keep our friendship going so i will not speak on the issue thank god a prepared statement but i will now present thank you can't find we  a reduction the workforce of the covered chemical facility the language in the bill currently allows the secretary to require covered chemical facilities to implement i s t so long as it would reduce risk when create a new hire a specific elsewhere was feasible and allow the facility to continue the business the facility at its location offering this amendment along with my colleague mr saturn mr blair also indicate a very strong support of this is well in the appreciate their leadership on this this amendment but nowhere in limitation could cost tens of thousands or even millions of dollars these costs mean fewer employees hired or worse the government already owns several banks and car companies you know i think we have to be concerned about that as we consider this significant legislation m technology of this bill should be more than just about the crunching the numbers or examining chemical for those it should be about protecting americans and their livelihoods i urge you to option this amendment and at this time i would yield back the balance of my time ber five forty seven seeks to clarify the requirements of the secretary regarding the implementation of methods to reduce consequences of a terrorist attack often referred to as the they're already so robust in our opinion was  chairman before the secretary can require a tier one or two year to facilitate to implement a i s t solution the secretary has already show that such implementation would significantly reduce the risk and not shift the risk anywhere else to be physically incorporated to the facilities operation a number three not significantly demonstratively impaired facility from continued operation operations at its current location dead amendment of a five forty seven language would add quote would not significantly or domestically reduce the operations of the covered facility or resold in a reduction of the workforce of the cover chemical facility this is actually already is a compromise amendment and i'm drafting i was concerned about downstream jobs as well because if we add costs at the chemical facility it gets passed on to companies in my district as a number one manufacturing district every single company is using some sort of mix of chemicals and raw materials and at this point in time is the i mean in my counties is fifteen percent unemployment many of them are auto suppliers where they face chrysler and g m facilities who are furloughed for eleven weeks meaning they have no cash flow as we look at the r v industry that's down eighty percent all their parts take chemicals and mix coming in and any major cost adjustments right now not only would likely result in downstream layoffs but in potential just transferring more jobs to china i think this amendment as a compromise says directly at the chemical plant at the chemical plant would have to lay off employees in effect that could lead to price rises or them going out of business and then even more importantly it's bad to get a price increase is worse if you can actually get the product the materials that go into your product to make things whether it be in agriculture or in manufacturing then you can't even function so i think that since these facilities are already osha can come in if it's dangerous clearly if it's a high risk of attack what this says is for these decisions that might improve things and would be preferable at the margin we should not and let me say that i support the president in amendments and i appreciate the comments of my good friend from indiana but i think it's well known that in a regulatory scheme in fact as we improve the quality of the product  that we've seen over the years that we've increased opportunity in jobs the environmental protection agency probably had the same kind of castigation back as it all the knives and we've found that clean air and clean water and creating a cleaner environment really creates jobs helps an economy thrive so i appreciate the gentleman's comment i think this is an appropriate amendment so that we can secure a job but i really think what we're trying to do here and some of them is that mandatory implementation by simply blindly mandating the need for i o c without proper research and the impact of such an action the secretary runs the risk of damaging to protect the productivity of americans chemical sector i happen to represent a district where a lot of my my largest private sector employer in my district is one where people build chemical plants all over this country all over this world and a lot of people what a great deal of expertise in this area so i think it's important we have a serious discussion about this he could force companies to alter or reduce feedstock supplies to change production processes or abandon certain chemical products implementing i asked he could result in change pharmaceutical processes that would require new drug approvals from the food and witness before this committee last year indicated these approvals take two to three years as a result of these actions in the the output could be reduced resulting in lost income for the operator and those effects trickle down to employees and consumers by interacting with  with experts from the chemical industry representatives that the chemical facilities members the academic community who have an expertise in this field and who have come before this committee in the past inappropriate representatives from labor unions the full impact of the implementation can be understood by will be delivered to both the house committee on homeland security in the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs this report will detail the findings of the analysis and provide members an opportunity the examine the process of implementation certainly congressional action  gentleman from new jersey must pass quote thank you mr chairman this amendment builds upon what i think is already a very robust economic protections in section t one one one i would hope that everyone on this committee read that section there are protections that are very specific there it's called in tile the methods to reduce consequences of a terrorist attack or i c provision specifically in instances where the secretary makes a determination that a facility regardless of how large or small should implement i asked state in the secretary should first analyze possible effects on the facilities business operations that's what the legislation says effects to be considered include the course that the facilities will incur number one result any resulting loss of employment number two and any loss of production if we if the bill if the law is implemented what will  mean in terms of the production of the output of that particular facility the secretary is required to consult with the key stakeholders i mean it's pretty specific if we look to one one  s he's got to submit us he or she has to submit a report to congress on the findings from whatever analysis goes into this i think that these requirements are say that i applaud to mr dent my colleague from pennsylvania for offering his amendment but i said i certainly support that but my perfect amendment is an effort to clarify that the study of the impact of implementing i s t includes the cost to agricultural facilities sure many of us have huge ag reflecting in our in our communities in our districts and that certainly is so in my district as well and i would also ask in my perfecting amendment the representatives of the agricultural facilities are included in consultations with the department of homeland security i think we're going to mandate the implementation of this process and i think it is very important that we understand the impact on our farmers their access to fertilizers and pesticides and all of the other chemicals that they use to grow our food my perfecting amendment requires that the secretary consider the cost to agricultural facilities so that this very relevant stakeholder can explain the impacts of mandating i s t before such a mandate is imposed obviously the egg industry is absolutely vital to our nation  in my state of michigan it's our second leading industry and i wouldn't be surprised at that's a common trait across the entire nation as well i have serious concerns that the portion of this bill will not only have a detrimental impact on farmers across the nation but also the fertilizer supply chain and that v h s has regulated over nine hundred acre call traill facilities under the sea fats and of those five hundred eighty five are agricultural retailers or wholesalers  do not believe that the committee is interested in eliminating products which is certainly vital to growing the food that we need to to feed our fellow americans and in fact the entire world in many cases so i would ask my colleagues to support my common sense perfecting amendment and ensure that the impact of i s the history of this committee we have been particularly sensitive to a number of issues raised by our agricultural industry our members chairman you in particular worked on the propane issue some years ago and we have been open to that and i appreciate the gentle lady's attempt and frankly understand that all of us come from areas that we might be particularly sensitive to we've mentioned that player and myself and some other texans who here certainly have our share of the chemical industry in varying forms what i'd like to point out to the gentle lady is and i think both the underlying bill now the original amendment may answer your question because we talk about cost that the secretary is supposed to look at number one cost facilities will incur a number to any loss of the production commitment to the economic impact of i s c on a facility which would be an agricultural facility but i don't think we will get into a real on charted territory if we begin to call out the city industries because what we're trying to do is to prevent a terrorist act and to outsmart the terrorists because they're listening and that means that we want all of our industries to be prepared but however have the secretary's requirement to do these three it we were very careful to frame this so it is risk based it's a risk based approach to chemical security and i don't believe we should so merrily example recognize a particular industry however i think as i indicated we have given the secretary the four corners of being able to be judicious thoughtful and responsible and again it is dealing with the cost of facilities will will look at the agricultural industry they'll look at a particular segment they'll look at a particular farm or a particular area it's a dentist and any result in loss of employment i certainly am a champion of the agricultural interest in fact i think we need to do more and any loss of production due to implementation and there is a waiver on farmers and one aspect that i think we can feel comfortable with so i would respectfully and and certainly without respect amendment i yield back thank you very much hearing no further discussion the question is on agreeing to the perfecting amendment those in favor say aye those opposed nay amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h r two eight six eight offered by mr brown of georgia without objection the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment thank you mr chairman this amendment would modify section twenty one eleven to only require our ice t assessments at the highest risk facilities tears wanted to and would not require any ice tea mandatory implementation new jersey require ice t assessment only at the highest risk facilities no chemical facility in new jersey is required to adopt any ice t is important to recognize that new jersey does not require our all of  chemical facilities to conduct an assessment midst of all off testified on to see that only forty five of new jersey's one hundred fifty seven chemical facilities were actually required to conduct ice t assessments only one third of new jersey's facilities actually conducted an ice tea assessment under direct question from mists out of indiana mr ball offs stated these facilities where the quote highest risk unquote facilities they also reiterated that none of these facilities were were required to implement i s t nevertheless as a good business practice over half of these facilities did indeed implemented stay on their own without any government mandate mr ball off of the new jersey d e p stated that i asked t is quote simply good business practice unquote he was absolutely right  these are already incentivized to implement ice tea regardless of the bill's mandate there palmer homeland security has informed this committee that has received four thousand top screen re submissions identifying changes to the types and quantities of chemicals of interest at the facility of these four thousand resubmission some of these were from the same facility one thousand facilities actually teared at a lower risk level than their original level because of the facility modify the types and amounts of chemicals that were on their sides is it it is clear that facilities are clearly already implementing i study where they can have genuine concerns about the cost of these ice t assessments as well several of our witnesses highlighted the costs associated with conducting an ice tea assessment and our representatives from the department seemed unsure as to what would even be required in such an assessment teams of people conducting ice t assessments with multiple degrees from multiple disciplines experts price these assessments is ten thousand dollars to fifty thousand dollars or more for only a moderately sized holding tank my minimum would also provide facilities assistance from the secretary in completing any i asked he assessment if the secretary of same is experienced enough to write a facilities compliance with i c assessments then i would hope they have the experiment experience to conduct them as well as chairman howley recommend adopting this amendment as we heard from my colleague ms millard that from her concern about agriculture i have the same sort of agricultural concerns and and adopt you gentleman yells back who seeks recognition the gentleman from new jersey must pass quero i'm glad we're using a new jersey as the standard now we've come a long way in the last three years i rise against  and removing the ability of the secretary which is spelled out i think very nicely in the legislation you want to limit his ability to require the implementation in a high risk  significantly rouche reduce the risk of death we all accept that you want to gut this legislation and water it down so that even the most minimal requirements go away we discussed in the c f a ts hearing representative cleaver mr dr laundryman reducing consequences is a fundamental element of security you want to reduce the possibility of situations occurring if you don't have oversight you cannot do that risk is defined as the product of threat vulnerability and consequences if you want to lower risk therefore you must lower each of the variables which contribute to the risk including consequences by the which is a small facility which is an agricultural facility doesn't matter is in my neighborhood or as in your neighborhood we want you to be in a much more safer situation than you ordinarily but cite chapter and verse anecdotal story after anecdotal story people did not even know what was being manufactured in their neighborhood so all ignore it and it goes away no it doesn't go away doesn't go away no target no attack if you can reduce that vulnerability the neighborhood is better is in a better place as the also has a large payoff and safety as well and is equally important