2. CHEMICALS: House passes facility security bill, 230-193 (11/06/2009)

Sara Goodman , E&E reporter

The House today passed a comprehensive chemical facility security bill after defeating a series of GOP amendments aimed at weakening the measure's overall impact.

H.R. 2868 passed 230-193 mostly along party lines. Twenty-one Democrats opposed the bill.

It would give the Homeland Security Department the authority to create a list of "substances of concern," determine which facilities manufacturing those substances are at high risk for a terrorist attack, and require action to reduce risk if appropriate. Under the bill, state governments would be allowed to implement their own chemical security regulations as long as they expand on or exceed federal rules.

The bill would also close a gap in the current Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, set to expire next year, which exempt wastewater and drinking water facilities.

House Democrats successfully defeated a series of GOP amendments, including attempts to strip all "safer technology" language and civil lawsuits from the bill and insert federal pre-emption language.

Republicans remained deeply opposed to the measure, arguing DHS should be given time to implement the existing regulations before imposing new requirements on facilities. They also expressed concern about potential job loss resulting from the safer technologies provision, requiring high-risk facilities to switch to safer alternatives if feasible.

"The approach taken in this legislation is deeply flawed," said Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas). "The overarching problem is simply this: Protecting chemical facilities and drinking water systems from terrorist attacks should not be done under the umbrella of environmental law."

But Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the bill does not aim to provide security in the classic sense of the word but approaches security from a broader perspective, seeking instead to minimize consequences should a terrorist act be successful. "I don't think anyone here would want to have unnecessarily dangerous chemicals in highly populated areas if al-Qaida were successful," Markey said.

Furthermore, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said companies that have already switched to safer alternatives did so without job loss or significant economic impacts.

Environmentalists hailed the vote. "This victory is eight years in coming," said Liz Hitchcock, public health advocate for U.S. PIRG. "This is a historic vote for common-sense security. We're looking forward to working with champions like Senator Lautenberg in the Senate to take the momentum built in the House and translate it to a bill we can take to the president's desk."