Honoring and recognizing the service and achievements of current and former female members of the Armed Forces.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time.

In 2006, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the authority to promulgate risk-based security performance standards for chemical facilities that use or store chemicals.

I am glad that Mr. Lungren of California is here, because he was intimately involved with the legislation that ultimately became law.

The DHS subsequently issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), requiring chemical facilities to report the types and amounts of chemicals housed on sites. The legislative authority for CFATS was scheduled to sunset this year in October. The underlying bill, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, makes permanent the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate security at chemical plants.

I believe it's important to address the sunsetting of the existing CFATS program at the Department of Homeland Security. However, I have concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment, perhaps even higher unemployment in the future, that it could endanger economic recovery.

Of particular concern is the IST, the inherently safer technology, provisions included in this legislation. IST allows the Federal Government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST. This was all the more worrisome when a witness from the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department employs no specialists with IST expertise and that there is no future funding planned.

Now, I first learned how IST may hurt job creation and how, in fact, it may increase unemployment from a small business in my district, Allied Universal Corporation, that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.

I was informed that the IST is an attempt by the Federal Government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy. It will cost Allied alone, this corporation that employs people in my community, hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and in staff time alone.

It is not a good use of resources. It has no tangible benefit as manufacturing struggles to survive in this economy. Furthermore, the underlying bill reduces existing protections on information regarding chemical facilities, and it reduces the penalties for the disclosure of security information.

These regulations that we are talking about today were thoughtfully included following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, of our government is to protect the citizenry. By making chemical facilities less secure, we endanger the security of our neighborhoods and of our communities. By easing penalties for unlawfully disclosing sensitive information, we increase our vulnerability. To make matters worse, the majority includes these provisions in a bill that is supposed to help prevent attacks.

As I said before, I am glad Mr. Lungren is here. He can explain the process by which the current regulations came into being, the amount of discussion, negotiation, and consensus that led to those regulations coming into effect, and really how unfortunate now this attempt at an imposition of further or different regulations is.

Mr. Speaker, later this week the Congress is expected to consider health care bills. I would like to take this moment to compare today's rule on the chemical facility bill with the rule expected on the health care bills.

Today's rule allows 10 amendments, five from the majority and five from the minority, on a bill that costs approximately $900 million. Although the rule is not open, it's important to admit that the rule allows some debate on the underlying issues. The rule expected later this week on the health care legislation will probably include an amendment written by the Speaker. Perhaps that's the only amendment that will be allowed. We'll see. And that bill spends about $1.3 trillion, I believe.

It seems that the more money Congress spends, the more likely we seem to have a closed debate process. And that, I believe, is contrary to the way the majority promised to run this House.

On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee came to the floor and said that the new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge was echoed in a document written by the distinguished Speaker called a New Direction for America, where she stated, and, by the way, the statement is still on her Web site: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

After contrasting today's rule with the expected health care rule in a few days, today's rule might look fair, but really it's not. It blocks amendments from both sides of the aisle from receiving a full and fair debate on the House floor that was, as I pointed out, promised by the Speaker.

During the hearing in the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, made a motion to allow an open rule on this legislation that's being brought to the floor; in other words, a rule that would allow all Members the ability to offer any amendment for a vote by the full House. If the Rules Committee had approved the motion, it would have been their first open rule this Congress. Unfortunately, the motion was voted down by a majority on the Rules Committee. The majority used to criticize us when we were in the majority for not allowing more open rules. They have offered none.

This rule that is bringing the underlying legislation to the floor today also gives the majority the authority to allow consideration of bills under suspension of the rules until Saturday. Suspension bills, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are usually noncontroversial bills, but the suspension authority has in the past been used to pass bills with obviously minimal debate and sometimes as a way to block the minority from offering amendments or a motion to recommit.

Now, in the past, a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee referred to that process as ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our responsibilities and rights as serious legislators.''

It's interesting how it's wrong when they're in the minority, but once they're in the majority, it's right.

Allied Universal Corporation,

Miami, FL, October 23, 2009.

Re H.R. 2868.

Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart: My company is a small

business as defined by the U.S. Small Business

Administration. It operates a chemical manufacturing and

distribution facility in your district (8350 NW 93 Street,

Miami, FL). employing individuals and providing materials to

a number of industries critical to our nation's and state's

economy and public health. I am writing to express my

opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism

Act, which will be scheduled for a House floor vote within

days. This legislation will make significant changes to the

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which

took effect just two and a half years ago.

Security is a major priority for Allied Universal Corp. We

are members of the Chlorine Institute and National

Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD). which requires

our participation in the Responsible Distribution Process, an

environmental, health. safety. and security management

program. My company has spent substantial resources on

security upgrades in recent years. and will continue to do so

going forward under the current CFATS regulations. I do not

embellish when I state that a significant amount of our

company's capital budget and personnel time has been spent on

security improvement projects. and will continue to be spent

as Allied works to address the Department of Homeland

Security's identified security risks for our facility.

I am concerned that H.R. 2868 is too prescriptive and

includes requirements that are not appropriate for all

facilities. Security is very important, but a command and

control type regulation would not benefit the nation let

alone the thousands of businesses that must comply with the

regulation. For example, the requirement to conduct an

assessment of inherently safer technologies (1ST). or Methods

to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack, could

easily cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars in

consulting fees and staff time. This is not a good use of

resources for a chemical manufacturing and distribution

facility like mine, which stocks products based on our

customers' needs and operates on extremely tight margins. I

am also concerned about other mandates in the bill and the

fact that state and local measures are not preempted, which

is critical for a national security program. No federal

preemption would cause much confusion, not to mention

additional staff time and resources that could otherwise be

allocated to other pressing needs (i.e. one state may have

stricter regulations, causing my company to allocate more

resources to the facility in that state rather than say a

facility in a state with less restrictions. but more

significant security concerns or risks such as a high

population area).

Therefore, I urge you to oppose H.R 2868 unless the

following changes are made:

(1) All 1ST assessment and implementation mandates must be

removed.

(2) Specific requirements regarding drills, employee and

union involvement in SVA and SSP development, and other areas

must be removed. A Risk Based Performance Standards approach

should be continued as in the current CFATS regulations.

(3) The federal standards must preempt state and local

requirements.

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to

contact me if you have questions or would like more details

on how H.R. 2868 would impact my company.

Sincerely,

Robert Namoff,

Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Dr. King said in my favorite of his speeches, longevity has its place. And in Congress we have some Members who have been here for many years. I would like to yield to one such distinguished Member who was here for many years, then left us but then returned, which is even more unusual. But he has the historical knowledge with regard to this legislation, which, by the way, was in this decade that he worked on and that led to the regulations that the majority seeks to amend drastically, change drastically today.

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.

I recognize the gentleman for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, before closing, I will yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding that we have at least 72 hours on any legislation and every piece of legislation, to read it and study it before it is brought to the floor; 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that.

That is why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, offered by Representatives Baird and Culberson, requiring 72 hours on every piece of legislation before it is taken to a vote.

If anyone is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that that would jeopardize the chemical security bill, be not concerned, because the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so we can vote on the chemical security bill and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 554. The American people are demanding that on every piece of legislation there should be 72 hours to study it and read it thoroughly before it is voted on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 885.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 885 provides for consideration of H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate equally divided between the Committees on Homeland Security, Energy and Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It further provides that in lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committees on Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished Chair, I would like to remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle that what we're debating here is the rule for H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. This bill is about renewing the Homeland Security Department's authority to implement, enforce, and improve the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards and to require that the EPA establish parallel security programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities. It's important that we pass this legislation.

I find it striking that my friend and colleague would reference the fact that a distinguished legislator, a friend of mine, who was doubtless here when this legislation originated, and I'm sure has insight as to its origination--but as I have lived here in this institution for nearly 20 years, I've found an evolutionary process to just about all legislation. And there was a major intervention between the implementation of this legislation initially and today, and that intervention was 9/11. And the things that have flowed from it allowed that we have more than 6,000 facilities in this country that are vulnerable and we have an absolute responsibility to deal with them. We also have an absolute responsibility to pass health care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend,

the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield to the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, inherently safer technologies, known as methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, includes techniques such as eliminating or reducing the amount of toxic chemicals stored on-site or using safer processes that facilitate as a best practice often integrated into the operations.

