June 17, 2013 Issue: We expect that S. 394, a metals theft bill unfavorable to our industry, will be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate as early as today, using a procedure known as “hotlining” (also called “unanimous consent”) which requires each and every Senator to first give their approval to move the bill to the floor for a vote. A single objection will stop the vote from occurring and force it into “regular order” making it vulnerable to filibuster. As S.394 is not seen as a bill of major national significance and therefore not worthy of risking a filibuster, the bill would then likely be stopped from moving any further at this point, which is what we need at this time. If we learn that the bill will be brought to the floor despite an objection, we will alert you and explain another procedure that can be used to stop an ill-conceived bill.
Action Needed: To assure that we receive at least one objection when the bill is hotlined, we are asking ReMA members to either call or email their senators. Talking points can be found below, and a sample letter is also included with this Alert. Contact information for all Senate offices can be found at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The “Ask”: Ask that your Senator voice objection to any "hotline request" that may be issued to move S.394 forward to the Senate floor for a vote via unanimous consent.
Message/Talking Points:
1. While our industry is aggressively fighting the problem of metals theft, S.394 does nothing to address the true problem – lack of enforcement and prosecution with regard to the metal thieves. S.394 will simply add another layer of laws on top of what 49 states have already done, thus confusing the metals theft legal situation nationally.
2. S.394 undermines the efforts ________ (name state) has already taken to address metals theft through extensive recordkeeping, ownership documentation requirements, and cash restrictions (select whatever applies in your state). While S.394 contains pre-emption language which we have been told is not intended to undermine the efforts of law enforcement, recyclers, community leaders, and others on the state level, the specific language of the bill does just that.
3. The huge variations in the specific provisions and applicability of the metals theft laws that currently exist in every state except Alaska make it extremely difficult to determine how the pre-emption provisions in S.394 will even be applied. Given the way the sponsors amended the pre-emption clause in committee, it’s possible that the bill will actually only apply to the state of Alaska, in which case, ReMA questions why the Congress would go to all this trouble to enact a law that applies in only one state.
4. The bill will potentially make the current patchwork of inconsistent state requirements even more complicated, doing nothing to address the current problem of forum shopping by thieves.
5. S.394 was passed out of committee without any hearing, not allowing any opportunity for the concerns of those affected to be addressed effectively.
Timing: Please reach out to your Senators immediately as there is no way to know when Senator Klobuchar will attempt to push the bill forward for a vote (and it could be this week).
More Information: Contact Mark Reiter (MarkReiter@ISRI.org or 202.662.8517), Billy Johnson (BillyJohnson@ISRI.org or 202.662.8548), or Danielle Waterfield (DanielleWaterfield@ISRI.org or 202.662.8516).
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear Senator __________,
I am asking that you voice objection to S.394 and any “hotline request” that may be issued to move the bill forward in the Senate via unanimous consent. Please know that this is not being lightly requested and I understand that it is a big ask of the Senator. However, this is necessary because I believe S.394 is being rushed to the Senate floor for political reasons, without any opportunity for my industry or any others to raise our concerns with the legislation during the committee process. This is very unfortunate because many of my industry’s concerns may have been worked out if there had been a hearing on the bill before it was passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on June 13.
While S.394 is a well-intentioned as a whole, there are provisions that are in conflict with our state law on metals theft prevention. I am deeply concerned that S.394 will have detrimental impacts on law enforcement efforts in our state because this federal bill confuses what requirements will apply – or not apply – within our state borders. There is even a question as to whether this bill would only apply to the state of Alaska because of the conflicting pre-emption language, thus putting my company and all the stakeholders in legal limbo as the courts will surely be called upon to determine what law applies. Our own legislature debated, negotiated and enacted a state law directly on this matter. S.394 is not needed and will only serve to confuse both recyclers and law enforcement by adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of what exists.
Thank you in advance for consideration on this issue. I ask for you to state your opposition to moving S.394 to the Senate floor by objecting to any request to move the bill forward in the Senate via unanimous consent. I would be pleased to discuss my concerns about the legislation in more detail with you at any time and look forward to the opportunity for a full and open legislative discussion.
Sincerely,