WASHINGTON -- A partisan House floor fight is expected this week over legislation that would place new security requirements on facilities across the country that use or store dangerous chemicals (see GSN, Sept. 29).
Tensions have simmered as the legislation made its way through House committees, stoked by heavy lobbying from the chemical industry on one hand, which wants to kill the most controversial parts of the bill, and environmental and labor groups on the other hand, which support stricter regulations.
But Democrats have roundly defeated Republican efforts to water down the bill at the committee level, and are expected to prevail again on the floor.
The bill would reauthorize and expand the ability of the Homeland Security Department to enforce chemical security regulations. On a related front, the bill also would codify the authority of the government to regulate security at public water treatment facilities.
The House Rules Committee agreed Tuesday to give Republicans the ability to offer amendments during floor debate.
Homeland Security Transportation Security Subcommittee ranking member Charles Dent (R-Pa.) will offer an amendment to strip out a provision that would allow the department to require chemical facilities to use safer technologies and processes.
Republicans, backed by the chemical industry, argue that a safer-technology mandate would be onerous and costly for facilities. An alliance of industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been lobbying against the requirement.
Democrats counter that Homeland Security would have to determine that the requirement is feasible and would not significantly impair a facility's business. The Obama administration also supports the provision.
But some Democrats may vote for the amendment. Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Charlie Melancon (D-La.), for example, have expressed concern that a mandate might place too many burdens on companies in their districts, which are home to farm industry firms and chemical plants, respectively.
Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas) will offer an amendment that would ensure that federal security requirements pre-empt state and local regulations. The bill in current form would allow state and local governments to enforce tougher regulations than those set at the federal level.
There also will be an amendment by Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee ranking member Michael McCaul (R-Texas) that would prevent citizens from being able to sue the Homeland Security Department for failing to enforce security requirements.
In addition, Representative Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) will offer an amendment that would prevent earmarks in a new grant program established by the bill. His amendment has language saying that Congress expects grants to be awarded on a competitive basis and, if they are not, the department must submit a report to Congress with an explanation.
The ultimate fate of the bill is uncertain, as there is not yet companion legislation in the Senate. The FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations bill that President Obama signed into law last week also reauthorizes the department's current chemical security program until next October.