My good friend from California doth protest too much about us legislating on something that is particularly critical that we have this IST technology, and his argument, as I heard a portion of it, is we are doing this for the reason that we are waiting for health care and we don't have anything else to do. Well, that's just not true. We've been a pretty busy Congress from the inception of this Congress. If there was no health care provision, we would have matters that we would have to undertake, including this particularly critical matter.

Only a small subset of the people that he is talking about, covered chemical facilities, are placed in the top two riskiest tiers by the Department of Homeland Security because of the consequences in the event of a chemical release, and it could be required to implement IST. Between 100 and 200 chemical facilities nationwide currently fall into that category, according to DHS.

I am continually surprised at my colleagues' arguments. A while back, we were describing them as the party of ``no,'' and I think that that had currency and still does after you look at their health care provision, which insures nobody. But the thing that really I find interesting about this is that they really are the party of ``status quo.'' And if you look at this legislation that Congressman Thompson, Congressman Oberstar, and Congressman Waxman have fashioned, had hearings that were in the public, everybody had an opportunity to make their presentation, including what you just heard from our colleague, someone that had a different view as occurs in just about every hearing--the minority has an opportunity most times to bring witnesses and the majority brings witnesses, and generally, they don't agree. But that doesn't mean in this body that we don't have an exacting responsibility to go forward with legislation demonstrably to improve the American public's safety. That is what we are here about at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished chairman of this committee to correct a few of the inaccuracies that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Dent, offered. One that I heard, the Department of Homeland Security has a responsibility of regulating the matter under our consideration and not the Environmental Protection Agency.

I yield to Mr. Thompson such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend's passion. I don't know whether he has any Native American tribes in his constituency, but I do. I have Seminoles and Miccosukees in my constituency, and they are as proud of their ability to operate facilities and to do those things. As a matter of fact, quite frankly, both of those tribes are doing a whole whale of a lot better than a part of the systemic institutions that have existed in the non-Native American area.

And I remind my friend that we are not here about the health care bill.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, who is the subcommittee Chair of the Homeland Security committee that has jurisdiction on this particular matter, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Rhode Island, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Langevin.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind my colleagues of the urgency of this legislation. This bill takes important steps to protect our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Publicly owned treatment facilities serve more than 200 million Americans and consist of 16,000 treatment plants, 100,000 major pumping stations, and 600,000 miles of sanitary sewers. Damage to these facilities and collection systems could result in loss of life, contamination of drinking water facilities, catastrophic damage to lakes and rivers, and long-term public health impacts.

Also, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish risk-based performance standards for community water systems serving more than 3,300 people and other exceptional water systems posing significant risk, the bill safeguards our Nation's drinking water supply and restores confidence at a time of upheaval and uncertainty.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 885 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 4. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on resolution.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear a lot of talk here today about chemical plant security, but let's be very clear. All of us, I think, in this Chamber understand the need for greater chemical plant security. As Mr. Lungren so eloquently stated, we have regulations in place, the so-called CFATS regulations, that are being implemented, and we should give them time to be implemented. I will get into that in more specificity in a few moments. But I do rise to oppose the rule here today.

Mr. Austria of Ohio offered an amendment that was rejected by the Rules Committee that would have exempted small businesses from the inherently safer technologies provisions contained in the legislation that we are discussing today. I would like to get into that IST in just a moment.

Again, we all support the need for greater chemical plant security. We should also note, too, that by adding drinking water and wastewater facilities, we will double the number of facilities that will need to be reviewed under the existing regulatory scheme. Actually, 4,000 of the 6,000 security vulnerability assessments have not yet been reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, currently. Adding IST will complicate this thing to a much greater extent.

People who know a great deal about IST--``inherently safer technologies'' is the term--have opposed mandating it into this law. Congress is acting as chief engineer. We ought not to be doing that. But this legislation is not simply about chemical facilities. It is about facilities with chemicals. And what kind of facilities have chemicals? Well, what about hospitals, colleges, and universities? We have 3,630 facilities that employ 50 or fewer people who are going to be impacted by this. The point being is hospitals and colleges and universities are going to be subject to these inherently safer technology provisions contained in the legislation.

