Like every member on this subcommittee and in this Congress, homeland security is a concern and a priority. Today we are examining two bills that deal with the security implications of facilities that use various chemicals. I have a number of concerns with the bills before us today. However, I will primarily focus my remarks on H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Security Act.
There have been disagreements over how chemical facilities should be regulated to address security issues, but Congress was able to enact provisions to authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to regulate security at designated chemical facilities. Rather than enact new legislation, we should give DHS the opportunity to fully enact the laws that we have already passed. It is too soon for Congress to start over with new regulations. I support at three-year extension of the existing law to give DHS time to finalize implementation of the security regulations and allow Congress to determine what works and what does not. I prefer this to what we are looking at today.
We must legislate from a body of experience and accumulated evidence, not ideological notions of what sounds like a good idea, especially when it means stranding billions of dollars in investments at a time when we have a frozen domestic financing market and struggling economy.
I have been made aware of a few real, tangible examples on the impacts of this legislation. I recommend to the members of this subcommittee that they talk to companies in their districts and states about how this legislation would impact them. This legislation is not just about chemical facilities; this bill covers facilities with chemicals too. And it is not something that is just going to hit the big guys. Small businesses will be swept in too -- then swept overseas.
A recent study looked at the impact of an Inherently Safer Technology (IST) mandate on oil refineries. IST may sound good, but is in reality is a government-mandated product substitution. The study found that in certain terrorist situations, sulfuric acid – the mandated IST – can be just as dangerous as hydrofluoric acid, which is commonly used today. But, under this federally mandated IST, the refining process would require roughly 250 times more sulfuric acid than hydrofluoric. To put this into scale, we are talking the difference between one or two truckloads per month versus three or four truckloads each day. This IST, which does not make us safer, costs between $45 to $150 million dollars per refinery and an increase in operating costs of between 200 and 400 percent. What do you think would happen to gas prices and refineries moving abroad? Between this and cap-and-trade, we will be stuck importing every gallon of gasoline from abroad.
The problems within this legislation extend beyond the economic realm. The citizen-lawsuit provisions in the Chemical Plant Security Bill are completely inappropriate for national security legislation. Allowing these types of lawsuits could harm security at these facilities, not make it stronger. The citizen-suit provisions in these bills are an “over-the-top” example of why we should not be rushing, especially considering that terrorists hire lawyers and could use them. Citizen suits are not used in a national defense context and should not be used here. Folks should not be able to compel the release of roadmaps to destruction by simply using the legal discovery process.
Additionally, the information protection language rolls back traditional protections of information that Congress has employed since 9/11. It eliminates penalties against those who “recklessly” disclose sensitive information to the public. Even though we have been blessed not to have been attacked since 9/11, we should not relax our resolve to sanction violators swiftly and aggressively.
In closing, H.R. 2868 would increase costs and send jobs abroad without bolstering national security. In fact, an argument can be made that it weakens our security. Chemical manufacturers have already invested millions of dollars in chemical security upgrades to ensure that the communities where they operate are safe, secure and efficient. The requirements in this bill will not improve chemical security; it will only shift the security risk to other sectors such as transportation or manufacturing, while hindering the economic profitability in the process.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the past year resulting in plant closures and other facilities operating on the margins. Michigan’s unemployment is still hovering at 15 percent. The chemical industry has been hit hard by the economic recession and now is not the time to jeopardize more jobs, while weakening our own national security.
This is not the right prescription for making our country stronger. We need a bill that secures our economy, not just re-engineers and exports it.
I yield back.
