Last Friday Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-Michigan) attempted to make an amendment to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, to minimize the impact of new regulations on agriculture and farmers. The Democratically controlled committee voted “no” on her amendment along party lines. Farmers may now suffer increased regulations on any chemical product related to agriculture and farming.
Much of the partisan debate centered around “Inherently Safer Technologies” (IST). Democrats in the Committee often used the words “bipartisan” and said let’s “work together”, yet most of their actions were along party lines.
Republicans, like Congressman Charlie Dent (R-Pennsylvania), made the case that IST was a concept or a process, and was not an “off the shelf” specific technology that could be applied to chemical security.
Listen to Congressman Dent’s explanation about IST:
To provide justification for IST, Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey) cited a survey by the progressive group, Center for American Progress. Their survey from 2006, Preventing Toxic Terrorism, gave Pascrell information to claim IST would bring safety and would be cheaper:
A Center for American Progress study that shows no economists or engineers on the project team, nor any economic or engineering analysis, is enough for Congress to decide national chemical security policy?
I cannot find the words “economic” or “engineering” in the document. I cannot find the word “money”. The word “cheaper” appears once.
A newer study by the Center for American Progress, New Strategies to Protect America: Securing our Nation’s Chemical Facilities , also lacks any engineering or economic analysis.
Pascrell’s comment that IST would help companies be more “efficient” was a bit strange. What business does the government have in forcing companies to be “efficient” when the government itself is not?
Last week the various videos from the markup sessions in the Committee on Homeland Security, show significant ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats:
Democrats are not happy with the proposal by President Obama to simply extend the existing law, which expires later this year. Oddly, Republicans were happy with this Obama proposal. Democrats appear to only see a solution to chemical security if IST were involved
Several of the amendments debated last week were about law suits that would be allowed under the proposed legislation. Democrats wanted “any person” to be able to sue a company if IST had not been appropriately applied at a chemical facility. Republicans objected that IST was not an objective criteria, and was a concept about ongoing improvements. Republicans only wanted those with “skin in the game” to be able to bring a law suit. Republicans worried about “paralysis by litigation” for companies that progressive groups did not like.
If Democrats are successful in their strategy for chemical security, progressive groups, like the Center for American Progress through their Center for American Progress Action Fund, or any of many other groups, could drive firms they don’t like out of business by ongoing harassing legislation.
For example, if a business is not “green” enough, a law suit could be brought demanding chemical process changes that are “inherently safer technologies.” Companies may need to spend considerable resources to defend themselves, even if their current chemical processes were safe (according to OSHA) and not threatening the environment (according to the EPA).
One amendment rejected by Democrats was bizarre considering they were dealing with chemical security. One Republican amendment would give employers the ability to dismiss employees who had committed crimes that were worse than a specified legal threhold. Democrats voted down the amendment, so they must be comforatble with convicted terrorists working at chemical facilities since that is one of the groups Republicans wanted to exclude.
Congress Emanuel Cleaver’s comments during the discussion of employment was difficult to comprehend. Cleaver said he didn’t want to be telling the H.R. department of a company how they had to deal with employees. But Cleaver is comfortable in telling chemical businesses what they can do or not do with their business?
When the “stimulus” package was passed several months ago, that bill contained an exception so the Secretary of Energy could have direct hiring authority to bypass certain federal red tape. Democrats in the Homeland Security Committee voted down a similar proposal by Republicans to help the DHS Secretary hire mandated inspectors. Democrats are comfortable giving DHS broad regulatory authority when DHS doesn’t have the expertise to make the needed decisions.
DHS will be inspecting and controlling American chemical businesses in unprecedented ways if the legislation is ultimately passed. Increased regulatory burden and possible loss of jobs are not things Democrats are concerned about now based on how they are voting.
The Homeland Security Committee will continue its work late tomorrow in Washington.
Related:
- The Fertilizer Institute Member Company Testifies On Chemical Site Security, AgriMarketing, June 17, 2009.
- Congress could give government bureaucrats more control of farms and industry, Kansas Meadowlark, June 16, 2009.
- Do we want Homeland Security telling businesses how to run their businesses? Telling farmers how to farm?, Kansas Meadowlark, June 12, 2009.
Tags: agriculture, CFATS, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, chemical security, Congressman Bill Pascrell, Congressman Charlie Dent, Congresswoman Candice Miller, DHS, farming, Homeland Security, inherently safer technology, IST