Now, specifically with respect to IST, Mr. Lungren just referred to the gentleman Scott Berger who came before our committee previously and vehemently argued against mandating inherently safer technologies in this legislation. But I do want to focus my comments on section 2111 of the chemical security title, addressing the concept of IST that was shoehorned into this security-focused bill.

There are similar provisions in the drinking water and wastewater titles, but this bill attempts to define IST, which is a catchy phrase. But I want to say that the concept of IST is not a new one. It's been around for decades as part of the environmental movement. As the Committee on Homeland Security prepared to tackle this bill back in June, I met with a number of scientists and subject matter experts. They consider it a conceptual framework, as Mr. Lungren said, that involves four basic elements: first, minimizing the use of hazardous substance; two, replacing a substance with a less hazardous one; three, using a less hazardous process; and four, simplifying the design of a process.

This is not a technology. It is a concept. It is a framework. It's an engineering process that may or may not lead to a technology. The engineers are very concerned about us mandating this, and here we are, Congress, filled with a lot of lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, but a lot of lawyers are telling them how to build a chemical plant. I represent a district where I have about 4,000 people who make a living building chemical plants, not just in this country but all over the world. They understand this. I'll give you an example.

They built hydrogen plants down by refineries on the gulf coast because you need the hydrogen to help purify or clean the air as it relates to sulfur emissions. It's a requirement. So you build a hydrogen plant down by the refinery. Substituting hydrogen for something else won't work. These plants were placed where they were for a specific reason, and the chemicals they are producing there are being produced for a specific reason. Let not

Congress act like chief engineer for the government. We are about to ask the Department of Homeland Security to institute a means by which to police our chemical facilities on their implementation of a conceptual framework. Think about the implication of this for a second.

DHS will be required, under threat of lawsuit by any person, any person that the citizen suit provisions, to fine companies $25,000 a day for noncompliance with a bureaucrat's idea of whether a particular facility has sufficiently implemented a concept. Think about that. During the committee's only hearing on this legislation in June, I inquired with Deputy Under Secretary Reitinger about how many IST specialists they currently have at the department. His answer was, ``I think the answer is none.'' Similarly, when I asked Secretary Napolitano about the number of IST experts currently employed at the Department during our budget hearing earlier this year, she, too, indicated zero.

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the response of Sue Armstrong, director of the office responsible for implementing these requirements, when questioned on this topic. When I asked exactly what IST was, she demurred, stating, ``There is enough debate in industry and academia that I can't take a position on that very topic.'' Yet this bill not only asks her to do so but requires her, under threat of lawsuit, and saddles hundreds of facilities with the costs of the decision.

So, in closing, I just wanted to make this point once and for all that, you know, with unemployment rates approaching 10 percent, this legislation will imperil many jobs of people who make things, who make chemicals. I think perhaps the intent of some people proposing this legislation is simply that they would rather not have these chemicals be made in this country, that they be made elsewhere. This legislation will have the effect of making it more difficult to produce chemicals that we need in this country. They will be produced elsewhere.

I urge the rejection of this rule. We all support greater chemical plant security, but this is not the way to do it, and this will certainly cost jobs throughout America at this time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to point out that the legislation we are considering today is very different from the legislation that the committee considered a couple years ago. There are civil lawsuit provisions, civil suit provisions in here that are very, very different in this legislation than the bill we considered a couple of years ago.

The IST provisions have not been changed, but there are other differences in the legislation as well. This is not comparing apples to apples. These are very different bills, and there are a lot of reasons to oppose this bill. I just wanted to correct the record about my position on this bill and the previous bill.

Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, I want to thank the chairlady of the subcommittee for commenting on the amendments that were adopted in the Homeland Security Committee on a bipartisan basis. Those amendments were stripped out of the bill that we are considering today. They are not in. So even though we had amendments

in the bill that came out of the Homeland Security Committee, they are not here in this bill today.