as a security measure any responsible business will review its processes periodically to improve efficiency safety and security and there are a lot of bad actors that i've got into this business have not followed the minimal requirements and i don't care which state you're from you can cite anecdotal stories where chemicals are mixed where chemicals are stored on safely where there's not even a fire extinguisher i want we're talking beyond basic we're talking b basic capital b one  so what this legislation really does is take i r s take a step further and require this common best practice for all covered facilities brought i think that five fifty want to think that your memory would diminish this effective an important security tool by only requiring industry product this is for tier one into two facilities it is the responsibility of all facilities to do their best to lower risk and not just those which fall into the share one in two or two categories this amendment would also remove even the limited discretion to the secretary that's what the amendment does he has no discretion if you're amendment passes so this secretary you limit his his power his authority to require implementation in the most high risk cases i don't think that's what we might do and i have the legislation this amendment blatantly strips common sense and industry best practices to increase the security from this bill i strongly strongly urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and i yield back thank you mr chairman thank you very much who seeks reckon this as a model as to how to do it because they were targeted i thought i heard a number of people say well you know jersey hasn't had an attack it's got all these chemical facilities and they're models really good and now we try to use a new jersey model and somehow that's that's wrong but there was something that my friend from new jersey said that really bothered me no target no attack does that mean we should just move all the chemical facilities to another country maybe we should get rid of the united states capitol building because it's a target and if we all voted from home  there is no kind of perfect here it's all marginal risk assessment how far do we go what's the impact on jobs do we do we get everybody under the umbrella do we just take the highest risks much like what they did in new jersey and i support the gentleman from georg diction issues in the border or in the caribbean and i only raise that because i think both of us are committed that that kind of work or that contradiction resources should should be done must be done i remember in the waning hours after nine eleven i think mr brown and i respect the intent of your efforts we were wondering what we could have done and we begin this long journey to confront the fact that we live in a nother and different world and so when we begin to look at airports and airlines we didn't say that the airlines could voluntarily reinforce discussion we didn't suggest that maybe we could have a private contractors or some airports didn't have to have security screening or ramp up their security screening we require that because we realize we live in a different world and so new jersey has been a standard but they are one state we have the responsibility for the nation and therefore there is a need for consistency and i believe that as this legislation makes its way through all of us will encounter and listen to and respond to the concerns of our friends in the industry and we will try to work as we did with the airlines as we're trying to work with those in surface transportation but all of these across the nation represent independent and individual targets of which none of us sitting at this table today could predict whether someone will wind up in the michigan farmlands or they won't be down the corridor of deer park texas they won't go back again and try to find the conspicuous corridor of new jersey or they might find themselves out on the west coast for that reason i think it is important that the framework that we have that gives the secretary the discretion that is required and therefore requirement balanced with judgment but to suggest that it will be voluntary is to simply say  tear down the screening facilities in airports rip off the cockpit door that is reinforced on an airline don't allow the flight deck officer to carry a weapon as we've allowed them to do out of the sense of urgency and some of us disagree with that but we understood that we live in different times so i ask my colleagues to consider what we're trying to do we're trying to have a structure which we can hold the agency accountable on the issue of security security is different from safety safety we might be able to be a little bit more flexible but security has to do with the  potential of the massive loss of life so i would just to make the arguments and associate myself with the distinguished gentleman from new jersey on his laying out frankly what what is necessary in the contrast of what we're doing in new for a few reasons i think we have to understand what i asked he is it is a concept it is a framework it is not a technology we would we're not asking chemical companies to go pick a technology off the shelf it may or may not exist let's be very clear i he deals more with safety issues workplace safety issues than it does with chemical plant security issues i think we need to be very clear about what we're talking about and i think these with mr dr brown are going for here is simply that require i s t assessments only at the highest risk facilities tears one into your two kind of like new jersey undersea thoughts there six to seven thousand the syllabus that would have to be covered i think this amendment is really quite reasonable and it is similar to what new jersey does in practice and i believe new jersey and all due respect to my good friend from new jersey he's a great first base coach by the way i want to point that out officially for the record i hear he tripped up my conaway i saw i think the general feeling this language does not change the safety and security requirements and as mr the pastoral what a good friend from new jersey suggested it does not affect the number far extinguishes what it does is it just puts into place that that tier one tier two facilities should have some some assessment i used to farm in blakely georgia a chemical facilities in that community and i lived for twenty three years in americas georgia where and how do some onya factory was located the risk at those facilities as are quite different than ones that invest pastorals backyard and there's a tremendous amount of hand how dress ammonia in america storage at that facility now the risk there is much much less going back to the formula that you were discussing and what this would do what mamma would do is would allow sylvie's in blakely georgia city of five thousand people are america's georgia city of seventeen thousand people to be considered a lower risk and treated in a different manner than the than the facilities that are in your backyard and that's what mom him and would do and  frankly i think the new jersey's model was brought forward by the majority as a good model is it not good enough is it too weak i don't think so and what my amendment does is just goes to what the new jersey model that you folks on the other side have brought forth as being the model that we should look at and my amendment is just trying to do what job brought forth as a model i'm just focusing on scarce resources by the h s and on issues where the threat is the highest such as in new jersey is certainly not as high in the americas georgia where i live twenty three years of likely georgia where i was farming and i just i think that we should adopt this amendment it's a commonsense amendment it will help those facilities particularly so these that don't have a whole lot of money where the the financial burden of assessment will fall on their back it's going to we heard from one of the the witnesses that it's going to actually the cessna's it may be required are actually going to run up the cost if it because agricultural production is going to be much harder in ma a man will just help us to do something that makes sense commonsense and utilizes the new jersey model not the jordan model as the mechanism where we go forward so i want to to make sure that we're as secure and safe as we can and ms jackson lady have how regard for you and  respect you but this is not the same as cockpit doors and this is not the same as t s a and how we encourage that this amendment be considered as a commonsense amendment that will go forward to help us at the highest risk facilities to be able to consider the risk at those facilities and those where the risk is minimal that they already are looking at doing ice tea  mrs miller mrs miller votes mr olson mr olson votes mr gao mr gal votes mr austria mr austria votes  chairman this amendment is simple but very important i have serious concerns about several provisions in the bill they do not think are rooted in sound risk basic your team up biology and which i think will cause serious damage to the chemical industry especially u s manufacturing has several moments i offer today to go a long way to make this a better bill a risk based bill and stablished the critical balance between security and commerce this amendment expands the definition of method to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack the bill is currently drafted could be interpreted as having a very narrow definition for this important term which is used later in the bill to give the secretary of homeland security the authority to set limits or restrictions on the types of chemicals companies use or their processes the bill says the term method to reduce the consequences a terrorist attack means a measure used at a chemical facility that reduces or eliminates the potential consequences of a chemical facility terrorist incident reducing the consequences is extremely important and there are important provisions under current law and some in this bill that address this especially the vulnerability assessments and site security plans unfortunately the bill task goes on to say that these methods include a the elimination a reduction in the amount of a substance of concern be the modification of  substance of concern and see the reduction elimination of on site handling of a substance of concern this definition leaves the impression that the only way to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack is to change the chemicals or the process are clearly more methods to reduce terrorist attacks than included in the definition i think it is extremely short sighted for congress to create such a limiting concept that could have huge repercussions throughout our economy in the manufacturing sector why memon improves this definition b acknowledging that there are other critical actions chemical facilities can take that will lower their risk and reduce the consequences of an attack those measures must be equally evaluated in considered by the companies and the secretary of homeland security i hope all my colleagues can support this amendment because it creates a necessary flexibility and clarifies that reducing the consequences of a terrorist attack is not limited to changing what a company use uses to manufacture household cleaners refine paper products or operate a farm obviously we also heard from the ad hydrous ammonia people that we had incredible class on farming because there aren't availability of substitute products there are many things and many ways to do this and this is very dangerous bill and pass this bill that it doesn't have huge unintended very costly consequences on american manufacturing on american agriculture and others because of a bias against a a certain chemical these the last two amendments seek to limit the discretion of the secretary i think that that this crashing should be sign to those who wish to reckless or indirectly to weaken this legislation i think that two week in the critically critical in her and we say for technology provision in the bill in the underlying bill would be a big big mistake i respect the efforts on this bill i respect the sources of the amendments i feel that the inherent lee safer technology provision is the meat and potatoes of this legislation it was written in a bipartisan committee it is risk based and i believe would actually reduce risk by requiring all tiered facilities to do the i s t a self assessment self assessment mind you to determine how they can move out of the tiered list the language is very clear in the legislation that the chairman has done a marvelous job of making sure we don't all over the line and i don't think we have as we've seen in the jersey requiring sheered facilities to undertake a self assessment i will repeat that again and again is feasible makes good sense and the security wise furthermore i studied a study back in april of two thousand and six and we started kicking this around conducted by the center for american progress and titled terrorism lends credence to the benefits of via state with its finding that one third of the facilities switching to safer and more secure chemicals were actually saving money as a result that study clarified analyzed the results and came to the conclusion that when there was a safer chemical used or mixture of chemicals used that inevitably inevitably brought about a less expensive situation so i want to thank the chairman chairman thompson for raising federal standards on i s t to those that we've implemented with success in the jars along that line of thought i want to thank also the chairman for including clear language in the bill against federal preemption of stronger state regulations like those we have a new jersey perhaps some of us forgot the debate we had two years ago when we didn't want states to in any manner shape or form go stronger than the federal government while at states feel that those regulations and standards should be stronger they should have the option that was the debate we had it was clear it was a saint two years ago which has brought us to this day  chairman this is not only a victory for the people of new jersey who can rest assured that every measure will be taken to safeguard our many chemical facilities against attack but this is a bipartisan victory for every american as we seek to shore up a critical component of our homeland security strategy i urge you to novell in final final thing i like the same as the chairman is this not only do we spell out the discretion of the secretary in this legislation but we've also provided money for the very implementation of what we've asked we're not trying to push anybody out of business at all the chemical industry is a thriving industry in the state of new jersey many other states and will continue to be and this and this secretary has the ability in this legislation to make sure that we don't drive any company underground but you must comply with laws that we see as stablish in order to protect the citizens and the workers at that particular passivity so i vote i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation it not only goes too far it goes too far  of his efforts in this regard and i will be yielding to mrs sater in a moment but before that i would just like to say to the gentleman from new jersey the legislation we adopted three years ago as it implementation is proceeded isn't actually no hindrance whatsoever between the department of homeland security and the save new jersey which shows that the legislation i believe we adopted three years ago was appropriate it certainly again if we want to use new jersey and i'm always all nervous using the jersey as a model but if we want to use that as the  secretary