Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to other legislative business, I missed the last vote on April 22, 2010. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 220, H. Res. 1270, Expressing support for Mathematics Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Undeniably, health care reform is needed. Families and businesses are struggling to keep up with rising insurance premiums. Thousands of constituents in my district do not have access to affordable insurance because of skyrocketing costs. An increasing number of Americans are impacted by policies that preclude individuals with pre-existing conditions from securing insurance. Patients are frustrated with the difficulty of navigating the health care system and insurance bureaucracy. We have all experienced our doctors practicing defensive medicine--ordering unnecessary tests and procedures in an effort to ward off frivolous lawsuits. Poor reimbursement rates mean that doctors cannot afford to place an emphasis on prevention and wellness.

The consequences of reform are profound for families, our economy and the future of our country. Reform policies will have a direct impact on the lives of all Americans and the budgets of every household. These changes will affect one-sixth of our economy. Done

right, we will lift burdens that are holding employers back from growing and revitalizing our economy. Done wrong, jobs will be lost and 10 percent unemployment will become the norm rather than the exception. Health care expenditures make up an increasing percentage of state and federal spending. Addressing health care costs is vital to the long- term economic health of the United States.

I support reform. I have advocated for deliberate policies that will reduce the cost and increase the quality of health care, provide all Americans with the opportunity to obtain affordable health insurance, give patients more control over their health care decisions, and promote innovations and wellness initiatives that lead to cures.

I oppose the bill before us today because it will increase health care costs for Americans and bend the curve of health care spending in the wrong direction; it will create a new trillion dollar entitlement program that the bill does not realistically address how we will afford; and it will impede economic growth, particularly in our district.

Above all else, health care reform must address the escalating health care costs that are crippling American families and overall, slow our nation's healthcare spending. This bill does not accomplish those critical objectives. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), premiums will increase by 10 to 13 percent for families who are purchasing health insurance in the individual market. This amounts to more than $2,000 a year for a family. In addition, the CBO indicates that H.R. 3590, which will be the law of the land if we pass it today, will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care by more than $200 billion over the next decade. If the reconciliation package (H.R. 4872) is also signed into law, the combined budgetary impact on health care spending will be $390 billion. American families can't afford that increase and neither can our country.

Moreover, this bill creates an unsustainable new entitlement program at the expense of seniors who will be impacted by more than half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts and all Americans who will pay higher health care costs and more than half a trillion dollars in increased taxes, fees and penalties. The bill uses ten years of taxes and Medicare cuts in order to pay for six years of programs. Overall, in the first 10 years of full implementation (2014 to 2023), the health care package will result in more than $2.6 trillion in spending. Although the CBO estimated the overall deficit reduction will be $124 billion over 10 years, in its analysis the CBO cautioned that its long- term deficit projections ``reflect an assumption that the key provisions of the reconciliation proposal and H.R. 3590 are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration by the Congress.''

House Leadership has already said it will consider a bill to address the physician payment issue. Just that policy alone will cost $200 billion, which is not reflected in the CBO score.

Finally, this bill will have an immediate impact on economic growth. New taxes and regulations will lead to lower wages, lost jobs and decreased investment. Employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance coverage that is deemed ``acceptable'' by federal standards will be saddled with a tax of up to $2,000 per employee. The bill will levy a tax of as much as 2.5 percent of household income on Americans who do not comply with the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to maintain acceptable coverage. Many investors will face a new tax of 3.8 percent on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, royalties and other investment income. This tax coupled with scheduled rate increases will lead to a top rate of 23.8 percent for capital gains and 43.4 percent for dividends.

We will feel the impact close to home. A 2.3 percent medical device tax will increase the cost of medical devices--everything from tongue depressors to wheelchairs--and discourage the development of critical new medical innovations. Specifically, this tax will impact businesses in our district imperiling jobs; curtailing advanced research and innovation; reducing purchasing from Pennsylvania vendors; and hampering investment in capital equipment. The ripple effect on our economy and on working families will be far greater than the sum of the tax. And ultimately, patients will see increased costs as a result.

Just yesterday, I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee that would have reduced the negative impacts of H.R. 3590. The first amendment would have inserted common-sense medical liability reforms. Specifically, the amendment would enact nationwide reforms aimed at ending the costly practice of defensive medicine and encourage states to adopt effective alternative medical liability laws that will reduce the number of health care lawsuits that are litigated and the average amount of time taken to resolve lawsuits, and reduce the cost of malpractice insurance. The provisions would save our country billions of dollars and reduce national health care spending. The second amendment would have struck the ill-advised medical device tax that a company in my district has dubbed the ``death tax'' because it will increase their tax burden by 77 percent, raising their effective tax rate to over 73 percent. This is an innovation tax that will mean less investment in research and development that leads to medical innovations. Unfortunately the leadership of the House would not allow these important amendments to be debated on the House floor today.

I regret very much where we are today and wish that bipartisan efforts to address the shortcomings of our system--access and affordability--while building on our strengths--choice, quality and innovation had prevailed.

Madam Speaker, you know, for the better part of a year, we have devoted the lion's share of our attention to health care reform, and this is where we are today. From the Speaker of the House, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' That's simply unbelievable, and it's wrong.

You know, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop proposals that will lower costs, expand access, and improve quality. I regret very much where we are today in terms of both the policy and the process.

Policywise, there is a lot we don't know. We haven't seen this reconciliation fix-it bill. We don't have a score from the CBO. We're talking about 1/6 of our American economy, but we haven't seen it yet.

Let's talk about what we do know, the bill that we have seen, the Senate health care bill. This bill will increase taxes by more than a half a trillion dollars. It will slash Medicare by nearly a half a trillion dollars, all to create a $1 trillion entitlement program. Families who purchase coverage in the individual market will see an average increase in their premium of $2,300.

