[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 165 (Friday, November 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12498-H12535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 885 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2868.

                              {time}  1335


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2868) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 
extend, modify, and recodify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism 
against chemical facilities, and for other purposes, with Mr. Salazar 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
November 5, 2009, all time for general debate had expired.
  In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committees on Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce printed 
in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
part A of House Report 111-327 shall be considered as an original bill 
for purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2868

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical 
     and Water Security Act of 2009''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                  TITLE I--CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 103. Extension, modification, and recodification of authority of 
              Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate security 
              practices at chemical facilities.

                   TITLE II--DRINKING WATER SECURITY

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Intentional acts affecting the security of covered water 
              systems.
Sec. 203. Study to assess the threat of contamination of drinking water 
              distribution systems.

             TITLE III--WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Wastewater treatment works security.

                  TITLE I--CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Chemical Facility Anti-
     Terrorism Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Nation's chemical sector represents a target that 
     terrorists could exploit to cause consequences, including 
     death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health, 
     the environment, critical infrastructure, public health, 
     homeland security, national security, and the national 
     economy.
       (2) Chemical facilities that pose such potential 
     consequences and that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks 
     must be protected.
       (3) The Secretary of Homeland Security has statutory 
     authority pursuant to section 550 of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-
     295) to regulate the security practices at chemical 
     facilities that are at significant risk of being terrorist 
     targets.
       (4) The Secretary of Homeland Security issued interim final 
     regulations called the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
     Standards, which became effective on June 8, 2007.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to modify and 
     make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to regulate security practices at chemical 
     facilities.

     SEC. 103. EXTENSION, MODIFICATION, AND RECODIFICATION OF 
                   AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO 
                   REGULATE SECURITY PRACTICES AT CHEMICAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:

  ``TITLE XXI--REGULATION OF SECURITY PRACTICES AT CHEMICAL FACILITIES

     ``SEC. 2101. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) The term `chemical facility' means any facility--
       ``(A) at which the owner or operator of the facility 
     possesses or plans to possess at any relevant point in time a 
     substance of concern; or
       ``(B) that meets other risk-related criteria identified by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(2) The term `chemical facility security performance 
     standards' means risk-based standards established by the 
     Secretary to ensure or enhance the security of a chemical 
     facility against a chemical facility terrorist incident that 
     are designed to address the following:
       ``(A) Restricting the area perimeter.
       ``(B) Securing site assets.
       ``(C) Screening and controlling access to the facility and 
     to restricted areas within the facility by screening or 
     inspecting individuals and vehicles as they enter, 
     including--
       ``(i) measures to deter the unauthorized introduction of 
     dangerous substances and devices that may facilitate a 
     chemical facility terrorist incident or actions having 
     serious negative consequences for the population surrounding 
     the chemical facility; and
       ``(ii) measures implementing a regularly updated 
     identification system that checks the identification of 
     chemical facility personnel and other persons seeking access 
     to the chemical facility and that discourages abuse through 
     established disciplinary measures.
       ``(D) Methods to deter, detect, and delay a chemical 
     facility terrorist incident, creating sufficient time between 
     detection of a chemical facility terrorist incident and the 
     point at which the chemical facility terrorist incident 
     becomes successful, including measures to--
       ``(i) deter vehicles from penetrating the chemical facility 
     perimeter, gaining unauthorized access to restricted areas, 
     or otherwise presenting a hazard to potentially critical 
     targets;
       ``(ii) deter chemical facility terrorist incidents through 
     visible, professional, well-maintained security measures and 
     systems, including security personnel, detection systems, 
     barriers and barricades, and hardened or reduced value 
     targets;
       ``(iii) detect chemical facility terrorist incidents at 
     early stages through counter surveillance, frustration of 
     opportunity to observe potential targets, surveillance and 
     sensing systems, and barriers and barricades; and
       ``(iv) delay a chemical facility terrorist incident for a 
     sufficient period of time so as to allow appropriate response 
     through on-site security response, barriers and barricades, 
     hardened targets, and well-coordinated response planning.
       ``(E) Securing and monitoring the shipping, receipt, and 
     storage of a substance of concern for the chemical facility.
       ``(F) Deterring theft or diversion of a substance of 
     concern.
       ``(G) Deterring insider sabotage.
       ``(H) Deterring cyber sabotage, including by preventing 
     unauthorized onsite or remote access to critical process 
     controls, including supervisory control and data acquisition 
     systems, distributed control systems, process control 
     systems, industrial control systems, critical business 
     systems, and other sensitive computerized systems.
       ``(I) Developing and exercising an internal emergency plan 
     for owners, operators, and covered individuals of a covered 
     chemical facility for responding to chemical facility 
     terrorist incidents at the facility. Any such plan shall 
     include the provision of appropriate information to any local 
     emergency planning committee, local law enforcement 
     officials, and emergency response providers to ensure an 
     effective, collective response to terrorist incidents.
       ``(J) Maintaining effective monitoring, communications, and 
     warning systems, including--
       ``(i) measures designed to ensure that security systems and 
     equipment are in good working order and inspected, tested, 
     calibrated, and otherwise maintained;
       ``(ii) measures designed to regularly test security 
     systems, note deficiencies, correct for detected 
     deficiencies, and record results so that they are available 
     for inspection by the Department; and
       ``(iii) measures to allow the chemical facility to promptly 
     identify and respond to security system and equipment 
     failures or malfunctions.
       ``(K) Ensuring mandatory annual security training, 
     exercises, and drills of chemical facility personnel 
     appropriate to their roles, responsibilities, and access to 
     chemicals, including participation by local law enforcement, 
     local emergency response providers, appropriate supervisory 
     and non-supervisory facility employees and their employee 
     representatives, if any.
       ``(L) Performing personnel surety for individuals with 
     access to restricted areas or critical assets by conducting 
     appropriate

