The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in an open markup session on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building to consider the following legislation, H.R. 3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009, H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009, and the H.R. 2868, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.
H.R. 3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production act of 2009, was amended by a bipartisan managers amendment in the nature of a subsitute which made technical corrections to the bill. For text of this amendment, click here. This amendment was agreed to by voice vote and H.R. 3276 was favorably reported out of the Subcommittee.
Amendments to H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009
An amendment offered by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL., would place provisions in the bill allowing the new Federal drinking water facility regulations enacted by this bill to preempt state and local was that "hinder, pose obstacles to, conflict with, or frustrate the purpose of the federal program". This amendment is critical to the effectiveness of this bill. It will prevent unnecessary and unproductive regulatory conflicts, and help set clear guidelines for what's necessary to protect this Nation's drinking water facilities. For a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down 18 to 11.
An amendment offered by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-LA., would require that employee representatives who by mandate have access to a drinking water facility's vulnerability assessments and security plans be actual employees of said facility. There is no reason for anyone other than the facility’s employees and necessary government officials to have access to this sensitive information. The more individuals who have access to sensitive site security information, the less secure that information is. For text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment was defeated by voice vote.
An amendment offered by Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI., would nullify the citizen suit provisions in this bill. Currently, provisions in H.R. 3258 would allow any citizen to sue any company owning a drinking water facility or the Environmental Protection Agency, should they feel the provisions of H.R. 3258 are not being implemented effectively. This expansion of trial lawyer jurisdiction could not only have serious economic effects, but it would also weaken existing anti-terrorist protections. Drinking water facilities could be forced to disclose their security plans in a citizen suit, which would mean any individual, or terrorist, with a lawyer could gain access to a plant's vulnerabilities as well as the security methods in place to protect those vulnerabilities. Finally, trial lawyers should not be tasked with enforcing matters of National and Homeland security. For text of this amendment and detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down, 17 to 7.
An amendment offered by Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX., would strengthen information protection provisions in H.R. 3258 for a drinking water facility's vulnerability assessment and site security plan. Under the current bill language, individuals divulging sensitive security information regarding a drinking water facility's security would only be subject to civil, monetary, or criminal penalties for 'purposely' releasing sensitive information. In current law, there is no statutory standard for the word purposely in this context. There is however a standard for the terms 'knowingly' and 'recklessly' in present Federal chemical plant security laws. Changing the law to the unprecedented term 'purposely' will make it more difficult to prosecute those who place vital security information into the hands of terrorists. This amendment would expand penalties to cover those who recklessly or knowingly divulge sensitive security information. For text of this amendment and a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down, 19 to 12.
An amendment offered by Rep. John Shimkus, R-IL., would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) from forcing drinking water facilities to alter their operating processes or chemical inputs. Currently, facilities which EPA considers higher-risk must justify to EPA why they shouldn't change their entire operating model or chemicals used for water treatment. For example, under the current legislation, even if a drinking water facility was more secure than Fort Knox, it would still have to justify to EPA its current water treatment scheme in order to prevent a mandatory change of process. In many cases, the economic impacts of such a change would be extreme, raising water costs for rate-payers and not representative of the most cost-effective method to secure a drinking water facility. This amendment would not alter the security standards that drinking water facilities would be required to meet. For text of this amendment and a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down, 21 to 12.
H.R. 3258, The Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 was reported favorably as amended out of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment by voice vote.
Amendments to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009
An amendment offered by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL., would strike the current legislation and extend the current chemical safety provisions through 2012. Currently, chemical facilities are already regulated by both the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as well as Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. Under current regulations, Chemical plants are evaluated by Government according to risk levels. Those at a High risk of terrorist attack, are presently required to assess their vulnerabilities, and then and implement site security plans to lower risk levels to an acceptable level as determined by the Department of Homeland Security(DHS).
H.R. 2868, would expand Government regulation of chemical plants to all plants, not just those considered high-risk. In addition, it would grant DHS the power to effectively outlaw certain manufacturing processes or even the manufacturing of certain chemicals, if it deemed their were other "safer" alternatives. In this situation, levels of "safety" would take precedent over matters of economic viability or chemical effectiveness. Finally, H.R. 2868 would implement citizen suit provisions, allowing any citizen to sue any company owning a chemical plant or DHS if they feel this act is not being implemented effectively. This expansion of trial lawyer jurisdiction would not only have serious economic effects, but it would also weaken existing terrorist protections. Chemical plants would be forced to disclose their security plans in a citizen suit, which would mean any individual, or terrorist, with a lawyer could gain access to a plant's potential vulnerabilities, as well as existing methods to protect those vulnerabilities.