which arguably could be included in including but as i stated in my comments that these three things suggest that there may be a secondary motive here to get rid of certain products all mine them it does as expanded to say he can look at things other than this which may be clear in the bill maybe clear in the under lying language but isn't absolutely clear and this is says you can look at other things other than just getting rid of the product i've never heard of and and being moved one clause down and expanding as an attempt to get the bill when it all relates to the secretary of homeland security's discretion i'm expanding the discretion here to say which isn't necessarily method to make it clear this bill's goal isn't to target certain products and if we don't do an amendment like mine it starts to suggest that certain products might be targeted and so you'll  the requirements for methods to reduce consequences of terrorists attacks often richard referred to as the inherently safer technologies to a paperwork exercise of offering of no security benefit as was discussed in our hearing by representative cleaver and also dr langer men reducing consequences is a fundamental element of security risk is just fine as the product of threat vulnerability and consequences if we want to lower overall  risks we must lower each of these variables including consequences by making a facility inherently safer it is less likely to become a terrorist target him my district i have over six of these now a responsible business will review its processes periodic lee to improve efficiency safety and security the problem is what is the timeline how much money are they going to invest in that and what key role can congress play to ensure to protect the lives of american citizens after all the role of the one hundred eleventh congress is our job is to set a nationwide policy h r twenty eight sixty eight would just take the i s t a step further and require this common practice to be ensured to protect all of our citizens the souter amendment would gut this effective and important security tool and reduce any real security requirements by making simple the submission of required security vulnerability assessments and site security plan documents to count as a true method to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack perhaps doing paperwork exercises is good for some but this one hundred  eleven congress and this committee that we do work on a bipartisan perspective demands real action that reduces risk and protects american and when i listen to the dialogue that was going back and forth i thought it was also important for the record for us to look back at something we just passed which was supporting the dent amendment of fifty two and clearly and section twenty one eleven the methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack it clearly states that the secretary makes the determination that a facility should implement i s t g the secretary should first analyze possible effects on the facilities business operations if further states that these effects to be considered include cost that the facility will incur to any resultant loss of employment and three any loss of the production due to the implementation so to say that this is happening you know in some vacuum is not accurate i urge my colleagues to austria of ohio gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman my m m it is a straightforward and fair it would simply exempt small businesses and deter as determined by the small business administration from being required to conduct an i s t analysis or i s t m bill mentation with this concept it is cause plea to comply with i s t and it's unlikely or at least unclear that any marginal security benefit derived from its use what outweigh the negative impact it could have on some small businesses small businesses as we know in this committee is the economic engine that drives our economy they create a america's jobs and our technological innovators but with this economy small businesses are struggling many have gone out of business it is significantly contributed to the high unemployment this country unemployment is now at nine point four percent the highest been in over twenty five years in my state ohio unemployment rate is ten point two percent rising in the vat it's ten point five percent in california it's ten point nine percent in michigan i'm afraid to say it's twelve point seven percent and so forth small businesses derive the american economy with approximately fifty percent of those employed in the united states being employed by small businesses and now in the midst of the worst recession in decades committee is contemplating placing even more regulations on small business businesses that will undoubtedly result in higher cost to them in my opinion that's unfair at this time when you look at the cost benefit analysis and giving today's expert witnesses it's not clear whether the benefit outweigh the costs with this concept at least not at this point not in this economy we all  want to assure mr chairman and this committee on both sides we all want to ensure the safety of our nation's chemical facilities in the department of homeland security says that's implementing in forcing the current regulations the chemical anti terrorism standards and i might add with success and let me be clear that my m m it would not exempt small businesses from the existing safety regulations mr chairman in my of you i as to the concept not of security practice and i'm hopeful that we can join together and at the very least exempt small businesses that are just trying to make ends meet during this difficult economy from being subjected to these vague and costly regulations i would ask the support of the men and yield back my time gentleman years back who see gentleman is recognized to explain as m m mr chairman my m m in attempts to perfect the amendment the gentleman of the hile by seeking to better balance our nation's security with the important needs of small businesses unlike gentlemens amendment my perfecting amendment does not mandate in statute that small businesses will be exempt from any elements of c f a ts it would be a huge mistake for us to do that it provides the secretary with the authority that the secretary needs to make such determinations my amendment requires that not later than one year after the date of an accident the secretary to submit a report to the committee this committee that reviews and accesses the security issues associated with small business concerns under this legislation the report must include an analysis of the potential issues relevant to exempting small business concerns from any part of this act including the effect on the security and the economic effect of eyeing section two one one one two small business concerns after doing this analysis the secretary is required to tell the congress whether the secretary intends to exempt small businesses like the gentleman's amendment my perfecting amendment tries to reconcile the important interests of our nation's security and those of small businesses by providing the authority to the secretary i believe that we are not micromanaging the program small businesses will be exempt if it is so warranted by the information available to the secretary again we are talking about the within the breadth of the secretary's discretion after analyzing the information that would be provided to the secretary i believe it is important for us to give the secretary that authority if we really are serious about cleaning up what needs to be cleaned up and providing safety to the american people we're trying to correct to protect the american citizens and i personally believe that there is no one on this panel no one on this committee that seeks in any manner shape or form to do any serious damage to the chemical industry that would be foolhardy but you cannot limit opposition in opposition in opposition for five minutes i was chairman i to rise in opposition to the effecting amendment at the outset let me just commend mr or see if the work that he has put into his amendment the afghanis work he's done on this committee in the brief ranking member for yelling molinaro thank you thank mr chairman i think the ranking member for yielding and let me just say that i certainly respect the gentleman from new jersey and what he's trying to do but we have a crisis right now not a year from now for the be reporting back as you remember it tends to do and i think this perfecting memet with the crisis we have right now doesn't do anything to perfect this amendment this memo has drawn dealing with the crisis that we have right now with our small businesses it doesn't do anything by perfecting as a member to help our small businesses as a struggle through these difficult times of the next year and what my amendment would do is take into consideration what we're hearing from our small businesses right now they're just drugging they're struggling to make it during these difficult times are struggling to keep their doors open they're struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck to be able to continue health benefits retirement benefits and during this time period we're going to as difficult economic time  i think we do have an obligation to look out for our constituents our small business owners and sometimes some of the legislation that we pass has good intentions but unfortunately there's sometimes and unintended consequences with those good  time i just wanted to express my support and congratulation the gentleman from ohio ohio like indiana is reeling in our small businesses have incredible cash flow problems and they don't need uncertainty right now i also wanted  point out that this is really a substitute amendment and not against study i'd rather have an action perfecting them as interesting choice of words that perfect on them but apparently is limiting the discretion of congress and giving it all of the part of homeland present this amendment that mr souter i know you're interested in is this this should not be an either or situation and other words you either got to be supporting the industry or you either are simply for providing for the safety of american citizens i think both are significant here and i believe throughout the main body of this legislation that the chair has gone through many many tasks to get to that objective i don't i don't look at it that way and i'm sure you don't either that it be a safety or the economy we know how significant they got i mean it's significant in isn't the sole way that chemicals are regulated whether it be a p a whether it be osha whether it be security measures at these plants this is in effect a process that's going to add to the cost and we've tried to address it and improve this bill which has made advances and we appreciate take some of the amendments on job loss and so on but basically trying to look at this and say look we're not targeting certain products we're going to try to give some flexibility and that failed we're here is trying to say look if it's a small business and they're struggling we should deal with them with the secretary has other ways rather an inherently safer technology to say look there's a high risk companies got plenty of waste to do that they could do a study on their own the perfecting amendment isn't prohibited under current law you do a study you can make recommendations off of a study of small business what we're saying is that the main risk by small business means it's a small plant that small businesses are the high risk aren't the major targets of th has expired chairman joe later from texas mr jackson lee i think we are all singing from the same refrain and same song if you will i have been very proud of this committee really in a bipartisan manner that we have been concerned about small businesses really from the very beginning we forgive me my colleagues for continually referring to nine eleven but having been there is some of us have been  been in congress during that time we knew even in a dense area such as manhattan in nine eleven that small businesses came to our attention and we have consistently tried to address this question of their impact on them as relates to security we have been champions on ensuring that small businesses have been able to engage with the d h s s and it is a steep mountain but i do want to say to m austria that none of us are lacking in concern for the region that you come from we're all facing our challenges on the economy but we're well aware of that in the midwest  but the reason why i think the perfecting amendment makes sense is because we all know that small businesses have wide range of definition they can be as large as five hundred or thousand employees we know that forty percent of the chemical facilities in the nation would fall into that range and so any of those represent a terrorist target and we don't want to  in any way underestimate the importance of being concerned about small businesses but this is why i believe we are in good stead with the perfecting amendment because it provides the secretary with the  authority she needs to make any determinations in addition as members know there will be a regulatory process regulations of which all businesses will be able to engage in addition the perfecting amendment requires not later than one year after the date of an the secretary to submit a report to the committee that reviews in assesses the security issues associated with small businesses concerns and this legislation again it is important to note that we have the opportunity as members of congress in this committee have impact on the secretary's deliberation and process this is question is crucial we have got to get moving on some of these issues that are still left dangling from our commitment to the american people that we're going to secure the homeland this perfecting amendment tries to reconcile the important interests of the nation's security and those of small businesses small businesses will be exempt if it is  seen warranted by the information gleaned from this particular image and i believe it is important to give the agency that authority with the oversight of congress none of us are going to be asleep at the wheel  frankly going to be engaged in our oversight responsibilities so i would just caution the pulling out because we are sensitive to the job loss we've already passed this dense amendment that deals with job loss that impacts small businesses but when you think of security remember you'd be carving out forty percent of those facilities that might be vulnerable to those employees who work there and to surrounding communities chairman i rise to support the is adopted and this bill is adopted as it is presented without it being fixed the report that's required in this perfect amendment is going to report how many small businesses have gone out of business and how many jobs have been lost because of this legislation and that's what we're trying to do is we're trying to protect those small businesses and that's what missed austria's amendment does and how we congratulate him on his good work it is critical for us to protect those jobs it's critical for us to make sure that we stay safe as a as a nation but there is no way to absolutely eliminate risk and as i mentioned in sanchez sanchez votes i miss harman up jackson lee number two one twenty one sixteen and jackson lee twenty one or three i think that is in the section number and the reference number is  amendment that we can reach an amicable solution to the crucial issue of citizen suits and i want to speak directly to to those who want to ensure that we do have a fairness in these citizen lawsuits  debated and discussed this at last week's hearing it was a vital debate citizeness is a vital