Weekly Whip Pack

November 3, 2009

Whip Pack

Printable Link

For More Information Please Go to the Links Below…

Floor Information
(Weekly Leader)

Whip Information
(majoritywhip.gov)

Rules Information
(rules.house.gov)

Bill Text and Background for the Week of November 2, 2009

  • H.R. 3639 - Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009
  • H.R. 2868 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009
  • H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act

__________________________________________________________________________

H.R. 3639 - Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009 (Rep. Maloney - Financial Services)  (Subject to a Rule)
__________________________________________________________________________

Bill Text: HTML Version, PDF Version
Bill Summary and Status
Rules Committee Meeting: Rule and Committee Report, Summary of Amendments Submitted, Amendment Deadline: 11:30 a.m. Tuesday 11/3, Text of the Bill as Reported, H. Rept. 111-314: Financial Services Committee Report,
Committee: House Financial Services
Committee Staff Contact: 5-4247

Bill Summary & Key Issues:

Summary of the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act

H.R. 3639 was introduced on September 24 by Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank to move up certain implementation dates of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (The CARD Act, P.L. 111-24), which was signed into law May 22.  Since that time, many credit card companies have availed themselves of the opportunity to raise interest rates and decrease credit limits on their consumers before the effective date.  During Committee consideration, amendments were adopted which exempted gift card provisions and issuing institutions with fewer than two million cards in circulation from the expedited date provisions. The bill and these amendments were adopted by voice vote.  The CARD Act contains three separate implementation dates, 90 days, 9 months and 15 months after enactment. The break-out below lists when provisions become effective.     

The Expedited Card Reform for Consumers Act, H.R. 3639, will move the 9 month (February 20, 2010) and 15 month (August 22, 2010) implementation dates up to December 1, 2009.         

Became effective on August 20, 2009:

  • Provide increased written notice to consumers of any increases in the interest rate or otherwise makes a significant change to the terms of a credit card account;
  • Inform consumers of their right to cancel the card before the rate hike goes into effect;
  • Send statements to consumers 21 days before the due date of any payments.

Will become effective February 22, 2010:

  • Prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases and universal default on existing balances;
  • Prohibits issuers from charging over-limit fees unless the cardholder elects to allow the issuer to complete over-limit transactions, and also limits over-limit fees on electing cardholders;
  • Requires payments in excess of the minimum to be applied first to the credit card balance with the highest rate of interest;
  • Prohibits issuers from setting early morning deadlines for credit card payments;
  • Prohibits interest charges on debt paid on time (double-cycle billing ban);
  • Requires issuers extending credit to young consumers under the age of 21 to obtain an application that contains: the signature of a parent, guardian, or other individual 21 years or older who will take responsibility for the debt; or proof that the applicant has an independent means of repaying any credit extended;
  • Protects recipients of gift cards by requiring all gift cards to have at least a five-year life span, and eliminates the practice of declining values and hidden fees for those cards not used within a reasonable period of time.

Will become effective August 22, 2010:

  • Requires penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation;
  • Requires that creditors periodically review all interest rate increases since January 2009 and reduce rates when a review indicates that a reduction is warranted.
  • Amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit dormancy, inactivity, and service fees associated with gift cards.

House Report 111-314:
HTML Version, PDF Version

Full Committee on Financial Services:
Full Committee Markup: Markup of OTC Derivatives Markets Act, Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, H.R.3763, and H.R. 3639, October 22, 2009.

Summary of Committee Votes:

  • Rep. Sherman, D-Calif. Small Issuer Exemption Amendment (Text) - would allow credit card issuers with fewer than 2 million credit cards in circulation to comply with the new rules by Feb. 22, 2010. It also would give those small issuers until Aug. 22, 2010 to comply with a requirement that penalty fees be proportional to the violation. Adopted by Voice Vote.
  • Rep. Sherman, D-Calif. Gift Card Exemption Amendment (Text) - would maintain the Aug. 22, 2010 compliance date for rules on gift cards. Under the credit card law (PL 111-24) creditors are prohibited from imposing dormancy fees, service charges, or expiration dates on gift certificates, store gift cards or general-use prepaid cards. Adopted by Voice Vote.
  • Rep. C. Lee, R-N.Y. Federal Reserve Certification Amendment (Text) - would direct the Federal Reserve to submit a report to Congress certifying whether or not the implementation of new credit card rules is feasible by Dec. 1, 2009. If the Federal Reserve does not certify that the rules can be put in place by that date the law would retain its original effective date. Rejected by Voice Vote.
  • Rep. C. McCarthy, D-N.Y. Interest Rate Increase Moratorium Amendment (Text) - would strike all of the bill's provisions after the short title, and replace it with language to move up the implementation date for rules against certain credit card interest rate increases. Under the amendment, beginning Dec. 1, 2009 credit card issuers would be barred from making interest rate increases that would not be permissible by current law as of Feb. 22, 2010. Withdrawn.
  • Rep. Hensarling, R-Texas Interest Rate Reductions Amendment (Text) - would allow credit card issuers to grant interest rate reductions without having to comply with new rules requiring issuers to give their customers 45-days notice of changes to their credit card accounts. Ruled Not Germane.
  • Rep. Maffei, D-N.Y. Effective Date Amendment (Text) - would make rules on credit card practices (PL 111-24) effective as of the law's enactment date, May 22, 2009. Rejected by Voice Vote.
  • Vote to Report: Favorably Reported to the Full House, as Amended, by Voice Vote

Committee on Financial Services Hearing:

"H.R. 2382, the Credit Card Interchange Fees Act of 2009 and H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009", October 8, 2009.

Panelists:

CRS Report:

(TBA)

CBO Report:
CBO Cost Estimates: as ordered reported by the House Committee on Financial Services on October 23, 2009.

Administration Position:

(TBA)

Organization Statements:

H.R. 3639 exemption for CUs won; CFPA moving - National Association of Federal Credit Unions

ABA Comments on House Committee passage of H.R. 3639, The Expedited Card Reform for Consumers Act of 2009 - American Bankers Association

Fact Sheets & Talking Points

Further Protect Consumers from Unfair, Abusive Credit Card Company Actions

 

Financial Services Committee Approves Maloney-Frank bill to Speed Up Credit Card Reforms - Financial Services Committee

Maloney, Frank Introduce Bill to Change Effective Date of Credit Card Reforms to Dec. 1 - Financial Service Committee

Statement on Introduction of HR 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

Other Resources:

Cosponsors of HR.3639 

Press Releases, News Articles & Related Information:

__________________________________________________________________________

H.R. 2868 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 (Rep. Thompson, Bennie - Homeland Security) (Subject to a Rule)
__________________________________________________________________________

Bill Text: HTML Version, PDF Version
Bill Summary and Status
Rules Committee Meeting: Rule and Committee Report, Summary of Amendments Submitted, Amendment Deadline: 6:30 p.m. Monday 11/2, Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, H. Rept. 111-205 Part I: Homeland Security Committee Report, H. Rept. 111-205 Part II: Energy and Commerce Committee Report
Committee: House Homeland Security, Energy and Commerce
Committee Staff Contact: Homeland Security: 6-2616, Energy and Commerce: 5-2927

Bill Summary & Key Issues:

Key Points on the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to

H.R. 2868: Chemical Security Legislation

October 29, 2009

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2868 would rename the "Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act" the "Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009."  This bill reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) authority to implement and enforce the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which are currently set to expire in October 2010, and improves these standards in a number of ways (Title I).  It also requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish parallel security programs for drinking water (Title II) and wastewater facilities (Title III).

Title I - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act Reauthorization

Title I codifies the risk-based performance-based approach to securing chemicals that DHS has administered since 2007 (pursuant to Section 550 of P.L. 109-295) and includes provisions to ensure seamless transition from the current DHS regulations. 