Mr. Stearns' amendment would strike these new provisions, and extend existing security provisions through 2012. This would ensure robust security for this nation's chemical plants while giving lawmakers ample time to evaluate the relatively new Chemical Plant security provisions of 2007 before moving forward with further regulation.
For text of this amendment and a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down, 17 to 12.
An amendment offered by Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI., would install critical job-protection provisions in the bill. Currently, this legislation grants DHS the authority to force a chemical plant to change it's manufacturing process should they deem a "safer" alternative technology exist. Chemical plants would only be exempted from this forced re-tooling, if DHS determined that it would "significantly and demonstrably" impair the ability of the business to continue at its current location. These terms would be open to interpretation by the Secretary. Mr. Upton's amendment would install a real economic safeguard, by exempting a chemical facility from de-facto forced retooling if such a process would force the facility to lay off more than 15% of its workforce. This amendment would not lower security requirements that a given facility would be forced to meet. For text of this amendment and a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down, 16 to 10.
An amendment offered by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-LA., would require that employee representatives who by mandate have access to a chemical facility's vulnerability assessments and security plans be actual employees of said facility. Chemical facility employees have a vested interest in their plant's security and are subject to security background checks. These background checks determined if an individual is on a terrorist watchlist, has been found guilty of murder, espionage, terrorism, treason, sedition, racketeering, or found guilty of an attempt to commit any of said crimes. There is no reason for anyone other than background checked facility employees and DHS officials to have access to sensitive security information. The more individuals who have access to sensitive site security information, the less secure that information is. For a detailed vote tally and text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment was voted down 19 to 9.
An amendment offered by Rep. John Shadegg, R-AZ., would exempt chemical facilities already regulated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002(MTSA) from the provisions of H.R. 2868. Chemical facilities located at U.S. ports are already regulated by MTSA, and as such, already perform vulnerability assessments and develop security plans. Subjecting these facilities to duplicative regulations and two sets of regulators serves no purpose, other than to waste taxpayer money. For text of this amendment and a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down, 16 to 11.
An amendment offered by Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX., would strengthen information protection provisions in H.R. 2868 for a chemical plants vulnerability assessment and site security plan. Under the current bill's language, individuals divulging sensitive security information regarding a chemical plant's security would only be subject to civil or monetary penalties for 'purposely' releasing sensitive information. In current law, there is no statutory standard for the word 'purposely' in this context. There is however a standard for the terms 'knowingly' and 'recklessly' in present Federal chemical plant security laws. Changing the law to use the unprecedented term 'purposely' will make it more difficult to prosecute those who place vital security information into the hands of terrorists. This amendment will extend liability to those who recklessly or knowingly divulge sensitive security information; a standard that is already in place in current chemical plant security regulations. In addition, this amendment would expand penalties to include criminal penalties. For text of this amendment and a detailed vote tally, click here.
This amendment was voted down 13 to 16.
An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-KY., would prevent the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) from forcing chemical facilities to alter their manufacturing process or chemical inputs. Currently, facilities which DHS considers higher-risk must justify to DHS why they shouldn't change their entire manufacturing model or list of chemical inputs. In most cases the economic impacts of such a change would be extreme, and not representative of the most cost-effective method to secure a chemical facility. This amendment would in no way alter the security standards that chemical facilities would be required to meet. For text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment was defeated by voice vote.
An amendment offered by Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI., would remove the citizen suit provisions in this bill. Currently, provisions in H.R. 2868 would allow any citizen to sue any company owning a chemical facility or the Department of Homeland Security, should they feel the provisions of H.R. 2868 are not being implemented effectively. This expansion of trial lawyer jurisdiction would not only have serious economic effects, but it would also weaken existing anti-terrorist protections. Chemical plants could be forced to disclose their security plans in a citizen suit, which would mean any individual, or terrorist, with a lawyer could gain access to a plant's vulnerabilities as well as the security methods in place to protect those vulnerabilities.For text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment was defeated by voice vote.
An amendment offered by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL., would place provisions in the bill allowing new Federal chemical plant regulations enacted by this bill to preempt state and local was that "hinder, pose obstacles to, conflict with, or frustrate the purpose of the federal program". This amendment is critical to the effectiveness of this bill, preventing unnecessary and unproductive regulatory conflicts, and helping give business a clear understanding of what's necessary to protect this Nation's chemical facilities. For text of this amendment, click here.
This amendment was voted down by voice vote.
H.R. 2868, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 was reported favorably out of the Subcommittee as amended by a vote of 18 to 10.
For a detailed vote tally, click here.