I appreciate the gentleman's providing the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2868. I want to first express my gratitude to Chairwoman Slaughter and the Rules Committee for this rule that allows five Democratic and five Republican amendments.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, security experts immediately identified the threat of an attack on a chemical facility as one of the greatest security vulnerabilities facing the Nation. In 2006, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to regulate security within the chemical sector. DHS established the Chemical Facility Anti- Terrorism Standards program in 2007, and since that time, DHS has, by all accounts, worked in a collaborative manner with industry to implement this risk-based, performance-based program.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 2868 to not only reauthorize this important program, which will sunset in October 2010, but to also improve it in a few key areas. At the start of this Congress, Chairman Waxman and I reached an agreement on issues that have dogged this effort. In Chairman Waxman I found a partner who was equally committed to making progress on this important homeland security issue. Starting last fall we began bipartisan discussions in earnest and engaged a wide array of stakeholders including DHS, EPA, chemical sector representatives, water groups, environmental groups, and labor groups. What emerged was the package you see before you today.

Title I is a reauthorization of the DHS program. Titles II and III provide new regulatory authority to the EPA to regulate drinking water and wastewater utilities respectively. This package eliminates the exemptions for the water sector that both the Bush and Obama administrations identified as security gaps and makes a number of improvements to the DHS program.

The underlying legislation, which I introduced in June, built upon two hearings and two markups that were held in the last Congress. H.R. 2868 was marked up by the Homeland Security Committee over the course of 3 days in late June. The Committee on Energy and Commerce held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2868 and drinking water security legislation this October. Both bills were marked up in subcommittee and full committee in October, also.

Whether it was the staff negotiations or during markups, numerous Republican requests and concerns were included in the final product.

Thank you very much.

The detailed collaborative approach used to create the underlying legislation is a process for which we should all be proud.

As a Congressperson who represents one of the more agricultural districts, I also said that this bill does not harm agricultural interests. I have never voted against an agricultural interest. And I look forward to working with that interest on any concerns they might have.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule for H.R. 2868, and I look forward to today's debate and passage of this important legislation that will help to make America more secure.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman yielding the time.

Mr. Dent, as you know, is a member of the committee. I thank the Rules Committee for being so generous in allowing Mr. Dent to have two of the amendments that we'll consider later in the debate.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the administration supports this bill. It is absolutely clear that they do. The other issue is the reference to jobs. Well, we've been doing security at chemical plants since 2007. There is no data that says that that security risk has created a loss in jobs.

All we are doing is codifying what the Department is already doing. To say that it's anti-jobs is just totally inaccurate.

The other issue is, my colleague, Mr. Dent, as you know, this is our second time having this bill brought before us. Mr. Dent supported the bill the first time. Now he is against it. I guess you could say he was for it before he was against it. But, clearly, what I am supporting is the fact that the Department looked at several thousand facilities.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Since the gentleman raised the question, the civil lawsuit provision has changed in this bill. I would suggest, Mr. Dent, if you look at it, a plant cannot get sued under this particular legislation. A citizen can't bring lawsuit against a plant. We did change it. We heard you. So we have changed it. That's why I think between the rule and the ultimate vote, if you read the bill, we have made the changes.

In addition to that, let me say that hospitals, all those other entities, Mr. Speaker, they have been considered in the DHS review. DHS has determined that there are only 6,000 facilities that require this kind of scrutiny. So it might be hospitals, it might be anything, but they are already doing it. This is nothing new. It's not adding any, and it's not taking any jobs from small business.

Let me say this bill also requires that DHS assess potential impacts on small business. It's not taking jobs. They have to first decide if it's harmful. If it is, then we put in this program monies to help small business improve their security. It's not an undue requirement for them. I want to make very clear; this bill does not hurt small business. It provides monies to support any vulnerability that DHS might find at a small business. It does not require them to fund that improvement on its own.

It's an effort to get risk tied to threat and vulnerability. That's how we do it. The first piece of legislation we carried in the 110th was a bill addressing risk. But that risk has to be decided based on certain metrics. Those metrics are threats and vulnerabilities.

Regardless of what you might hear, this bill does not do away with jobs. It is small business friendly. Because if there is a vulnerability, a vulnerability is a risk, Mr. Speaker, that the Department determines. Nobody would want to work in an environment where a security risk was identified and not corrected. That's why we have the Department. That's why the Department, through the help of Congress, passed this bill in 2006. We are just doing in the CFATS requirement what's already established.