Under this Title, facilities are regulated by DHS based upon several factors, including the threats posed to them; their vulnerabilities; and the consequences that would follow from an attack on them.  In addition to harmonizing statutory authority with the current regulations, H.R. 2868 enhances the regulations by including language to address:

  • Methods to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack; Inherently Safer Technologies (IST). Under the current regime and the bill, chemical facilities possessing certain amounts of chemicals must disclose information to the DHS Secretary. Based on this information, certain facilities are categorized according to four risk-based tiers. Title I requires every tiered facility to assess feasible alternative processes or chemicals that could reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (IST). IST is already recognized as a "best practice" within the chemical sector. Of the tiered facilities, only a facility in Tiers 1 and 2 (the most at-risk tiers) that has been placed there because the release of the large quantities of toxic substances at that facility could endanger many people may be required by the head of DHS' Office of Chemical Facility Security to implement IST. Before requiring a facility to implement IST, the head of DHS' Office of Chemical Facility Security is required to review the facility's IST assessment and determines, in writing, that implementation would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health and that implementation-
    • Is technically feasible;
    • Is cost effective, including a consideration of any personnel implications, the costs, and whether the facility could continue to operate in its current location; and
    • Lowers risk at the facility while not shifting it to other facilities or to elsewhere in the supply chain.

DHS' written determination must set forth its basis for the determination that address the three factors listed above but also the cost, avoided costs, savings, and the positive or negative implications for the facility's workforce.

In the event that DHS determines that implementation is required, Title I establishes an extensive process by which a facility may submit a written appeal of the determination to the DHS Secretary within 120 days of receiving the determination from the DHS Office of Chemical Facility Security.  Once the formal appeal is submitted, the DHS Secretary has 120 days to respond and must consult with both the facility operator and a wide range of technical experts in environment, health, safety, security, chemistry, design, and engineering.  If the Secretary determines that implementation is necessary, the Secretary is required to issue an order and a schedule for implementation and include the views of the technical experts in the order.  The bill also authorizes $225 million for FY2011 through 2013 so that DHS may provide assistance to facilities that are required to implement IST.

  • Small Businesses and Agricultural Facilities. Title I requires the DHS Secretary to transmit two reports to Congress within 6 months of enactment of this Act. One would look at the potential effects of IST on tiered facilities that have 350 employees or less. The other would require an analysis of the potential effects of the IST assessment on the agricultural sector, including fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers, retailers, and commercial applicators. Title I also requires the Secretary to issue tools to simplify the process.
  • Citizen Enforcement. Under Title I, a person may file suit against the DHS Secretary to compel it to carry out its non-discretionary duties to implement CFATS or against governmental facilities for any violation of an order issued under this Act. Title I does not authorize citizen suits against privately-owned chemical facilities, but it creates a new "citizen petitions" process for citizens to report potential security violations to DHS and receive an official response. This process ensures that all sensitive security information is protected from public disclosure while facilitating citizen enforcement.
  • Background Checks. Title I requires the DHS Secretary to issue regulations to require tiered facilities to undertake background checks (including criminal history, immigration status, and terrorist watch list checks). The provision protects workers who, by virtue of the background check, are improperly subject to an adverse employment decision by requiring redress and a reconsideration process.
  • No State Preemption. Title I makes it clear that CFATS is a floor - not a ceiling - for chemical security regulations. States and localities may enact more stringent chemical security standards if they determine that such measures are necessary.
  • Protection of Information. Title I requires DHS to provide standards for the sharing of security information with those who have an official need to know it, such as state and local officials, first responders, and local homeland security officials, and to protect information when disclosure would be harmful to the security of a covered chemical facility. Title I sets criminal penalties for anyone who discloses protected information in knowing violation of the information protection regulations.
  • Port Facilities. Port facilities are currently exempt from the CFATS regulations. The Committee on Homeland Security has received extensive testimony, including testimony from DHS (both the Bush and Obama Administrations), asserting that this is bad security policy given that these facilities possess the same chemicals as the facilities regulated by CFATS. Title I helps to close these vulnerabilities by directing the U.S. Coast Guard, which current regulates port facilities under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 to oversee the administration of CFATS for port facilities.
  • Whistleblower Protections. Title I requires the DHS Secretary to establish a process to accept information from whistleblowers and prohibits retaliation against a worker who properly reports violations.
  • Funding. Title I authorizes $325 million for FY 2011, including $100 million for grants for implementation of inherently safer technology including $3 million targeted to assist the agricultural wholesalers and merchants. Overall for FY 2011 through 2013, $900 million is authorized for the CFATS program.

