CFATS and HR 8070 – NDAA Amendment

Yesterday, the American Chemistry Council published a press release supporting a proposed amendment to HR 8070, the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, that would reinstate the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. The amendment proposed by Rep Lee (R,FL) is one of over 1300 that have been proposed to the House Rules Committee for possible consideration if the bill moves to the floor under a rule.

Amendment 594 would change the expiration date for the CFATS program from July 27^th, 2024 to “the date that is two years after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.” The bipartisan amendment has nine cosponsors.

The House Rules Committee has not yet set a hearing date for the formulation of a rule for the consideration of HR 8070. There is no way of knowing if this particular amendment would be included the rule for the consideration of HR 8070.

As I mentioned in a post yesterday, because of the bipartisan support seen for HR 8070 in the Armed Services Committee, there is a very real possibility that any rule for the consideration of HR 8070 could be blocked in the Rules Committee or on the floor of the House by radical Republicans who feel that the bill does not adequately reflect their views. In that case, the bill would likely, again because of the bipartisan support the bill enjoys, be considered under the suspension of the rules process. That process does not allow for consideration of any floor amendments.

Yesterday’s press release notes that the ACC, along with three other industry support organizations, has sent letters to the House leadership supporting Lee’s amendment. The letters were sent to Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jefferies. I suspect that it would have been helpful if it had also been sent to the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee.

Based upon the earlier 409 to 1 vote for HR 4470, the bill similarly extending the CFATS program that is currently blocked in the Senate, I suspect that amendment 594 would receive strong bipartisan support if it were offered during the consideration of HR 8070. The Senate would be expected to consider their own language for the bill when it is considered in that body and similar language would not likely make its way into the Senate version due to the continued opposition to the CFATS program by Sen Paul (R,KY). I suspect, however, that the CFATS language could find itself in the version of the bill ultimately reported by the conference committee if the language is adopted in the House version of the bill.