This is not the reform the American people want.

Unbelievably, the process is even worse than the policy. In the coming days, the powerful Rules Committee will meet up there in that room on the third floor and, according to reports, it will use an arrogant manipulation of our legislative process.

I say defeat this bill. The American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this House Concurrent Resolution 248 that directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan within 30 days of adoption of this resolution unless the President determines that it is not safe to remove U.S. forces before the end of the 30-day timeline. But even if there is an identified danger, U.S. forces would still have to be removed by December 31.

Really, here is the catch: There is a clear and present danger in removing our men and women from the field while they are engaged in the first major assault of President Obama's reaffirmed counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

But here is another danger: damaging the morale of the troops who sacrifice their safety and well-being to fight to protect our homeland, our freedoms, by not providing them with the support and resources they need to complete their mission.

This is a very dangerous business, moving troops out of a country. I have sat with Secretary Gates on more than one occasion over the years talking about withdrawing troops, in this case from Iraq, and how complex a situation this is and how dangerous it is and the logistical realities of moving this many people safely.

But don't take my word for it. I think we should also listen to the words of our Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, who, on December 1 in his address to the Nation, said, ``I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.'' President Barack Obama's words.

He goes on. ``This is no idle danger. No hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror, and this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.'' Again, that was President Obama.

He goes on in another address on March 27 of 2009, where he made another statement. He says, ``And if the Afghan Government falls to the Taliban or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.''

Secretary Gates, a very fine Secretary of Defense, and I am pleased President Obama has kept him on, said on February 5 of this year, ``This is a critical moment in Afghanistan. I am confident that we can achieve our objectives, but only if the coalition continues to muster the resolve for this difficult and dangerous mission.''

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on September 23, said, ``Some people say, well, al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast al Qaeda would be back in Afghanistan.'' Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I also want to mention what General Petraeus has said.

And our very fine commander, David Petraeus, I met with him in Florida a few months ago. He said, on January 25, ``It was in Kandahar that 9/11 attacks were planned. It was in training camps in eastern Afghanistan where the initial preparation of the attackers was carried out before they went to Hamburg and flight schools in the U.S. It is important to recall the seriousness of the mission and why it is that we are in Afghanistan in the first place and why we are still there after years and years of hard work and sacrifice that have passed.''

Again, I strongly urge that we defeat this resolution. We owe it to our troops. They are watching this debate as we speak. They want us to oppose it too.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably absent on the afternoon of Thursday, February 25, 2010, and all day on Friday, February 26, 2010 due to a death in my family. Had I been present I would have voted accordingly: Rollcall No. 67, Concurring in Senate Amendments to H.R. 3961--I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 68, H. Con. Res. 227, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Urban Crimes Awareness Week--I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 69, H. Amdt. 573 (Reyes of Texas) to H.R. 2701--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 70, H. Amdt. 575 (Hastings of Florida) to H.R. 2701--I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 71, H. Amdt. 584 (Schauer of Michigan) to H.R. 2701--I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 72, Motion to Recommit with Instructions, H.R. 2701--I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 73, H.R. 2701, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 74, H. Con. Res. 238, Recognizing the difficult challenges Black veterans faced when returning home after serving in the Armed Forces, their heroic military sacrifices, and their patriotism in fighting for equal rights and for the dignity of a people and a Nation--I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably absent on Monday, February 22, 2010, due to a death in my family. Had I been present for the two votes which occurred, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 4425, rollcall No. 49 and H.R. 4238, rollcall No. 50.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit will immediately end the Troubled Asset Relief Program, otherwise known as TARP, and require that all TARP funds that are repaid to the Treasury--including interest, dividends, the sale value of stock and the sale of warrants-- be used to reduce our national burgeoning deficits. It will also reduce the debt limit by the same amount saved by ending TARP. I call this motion to recommit the ``troubled taxpayer relief program act'' because it takes an important step towards getting government out of the bailout business and curbing excessive Washington spending. TARP was originally enacted as a temporary plan to address an extraordinary crisis in our financial markets as a result of the collapse of financial firms that the government said were just ``too big to fail.'' Those who voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which created TARP, did so with the assurance that the money would be returned to taxpayers. That was the assurance given at the time.

It is unfortunate that the President chose to extend the TARP program to October 3, 2010. In doing so, he has opened the door to efforts by Democrats in Congress to begin spending unallocated and repaid TARP funds for programs unrelated to the financial emergency. In fact, the underlying bill diverts $4 billion from TARP to a number of foreclosure mitigation and neighborhood stabilization programs. It also diverts a total of $23.625 billion to pay for the massive expansion of government bureaucracy that will result from the enactment of this legislation.

And just yesterday, we heard from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner that the administration is developing an initiative to tackle our economic problems and unemployment by using TARP funds for small businesses. Elizabeth Warren, appointed to lead the panel that oversees the use of TARP funds, responded to the Secretary saying, ``It's not news to anyone that small business lending is important. Small businesses are closing every day. But Treasury has announced three plans and has not gotten the job done.''

The President has said that we need to ``spend our way out of this recession.'' The majority already tried that in passing the $787 billion stimulus. It has not worked. Now they want to spend more TARP money. Haven't we learned that if we want to create jobs and grow our economy, we must support the private sector and invest Federal dollars sparingly and wisely.

Unfortunately, this bill not only fails to end the TARP now that the emergency in the financial markets has abated, it also turns TARP into a revolving slush fund to pay for the majority's political, economic and social agenda. Failing to honor the original intent of TARP and repay the taxpayers is an irresponsible breach of trust that we are committed to stopping.