Title II - Drinking Water Facility Security

The Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 (Title II) replaces Section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).  This Title requires the EPA Administrator to establish risk-based performance standards for community water systems serving more than 3,300 people and other exceptional public water systems that the EPA Administrator determines, in her discretion, pose a security risk. 

Key provisions of Title II include:

  • Risk-Based, Performance-Based Tiering and Standards. EPA must promulgate regulations establishing risk-based, performance-based standards for covered drinking water systems. The Administrator must assign covered water systems to one of four risk-based tiers, ranging from Tier 1, the highest-risk systems, to Tier 4, the lowest-risk of the covered water systems.
  • Consultation with States and DHS. In developing and implementing the regulations, the EPA Administrator must consult with states exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems (hereafter "states with primacy") and other persons, including the Secretary of DHS.
  • Security Vulnerability Assessments and Site Security Plans. Covered water systems must identify vulnerabilities through a security vulnerability assessment and develop a site security plan that addresses those vulnerabilities. Each covered water system is allowed to select layered security measures to meet the risk-based performance standards, which vary by tier.
  • Methods to Reduce the Consequences of an Intentional Act (Inherently Safer Technology). As part of their site security plans, all covered water systems with dangerous chemicals in amounts exceeding thresholds that will be set by EPA must assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes without violating drinking water standards. EPA must provide guidance, computer software and other tools to covered water systems assigned to Tiers 3 and 4 in order to streamline the inherently safer technology assessment process for these systems.

Title II also authorizes the states with primacy (and EPA in Wyoming and D.C.) to require a system in one of the two highest-risk tiers to switch to safer chemicals or processes.  Before requiring a covered water system in one of the highest two risk-based tiers to implement methods to reduce, the state with primacy (or EPA in Wyoming and DC) must examine whether implementing these methods would significantly reduce the consequences of a release of a substance of concern; would not increase the interim storage of a substance of concern by the covered water system; would not put the water system out of compliance with SDWA or state and local drinking water standards; and is technologically and financially feasible for the water system.

The state drinking water agencies (or EPA in Wyoming and DC) must provide a covered water system with an opportunity for appeal if the covered water system disagrees with a determination that it must implement an inherently safer technology. 

  • Employee Participation. Title II requires that covered water systems include their employees in the development of security vulnerability assessments and site security plans and ensure that these employees receive the training necessary to perform their duties under the plans.
  • Protection of Information. Title II requires EPA to provide standards for the sharing of security information with those who have an official need to know it and to protect information when disclosure would be harmful to the security of a covered water system. This Title sets criminal penalties for anyone who discloses protected information in knowing violation of the information protection regulations.
  • No State Preemption: States and localities may enact more stringent security standards for covered water systems.
  • Funding:  Title II authorizes $315 million, including $125 million for implementation of inherently safer technology. 

Title III - Wastewater Facility Security

Title III amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act, to enhance the security of operations at wastewater treatment works (i.e., sewage treatment facilities) from intentional acts that may substantially disrupt the ability of the facility to safely and reliably operate, or have a substantial adverse impact on, critical infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment.  This Title preserves the historic regulatory oversight of sewage treatment facilities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ensures that security regulations appropriately balance water quality and security goals.  By charging EPA with security in the water sector, this Act ensures seamless security-related requirements for public utilities with both wastewater and drinking water responsibilities (regulated under Title II of this Act).  Key provisions of Title III include--

