Mica, Stearns, and Crenshaw Vote NO on Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009

[FayeforCure]

Chemical plant security bill passes. GOP says "NO!!!" 

Mon Nov 23, 2009

Earlier this month, hidden in the din about the HCR debate, the House quietly passed a bill that, if enacted into law, will help secure our country from terrorist attacks on chemical plants and waste & drinking water treatment plants. The bill was H.R. 2868 and is called "The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009".

On November 6, it passed on a vote of 230-193.

Can you guess how many Republicans voted FOR it?

Can you say ZERO?

I knew you could.

Why did they vote against this vital piece of legislation? Well, it's easy to predict: it would cost the affected industries some money. The GOP clamors for protecting us against terrorists and speechify endlessly about the threat of global terrorism so that we're all SCARED!!!. But when it comes to actually taking measures to do that, well, don't be asking Big Business to have to have to spend their money on it.

As usual with the GOP, it's profits before people.


The high points of this legislation were well-summarized by Greenpeace USA:

Reduce the consequences of an attack through the use of available, cost-effective safer and more secure chemicals and processes
Include all categories of facilities such as water treatment plants
Involve plant employees in developing plant security programs, including participation in workplace investigations, and protect employees from excessive background checks
Allow citizen petitions to enhance enforcement at chemical facilities and citizen suits to ensure government accountable
Allow states to set more protective security standards
(You can read a summary of the bill HERE.)

The US Chamber of Commerce was against it.

The National Paint & Coatings Association is against it.

Grover Norquist got in on the act.

And not a single Republican voted for it.

Their main complaint was that it would cost industry money.  In a letter to Henry Waxman [pdf], the Chamber of Commerce cited three points:

It allows state and local agencies set more stringent rules than the federal government.
It allows for "citizens' suits" against companies that don't protect their local communities appropriately.
It requires facilities to investigate "inherently safer technologies" or ISTs

The GOP and the Chamber are famous for touting "states' rights" but they don't want state and local groups to be able to make these decisions for themselves. They also want to prevent citizens from making waves. And, God forbid, they don't want to have to spend extra cash making their facilities safer if it affects their profit margins!

The CBO scored it favorably and the average cost to Americans was found to be $5 over the 2011-2014 period.

They even fought an amendment that would "requires assessments and implementation of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack."

That's our GOP, looking out for the best interests of American citizens that leave near chemical industry plants.

Well done. Not.

You can see how your Representative voted HERE: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-875

I'm just sayin'...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/23/807227/-Action-UPDATE:-Chemical-plant-security-bill-passes.-GOP-says-NO!!!

[buckethead]

So these guys oppose a bill that effectively grants federal control over every major water supply? Do these clowns think they represent their respective states or some nonesense?

[NotNow]

Just for info:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

7/13/2009--Reported to House amended, Part I. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to set forth provisions governing the regulation of security practices at chemical facilities. Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate any chemical substance as a substance of concern and establish the threshold quantity for each such substance after considering the potential extent of death, injury, and serious adverse effects that could result from a chemical facility terrorist incident. Directs the Secretary to: (1) maintain a list of covered chemical facilities that are of sufficient security risk; (2) assign each covered facility to one of four risk-based tiers; (3) establish standards and procedures for security vulnerability assessments and site security plans; (4) require each facility owner or operator to submit and, once approved, implement such an assessment and plan; (5) establish risk-based chemical security performance standards for site security plans; (6) establish modified or separate standards, protocols, and procedures for security vulnerability assessments and site security plans for covered chemical facilities that are also academic laboratories; and (7) establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to provide for training and education of specified chemical facility employees (covered individuals), first responders, and emergency response providers. Permits the Secretary, under specified circumstances, to: (1) accept an alternate security program submitted by the owner or operator of the facility; (2) conduct facility security inspections; and (3) obtain access to and copy records. Requires: (1) the timely sharing of threat information; and (2) the Secretary to provide information to the public regarding a process by which individuals may report problems, deficiencies, or vulnerabilities at a covered facility associated with the risk of a terrorist incident. Establishes whistleblower protections for facility employees who report violations. Provides penalties for violations of whistleblower protections. Sets forth provisions that: (1) preclude preemption of states' rights to adopt or enforce more stringent regulations or standards; and (2) prohibit the public disclosure of protected information, subject to specified limitations. Requires the owner or operator of a covered chemical facility to include in the site security plan an assessment of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack on that facility. Directs the Secretary to report to the House Homeland Security Committee regarding exempting small business concerns from security requirements. Establishes in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) an Office of Chemical Facility Security. Directs the Secretary to issue regulations to require covered chemical facilities to conduct appropriate security background checks and ensure appropriate credentials for unescorted visitors and chemical facility personnel. Requires an owner or operator of a facility who finds that a covered individual is not legally authorized to work in the United States to cease to employ that individual, subject to a specified redress process. Authorizes civil actions by any individuals alleging violations of this Act. Requires annual (and after four years, biennial) reports to Congress on progress in achieving compliance with this Act. Authorizes appropriations. Directs the Secretary to establish a notification system that provides any individual the ability to report a suspected security deficiency or noncompliance with this Act, including by telephonic and Internet-based means. Requires the Secretary and the Inspector General for DHS, respectively, to take specified actions to address deficiencies and to report to specified congressional committees. Requires the Secretary to review the designation of sodium fluoroacetate as a substance of concern.