tools for enforcement of many regulatory sits statutes as a congressional record research service provided in june on june fifteenth two thousand and random the citizen suit tool is used in almost all major environmental and several regulatory statutes this is important because we are not recreating the wheel this is not something that has not been tested and proven the clean air act the clean water act the safe drinking water act the toxic substances control act natural gas propane a pipeline safety act power plant and industrial fuel use act endangered species act  superfund protection research and thank you react and many more of my mini extends the time for citizens to two hundred twenty days i want to clarify an issue that my friends on the other side of the aisle are arguing about this provision and that is a chairman many are claiming that this provision will be abused such that the h s resources we squandered or spent soley on these suits or that this provision will cause a release of sensitive since security information related to the facility yet the one reason for their inclusion has not been discuss what about the ability for a local community to help bring about compliance with the vitals that's what this is all about getting an agency to move there was scant discussion of the real point behind this provision which like other citizens supervisions and other  the to the i g this is a denial of a process that has already worked we already have have these provisions we already have the opportunity for citizen suits and the government has not closed down this provision like others before is intended to do what the chairman said give a concerned citizen the ability to have a day in court and help bring about enforcement in compliance with this bill but if this the d h s s acts the suit is dropped and i can assure you i believe that the action on the person's own behalf against any person who is alleged to be in violation of any standard regulation condition requirement provision or of order which has become affective to this title or against the secretary if there is an endless failure of the secretary to perform any act or duty under this title that is not discretionary for the secretary my friends this is not partisan this is not by a lame security this will be any secretary of any administration the provision then says that and again i'm reading from the ins of the section marked actions prohibited no action may be commenced under this section prior to sixty days after the date on which the person commencing the action has given notice that alleged violation  the secretary of the h s and we are moving that two hundred twenty days the same section also says that if the secretary of started an action in a federal court a state court has issued an administrative order to require compliance the suit is prohibited by citizen my friend this is a valuable amendment and my second amendment is to recognize the hard work of my colleagues but it is simply to indicate that we are working with the industry and we striking a language that that has been included on notification and while the original language has the best of intentions and other and after consultation with stakeholders this language could have had unintended consequences in a whole host of cases such public notification could unintentionally cause the public to assume an entity is not in compliance with the facts when in fact it is i believe that h r twenty eight sixty eight includes multiple visions that allow the public to access the efficiency of the facts and to ensure that they are being properly implemented so the second amendment is to strike that language i do not believe that the language at issue in section twenty one all three is necessary and so my minute removes it recognize respecting my colleagues and thank them for collaborating with us to remove that language because we believe there's sufficient notice to the public and we'll continue to monitor that with that mr chairman i'm hoping that we recognize the i g is not a good substitute for citizen department has so this is not a republican or democratic issue is basically members on this side of the aisle taking place in the very same position as the department of homeland security and we do have great concerns about where this law supervision will go without our you will bounce my time's  general from california but along with a guy from california recognized like the gentleman for yielding the concern we have and i don't oppose the gentle lady amendment but it is attempting to amend a section that is unnecessary and disruptive and one of the reasons is because of the general nature of it as i've said before it says any person the united states supreme court back in one thousand nine hundred two dealt with the question of the standing of an individual to bring an action under the endangered species act as it was stated at that time and the supreme court at that time said that basically ought to have some skin in the game in other words the court said at that time that the respondents in the case of versus defenders of the wildlife that they lack standing for the following reasons one as parties invoking federal jurisdiction they failed to meet their burden of establishing that they suffered an injury there's no or no requirement here that you have to show that you suffered individual injury response failed to demonstrate they suffered from an injury in fact and the eighth circuit to erred in supporting the standing based on their interpretation of the the act in question at that time which is the endangered species act the court said this we have constantly held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the constitution in its laws in seeking relief that is no more direct intangible to him than it does the public at large and the reason they have said that is that otherwise you open it up to a host of lawsuits that yes may be resolved during one hundred twenty days but if anybody's been involved in a lawsuit you know a lot of the expense goes in the discovery procedure having done many many medical malpractise defense cases i can tell you the cost in many of those cases with tangential defendants is not based on the fact that they did anything wrong but on the requirement that in good faith as an attorney you have to go do your discovery you have to go out and investigate you have to go out and ask witnesses it costs money and so you might say oh well after one hundred twenty days it was dismissed but what happened during those hundred twenty days once you know that someone is going after you and you have a great concern to make sure you're protected you want to make sure you have the evidence at the earliest possible state so it costs money and to the extent that you cast your  net as broadly as possible with which this section does it is any person may sue any person what you've done is you've given people without any essential standing any particular harm any particular perception that is unique under that person with respect to the impact of the action of the inaction by either the government or by the party involved and that's why in fact we try and draw these things narrowly we try and at least say that you've got some additional unique information you can bring to the  court that's why we have whistleblower legislation which deals with people who have unique information and we protect them here we're saying anybody can bring it at any time and while the gentle lady does help by having an amendment which adds an additional sixty days it does not take care of the essential problem it's what happens within those sixty or one hundred twenty days which is costly to a company and if you think this is going to be costly the big companies i can tell you it's going to be extremely costly to small small thank my colleagues for their deliberate considerations matter but the question still does remain what are inherently safer technologies we did some digging and found that the concept of i s t was first introduced by dr trevor class an english chemist about thirty thirty years ago this idea is simply not a new one the villa tends to define i s t by coming up by coining a new catch phrase methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack quickly reminded of the one hundred percent scanning catch phrase used to push through the majority's one hundred percent air and maritime cargo screening requirements to requirements that the majority has found itself backtracking on can anyone provide us with  definition of what inherently safer technology is by look at the dictionary i couldn't find it but i have however taken an opportunity to meet with many scientists and subject matter experts they consider it as a quote conceptual framework close quote that involves four basic elements first minimizing the use of a hazardous substance to replacing a substance with a less hazardous one three using a less hazardous process and for simplifying the design of a process i asked t is not a technology it is a concept that is a framework and let me be perfectly clear i do support i asked t but i support i s t is a framework that guides our facilities to methods and improve business practices and protect their employees when i cannot support the government telling these companies if when and how to implement such a framework you know there are six to seven thousand facilities covered under c fats and department simply does not have the expertise to oversee this the chair mentioned that the committee's expense he mentioned the committee's extensive record on this on this issue and we quote one of the expert witnesses called by the majority last congress dr david coleman director of compliance at siegfried usa stated quote inherently safer technology is a concept that the chemical industry invented and we consider it continuously as we design modify and enhance our production process quote let's now take a moment to summarize tuesday's hearing and by the way that was the only hearing in this congress on this bill and we do have eleven new members of this committee but from deputy undersecretary writing or who represents the obama administration when i asked how many i armstrong who also testified on the subject of honesty and what it exactly and i asked her what exactly it was and she demurred and she stated that quote there is enough debate in industry in academia that i can't take a position on that very topic close quote these are from the people are going to be asked to oversee this mr paul about off from the state of new jersey's the e p stated clearly that i s t assessments were not mandatory in new jersey except for forty five of the highest risk  implementation was not mandatory but the majority of those bill disabilities did it anyway marty durbin of the american chemistry council stated on the unequivocally i s t quote we continue to believe that the provision is unnecessary that the current regulations provide the encouragement close quote and by the way the obama administration which many of us are supporting on this issue wants to extend these regulations by one year the fat's regulations we strongly support that martin jefferson representing the california monium company which provides eighty percent of california with its and hydrous ammonia for fertilizer stated quote we believe the requirement for all regulated facilities to assess the use of product substitution as as proposed could have a devastating impact on american agriculture close quote i think that's what really prompted ms miller's earlier perfecting in that it neither many american chemical society society stated quote there are facilities that i've been involved with as a consultant in my professional clear career that would be hard pressed economically to make changes and i'm certain i'm certainly aware of facilities that have that have been have chosen to move out because of regulatory oversight close quote as far as i'm concerned the record is pretty clear i s t well well intentioned is not a silver bullet and her vision was markedly improved by several amendments need not be mandated farmers small businesses pharmaceuticals industry scientists in academia all reduce consequences of a terrorist attack often referred to as in her only safer technologies it strikes at every place in the bill understand what's going on  so there's no bill but this man passes and you know that's how you feel fine as was discussed in our hearing again by mistake represent cleaver dr land  reducing consequences is a fundamental part of security that's what we should be about we lead our mission assignment when the committee was first put together jack on the original select committee i was on it those of us who are here remember what our mission is i'm sure we all do around this and the day is here so risk is defined as the product of threat vulnerability in consequences if you want to lower overall risk we must lower each of these variables including consequences by making a facility in her and we safer it is less likely to be a terrorist target so there's a large payoff in safety as well i asked he simply requires companies to evaluate for new practices and processes that will make facilities not only safer but also more efficient we like to quote the gentleman from new jersey from the department of environmental protection only when it suits our purpose he did say it is good business practice i asked he analysis is good business practice and further in that testimony the other day he pointed out very very clearly we could not he could not identify one single instance mind you where complying with chemical security with the chemical security law put a company out of business he couldn't cite one example he was pressed on the issue he could not do that the universe of companies carved out of some of these amendments would exempt companies with hundreds if not thousands of workers in fact you would exempt which is not those does not go to the heart of your amendment but i'm trying to give us a lot there an overview an umbrella vision it would exempt thirty five to forty percent of all the companies you can water down try to water down this as much as possible and much of this watering down is a good faith because you're trying to get to your goal line but companies big and small don't really real the considerations automatically they need to be pushed to do it that's why we're considering federal legislation i would ask the gentleman that this is a critical piece of legislation that's going to come out of this committee it speaks to the legislative branch we do have a legislative branch of government isn't that interesting we are discovering with the mission of that legislative branches we're not going to be overrun from the courts or the executive branch we're going to try to be cooperative and we are cooperative in your co operative but we need to get to push this ball because if we leave it as it is there is not enough confidence i have in simply voluntarily conforming sounds good i've attempted it in many instances when i was a mayor and as a state legislature it works to a point that's why we have the federal legislation ask you to reconsider your five minutes thank you mr chairman this legislation in my opinion is getting the cart before the horse we see in a new jersey model that businesses are ready implementing assessments themselves because it's in their own best business interest to make sure that their facilities are safe the only way to absolutely eliminate risk is fair every facility where any chemical any product is put in a nuclear missile attack safe type of shelter and obviously we can't do that but i think this is a good amendment and it expresses the interests that certainly i have i think most of us on our side have across the board and  chemical