Americans are struggling under the weight of high unemployment, sluggish economic growth and unsustainable Federal deficits. This Congress has piled on with a so-called stimulus bill that borrows too much, spends too much and delivers too few jobs, and a budget that doubles the national debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years. They are piling on with a misguided national energy tax called cap-and-trade that will cost thousands of jobs in my State of Pennsylvania and increase energy costs for families and businesses alike; an undemocratic card check bill that will deny secret ballots and impose binding arbitration; and a controversial health care bill that imperils innovation, raises taxes, cuts Medicare and endangers jobs.

Now they are piling on with this 1,300-page bill that keeps taxpayers on the hook for permanent bailouts, allows unelected bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in our economy and adds an array of new job- killing taxes and mandates on consumers, investors and small businesses.

Raiding TARP to fund more government programs that don't create jobs verges on the reckless. The best way to bring about economic growth and job creation is to avoid the massive deficits and to lessen the massive increase in the national debt. These misguided policies, advanced by the majority, are a road to higher inflation and record tax increases. Today, we can begin the process of putting our fiscal house in order, and inspiring confidence in the private sector, by shutting down TARP, returning the unused funds to the taxpayers, and lowering the national debt limit.

At this time I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Hensarling of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that are listed in H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2010:

Bill Number: H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2010

Account: Division B--Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies--NASA, CAS

Title: Nanomaterials Research

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lehigh University

Address of Requesting Entity: 5 East Packer Avenue, Bethlehem, PA 18015

Description of Request: This funding will be used to advance the partnership between Lehigh University, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), U.S. Army ARDEC, and industry partners in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware. The purpose of the partnership is the development, characterization, and application of engineered nanomaterials and devices for NASA space missions and aeronautical applications.

Bill Number: H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2010

Account: Division D--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies--Department of Education, Higher Education (FIPSE)

Title: Civic Engagement and Service Learning Program

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Muhlenberg College

Address of Requesting Entity: 2400 W. Chew Street, Allentown, PA 18104

Description of Request: This funding will be used to expand civic engagement and undergraduate service learning by leveraging Muhlenberg College resources to address issues related to health, housing, economic development and urban education to serve approximately 700 local residents.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple--It expresses the sense of Congress that mortgage lending institutions should provide loan applicants with a simplified summary of their loan contracts, including an easy to read list of the basic loan terms, payment information, the existence of prepayment penalties or balloon payments, and escrow information.

I ask that a sample template of this one page summary document be inserted into the Congressional Record.

H.R. 4173 is a 1,200 plus page bill that purports to protect consumers from abusive financial products by creating a new government bureaucracy--the Consumer Finance Protection Agency.

We see in the complicated mortgage contract process that more bureaucracy and more requirements doesn't guarantee more protection. How many homebuyers understand the voluminous and complex documents they shuffle through when closing on a new home? The process is no less cumbersome for the lender. Less can be more.

Having gone through this process as a homebuyer and after speaking to numerous bankers and lenders, I believe we must work to simplify the process, while ensuring borrowers are protected from abusive contractual agreements and providing lenders with the tools to safely and soundly alleviate some of the administrative costs--costs ultimately passed along to the consumer.

Several months ago I learned that Mr. David Lobach and Mr. Elmer Gates of Embassy Bank--a community bank in the 15th District of Pennsylvania--developed a simplified mortgage contract summary for borrowers who take out a mortage with their institution. Embassy is bolstering consumer protection for their customers by ensuring that he or she knows exactly what they are agreeing to upon their signature-- not only providing greater transparency for the borrower but also promoting efficiency for the mortgagee.

The statutes in place today, including the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, intended to protect borrowers and lenders alike, have created this complex closing process that leaves some homebuyers confused and uninformed.

I believe that Congress should review and revisit the current statutes and consider meaningful reforms that make the mortgage process more understandable for borrowers and more efficient for lenders. The adoption of this amendment is an important first step in encouraging financial institutions engaged in mortgage lending to provide their borrowers with a simplified summary of the loan terms so that every new homeowner will walk away from the table understanding their obligations--in simple terms and in fewer pages.

I've held a number of mortgage foreclosure seminars across my district--the 15th District of Pennsylvania. After listening to the experiences of my constituents, I truly believe some of the foreclosures our country has seen in the past 2 years would not have taken place if homeowners had been aware of the actual terms and conditions of their loan.

My amendment is a common-sense approach to promote consumer protection by ensuring families in pursuit of the American dream fulfill that dream under terms they completely and fully understand.

Borrower: Mary Borrower, 10 Test Avenue, Test City, PA

18000.

Lender: Any Bank, PO Box 2020, Any Town, PA 11111.

Basic Loan Terms

The amount you borrowed: $100,000

Your interest rate: 4.99%

Can your interest rate change? [ ] [X] No

The collateral for your loan: Borrower is giving a security

interest in 10 Test Avenue, Test City, PA 18000. In addition,

Lender has also reserved a contractual right of setoff in

Borrower's deposit accounts.

Payment Information

Your payment amount: $790.28

How often you will make payments: Monthly

Your loan term: 180 payments

When your payments are due: Monthly, beginning November 15,

2009

How late payment charges are calculated: 5.00% of the

regularly scheduled payment or $5.00, whichever is greater.

Payments & Balloons

Does your loan have a prepayment penalty? [ ] [X] No

Does your loan have a balloon payment? [ ] [X] No

Loan maturity date: October 15, 2024

Escrow

Do we require you to have an escrow account for your loan?

[ ] [X] No

Important Note: In the event of default on this loan, we

will exercise all legal means to recover our money. This

document is intended for informational purposes only and does

not constitute your contract with Any Bank. Please refer to

the complete set of loan documents for exact details

regarding your loan terms and conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this government takeover bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and have them submitted to the Congressional Record.

I have spent the past week reviewing the 1,990 page health-care bill--H.R. 3962--that was introduced last Thursday and the manager's amendment that was filed late Tuesday night. I oppose this legislation which will exacerbate rather than solve the problems in our health care system and take our Nation in the wrong direction.

Although I believe health care reform is needed, diminishing Americans' control over their health care decisions, cutting Medicare benefits for seniors, eliminating SCHIP coverage for low-income children, imposing punitive taxes on small businesses and increasing health care costs for all Americans in order to create an unsustainable entitlement program that will bury our Nation in debt is not the way to do it. Fundamentally, this bill moves the United States in the direction of a European style welfare state which is accompanied by much higher European style tax rates, slower economic growth and structurally higher unemployment rates. The bottom line is that this legislation will lead to fewer opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

H.R. 3962 is bad for Americans because it won't reduce health care costs--in fact many will see increased costs--and it will cause millions of working Americans to lose their current coverage.

It's bad for seniors. The bill includes nearly a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare benefits. It will mean less choices, as well as increased premiums and prescription drugs costs for thousands of seniors in the 15th District.

It's bad for Pennsylvania's children, who will be forced out of the State's successful CHIP program into plans offered through the health insurance exchange where families will face higher costs.

It's bad for Pennsylvania's already struggling budget, forcing an unfunded Medicaid mandate of at least $2.2 billion on our cash-strapped Commonwealth.

It's bad for small businesses. It will stifle innovation and job creation by imposing punitive surtaxes. It's bad for the Pennsylvania economy in particular, with a $20 billion tax on the makers of medical devices, an industry that employs thousands in my district and the surrounding region.

And above all it's bad for America, spending more than $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars to create an unsustainable new Federal program and saddling our children and grandchildren with debt. Only in Washington can someone say with a straight face that by creating a new

trillion dollar program that we will not add a dime to the deficit now or in the future.

If we are serious about enacting meaningful health care reform that will ensure that all Americans have access to quality care, we must address the issue of cost. American families are struggling to afford increasing health care costs and health care spending is taking up a larger and larger portion of Federal, State, and local governments' budgets.

Regrettably, H.R. 3962 fails to address one of the key reforms that will save billions of dollars and reduce health care costs--medical liability reform. In fact, the provisions in H.R. 3962 will actually heighten the medical liability crisis facing our Nation.

The medical justice system is one of the major drivers of cost in our health care system. Doctors practice defensive medicine--ordering tests and treatments that are not truly needed but prescribed to ward off frivolous lawsuits. We have all been in our doctor's office and thought, ``Do I really need this?'' This defensive medicine doesn't mean better care; it just means more expensive care. The litigious environment has caused medical liability insurance premiums to skyrocket. In turn, patients pay more for health care because the costs are passed down.

The practice of defensive medicine costs the United States more than $100 billion per year--some studies have estimated the cost may be as high as $151 billion to $210 billion annually. In Pennsylvania, not only are medical liability insurance rates increasing costs for patients, they are driving qualified doctors out of the Commonwealth.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, released an analysis indicating that medical liability reforms would save the government $54 billion over 10 years and cut national healthcare spending by 0.5 percent a year. These savings would be the result of direct savings from lower premiums for medical liability insurance and also indirect savings from reduced utilization of health care services.

The original House health care bill, H.R. 3200, was silent on medical liability reform. Just 3 of the 1,990 pages of H.R. 3962 address the issue. Tragically, the language in H.R. 3962 actually discourages States from making the medical liability reforms that CBO has said will save $54 billion. This is politics at its worst--protecting trial lawyers at the expense of patients.

Yesterday, I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have inserted significant medical liability reform provisions into H.R. 3962. My amendment would enact nationwide reforms aimed at ending the costly practice of defensive medicine and encourage States to adopt effective alternative medical liability laws that will reduce the number of health care lawsuits initiated, reduce the average amount of time taken to resolve lawsuits and reduce the cost of malpractice insurance. Specifically, I believe we must stabilize compensation for injured patients, hold parties responsible for their degree of fault, ensure that meritorious claims are swiftly resolved, encourage compliance with accepted clinical practice guidelines, and guarantee that medical care is available to those who need it the most by providing protections to safety-net providers.

Unfortunately the leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives made the choice to prohibit meaningful reform from being debated on the House floor today. I sincerely regret that the majority decided to bulldoze ahead without considering practical policy that will reduce costs and produce significant savings in our health care system.

With common sense, bipartisan discussion, we can make straightforward reforms to our health care system that will address the most pressing problems. We can enact strong insurance market reforms that provide consumer protections and promote transparency. We can ensure that those with chronic conditions and preexisting conditions have coverage through high-risk pools and reinsurance models. We can actually lower the cost of health care and increase access to affordable coverage by removing restrictive barriers on competition across state lines, allowing businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as their larger competitors, equalizing tax treatment for individuals buying health insurance, and enacting meaningful medical liability reform. We can put our Nation on the path to a healthier future by focusing on prevention and wellness.

Today, the House majority has failed the American people. Now the Senate has an opportunity to prevent this ill-conceived measure from moving forward, and embrace the calls of the American people to unite behind meaningful reforms that will reduce cost and increase access without fundamentally altering the American economy.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify one point. I understand the sensitivities in the State of New Jersey. It is a great State. But I do want to say that New Jersey IST assessments are required. Implementation of IST is not required. The huge cost with this legislation is in the implementation of IST. The legislation we're considering here today goes far beyond New Jersey standards and would actually require an IST implementation as well as the assessment, which will add an enormous cost and put a number of jobs at risk. I just wanted to point that out for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment.

This amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a point of contact with the Administrator of the EPA. The amendment also requires the Secretary to notify State and local emergency planning committees of findings that may be necessary to update their emergency plans. This amendment certainly encourages the sharing of information with the appropriate people at the State and local level, those responsible for developing emergency planning and training procedures. And while the bill envisions this type of information sharing, the amendment certainly makes it explicit. Additionally, this bill requires a single point of contact for the EPA Administrator.

Knowing how bad bureaucracy can be, we certainly understand the need of legislating communication between two agencies and ensuring that State and local first responders are included in these information- sharing regimes.

And I should point out that my good friend Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey has a smile on his face still from the

New York Yankees' victory over my Philadelphia Phillies. I had to get that off my chest after the ribbing you gave me yesterday, along with our good friend Mr. King. And, again, congratulations. It still hurts. I'm a Phillies fan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Olson.

This amendment would simply strike title I and extend the Department's current regulatory authority until October 2012. Simply, it extends the current CFATS regulations until 2012.

This amendment addresses the largest problem of the underlying bill, that the bill is a so-called solution in search of a problem.

The majority will argue that chemical facilities need to be secure. We agree. That's why we acted swiftly 3 years ago to give the Department of Homeland Security the regulatory authority it needed to secure them. In the 3 years since, the Department has taken steps to implement that authority, but it is far from complete.

As of last week, the Department of Homeland Security had not reviewed two-thirds of the over 6,000 security vulnerability assessments it required regulated facilities to submit based on regulations it issued in June of 2007. The addition of drinking water and wastewater facilities by titles II and III of this bill will double the 6,000 security vulnerability assessments already required by the Department. We are asking too much of the Department too soon.

The bill proposes to nearly double the Department's workload. The Department should be allowed to fully implement its existing regulatory authority. By all accounts, including those of the Democratic majority, the Department is doing an excellent job implementing its current regulatory framework.

In the committee hearing on the subject this past June, Chairman Thompson stated, ``As a close observer, I give credit to the Department for the good job it has done so far in promulgating and enforcing the CFATS regulations.'' We agree with him.

Why are we here today looking to make significant and costly changes to the manner in which the Department is regulating chemical facilities if, as the chairman himself has said, the Department is doing a ``good job''?

Despite the fact that the Department has yet to conduct a single onsite inspection, not a single one, the majority seeks to halt the progress the Department has made and start over with new costly and burdensome requirements.

This amendment maintains the current authorizing language, requiring security vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and enforcement. But it does not include costly IST assessments or mandatory implementation that will cost Americans their jobs. It does not include civil suit provisions that would allow any person, whether in Peoria or Pakistan, the authority to sue the Secretary and the Department of Homeland Security. It does not include weakened information protection language that makes prosecution for unauthorized disclosures nearly impossible.

This amendment would maintain the drinking and wastewater security titles of the bill. When will the Democratic leadership recognize that moving precipitously in unchartered territory through legislation is ill-advised and a rush to judgment? A Democrat-imposed 100 percent maritime cargo-scanning mandate legislated before the results of a pilot program were published has led the Secretary of Homeland Security to state on the record that it was an unachievable goal. A Democrat- imposed 100 percent aviation cargo-scanning mandate legislated before any feasibility studies were completed has led the Acting Administrator of the TSA to state on the record that it cannot be done. Requiring costly IST assessments and mandatory implementation and then studying its effect on the agricultural sector and small business is equally ill-advised.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And as Chairman Thompson said, the Department of Homeland Security is doing a ``good job.'' Let them finish their work, learn from the process, and consider this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say once again, I think extending these CFATS regulations until 2012 is a reasonable approach. The Department of Homeland Security is doing a good job with these regulations. We need to give them more time to implement the existing regulations that will require security assessments.

As we said, 2,000 of the 6,000 required have been completed. So let's give them some time. The Department of Homeland Security has not spoken in support of this legislation in its entirety. Again, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Please accept the Dent-Olson amendment that is a reasonable approach, accepting the regulations that we just approved as part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. So let's do that. It is the right way to go.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, too, for the record, the American Chemistry Council, just referenced a moment ago by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), in a letter dated October 20, the ACC basically said that the IST provisions which authorize DHS to order the mandatory implementation of IST have proven the most difficult issue on which to find common ground and the primary reason ACC is unable to endorse this bill. They do not support the bill. To be very clear about that, they do not support this legislation.

Now, with respect to the Dent-Austria amendment that we are talking about now, this amendment would strike the IST provisions in the bill. IST is inherently subjective and without a widely accepted definition. When the Department of Homeland Security's subject matter expert on IST was specifically asked what IST was, she responded, ``There's enough debate in industry and academia that I can't take a position on that very topic.'' The Deputy Under Secretary responsible for overseeing the program stated unequivocally that the Department had no staff--no staff--capable of conducting an IST assessment.

Under direct questioning, Deputy Under Secretary Reitinger made it very clear that neither the fiscal year 2009 nor the fiscal year 2010 budget included any funding to hire the necessary expertise to review IST assessments and recommend alternative methods for complex engineering processes.

Again, under direct questioning, most of the witnesses considered IST unnecessary, with the Department's witness adding that the facilities can and are already doing IST.

Clearly, no one at DHS is in a position to dictate to a wide range of facilities what engineering process or chemicals should be used to make plastics, prescription drugs, or computer chips. Despite its fancy labeling, and its inclusion in a security bill, IST is not about security and may simply shift the security risk.

A decision to keep fewer chemicals on site will likely require more frequent shipments of chemicals. This increases the risk of an attack on the transportation of the chemicals or an accident releasing the substances of concern into neighborhoods outside the security perimeters.