[jaxnative]

I worked in the atmospheric packaged gas, liquid bulk, and the related manufacturing industry for over 25 years.  I have visited scores of chemical production facilities.  I never visited a site, including water treatment facilities, that did not have an internal security system in place, along with all those required by the various levels of government.  I have spent many hours helping prepare for inspections of our plant facilities. 

To be brief, there is sufficient regulations and rules already in effect on top of internal security measures.  Believe it or not, the companies are concerned with safety and security and since 9/11 scores of security measures have been implimented even without the benevolent control of our government elitists.


This legislation is the typical overkill of an out of control government obsessed with increasing its power.  It is easily manipulated by narcissistic progressives to demonize those against it with all the usual cliches in their arsenal.

[DavidWilliams]

I worked in the atmospheric packaged gas, liquid bulk, and the related manufacturing industry for over 25 years.  I have visited scores of chemical production facilities.  I never visited a site, including water treatment facilities, that did not have an internal security system in place, along with all those required by the various levels of government.  I have spent many hours helping prepare for inspections of our plant facilities. 

To be brief, there is sufficient regulations and rules already in effect on top of internal security measures.  Believe it or not, the companies are concerned with safety and security and since 9/11 scores of security measures have been implimented even without the benevolent control of our government elitists.


This legislation is the typical overkill of an out of control government obsessed with increasing its power.  It is easily manipulated by narcissistic progressives to demonize those against it with all the usual cliches in their arsenal.

Amen. Couldn't agree with you more jaxnative.

[Doctor_K]

Like, "as usual with the GPO, it's profits before people."

Here's one:  "As usual with the Democrats, it's power before people."

Sure don't hear that one ever.

[FayeforCure]

Like, "as usual with the GPO, it's profits before people."

Here's one:  "As usual with the Democrats, it's power before people."

Sure don't hear that one ever.

Yeah, it's not like the state governments need help funding their fire departments. They have their budgets so F***d up they can't even fund their schools. have to fire teachers etc. Who the heck needs the federal government when our state government handles things so well???

It's actually the federal government that has to come to the rescue, uh no wants the "power"

[Ocklawaha]

As a former Dem committeeman from dist 1, I guess I'd have to once again disagree Faye, same old cut-n-paste Mica - hate, different day. You do realize this makes us all look like mud slinging hicks right? Oh about that Federal Government and the "Dems"...

We're not all crazy socialists,

F**K the Federal Government!

This shit started with Lincoln and has only gotten worse with age, I'd love to see all of us, Black, White or Indifferent, Kick the Bastards out of Florida and Dixie, once and for all. YES FAYE, STATES RIGHTS IS PEOPLE RIGHTS = "The South Was Right!" Damn these Washington Despots and the horse they rode in on too.


DEO VINDICE!

[FayeforCure]

Accountability Ock. If you despise the federal government so much, why don't we vote the bums out including Mica?

[BridgeTroll]

why don't we vote the bums out including Mica?

And replace him with who?  Did you have someone in mind?  Sometimes the "devil" you know is preferable to the "devil" you dont...

[JagFan07]

This shit started with Lincoln and has only gotten worse with age

Amen! And I will add that the death nail for State's Rights was in 1913 when the Senate became popularly elected. Since then the States have not had any representation at the federal level.

[FayeforCure]

why don't we vote the bums out including Mica?

And replace him with who?  Did you have someone in mind?  Sometimes the "devil" you know is preferable to the "devil" you dont...

Also known as the corrupt status quo.

[BridgeTroll]

Do you have a qualified replacement in mind?

[FayeforCure]

Do you have a qualified replacement in mind?

Well, let's see:

Qualifications
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for representatives. Each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent. Members need not live in their districts. The age and citizenship qualifications for representatives are less than those for senators. The constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 2 for election to Congress are the maximum requirements that can be imposed on a candidate.[6] Therefore, Article I, Section 5, which permits each House to be the judge of the qualifications of its own members does not permit either House to establish additional qualifications.

Disqualification. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, any federal or state officer who takes the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engages in rebellion or aids the enemies of the United States, is disqualified from becoming a representative. This post-Civil War provision, was intended to prevent those who sided with the Confederacy from serving. However, disqualified individuals may serve if they gain the consent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

Hmmm, that makes pretty much any of us well-qualified. BT, state your name and run!!

[BridgeTroll]

You supplied the qualifications but did not provide a name.  Thank you for your endorsement of my humble self as a candidate for congress but I will have to humbly decline.  My duties as a MetroJax moderator preclude me from being a candidate... much less a congressman.  You folks keep us busy...