plants are safer and i stated that i do support i s t s a concept is a framework is an engineering it's really an engineering process there is not an off the shelf technology that is available that's the problem here mandating technologies that may not exist that's the issue that i have assessments are one thing implementation is another second thing is the obama administration's department of homeland security good people mr writing are and the other lady we heard from ms armstrong they just don't have the expertise on staff to deal with the six to seven thousand chemical facilities that would be subject to implementing they just don't have that staff they're not ready that's why they've asked us to extend by one year the curren economy as we all know and we just don't want to do anything that might put some people out of work and i do have a procul interest as i said earlier i represent a district where i have over four thousand people who were in my district who spend their lives building and designing chemical and gas plants all over the country they build those plants where they do for a reason they build hydrogen plants down by refineries because they need hydrogen and they need hydrogen there so we can have cleaner burning gasoline you know we simply can't substitute hydrogen out as much as we may like to but they build the plants where they do for a reason and i think there's a lot involved here that maybe some of us need to take a little bit more time to think about reflect on it and i think everybody here is operating in good faith that the question is should this be mandated support i asked he it's a great back i think the gentleman feeling back and i just want to say that we're just asking and supporting the president's request and the president's right imo supporting him one hundred percent i believe  comply with the president's request and let us have at least another year in this committee come and do what we need to do all of us won't america to be safe and secure under the national security is the most important function of the federal government or at least it should be and a lot of things that that we're doing here in congress i think are blatantly unconstitutional but making this committee's jurisdiction is one of those prom constitutional functions of the federal government and just support the president in his request to less just step back let's give it a year to see lady from california recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman you know as a mr longer and said i might be one of the newer members here in the house but you know there's an old saying in california i come from a simple family you don't leave the fox to watch the hand in the hen house and you know when i heard a description here of well we can't tell companies if when and how and oh we can wait another year let me share with the public a couple times of where we've waited another year just as finance the collapse that we've dealt with even greenspan has stated that he thought the regulators would do a better job of regulating he thought that they wouldn't do that but look in fact what happened and then i'd even like to talk about the gentleman from louisiana we had our own army corps of engineers who failed and built levees that they knew were not sufficient so for us to imply that companies will just self police themselves that the fox long you know creep in and get the hand is just not proven policy i rise in opposed to the dent amendment five forty four because we want to lower overall risk we must lower each of these variables including consequences put quite simply to reduce the purse prensa the of targets will in fact reduce the propensity of attacks and then i want to state because it seems like we're saying the same thing over and over again and it's important for the public to hear accurate information just we just had a hearing where i asked the staff to clarify had they read the bill were they clear on what the flexibilities were for the secretary and they acknowledged that and they are this regarding i s p to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack the bill authorizes the d h s s secretary to require the implementation of inherently safer technologies or i s c for two years one in to or two which are the highest risk two years however the secretary can require the implementation of the i s t bill if he or could be she must make the factual determination of the implementation one is it technically feasible to is a cost effective three does it lower the overall risk without disproportionately shifting the risk elsewhere in the supply chain and for would it not in here the ability of the facility to continue its operation i think some people thought president bush was right too  california look we just can't afford to wait another year we've waited we have waited we have waited several years we didn't just start this now and we started a long time ago and we when we moved in a very bipartisan fashion to get to where we're going and every issue that's been brought up every issue whether it's the state of we can take the technology off the shelf we sure know what happens when you mix dangerous chemicals with one another we know that we can follow that very carefully and we know what's more volatile than what else is and we know that if we if we could it substitute certain chemicals we could make that place a lot safer and in many cases we have found we could make the process a lot more cheap the other situation that came up as somebody referred to before is citizens it's that's the only kind of sits that's called for in the legislation so in other words what's the return well read what it says in the legislation the civil penalties are paid to the united states treasury this is no there is no where to my looking for but the and and there's no pot of gold at the end of a citizen's suit so i mean it's talk about frivolous suits i think that's a frivolous front to get rid of the bill i think that what we need to do is work together every there was the adoption of my men which doesn't allow an appeal from a decision made by the secretary and i think that doesn't prove it but the underlying proposition remains and i would just remind my colleagues that we haven't been waiting for a number of years i introduced legislation which was passed by this committee three years ago four years ago was not passed by the senate but was incorporated into the appropriations legislation that's why we have the schematic that exists at the present time over at the department of homeland security in which they are engaged the testimony we received is that there are about sixty percent of the way through the entire maturing process  this that they have unprecedented cooperation with the chemical industry that the chemical industry has spent i believe the number was billions of dollars on security not just in complying with the law that we passed but with the other things that they have done there was not a single witness that appeared before us this year or in prior years who said that we would get increased security by the adoption of mandatory implementation safer technology is a matter of fact when the gentleman from new jersey tells us or quotes to us the words of the regulatory officer from the state of new jersey about how no business has gone out of business or been detrimental effected by s t he leaves out a very interesting point it is voluntary in new jersey presumably if a company looked at it made the decision that if they adopted it it would force them to go out of business or impact their business they didn't do it so therefore the answer is self evident if not imposed on us it can in some way put us out of business this is a process as has been mentioned before here's the reason we bring up not in a frivolous nature the problem of citizen lawsuits secretary will necessarily give us a safer situation every witness that we have had from the industry every witness the majority has brought before us this year and prior years rejects that notion there's not a single one that supports that notion yet we're going to enshrine it in law so here you have a situation the secretary looks at a particular situation and determines that i asked he is not applicable in that situation under the law any citizen could now file a lawsuit and say i believe that the secretary has violated the law because i believe that under the law as mandated by congress  in this case should be provided should be applied but it hasn't been or a the other hand let us say the secretary says that i s t must be implemented in a particular circumstance and the subject of his order follows through on the process that we established by way of my amendment and that is goes before administrative law judge the administrative law judge then overturns the secretary's position under the provision in the bill with citizen lawsuits there is no bar to anybody with no skin in the game that is anybody who just has a general public interest rather than a specific interest in this bringing a lawsuit and saying th department has violated the law because we believe that in fact inherently safe technology should be imposed in this case because the secretary made that decision but now the secretary has been overruled by administrative law judge and so if you take down one combination in just a moment if you take the two in combination what you are doing is setting yourself up for paralysis by litigation and i really don't think we ought to be doing that in an area where we have shown or seen real progress in cooperation between the federal government and this industry going over from one administration to another to be happy t gentleman from new jersey legislation reads that relief to a new person who prevails in a citizen suit is limited to the issuance of a court order requiring performance and or civil penalties paid to the u treasury now the power in the story of the secretary is very specific if at any time the secretary has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action or as issued  cited if in fact the secretary did nies it that is subject to a lawsuit and you do not take care of the situation where the secretary requires it but is overturned by the administratively law judge but i thank you just for the record we have three votes schedule and we'll have about an hour between the next set of votes we're going to try to complete the markup when we come mr chairman because time is of the essence i like to make two points the first one with some degree of tongue in cheek i would pay good money to see a football game where in the player's police themselves i can just see a three hundred pound lineman saying oops i clipped you let me have fifteen yards please as a penalty this notion that businesses are going to police themselves is one that i think will cause us to make a mistake of great magnitude there are times when you need an act of congress to get something done and there are also times when you need a congress as willing to act i think it's time for us to act now with reference to the question of standards my colleague is eminently correct when he says that the supreme court has ruled that you have to have standing the supreme court ruled that you have to have standing because it's a constitutional issue we cannot contract away standing standing is as a matter of fact based upon the evidence that presented so making the statement anyone is not going to eliminate the standing that the constitution of the united states of america requires which has been validated in the case of summers versus earth island institute the notion that standing does not go away because of language utilized in contracts in legal documents promoted by the congress as a matter of fact so standing is not going to be eliminated but beyond standing there's been a question raised about the cost associated with this regardless as to how we feel of what we do legislatively you cannot prevent anybody from suing anybody everybody has a right to sue in this country the question is can you prevail with your lawsuit you can walk into a court that does not have the jurisdiction into the clerk of the court and file your lawsuit the clerk of a court cannot reject a  lawsuit simply because the court thinks that the lawsuit does not belong in that given court the court doesn't have jurisdiction the court has to accept the lawsuit then by virtue of the way things are litigated it may or may not be dismissed at some later time so i don't mean to parse words but the nuances of this are important you can't stop people from what you can do is limit what they do after they sued we have laws that protect us against frivolous lawsuits in this country frivolous lawsuits are going to be dealt with in a legal fashion not withstanding flip frivolous lawsuits this legislation talks of who's going to bear the cost when one party prevails and another loses the legislation itself places the burden of cost on the losing party it includes attorney's fees this legislation does not beg people to file lawsuits in fact they are admonitions with legislation that would cause a prudent person not to file a lawsuit if it is a frivolous lawsuit so i would just ask my colleagues to please understand that we have a constitution that deals with this whole question of standing the constitution is not going to to go away and there are many other words that we might use is not going to be obvious kate is not going to be eliminated simply because we say any person we still have to honor the constitution of the united states of i know that is the gentleman from california had time left bell or she would have yielded but i want to respond because mr dent and i have worked very closely together to respect what he's offering i simply believe that this will gut the legislation and if you recall the testimony of mr right and your i pointedly asked him the budget hearings can you work with us as we proposed legislation and he said yes and so did ms armstrong i believe the language in the president's budget was a carryover from last administration maybe looking forward maybe they didn't have the time to study are so in essence we have the of the administration to go forward this legislation the testimony was on the record and let me also say that my colleague is ri members to the eleventh amendment i know we like reading the constitution it said that you are in essence held to a standing standard in the hundred twenty day timeframe that we seventy nine be submitted for the record thank you very much  miss jackson lee mystic way are mr carney mr carney votes no ms clarke ms richardson as richardson votes no this fulfilling their compliance their compliance responsibilities as required by law currently department does not have an adequate amount of of inspectors to fulfill this requirement by the end of f y ten department expects to have approximately one hundred sixty feel inspectors throughout the united states to conduct regular inspections of over seven thousand chemical facilities this amendment would require the secretary to hire no fe than one hundred additional inspectors in fiscal years two thousand and ten and twenty eleven as we go forward with this process it is important to make sure the department has the resources it needs to conduct these visits and inspections and avoid that law which in the long run could lead to less secure facilities for this reason i asked that my colleagues adopt this amendment thank you very much to cheer supports the individuals with no direct connection to a site security plan or the learnability access minister assessments to send to sensitive information a person who rarely or never actually works in a facility could access such information at site plan recipes for chemical compounds and the like the current framing could allow the inadvertent or deliberate release of sensitive information to individuals or entities seeking to attack or damage the facilities this bill aims to protect this amendment changes the definition of employee representative this ensures the employee representatives who have access to these plants are actual employees at the facility and therefore have a bona fide need to know i can understand the position of self my colleagues that we do not want to be so restrictive about the release of information  inhibit the public's right to know however i feel it's important that we carefully balance the need against our responsibility to provide the public with security i asked my colleagues support this amendment opposed to this amendment which would limit the definition of employee representatives to only employees working at a facility that's freezing out the valuable expertise that that comes from union representation the expertise of union representatives ought not be excluded from participating as the international unions for often have departments with experts in matters related to security safety and chemical issues w distrust exists between local union members the management local union members often except the correctness of man and maj men's claims which are often but not always correct before before claims have been evaluated by experts from the union internationals for encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time  check provision of this bill is what this is all about this amendment would clarify that the owner operator of a chemical facility would have to terminate the employment of an end of an employee if he or she meets any of the disqualifying criteria outland in the background check provisions in section twenty one fifteen the disqualifying crimes include espionage sedition treason terrorism murder and rico violations are an attempt to commit such a crime if it employees found to have been convicted found not guilty by reason of insanity or is wanted for one of the disqualifying crimes that person would be a threat to the facility and should not be given continued access to sensitive material similarly if an individual is on a terrorist watch list or is in the country illegally and is working in the united states in violation of his or her immigration status that individual employment should be terminated this minute does not change any of the redress process that's in this letter in this legislation if someone is terminated they have a proper redress process that you john later from new york the recognized thank you very much mr chairman i rise against mr brown's amendment i believe it would reasonably interfere with the business decisions that any company covered under this legislation this committee's work hearts in this congress and the last congress to include strong language about personnel surety effect there is great deal of bipartisan cooperation or not interfering with the business decisions of these companies the gentlemens amendment would require an employer to terminate the employment of an individual on the spot and prior to to redress if that individual might meet certain requirements outlined in the bill such action would be gross infringement on the rights of employees and companies and makes little sense i beg to differ this is a circumvention of the redress process and as the bill is already chris truck this if an individual me already meet certain criteria he or she may be terminated but that is at the discretion of the employer this amendment goes far beyond the and fan of this bill shaw strong discretion to the employers and employees is necessary additionally this bill rightfully has a strong redress process and i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment without your back the balance of my time  crimes this is qualifying conduct so we have in the past one involves the porch the congress has stepped in and if we are stepping in with the overall policy of installing inherently safety technology would seem gentleman fielding surely this clarke would not want to have somebody who's guilty of these disqualifying facts fast denied trees and sedition terrorism those on the terrorist watch list i would think that that the gentle lady would not want these people working at a sensitive in a sense a position it's a chemical facility and i think it's absolutely wrong to leave them in that position and this would give my mammoth simply would give the employee a justifiable reason to terminate their employment if they were found to be disqualified and it this is actually a protection of the employer and it's a protection of the american people if if a terrorist watch list individual is found to be an employee of a of a chemical facility then it would allow that employee to be discharged immediately there is proper redress and it totally disagree with the ladies of a way ssion about limiting the redress because it does not it does not affect the redress iota so this is just actually a protection for the employer and gives them the ability to once an individual who is a threat to be terminated and ensure that people would not be kept from a job because of some previous indiscretion the crimes here are very precise as you know it's addition trees and terrorism murder recall violations we don't expect every employee to be a boy scout or a girl scout or an eagle scout right now that they've hired any of these for the german yield yes very difficult when in georgia we have a number of people who are undocumented as example as there is call around here actually illegal so that is indeed a an issue that has to deal be dealt with in the qualifying cations of an employee and so we know with the porous borders that we have today there are people in this country who are here illegally and immigration checks is absolutely critical for our national security in my opinion and there are many people that are working in these kind of facilities sent back my don't have have proper documentation i agree with everything you just said except that's not in the bill that's that's not a part of this legislation and i'm all i want to know is do we have any examples of terrorist dog  things i came not give you an example but the answer overall the question is yes absolutely indeed these just are the same twigg background check regulations where this just allows an employer are actually mandates employees get rid of people do think about and sometimes who should not be there you know to the gentleman from texas gentleman from texas thank you mr chairman and let me say from the outset that i believe are all honorable people and i do not believe that the the gentleman is acting with malice of forethought but a perusal of the proposed amendment if we go to page fifty six of the bill well redress is styled under the bill under subsection c and your men met your amendment and again indicates that the redress process that would be utilized under subsection d now if we if we do this subsection of the bill deals with restrictions on the use and maintenance of information that means that redress under this bill would become restrictions on the use and maintenance of information as i i tried to lay a proper predicate so that i would not in any way encroach upon your integrity because i don't want to to do that but that the bill itself would would encroach upon redress with the gentleman yield yes or if my amendment is adopted as a hopefully additional chemical security inspectors we have all heard in testimony numerous times in this committee that the current federal hiring process is slow complicated and bureaucratic all too often qualified candidates quit the process because they cannot wait any longer to be considered they've told me this earlier this month undersecretary for management elaine duke testified before the management investigations and oversight subcommittee of which i'm a ranking member about the need to reform the federal hiring process to make it more efficient and effective the subcommittee also received testimony from pat max stier the president o of the partnership for public service about the challenges of the federal hiring system which is a government wide problem not one just unique to d h s even the new director of the office of personnel management john berry has noted the need to reform the federal hiring process to make it more user friendly and provide quicker turnaround times the president's fiscal year two thousand and ten budget request includes funding  funding to hire one hundred thirty nine chemical security inspectors however the budget request does not take into account all of the new requirements that will be placed on the national protection and programs directorate as a result of this bil down we have to hire additional inspectors to ensure completion of the site visits and expection zz of chemical facilities required in this bill and under represented gal's amendment the first amendment which was adopted which i supported will have to hire in addition one hundred and specters the mush ensure that these inspectors are hired as efficiently and expeditiously as possible which is why i offer this amendment direct higher authority addresses critical hiring needs and i can think of no more critical domestic hiring needs than filling positions that work to secure our nation in addition authority to hire new chemical and specters would be available only in fiscal years two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven after which time the department will return to the standard federal hiring process for these positions there is precedent mr chairman in this congress for legislatively providing direct higher authority to federal agencies and departments for especially important purposes and this is one this amendment is a limited targeted commonsense improvement that will enable the department to better meet a critical hiring needs in its efforts to ensure the security of our nation's chemical facilities i urge my members to support this amendment appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do he wants to ensure that the h s is able to hire chemical inspectors expeditiously so that they are able to monitor facilities compliance with the fed but simply this amendment got several well established longstanding highly preferences that are settled in law it enables the secretary to hire chemical inspectors without regard to these important high requirements physically groups such as veteran persons with disabilities would not get the recognition afforded to them under the law i do not believe that this amendment is necessary we have engaged v h s a great deal of the development of this legislation and at no time the da just required request a waiver from the federal requirements to c fats office i would also point out that it is the suspension of rules such as both sides of this amendment that have led to the low morale and contracting abuses we cannot let his repeat on the balance of my time thank you thank you mr ranking member thank you mr chairman not in the stimulus bill i believe all but two members of this committee voted for the stimulus bill and that was in their direct hiring authority and we gave that actually out in vote for the bill but it was given to the director actually the secretary of energy and i think there's actually a bigger purpose for it at this time it's very very critical particularly since we voted for many represent the gals bill which adds an additional one hundred security officers thank you mr chairman appreciate gentleman yield back gentleman from you gentleman from texas thank you mr airman by mr chairman i really don't think that that a good number of people who may want to support this will want to if you have an opportunity to read section thirty three zero nine through section thirty three eighteen of title five of the u s code because i happen to have it in my hand and thirty three zero nine deals with preference eligible preference eligible preference eligible is defined at twenty eight twenty one zero eight preference eligibles veterans disabled veterans i don't think that we want to eliminate veterans and this able veterans from these jobs they have paid a price is specially this able to veterans have paid quite a price they've earned the right to have a preference in this country i have to believe that this while it is well intended is not what the gentleman wants to do i cannot support legislation that is anti in this bill does it state that that trend's one not be hired and i recognize the authority ways requirements included in the competitive service such as veterans preference like all the they members of the committee i zero nine so if it's without regard to those sections what is your intent it does not prohibit it is from hiring veterans and this of course the secretary certainly has that authority well thank you started a marine corps i'm a marine i'm very proud of my service to this nation and i'm my constitutional perspective we've got to support our veterans but there's nothing in the gentleman from florida's a minute that would prohibit that arose from the and hired or considered it doesn't change the law whatsoever it just expedite the process of the of the department hiring people to fill these critical roles and so i think the the fears that it would eliminate people from their heart from the hiring practices are unfounded that still the secretary kid evaluate any prospective employee and this just expedite the process and allows direct hiring so that that these inspectors can be hard we don't have any now and we need to get them so that we keep the chemical  ok i would take the term without regard in this context to mean disregarding those sections i think the chaplain needs a greater clarity in terms of what he intends to do because if we disregard the sections that means that you're going to do just what you don't want to do you absolutely then will put us in a position of where and we won't have veterans getting the preference for the german u s or as warm on the gentleman that when you concerned by that in fact you know like let my good friend mr brown i too am a veteran fact i'm still in the military serving and i would hate to think that the preference is earned by men and women such as myself would be limited under this law and more to the point rather than than expediting the issue of hiring more i think what this legislation do is actually make it cloudy or make it more disputable and slow the process to be quite honest so from my g i i can't support it although i understand the intent and i certainly want to expedite the process of hiring inspectors that's not the issue at all you know i think we're all and agreement on that but but the issue is at what cost and i yield back thank you very much here no further discussion the question is on agreeing to the amendment those in favor say aye those opposed may this hearing i and some of my colleagues noted some of the inherent jurisdictional problems in this bill as someone from a district with a strong maritime industry one of the concerns that i have centered on of these currently regulate regulated under the maritime transportation security act of two thousand and two the m t s a already requires vessels and port facilities to conduct nobility assessments and develop security plans there is no need for them to also be regulated regulated under the chemical facility regulation successful in its oversight of these facilities ensuring their adherents to the law and making known any potential risk to the public additionally the coast guard has a staff capacity to carry out these inspections there are currently more than four thousand marine safety personnel available to inspect more than three thousand two hundred m t s a regulated facilities the agency is set you hire