  • Significant Federal Resources to Enhance the Security of Public Sewage Treatment Facilities. Title III authorizes $1 billion over five years in federal grants for publicly-owned sewage treatment facilities to conduct security vulnerability assessments, to develop site security and emergency response plans, and to implement security enhancements, ranging from the construction of security fences to the implementation of safer treatment processes.
  • Vulnerability Assessments, Site Security Plans, and Emergency Response Plans for Treatment Works. Title III requires each sewage treatment facility that treats at least 2.5 million gallons per day (estimated by EPA to be a facility that serves a population of 25,000 or greater), or in the discretion of the Administrator, presents a security risk, to: (1) conduct a vulnerability assessment; (2) develop and implement a site security plan; and (3) develop an emergency response plan for the facility. Vulnerability assessments and site security plans developed under this title are required to be submitted to the EPA Administrator for review and approval, and to be updated on a periodic basis.
  • Risk-Based Evaluation of Treatment Works. Title III requires the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, to categorize the nation's sewage treatment facilities into one of 4 risk-based tiers, with tier 1 representing a facility with the highest degree of security risk. Owners and operators of sewage treatment facilities would be required to implement appropriate site security and emergency response plans based on the perceived degree of risk to critical infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment from an intentional incident at the facility.
  • Methods to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack; Inherently Safer Technologies (IST). Title III of the bill requires all sewage treatment facilities that possess a substance of concern to undertake an assessment of methods to reduce the consequence of a chemical release from an intentional act, more commonly referred to as inherently safer technologies (IST). For high-risk sewage treatment facilities, Title III authorizes states with approved programs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (section 402 of the Clean Water Act) or EPA (in the case of States without an approved program) to require implementation of inherently safer technologies where implementation: (1) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health; (2) would not increase the onsite storage of chemicals; (3) would ensure that the facility could continue to meet its existing Clean Water Act obligations to protect water quality; and (4) is feasible. Individual states, and the EPA Administrator, are provided discretion to take enforcement action against a facility to ensure compliance with the inherently safer technology provisions of this Title.
  • Security-Related Audits and Inspections, Whistleblower Protections, and Protection of Security-Related Information. Title III requires the EPA Administrator to audit and inspect individual sewage treatment facilities to ensure compliance with the security-related provisions of this Title, and provides whistleblower protections for employees with information on the failure to implement required security measures. Title III also provides for appropriate access to security-related information among federal, state, and local governments, tribal representatives, and sewage treatment employees, as well as law enforcement and first responder personnel.
  • No State Preemption. Title III explicitly authorizes states and localities to enact more stringent wastewater treatment security standards if they determine that such measures are necessary.

House Report 111-205:

Part 1: HTML Version, PDF Version

Part 2: HTML Version, PDF Version

Full Committee on Energy and Commerce Markup:

Full Committee Markup: Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, Wednesday, October 21, 2009.