I thank the gentleman very much. I must add, though, I was a very, very young man when I first came here. I appreciate that.

First of all, I rise in opposition to this rule. I will talk about the underlying bill and the rule as it applies there, but we should also recognize this rule goes beyond the underlying bill and establishes what has been affectionately referred to as martial law, which means that the majority, basically without notice, can bring up at any time through Saturday, November 7, under suspension of the rules any measure. Any measure. There's no limit on what measure it might be. And for Members who may have forgotten what that means, a suspension of the rule means we suspend all rules and can consider virtually anything we want here, and a bill can be brought up from a committee and the entire text of the bill as passed out of the committee can be removed and we can have a different bill here on the floor. So Members should be aware that we are with this rule passing martial law, giving the majority the ability to bring up anything.

Frankly, that language that has never been seen by any committee can be entered into a bill with just the name and it could be presented on this floor. So Members should be aware that this rule goes beyond the underlying bill.

With respect to the underlying bill, why would I have concerns about this bill when I serve, with true joy, on this committee and serve with the chairman of the full committee who presents this bill before us? It is because we've been working on this area of concern for the last 5 years and we did come up with legislation that was incorporated into the appropriations bill dealing with homeland security back in 2006, and that language is the language which has been brought forward in the regulations and under which the Department of Homeland Security has operated over these last number of years. And it is the reason why this administration has asked for a simple 1-year extension, not the changes that we have in this bill. Why is that of concern?

Why is it that organizations that have worked carefully with the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a regime that is workable so that we can protect against potential terrorist attacks in the area of chemicals, why would these organizations now have some question?

Why would, for instance, as recently as several days ago, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Trucking Association, the Fertilizer Institute, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all oppose this bill?

It is primarily because while the administration, both the prior administration and the current administration, have worked well with all of these industries to come up with a regime that is workable, that does protect us, that does make a distinction between the larger companies and the smallest companies, that has engaged them in such a way that they have put forward new practices and capital investment, that all of that could be thrown out of the window now as we adopt new regulations under a new regulatory scheme.

What is the major concern they have? It has to do with something called inherently safer technology. It sounds great. Who could be against it? The problem is this legislation misunderstands what that is. We've been working on this for the last half decade.

In 2006, I remember Scott Berger, director of the Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemicals, testified before us on this. His organization is the organization which has produced the accepted reference book on the issue of inherently safer processes. That is what we are talking about here. Here is what he said:

Inherently safer design is a concept related to the design and operation of chemical plants, and the philosophy is generally applicable to any technology. But he goes on to say that this is an evolving concept, and the specific tools and techniques for application are in the early stages of development and such methods do not now exist.

What basically we got out of his testimony and the testimony of every witness that appeared before us, both brought by the Democratic Party and Republican Party----

Is that this is a process, not a product; yet we are now giving blanket authority for the Secretary to impose inherently safer technologies as if it were a product.

Now, this is going to impact companies disproportionately which are small. Mr. Speaker, 59 percent of the companies that will be impacted by this law employ 50 workers or less. In my home State of California, it's 62 percent. So at a time when we are having difficulty maintaining and producing jobs, when everybody comes to the floor and says, We want to protect small business, we want to help small business, small businesses are going to be hurt disproportionately by this legislation. This legislation is at least premature.

The administration has said, Just give us a simple reauthorization for a year of what you're already doing. We did that in the appropriations bill, but somehow, because we seem to have more time on our hands, we have to bring bills to the floor as we wait for the health care reform, the mother of all bills, to come to this floor. That's why we're here dealing with this, despite the fact the administration doesn't support it, the industry doesn't support it, small business doesn't support it, and even those who came up with the idea of inherently safer technologies have told us in testimony, You folks don't understand; you're misapplying it if you are going to put it in the bill as it is in this bill.

It sounds great. Everybody is for inherently safer technologies, but it's the substance of what it is that we ought to be concerned about, and we ought not put another job-killer bill on this floor just a day or 2 days before we're going to hear the latest unemployment statistics.