than say a facility in a state with less restrictions. but more significant security concerns or risks such as a high population area).
Therefore, I urge you to oppose H.R 2868 unless the following changes are made:
(1) All 1ST assessment and implementation mandates must be removed.
(2) Specific requirements regarding drills, employee and union involvement in SVA and SSP development, and other areas must be removed. A Risk Based Performance Standards approach should be continued as in the current CFATS regulations.
(3) The federal standards must preempt state and local requirements.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or would like more details on how H.R. 2868 would impact my company.
Sincerely,
Robert Namoff,
Chairman of the Board.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding that we have at least 72 hours on any legislation and every piece of legislation, to read it and study it before it is brought to the floor; 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that.
That is why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, offered by Representatives BAIRD and CULBERSON, requiring 72 hours on every piece of legislation before it is taken to a vote.
If anyone is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that that would jeopardize the chemical security bill, be not concerned, because the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so we can vote on the chemical security bill and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 554. The American people are demanding that on every piece of legislation there should be 72 hours to study it and read it thoroughly before it is voted on.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source