Summary of Committee Votes

  • Rep. Pitts, R-Pa. Exemption for Regulated Facilities Amendment - Would exempt any chemical facility that is regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (PL 107-295). Rejected by Voice Vote
  • Rep. Scalise, R-La. Employee Representative Amendment - Would require an employee representative to undergo a security background check. Adopted by Voice Vote
  • Rep. Gingrey, R-Ga. Chemical Process Engineers Amendment - Would ban the implementation of the bill's inherently safer technology requirements until the Department of Homeland Security increases the number of chemical process engineers in the department by at least 100. Rejected by Roll Call Vote 13-29: R 13-0; D 0-29
  • Rep. Ross, D-Ark. Effect on Agricultural Sector Amendment - Would require the secretary of Homeland Security to provide guidance to assist farm supply merchant wholesalers with compliance with the legislation. It would allow the secretary to award grants to wholesalers to assist with compliance. It also would require the secretary to conduct an assessment within six months of enactment on the potential impacts of compliance on the agricultural industry. The assessment would include the scope of facilities covered, a survey of known methods, processes and practices other than elimination that manufacturers, retailers and distributors of pesticide and fertilizer can use to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, and an analysis of how the assessment of methods are likely to impact other sectors engaged in commerce. It would authorize $9 million for grants under this section. Adopted by Voice Vote.
  • Rep. Stearns, R-Fla. Extension of Authority Amendment - Would strike all the text and insert a provision that would extend the authority of secretary of Homeland Security to regulate chemical plant security for three more years, as outlined in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (PL 109-295). Rejected by Roll Call vote: 16-28: R 14-0; D 2-28.
  • Rep. Sullivan, R-Okla. Inherently Safer Technology Amendment - Would prohibit the secretary from requiring the implementation of inherently safer technologies unless the secretary has conducted an analysis of the potential effects. The analysis would include the costs that the facility will incur, the loss or shift in employment and the loss of production. Rejected by Roll Call vote: 17-30: R 17-0; D 0-30.
  • Rep. Burgess, R-Texas, Exemption for Drug and Pharmaceutical Companies Amendment - Would exempt chemical facilities that manufacturer products necessary to protect public health from the provision on inherently safer technology. Rejected by Roll Call vote: 19-30: R 19-0; D 0-30.
  • Rep. Shimkus, R-Ill. Consequences of a Terrorist Attack Amendment - Would strike sections of the measure dealing with "methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack." It also would strike the provision requiring $225 million of the funding authorized be reserved for reducing the consequences of a terrorist attack. Rejected by Roll Call vote: 14-28: R 13-0; D 1-28.
  • Rep. Upton, R-Mich. Unemployment Amendment - Would make the portion of the bill related to reducing the consequences of a terrorist act non-applicable if the facility must reduce the workforce by 15 percent of those employed before enactment of the bill in order to meet the requirements of the measure. Rejected by Roll Call vote: 11-28: R 11-0; D 0-28.
  • Rep. Upton, R-Mich. Prohibit Citizen Suits Amendment - Would prohibit citizen civil lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security under the measure. Rejected by Roll Call vote: 15-28: R 15-0; D 0-28.
  • Rep. J. Barton, R-Texas Reckless Acts Amendment - Would change language in the bill to restrict threatening acts that were performed "knowingly or recklessly" instead of "purposefully." Rejected by Roll Call vote: 19-28: R 17-0; D 2-28.
  • Rep. E. Markey, D-Mass. Substitute Amendment - Would clarify that the secretary of Homeland Security must require a chemical facility to submit a site security plan in addition to preparing and implementing one.
  • It would clarify that any person selected to represent the owner or operator and the person selected as the bargaining agent must be allowed to participate in the development of a security vulnerability assessment or site security plan if that person has knowledge, experience, training or education relevant to the assessment or plan.
  • It would require the secretary of Homeland Security to increase the number of chemical facility inspectors by fiscal 2011 rather than fiscal 2010.
    • It would clarify that a non-supervisory employee should have the opportunity to accompany the secretary during an inspection of a covered chemical facility if the facility does not have an employee representative and if the owner or operator is accompanying on the inspection.
    • It would clarify that the secretary's determination of whether a vulnerability assessment or site security plan is adequate is a discretionary determination.
    • It would specify that the director of the Office of Chemical Facility Security has to make his or her determination using the facility's vulnerability assessment.
    • It would clarify that all public water systems that are subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) are exempt from the measure.
    • It would create a reconsideration process for employees who want to appeal an employer's determination that they pose a security risk.
    • It would clarify that the type of information on background checks that the secretary must provide in the annual report to Congress.
    • It would strike section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (PL 109-295) upon enactment of the legislation.
    • As amended, it would require an employee representative to undergo a security background check.
    • As amended, it would require the secretary of Homeland Security to provide guidance to assist farm supply merchant wholesalers with compliance with the legislation. It would allow the secretary to award grants to wholesalers to assist with compliance.
    • It also would require the secretary to conduct an assessment within six months of enactment on the potential impacts of compliance on the agricultural industry. The assessment would include the scope of facilities covered, a survey of known methods, processes and practices other than elimination that manufacturers, retailers and distributors of pesticide and fertilizer can use to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, and an analysis of how the assessment of methods are likely to impact other sectors engaged in commerce.
    • It would authorize $9 million for grants under this section. Adopted by Voice Vote
  • Vote to Report: Favorably Reported to the Full House, as Amended, by Roll Call vote: 29-18: R 0-17; D 29-1.

Summary of Committee Votes:

  • Rep. Souder, R-Ind. Lawsuit Information Release Amendment to the Thompson, D-Miss., Substitute Amendment - would forbid any citizen lawsuit that would require the Homeland Security secretary or the alleged violator to divulge security risk information or proprietary information in the course of the lawsuit. Rejected 10-16: R 10-0; D 0-16.
  • Rep. McCaul, R-Texas Civil Complaints Amendment to the Thompson, D-Miss., Substitute Amendment - would strike the provision relating to civil suits and replace it with one providing for a "civil complaint" process. The amendment would require the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate complaints registered by any person against the secretary for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty under the bill. Under the amendment, if a complaint were found to be valid, the inspector general would recommend that the secretary comply with the duty within 30 days. If the secretary failed to comply within 30 days, the inspector general would refer the matter to the attorney general for enforcement. Rejected 11-17: R 11-0; D 0-17.
  • Rep. Broun, R-Ga. Strike Civil Lawsuit Provision Amendment to the Thompson, D-Miss., Substitute Amendment - would strike the section of the bill providing for civil lawsuits. Rejected 11-17: R 11-0; D 0-17.
  • Rep. B. Thompson, D-Miss. Substitute Amendment - would add provisions requiring the Homeland Security secretary to:
    • Establish separate standards and procedures for security assessments and plans for chemical facilities that are also academic laboratories.
    • Designate the agency responsible for enforcement of chemical security requirements at maritime facilities.
    • Establish a grant program to provide for training and education of covered individuals, first responders and emergency response providers.
    • Provide information about a relevant threat to a chemical facility to state, local and tribal authorities, including a state Homeland Security adviser, if applicable.
    • Ø Review the designation of sodium fluoroacetate as a substance of concern.

The substitute would also:

  • Require the owner or operator of a chemical facility to submit a signed statement certifying that he or she knows the penalties for failure to comply with the bill.
  • Specify that penalties under the bill would apply to violations of its whistleblower protection provision.

As amended, the substitute would:

  • Allow the Homeland Security secretary to require risk-reduction methods known as "inherently safer technologies" only after certifying that they would not significantly or demonstrably reduce the operations or result in a reduction of the workforce at a chemical facility.
  • Require the Homeland Security secretary to analyze the effects of implementation of "inherently safer technologies" before mandating them.
  • Require the secretary to submit a report to Congress on the security issues that would arise from exempting small businesses from the bill's requirements, and then determine whether small businesses should indeed be exempt.
  • Extend the time between the notice of an alleged violation and the commencement of a civil suit under the bill from 60 days to 120 days.
  • Authorize the Homeland Security secretary to hire at least 100 chemical facility inspectors.
  • Require the Homeland Security secretary to establish a Web- and telephone-based notification system to allow people to report suspected violations.
  • Allow the Homeland Security secretary to mandate methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack on the chemical facility only if the methods would not significantly transfer the security risk to the U.S. transportation infrastructure.
  • Require facilities to fire workers whose background checks reveal that they are not legally authorized to work in the United States.

Adopted, As Amended, 18-11: R 0-11; D 18-0.

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing:

"H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009, and H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009", October 01, 2009

Panelists

Committee on Homeland Security Hearing:
"The Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009", June 16, 2009

Panelists

CRS Reports:
R40695: Chemical Facility Security: Reauthorization, Policy Issues, and Options for Congress
R40641: Inherently Governmental Functions and Department of Defense Operations: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

CBO Report:
Cost Estimate: as ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 22, 2009.

GAO Reports:
(TBA)

Administration Position:
(TBA)

Organization Statements:
(TBA)

Fact Sheets & Talking Points:
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R.2868, House Energy and Commerce website
Chemical & Water Security Act Fact Sheet, Speaker Pelosi website

Press Releases, News Articles & Related Information:
Energy Panel Votes Chemical Plant Security Upgrades, Congress Daily
Bill Seeks To Upgrade Chemical Plant Security, Congress Daily
Chemical Plants Must Be Safe From Attack, Roll Call
Bill Would Protect Chemical Plants, The Hill

Other Resources:
Cosponsors of HR.2868

__________________________________________________________________________

H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act (Rep. Dingell - Energy and Commerce) (Subject to a Rule)__________________________________________________________________________

Bill Text: PDF Version
Rules Committee Meeting:  Text of the Bill as Introduced, Statement from the Chair, Text of the Dingell Manager's Amendment, Text of the Boehner Substitute Amendment
Committee:  House Energy and Commerce, House Education and Labor, House Ways and Means
Committee Staff Contact: Energy and Commerce: 5-2927, Education and Labor: 63725, Ways and Means: 63525

Bill Summary & Key Issues:

House Report 111-:
(TBA)
Committee Markups of HR.3200:

CRS Report:

CBO Report:
(TBA)
Administration Position:

Organization Statements:
(TBA)

Fact Sheets & Talking Points:

Press Releases, News Articles & Related Information:

Other Resources: