Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for

H.R. 2868 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009

(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)

Listed in Alphabetical Order
November 3, 2009 2:19 PM

Austria (OH)

#6

The amendment would exempt any small business - as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) - from being required to conduct an inherently safer technology (IST) analysis or IST implementation.

Barton (TX)

#14

Would place provisions in the bill allowing the new Federal chemical facility regulations enacted by this bill to preempt state and local laws that "hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the purpose of the federal program".

Barton (TX)

#16

Would block the Department of Homeland Security from forcing chemical facilities to alter their operating process or chemical inputs unless it would improve the security of the covered chemical facility.

Barton (TX)

#18

The amendment would prevent the Department of Homeland Security or EPA or the States, as appropriate, from compelling chemical facilities to alter their manufacturing process or chemical inputs if such a change would not improve the overall security of the covered chemical facility, covered water system or treatment works.

Barton (TX)

#20

Revised Would prevent the EPA or, as appropriate, States from compelling drinking water facilities to alter their processes or chemical inputs by striking language relating to methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act, and would remove language giving priority for preparation grants to covered water systems posing the greatest security risk, leaving greatest need as the sole determining factor.

Cardoza (CA)/Radanovich (CA)

#19

Withdrawn The amendment would direct the Administrator to select the lowest cost alternative among alternatives that achieve substantially comparable reductions in the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act.

Dent (PA)

#4

The amendment would strike Title I, affecting chemical facilities, and replace it with an extension of the Department of Homeland Security's current regulatory authority under section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Dent (PA)

#5

The amendment would strike section 2111, which requires assessments and implementation of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.

Flake, Jeff (AZ)

#3

Revised Would prevent earmarking in a new grant program established in the bill, and would clarify that Congress presumes that grants awarded through that program will be awarded on a competitive basis, and if they are not, require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress as to why not.

Foster (IL), Luján (NM)

#8

The amendment would direct the Secretary to establish appropriate protocols and security procedures for covered chemical facilities that are also Universities and Academic labs, separate from commercial chemical facilities.

Halvorson (IL)

#2

Would permit the Secretary to provide guidance, tools, methodologies, or software to assist small covered chemical facilities in complying with the security requirements.

Hastings, Alcee (FL)

#10

Revised Would establish a point of contact within the Office of Chemical Facility Security responsible for interagency coordination.  Would require the Secretary to liaise with State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees to update emergency planning and training procedures.

Marshall (GA)

#7

The amendment would provide for the use of E-Verify as an additional measure designed to verify and validate legal authorization to work in the U.S.

McCaul (TX)

#1

Would strike the citizen enforcement section of the bill.

Olson (TX)

#9

Withdrawn The amendment would strike Title I, affecting chemical facilities, and replace it with an extension of the Department of Homeland Security's current regulatory authority under section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Schrader (OR), Kissell, Larry (NC)

#11

Would require DHS to conduct a study on the scope and potential impacts of the provisions that require the use of safer processes or chemicals on manufacturers or retailers of pesticide or fertilizer.

Thompson, Bennie (MS)

#12

Revised The Thompson amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 2868 makes a number of technical corrections and fixes typos and verbiage issues.

Titus (NV)

#13

Withdrawn Would require a report from the Government Accountability Office to determine best practices for transporting the chemicals that are used and produced at the facilities covered by the underlying legislation.

Upton (MI)

#15

Would eliminate the citizen enforcement provision in the amendment in the nature of a substitute for covered drinking water facilities.

Upton (MI)

#17

Would exempt a covered chemical facility from implementing the manufacturing changes mandated by the Department of Homeland Security if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines such changes would lead to the facility laying off at least 15% of its workforce.