another one hundred thirty nine inspectors to assist in this effort this is an amendment to exempt m s t m t s a regulated regulated facilities to syllabi speculate regulated under the maritime transportation security act of two thousand and two are currently exempt from the department of chemical facility regulatory authority this amendment would preserve that that exemption given the already successful oversight of of these facilities it does not make sense to require them to incur the cost and the mislaid of confusion associates associated with additionally learnability and assessment plans are you that my time thank you gentleman yield back  manager's amendment you have corrected the problem starts on page twenty six and that you require in this legislation the office of infrastructure protection and the coast guard to enter into a formal agreement and pursuant to that agreement they have to make sure that there are no conflicts and efforts are not duplicated and then you go on to indicate that they have to designate the agency that will be responsible for the requirements under this legislation which means that we are giving now the secretary the authority to work with the two agencies and get this job done as opposed to congress deciding and mandating how it ought to be done i think this is a better approach i think you've already addressed the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h r two eight six eight off right mr souter of indiana gentleman is recognized for three minutes in support of his amendment i thank the chairman i'm offering is a man with a great important safeguard for sensitive security data as well as proprietary information that could be compromised during the course of a civil suit by man adds a third prohibition to a civil suit under this title it says no civil suit could be brought against a chemical facility or secretary of result in the sharing of security risk information or proprietary information going to section two one one six of the base bill any person may commence a civil action against the facility or even the secretary of homeland security if they are alleged to be in violation of any standard regulation condition requirement probation or order in this bill there are safeguards in the bill for how companies employees in the department are to handle and store sensitive security information there is a provision in the bill intended to protect some security information from release on  civil suit as a german by the secretary i have serious concerns that this is not offer sufficient protections during the hearing on tuesday bartman homeland security deputy undersecretary write ins or testified that he has remaining concerns quote that  litigation involving c fats regime would lead to a high likelihood of disclosure of sensitive information i believe it is important go one step further and clarify that no security or risk information is to during a civil suit nor is any proprietary information without this language i believe this bill opens up an unnecessary risk that security measures and site vulnerabilities could be exposed to the public and exploited we can't be naive that a competitor would not bring suit to acquire proprietary information during discovery phase or at some point during the suit this possibility also requires protections and i might add many of the companies in my district even go back to the company and have proprietary mixes and differences in the different chemicals and ways of processing if the language in the bill is left unchanged it could be another burden that could push the economy the company out of business or overseas where they wouldn't have the risk of releasing this information that should be protected if they don't close up shop or move overseas and i will put up a giant billboard for other facility that says please soothe me files with an eight hundred number because that is the message that i think this message sends may be just good for the trial lawyers but is not in the best interest of these companies our economy or the security the nation let me be clear this amendment only restricts civil suits from going forward under this title if it results in security and proprietary information being released if there are other suits pursuant to the laws these restrictions would not apply there are still a number of problems with the bill this bill offers no certainty for the manufacturing sector with the potential of millions of dollars a new class to implement highest e they marry very well decide is in the best interest to take a viable company and move their plans overseas to avoid this huge regulatory burden of changing all the processes and the likelihood of millions of dollars in future court fees from unending civil suits the only thing that is certain is that they face a possibility of daunting mandate to change their entire operation in the likelihood of civil suits from all directions by a mem offer some amount of protection that their security and sensitive information will be protected in a civil suit cannot be brought against them as a means to acquire this information though my colleagues will support this amendment was a sham and feel lady from texas is recognized for three minutes i thank the gentleman and let me m suggests that we all have a concern that mr souder of in the ana has expressed and he is diligent in his explanation but  is probably moving in the wrong direction and i would almost say that he may be wrong this is going to be overly burdensome and i would i would sever for my colleagues to mrs souders amendment and there is language in there i believe that is answered fully in the bill because the bill does have language dealing with security sensitive information and we are as concerned as he is and mr right  did not counter our legislation he said he was comfortable with the scheme of the security and let me for those who are offended by scheme the structure of the security sensitive information  this amendment seems to violate an ambiguous limitation because it would seem for example that if a company had to disclose during a suit how it design a containment facility assuming the design was proprietary then that information cannot be disclosed that is in essence a gutting a citizen's right to sue in compliance with the eleventh amendment we already have protection for that and therefore that suit would then have to cease and we've seen that we've had civil suits for  under a number of different bills i also suggest this is not a trial lawyers if you will hand out the money goes to the united states government but really what we're after is a correction aspect of it remember my friends we're dealing with security so what we want to do is get the parties together that's what this will allow that's what this will disallow also one could argue that disclosing any information about a facility security protocols of vulnerabilities might qualify as security risk information also prohibiting a suit from going forward but in both instances the reasons for stopping the citizen suit would have nothing to do with security i believe that in the structure that we have courts could look at this information in commerce so they could look at it blind meaning that provisions are right on if you will fit their concerns and it also provides for a harmonious interrelating of all of the security initiatives that has to do with security sensitive material we look at section twenty one tin all information is already protected if i refer you to twenty one to an already in the bill protected i believe although the germans amendment certainly is one of which he believes  gentleman is asked seconded as a second and let me just suggest because it would take us longer than i think the time we have left to go vote we have three votes to take and will take up the i'm concerned that mandating the i s t will cause a great burden on small businesses and the economy i believe opening this up to civil lawsuits both in the private sector and against the department will be causing grave damage both to the economy and to the department whose interest is national security my image is very simple it strikes a civil suit provision and provides what i believe to be a reasonable alternative this amendment would allow the inspector general of the d h s s i g to investigate complaints against for failure to perform to perform non discretionary duties the inspector general would have thirty days to validate the complaint valid would recommend that the secretary fulfill her duties the d h s s i g would also inform the chemical facility in question the complainant would receive a written response outlining whether the d h s s i g found the complaint to be of merit and finally if the secretary fails to respond to the recommendation act the member requires the i g to refer the matter to the attorney general for enforcement action this amendment in my view inserts accountability into the chemical security process while ensuring that security information is protected and frivolous lawsuits are avoided ultimately what this amendment does is exactly what the majority wants it provides a mechanism to guarantee compliance with these regulations and at the same time protecting the department this is after all this is not an environmental protection provision and it has everything to do a security as a gentleman from a new jersey said we're not going to be overrun by the courts i believe this amendment protects us protects the department and the private sector from the courts when we look at the luge on division decision the supreme court case i very instructive because in that case the supreme court held to permit congress to convert the public interest and executive officers compliance with the law into an individual right the nickel in the courts is to permit congress to transfer from the president to the courts the chief executive is most important constitutional duty to to take care that the laws be faithfully executed under article two section three and the supreme court so we've always rejected that vision of our role i believe that we are governing body through legislation that we are empowering the executive branch to and force a law and that we should not govern through litigation we heard at the june sixteenth hearing just recently it confirmed that the department's office of general counsel confirmed that this would be the first time that the d h s would be subject to civil lawsuits by an injured party yes this does not prevent injured parties from showing but rather an to an injured third party citizen lawsuits so i think in the interest of the economy and the interests of national security i would urge this committee to adopt and support my moment and get better colleague from texas mr mccall and i say this with great affection when i say friend around here we use that terminology rather loosely but i consider him a dear friend i have to respectfully oppose the amendment because not only does this amendment allow the i g to investigate it also allows the i g to become the judge as well as a jury and to determine whether or not there will be prosecution i want to hearken back if i may to texas city where and we had about fifteen people at my recollection is correct that were killed at a chemical plant and these people lost their lives because of willful neglect willful neglect  meaning the neglect that was there was known to people and they for whatever reasons decided that they were not going to cure the problem i believe that giving citizens the the the opportunity to bring these lawsuits will give us the opportunity to make sure that maybe another texas texas city tragedy does not occur i think that citizen input  is going to be very meaningful i also would say this i have great faith in the judiciary in this country these judges are all american citizens and i know my friend does as well these  judges who hold these high positions they do so with great degree of honor and integrity they want to make sure that the laws of followed i don't believe that the judges are going to overlook laws that already exist that deal with frivolous law lawsuit these judges have great integrity i believe mr chairman that we need to empower the citizen give the citizen the opportunity to deal with these kinds of issues such that we don't have another texas city or at least the citizen will have an opportunity to prevent another texas city concern from developing and that was a that was a very hard thing for those of us who live in the area to accept the loss of those lives i think that citizens can help prevent this and help us to save lives and to protect our country and i will let you know back the balance of my time gentleman from texas he'll back as previously agreed by the majority  respond to my good friend from texas mr green and i appreciate his legal background as well this amendment does allow citizens to file complaints with the would be with the the secretary of mechanism so i believe the citizens rights and complaints would be taken care of and i fully recognize and appreciate the gentleman's reference to the texas city case a daylight decision i believe was went to the u s supreme court as well in that case of course these points were harmed there's no guarantee that the plaintiffs in this scenario would have to be harmed or injured in any way just as any person may bring this citizen  complaint and i believe that we need to make it clear in the legislative intent that we are talking about armed individuals who can bring an action as opposed to an harmed third party liability suits that as  idea of protection of a very sensitive information which could be used in terrorist activities if we allow this to go it to be not presented as an unfortunate mechanism by the executive branch but rather have the judicial branch get involved and oversee this we are going to open it up to third party lawsuits we are going to go through extensive discovery i worked in the justice department both as a civil litigator and as a prosecutor and you're go see discovery that's going to request information it's going to it's going to wind up to the determination of the judges to whether or not to disclose this so i think it runs a grave risk of that kind of information getting out in the public which could i think i don't mind that  of this legislation which i respect the majority's intent behind this but i think this will have an unintended consequence of revealing very sensitive information that it should be protected not to mention the economic burden that it will impose  the gentleman from texas thank you thank you mr hines i appreciate it let's address each of the statements made one by one let's start with the the notion that sensitive information will be disclosed  having been a judge and having had the opportunity to have in camera inspections i understand the awesome responsibility that the judge has and i believe that the american people trust americans to perform this function i sincerely think that we can trust our judges who are appointed by the president confirmed by the senate of the united states of america i think we can trust them to look at these sensitive documents and ma camera inspections with reference to harm yes the supreme court has indicated that there must be harm the court has gone so far as a say that not only must there be harm it has to be harm that the individual has head intent is behind this bills of these persons are in sight injured or have been harmed let let me continue and one of the things that we have to do is read these laws in concert with all of the other laws that exist in the country if we start with every conneaut ng everything that it applies to it with reference to the laws of the country then i suppose we still need judges to to give some the degree of deliberation