It would be foolish to mandate IST in this bill when there is so much uncertainty and lack of expertise in the Department.

Finally, and most importantly, IST will cost American jobs. Let me say that again: IST will cost American jobs. With the national unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, and rising, can we really afford unnecessary congressional mandates that provide little security?

Conducting an IST assessment will be costly, too costly for many small businesses to afford. Experts estimate that a simple one- ingredient substitution would take two persons 2 weeks to complete and cost between $10,000 and $40,000, and that is on the low end. A pharmaceutical pilot plant with about 12 products would take three to six persons up to 10 weeks to complete an assessment at a cost of $100,000 to a half million dollars.

Larger facilities with particularly hazardous chemicals already regulated by OSHA would require 8 to 10 people 6 months or more to complete, and cost over $1 million for the assessment. Fifty-nine percent of the facilities regulated under current CFATS regulations that would be required to conduct these costs assessments employ 50 or fewer employees.

Mandating IST will be devastating for small businesses. According to a California fertilizer manufacturer, eliminating the use of anhydrous ammonia and substituting it with urea can cost a 1,000 acre farm up to $15,000 per application. This would be a recurring cost passed to the consumer.

As we heard earlier, in the current state of our economy, small businesses relying on chemicals simply may not survive. Today, the Department of Labor announced that unemployment has reached 10.2 percent. Does anybody in this Chamber expect that unemployment figure to go down any time soon? We hope it does, but this is not going to help.

``If I were to build a 20-foot high, 20-foot thick concrete barricade that surrounded my facility on all sides, utilized the most state-of- the-art intrusion detection systems and was better protected than the White House, this legislation would still require me to conduct an IST assessment and potentially implement the findings of that assessment.''

Let me close by quoting subcommittee chairman and chief sponsor, Mr. Markey, who stated at the Energy and Commerce Committee on the markup on October 21 of the proposed legislation, ``The safer technology requirement is not about bolstering security.'' If it's not about security, why is IST in the bill? Why are we asking the smallest of small businesses to pay for it?

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

Would the gentleman yield?

This is a very different bill than the one from last session. This bill has citizen suits in it and all kinds of--it's a very different bill.

At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued the most recent unemployment numbers, and they rose yet again to 10.2 percent, the highest unemployment rate in over 25 years. Last month, 190,000 hardworking Americans lost their jobs, almost a third of which came from the manufacturing sector.

Now, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the inclusion of any IST mandate in this bill; it's a vague and subjective philosophy that will cost facilities millions of dollars. The Department has no experts on IST, inherently safer technologies, nor any plans to hire them. And it's not really even about security at all.

But the worst part of the IST mandate is that nowhere in the current bill is the Secretary required to consider the impact on the local economy and on the local workforce before imposing these unnecessary requirements. This is simply unimaginable in the current economy. Unemployment is now at 10.2 percent.

The agricultural sector, much of which will now be regulated under this bill, has an unemployment rate of over 11 percent. Perhaps that's why agriculture groups, including the Farm Bureau and others, warn that IST ``could have a devastating impact on American agriculture.'' That's the Farm Bureau's words, not mine.

Mandating implementation would result in increased costs, higher consumer prices, and lower crop yields. And for those of you who say that sector will be exempt, I say prove it. That's not true. That's not in the legislation. If it is, just tell me which page to turn to in here, and we'll try to find it. It's not in here.

The cost of mandating IST is staggering. Twenty-seven associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated that the costs are estimated to range from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars per facility--millions of dollars. Almost 60 percent of the facilities regulated under this act employ fewer than 50 individuals. These are the smallest of small businesses. Do we really think they can afford to put millions of dollars into the redesigning of processes and facilities during these difficult economic times?

We know the reality of these expenses. When the cost of doing business goes up, there are only two options: you can pass the cost on to consumers, or you can lay off workers. In today's competitive market, unfortunately, it is much easier to shed a few employees than to raise prices. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it.

This is just the latest in a string of bills that will cost American jobs. The health care bill will result in millions of lost jobs across the country. In my district alone, more than 2,000 jobs are at risk because of the medical device tax, and another 300 are in jeopardy just because of the dental provisions in the health care bill.

The cap-and-trade bill, the national energy tax will force the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to shed as many as 66,000 jobs by 2020, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and raise energy costs for consumers and businesses alike. Every district in every State will point to similar job losses as a result of these detrimental policies.

The hemorrhaging of American jobs must stop. I'm not sure about other Members in this Chamber, but to me every job is important and every job counts. This motion to recommit simply requires the Secretary to consider the jobs of hardworking Americans before imposing a mandate to implement inherently safer technologies, ISTs.

This in no way reduces our Nation's security. They are still required to implement site security plans, but as Chairman Markey said during markup, The safer technology requirement is not about bolstering security. When I offered a similar amendment at the full committee, my friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee, and my friend, Mr. Cuellar, both spoke in strong support stating, We want to make sure that it does not adversely affect the workforce, which is something we all support. That provision passed unanimously. That's why I was angered when it was stripped out by the Rules Committee.

Now, I say enough is enough. This motion simply says we've lost enough American jobs, and we don't need to lose anymore.

We heard the promises from the majority to create jobs. We heard that the stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8 percent. Just yesterday, I heard several Members of Congress say that this legislation would not cost American jobs. If you believe that, if that wasn't just talk for the television cameras, then you should support this motion to recommit.

This is an opportunity to save jobs before they need creating, to prevent putting more hardworking Americans on unemployment, to stand up for the farmers who put food on our table, to stand up for manufacturers and to stand up for the small businesses owners.

Support the motion to recommit and let's keep America working.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to address this legislation, and I want to thank Ranking Member King for rubbing it in on the Phillies. I know you're very pleased about the Yankees, but at least the Phillies beat the Mets. That's all I have to say today about that. So with that, congratulations to the Yankees.

Again, this is a very important piece of legislation, as we all know. I have very serious concerns about it for a number of reasons, but it should be remembered that in 2006, we, Congress, enacted a law that gave the Department of Homeland Security the authority to regulate chemical facilities.

You're hearing a lot of talk today about inherently safer technologies, and I would like to get into that in just a moment and what it means. I should also point out as well that the State of New Jersey does require IST assessments, but not implementation of IST, which is quite different. We are going much further than the State of New Jersey in this legislation.

It's important to point out, too, that I certainly support the Department's efforts to secure chemical facilities, but unfortunately, I think this legislation is riddled with costly provisions that go beyond the underlying security purpose of the bill.

Currently, there are vulnerability assessments that the Department must do under the current regulations. There are about 6,000 vulnerability assessments that must be done. So far, 2,000 have been completed, leaving about 4,000 vulnerability assessments that remain. Adding these IST assessments will be enormously costly.

I should also point out that the Department of Homeland Security has no one on staff who is an expert in these inherently safer technologies, so I wanted to point that out for the record.

We've had a lot of testimony, too, and I want to say something about inherently safer technologies. Testimony was referenced. There was a statement from a Scott Berger, who is a director for the Center for Chemical Process Safety. Mr. Berger is an expert in inherently safer technology and inherently safer design. And as the organization that developed the most widely used reference addressing inherently safer design, inherently safer processes, and lifecycle approach, they are the leaders. That was in his testimony. And he said, What is inherently safer design, from his testimony back in June of 2006. 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. Inherently safer design is not a specific technology or set of tools and activities at this point in its development. It continues to evolve, and specific tools and techniques for application of inherently safer design are in the early stages of development. And he goes on.

But essentially what he's saying is inherently safer technology is a conceptual framework. It's not a technology; it's an engineering process. Unfortunately, it seems that too many in Congress are trying to act as chief engineers. We are essentially trying to tell people how to produce certain types of chemicals and what chemicals to use.

These are very technical issues. It will be very costly to implement. It will affect jobs in this country, and with unemployment rates approaching 10 percent nationally, I am very concerned about the impact on this.

I happen to represent a district, the 15th District of Pennsylvania. I have a company called Air Products and Chemicals. About 4,000 people work there. They spend their time designing and building chemical plants in this country and throughout the world. They know a bit about this. And I am extremely concerned that those types of jobs will be put at risk because these chemical plants will be built, but they will not be built here. They will be built elsewhere to produce the chemicals that we need every day in our lives. So that is something that I just feel we have to talk about.

I will yield briefly.

No

I am suggesting that we, as a country, maintain the regulations.

Reclaiming my time, the ones that are currently in place. The regulations that we just extended for 1 year.

About a month ago, when we passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we extended the current regulations for 1 year. I think we should extend them for another 2 years. Let those regulations take effect. Let's implement them. We have agreement. There was a great deal of opposition to this legislation by farmers, manufacturers and others who are going to be saddled with these costs. I have to point this out:

Inherently safer technology deals with workplace safety issues and how you develop the product or the process. It doesn't deal with securing the plant--you know, hiring more guards or building fortifications to secure a plant. That deals with safety as opposed to security. I want to make that distinction because we all agree--you and I agree--that we need to make sure that these plants are secure, but inherently safer technology is really not about plant security, and I think we have to be clear about that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion to this discussion, I must restate my reasons for opposition to this bill.

There is not one person in the Department of Homeland Security who has any expertise in inherently safer technology. They are not prepared to deal with this mandate. I am concerned that much of this bill is, in fact, not focusing on security at all but is, rather, focusing on Federal mandates that may force our small businesses and farms to shed American jobs, further harming our vulnerable economy.

I have a letter here from 27 different organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau and the Fertilizer Institute, which oppose the underlying legislation. They said: ``We continue to oppose the bill due to the detrimental impact it will have on national security and economic stability.''

A lot has been said about chemical facilities, but this bill is not so much about chemical facilities as it is about facilities with chemicals, and those facilities include hospitals, colleges and universities, and 3,630 employers with fewer than 50 employees. These are the people who are going to be impacted, and jobs will be lost. With unemployment approaching 10 percent, I don't think now is the time to impose this kind of a mandate, which will not have any real security benefit to the American people.

So, with that, I would like to submit this letter for the Record from the various organizations in opposition to this legislation. Let's let the current regulations be implemented. Let's extend them for that 1 year and beyond.

November 3, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner: We write

to you today to express our opposition to H.R. 2868, the

``Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009'' (CFATS).

Despite the changes made to this legislation in the Energy

and Commerce and Homeland Security Committees, we continue to

oppose the bill due to the detrimental impact it will have on

national security and economic stability.

Specifically, we strongly object to the Inherently Safer

Technology (IST) provisions of this legislation that would

allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate

that businesses employ specific product substitutions and

processes. These provisions would be significantly

detrimental to the progress of existing chemical facility

security regulations (the ``CFATS'' program) and should not

be included in this legislation. DHS should not be making

engineering or business decisions for chemical facilities

around the country when it should be focused instead on

making our country more secure and protecting it from

terrorist threats. Decisions on chemical substitutions or

changes in processes should be made by qualified

professionals whose job it is to ensure safety at our

facilities.

Furthermore, forced chemical substitutions could simply

transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing

to reduce risk at all. Because chemical facilities are

custom-designed and constructed, such mandates would also

impose significant financial hardship on facilities

struggling during the current economic recession. Some of

these forced changes are estimated to cost hundreds of

millions of dollars per facility. Ultimately, many facilities

would not be able to bear this expense.