about the process but you're going to have everything contained in one law so we have to read them in concert with the other laws i want to mention one other thing quickly you mentioned about the fact that the citizen could go to the i g and then the i g would process a complaint now this is important this is important this is important that's called the you look the utilization of in the monic device to help us remember the monic devises a memory ating device friends this is the system that we had that allowed bernie madoff to do what he did the f c c was there the complaints were made to the f c c the f c c never got around to discovering that this man had a ponzi scheme to this tune of about sixty plus billion dollars depending on who's counting the f e c the i g all of these entities are there but they can be overworked they can have more than they can consume why not give the american people the opportunity to be a part of this process and help us to prevent things from occurring i appreciate the fact that standing you have harm you have standing but i want to see the american people do something to prevent harm from occurring i think this is a good piece of legislation as it is and i continue to oppose the amendment the gentleman from indiana for three  minutes a couple of quick points one is that they can sue on safety and on environmental this is about homeland security and which set a new precedent and secondly kind of this three thousand pound gorilla in the room is that wherever you have a chemical company or a big industrial facility that uses a lot of chemicals they aren't necessarily the favorite place in town  therefore the concern on our side is not so much suits with standing we presume with the homeland security department the different processes on safety and environment will do address allow those questions th question is are we opening another category of harassment that before it ever gets to a judge there's a process that forces them to discovery is information going to get out that adds expenses to the chemical company and then on through and because we believe and i've seen it in my case and seen it in other states that basically these companies are just you open up opportunities people just go after them to mr mccall and i think gentleman  lawsuits and i think we need to do that with great caution and i think we need to make it clear on the record that if this goes forward that what we intend by this bill is that these are in there are persons who have been harmed and answer my friend from texas this goes through several layers of review the i g secretary the secretary fails then it goes to the attorney general united states to enforce this is an enforcement issue and a homeland security issue not something that should be a creature of  environmental law and i think we should let the executive branch do its job and not abdicate those responsibilities to the courts and to lawsuits where i think there would be grave damage not only potentially to the department  primary interest is national security but also an economic on that would be done to the private sector with a general you just briefly i absolutely say to you my heart is with you but i understand also that those between people that lost their lives in texas city that is a process that was in place and they never got around to dealing with the willful neglect that existed that permitted them to live their lives and after their lives  lost just by way of it if a case because they were contract employees they did not have the same rights as regular full time employees now the issue but but if i can i go home i guess i only have like two seconds but under this a minute citizens would have the right to address their grievances and file those it would just be a different process more common sense process that i think would be in the best interest of the country and the and this fragile economy that we're in today and i see my time has expired failure to enforce this law allowing anybody to file a civil lawsuit against a covered chemical facility or the secretary will undoubtedly lead to a sharp increase in litigation people may even in good faith believe facility was not in compliance would be to another facility site security plan a document protected by this very act says only the d h s s office of the general council can accept subpoenas and authorize employees to testify or release official information based on a list of factors the increase in the letter the geisha and resulting from section twenty one sixteen n u n u date d h s attorneys with busy work and difficult decisions regarding whether or not to comply as administration testified before this committee on tuesday third party lawsuits made lead to the release of sensitive and protected information let me repeat that may lead to the release of sensitive and protective information let's be clear about this this would be the first time the very first time the department of homeland security would be responsible to defend itself against an un injured third party even if the suit fails as many of them likely will the amount of resource hours consumed by their efforts would be tremendous bolli i have to ask why is this provision in here anyway the administration doesn't want it supported obama administration for the not wanting the department of homeland security doesn't want it not a single witness not a single witness from tuesday's hearing or our committee's only hearing on the subject matter with our new members present testified that including this provision was useful again i have to ask why is this piece of environmental law in an anti terrorism law increase lawsuits there's going to be a tremendous amount of time expense and time wasted in that discovery period it's going to be harmful to many entities including the taxpayer including government bureaucrats recognized for three minutes mr chairman i move to strike the last word so as not to disappoint my friend and i will yield some time to you in the event that you were not finished i don't think i need the entirety of my time let's start with this what appears to be consternation about the unknown and doing something that's new until we had marbury vs madison we did not have judicial review established as a right in this country and it took took that kind of courage that kind of moving forward to get us to the point where the judiciary has the ability to review the cases that we currently promote gait and promote through the rule of courts and through the process and the laws that we develop with reference to lay persons not knowing the lay persons that you're talking about maybe lay persons who work at the plant who are right there on the site who have empirical evidence of what has happened these people to merit an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of people the notion that this is going to deal with sensitive evidence or information again the courts do this every day this is not a novel thing for courts to have in camera inspections in fact it is commonplace especially with reference to the freedom of information act and some of the things that are requested that are quite sensitive finally anybody can file a lawsuit currently anyone can file a lawsuit right now if if you file a lawsuit the question becomes one of the consequences of your filing a lawsuit so saying that this somehow opens the floodgates such that anybody can file this is not the case what this does is it says that if you do file and you're not the winner of the lawsuit if you don't prevail then you're going to pay attorney's fees you'll have to pay court costs there are consequences for doing this so it doesn't invite you to do complaint that you just just talked about and from marbury that madison on you're certainly much more learned about the law but i'm also and i'm a medical doctor and i hope that as you're talking about win or lose or pay i hope that we can do that about medical bills in the future because i think that's going to be important part of trying to control health care costs but back to this civil lawsuits in this legislation  totally not needed as the gentleman from texas so aptly has said on multiple amendments anybody can sue anyone and we have ways of individuals wh whistleblowers who are our employees or other entities of bringing action that would take care of what i think the german from texas is concerned about we all want safety records this is i for just a quick moment whistleblowers generally speaking deal with complaints related to job activities that well let me just let me just say that i think i was  gentleman's time has expired gentleman from indiana recognized for three minutes i just by the way just because i have said that mr green's my dear friend our brother in christ doesn't mean  doctor i'm i'm a business guy and my degrees are in business management and we go through these different phases where we say this is the way we're going to do things that's the way we're going to things are not very well defined and this basically doesn't enable you to sue a company over safety you can do that i mean over safety or e p a this allows you to sue a company over whether or not they have inherent safety technology if they don't implement it because one of our clauses if it loses jobs consume and that maybe you won't win at the end of the day but the preparation the question is what proprietary information for the more it's not just a chemical company in my district i have to s d i steel facilities are loaded with all kinds of potential things to sue over and there were huge battles to get these things zoning it took them six to eighteen months extra just going through the harassment to get the zoning every culture committee didn't want to houses didn't want them  they're huge employers and just like there are a billion dollars each in construction of five nuclear facilities i have a g m pickup plant for the silverado and sierra that is so large and it's floor they had to take in the circumference of the earth in pouring it and that it has all windshield plants alternative energy a biodiesel plant the biggest in the world all these types of companies would be eligible to be sued if somebody didn't feel they had the most safe technology in their opinion and ironically back when states were required to list all their targeted potential homeland security sites indiana had a very exhaustive list and it became a joke on steve call their show about the popcorn festival and the popcorn facilities in indiana fact i think mr king actually referred to why are we focusing on popcorn when we were when new york city was the target of terrorists and that in fact the way we're doing this bill because we are targeting the fact is the bob barr facilities in indiana do become the biggest danger in the question is are we going to be running around with the department homeland security running around to the indiana popcorn festival and and our popcorn companies when we have huge terrorist threats here about a technology that we know very little about isn't defined that is disputed and and then in our own restrictions on how they can implement it we set up a potential lawsuit i believe we haven't really thought this through confers upon any person except the secretary right of action against an owner operator of a chemical facility to enforce any provision and i think that in my view given the alternative measure that i had is the  right result here because they can they can chew under this current bill they can sue in this case will go forward with discovery and present all sorts of problems in terms of cost of litigation in terms of protected information possibly getting out and lastly we share a lot of these chemical facilities as you know i know in our area in the houston area with anonymous save about ten seconds i will and i don't i'm only down to two and already to give you a minute  without exception everyone that i've talked to said by mandating the science team provision that's bad enough for them but when you couple the threat of these lawsuits without exception they've told me about the grave consequences that this bill will have on their business and i think in this fragile economy the last thing we need to be doing is dumping mandates and opening them up to lawsuits in an area that's not an environmental area this is an area that we're talking not chemical security we're talking about national security and i think this is the wrong area to be opening up you know there are areas where the under the endangered species act they can sue and that's part of the l course we have the delta smelt case that came out of that the don't go into that but i think i think this is this this is a double barrel shotgun and it's the industry if you will it is going to cause great damage and i would urge them in the majority to that there's a connectivity with each other and i appreciate that because i believe there's just one race and that's the human race and if we are not brothers and sisters we at least cousins so we are related now my point i can make quickly  if you are concerned about this technology the best way to get a definitive decision is that have a court look at it a judge will give you that decision and we will move on with reference to giving people the right to sue there is nothing wrong with giving the judges the right to reject the lawsuits that have been filed impose court costs impose attorney's fees and send the people packing with less in their coffers than they came and i'd like to reclaim my time   because it's not on the roster gentleman from ohio clerk will report to them and then i to the amendment in the nature of a substitute h r two eight six eight offered by mister austria report a suspected security deficiency and other noncompliance to often whistleblowers and concerned employees do not have a private secure means by which they are able to notify authorities about a law and security or non compliant staff i believe this amendment strengthens a bill that we're considering today because it helps in the establishment of a dedicated system for streamlining and correcting in instances of noncompliance or security deficiency the establishment of a tip line one able employees of a chemical facility senior staff and concerned citizens with knowledge of potential security and consistencies to pass along their information in a timely manner this amendment also requires a sector of homeland security respond to report within thirty days and if requested provide a written notification to the complaint and the secretary's findings and what actions if any were taken to correct the situation the meme and also chairman will provide employees again senior staff and concerned citizens with the necessary means notify authorities as well as allow the appropriate authorities take quick corrective action ultimately helping to secure our nation's chemical  chairman supports the amendment yet i asked an afghan sentence or my statement in the record i just want to make one brief comment and that is that at the hearing we had earlier this week one of the things  technology is just in time inventory and it turned out that just in time the majority put more goods on the road and will be less safe than storing it in some cases and that's the genesis of this amendment  minute by mr brown which requires determination of any employee who was found an employee of any employee who was found not legally authorized work in the united states during the background check is acceptable to the majority as well as the minority and if that is the case i will yield back t recognition and they get recognition because i was not here when one of the vote was cast that was the amendment number one d what my information gives me and i would like to record that i would have  next tuesday