Thank you for taking our concerns into account as the

Committee continues to consider the ``Chemical Facility Anti-

Terrorism Act of 2009.'' We stand ready to work with the

Committee and Congress towards the implementation of a

responsible chemical facility security program.

Sincerely,

Agricultural Retailers Association;

American Farm Bureau Federation;

American Forest & Paper Association;

American Petroleum Institute;

American Trucking Associations;

Chemical Producers and Distributors Association;

Consumer Specialty Products Association;

The Fertilizer Institute;

Institute of Makers of Explosives;

International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses;

International Liquid Terminals Association;

International Warehouse Logistics Association;

National Agricultural Aviation Association;

National Association of Chemical Distributors;

National Association of Manufacturers;

National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry;

National Mining Association;

National Oilseed Processors Association;

National Pest Management Association;

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association;

National Propane Gas Association;

North American Millers' Association;

Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association;

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Our side of the aisle is going to focus on the impact on jobs. This legislation is devastating to jobs in this country, and we will get into that in just a moment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Orleans, Mr. Scalise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, first, there has been considerable debate here today whether farmers and small agricultural retailers currently exempt from existing regulations will be exempt from the new regulations required by this legislation.

The short answer is: They will not. Section 2120 of this bill requires the Secretary to issue new regulations to replace the existing CFATS regulations. Nowhere in this bill does the Secretary have any authority to exempt certain individuals or classes from those regulations. Nowhere.

If the majority disagrees and would care to point to a particular provision that authorizes the Secretary to grant exemptions from the provisions, including the costly IST assessment and

implementation provisions, I would ask that they point to that provision.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I think you just heard some very powerful arguments in opposition to this legislation. This issue is all about jobs. I want to say one thing. It is a darn good thing that the House of Representatives just a couple of hours ago passed an extension of unemployment benefits. Because of this legislation, people are going to need them. That said, people around this country are very scared of Washington right now. They are scared of the agenda, and they are scared of the national energy tax called cap-and-trade. They are afraid of the card check bill and the health care bill that will cost more than a trillion dollars. So is it any wonder that unemployment rates are going the way they are going.

But one thing about these IST assessments, and I feel we have to talk about this from a jobs standpoint, but contesting these IST assessments will be costly, too costly for most small businesses to afford.

Experts estimate that a simple, one ingredient substitution would take two persons 2 weeks to complete and cost between $10,000 and $40,000, and that is on the low end. A pharmaceutical pilot plant with about 12 products would take three to six persons up to 10 weeks to complete an assessment at a cost of $100,000 to $500,000.

Larger facilities with particularly hazardous chemicals, already regulated by OSHA, would require 8 to 10 people 6 months or more to complete at a cost of over a million dollars for the assessment. Fifty- nine percent of the facilities regulated under the current CFATS regulations that would be required to conduct these costly assessments employ 50 or fewer people. Mandating IST will be devastating to small businesses across America.

According to a California fertilizer manufacturer, eliminating the use of anhydrous ammonia and substituting it with urea can cost a 1,000 acre farm up to $15,000 per application. This would be a recurring cost passed on to the consumer.

On Friday, the Department of Labor is expected to revise the unemployment figures. Does anyone in this Chamber expect those numbers to go down? We hope they do, but I am afraid we know what the answer may be.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in America understands the need for health care reform, and so do I. Unfortunately, the new $1.2 trillion, 2,000-

page bill, H.R. 3962, still cuts Medicare by one-half trillion dollars to our seniors and creates a new entitlement program.

The bill provides disincentives to States and punishes them if they impose caps on noneconomic damages or limits contingency fees to trial lawyers in medical liability cases. This takes us backwards, not forwards.

There is a job-crushing employer mandate and tax increases on small businesses in the form of surtaxes on income. This is a job killer, make no mistake.

There is a medical device tax that punishes innovation and imperils manufacturing jobs at companies like B. Braun and Olympus in my congressional district. In fact, many of them refer to this tax as the death tax. When is enough enough?

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise today as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of House Resolution 754, and I would like to thank Congressman Tim Holden of Schuykill County for introducing this resolution.

The United States National Guard is the oldest component of our Armed Forces, dating back to pre-Revolutionary War times. Over the past 8 years, we have witnessed thousands of Guard members answer the call as they are asked to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Approximately 4,000 members of the Pennsylvania Guard were deployed to Iraq last fall, the largest deployment of the Pennsylvania National Guard since the Korean war. Prior to the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team's deployment to Iraq, I, along with some of my colleagues, Tim Holden, Bill Shuster and Jim Gerlach, visited the Pennsylvania Stryker Brigade in Mississippi and Louisiana at Camp Shelby and Fort Polk as they prepared for their mobilization overseas.

In June 2009, I traveled to Iraq to meet with the Pennsylvania National Guard 56th Stryker Brigade and other Pennsylvania troops, accompanied by many Members who are here in the Chamber today, including Representative Dahlkemper.

During my visit to Iraq, I saw a significant improvement in the security conditions on the ground. And the fact that we were able to safely drive through the bustling streets of Baghdad was an encouraging and welcome development. I know, without a doubt, it is the sacrifice, perseverance and bravery of these young men and women that enabled such progress.

I am pleased that just 1 year later, the 56th Stryker Brigade is returning home. As of late September, most of the brigade has returned home. I am honored to be standing here today to pay tribute to these heroes. Our military families demonstrate tremendous bravery as they watch their loved ones go overseas to fight in harm's way for the freedoms we experience every day in this great Nation. We say ``thank you'' to the entire Pennsylvania National Guard for protecting the families and communities of our great Commonwealth and standing at the ready to defend our homeland.

I urge Members to support House Resolution 754.