[[Page H12499]]

     background checks and ensuring appropriate credentials for 
     unescorted visitors and chemical facility personnel, 
     including permanent and part-time personnel, temporary 
     personnel, and contract personnel, including--
       ``(i) measures designed to verify and validate identity;
       ``(ii) measures designed to check criminal history;
       ``(iii) measures designed to verify and validate legal 
     authorization to work; and
       ``(iv) measures designed to identify people with terrorist 
     ties.
       ``(M) Escalating the level of protective measures for 
     periods of elevated threat.
       ``(N) Specific threats, vulnerabilities, or risks 
     identified by the Secretary for that chemical facility.
       ``(O) Reporting of significant security incidents to the 
     Department and to appropriate local law enforcement 
     officials.
       ``(P) Identifying, investigating, reporting, and 
     maintaining records of significant security incidents and 
     suspicious activities in or near the site.
       ``(Q) Establishing one or more officials and an 
     organization responsible for--
       ``(i) security;
       ``(ii) compliance with the standards under this paragraph;
       ``(iii) serving as the point of contact for incident 
     management purposes with Federal, State, local, and tribal 
     agencies, law enforcement, and emergency response providers; 
     and
       ``(iv) coordination with Federal, State, local, and tribal 
     agencies, law enforcement, and emergency response providers 
     regarding plans and security measures for the collective 
     response to a chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(R) Maintaining appropriate records relating to the 
     security of the facility, including a copy of the most recent 
     security vulnerability assessment and site security plan at 
     the chemical facility.
       ``(S) Assessing and, as appropriate, utilizing methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.
       ``(T) Methods to recover or mitigate the release of a 
     substance of concern in the event of a chemical facility 
     terrorist incident.
       ``(U) Any additional security performance standards the 
     Secretary may specify.
       ``(3) The term `chemical facility terrorist incident' means 
     any act or attempted act of terrorism or terrorist activity 
     committed at, near, or against a chemical facility, 
     including--
       ``(A) the release of a substance of concern from a chemical 
     facility;
       ``(B) the theft, misappropriation, or misuse of a substance 
     of concern from a chemical facility; or
       ``(C) the sabotage of a chemical facility or a substance of 
     concern at a chemical facility.
       ``(4) The term `employee representative' means the 
     representative of the certified or recognized bargaining 
     agent engaged in a collective bargaining relationship with a 
     private or public owner or operator of a chemical facility.
       ``(5) The term `covered individual' means a permanent, 
     temporary, full-time, or part-time employee of a covered 
     chemical facility or an employee of an entity with which the 
     covered chemical facility has entered into a contract who is 
     performing responsibilities at the facility pursuant to the 
     contract.
       ``(6) The term `covered chemical facility' means a chemical 
     facility that meets the criteria of section 2102(b)(1).
       ``(7) The term `environment' means--
       ``(A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous 
     zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are 
     under the exclusive management authority of the United States 
     under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); and
       ``(B) any other surface water, ground water, drinking water 
     supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air 
     within the United States or under the jurisdiction of the 
     United States.
       ``(8) The term `owner or operator' with respect to a 
     facility means any of the following:
       ``(A) The person who owns the facility.
       ``(B) The person who has responsibility for daily operation 
     of the facility.
       ``(C) The person who leases the facility.
       ``(9) The term `person' means an individual, trust, firm, 
     joint stock company, corporation (including a government 
     corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, 
     commission, political subdivision of a State, or any 
     interstate body and shall include each department, agency, 
     and instrumentality of the United States.
       ``(10) The term `release' means any spilling, leaking, 
     pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, 
     escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the 
     environment (including the abandonment or discarding of 
     barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing 
     any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant).
       ``(11) The term `substance of concern' means a chemical 
     substance in quantity and form that is so designated by the 
     Secretary under section 2102(a).
       ``(12) The term `method to reduce the consequences of a 
     terrorist attack' means a measure used at a chemical facility 
     that reduces or eliminates the potential consequences of a 
     chemical facility terrorist incident, including--
       ``(A) the elimination or reduction in the amount of a 
     substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by 
     an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility through 
     the use of alternate substances, formulations, or processes;
       ``(B) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or 
     concentrations of a substance of concern; and
       ``(C) the reduction or elimination of onsite handling of a 
     substance of concern through improvement of inventory control 
     or chemical use efficiency.

     ``SEC. 2102. RISK-BASED DESIGNATION AND RANKING OF CHEMICAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Substances of Concern.--
       ``(1) Designation by the secretary.--The Secretary may 
     designate any chemical substance as a substance of concern 
     and establish the threshold quantity for each such substance 
     of concern.
       ``(2) Matters for consideration.--In designating a chemical 
     substance or establishing or adjusting the threshold quantity 
     for a chemical substance under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall consider the potential extent of death, injury, and 
     serious adverse effects to human health, the environment, 
     critical infrastructure, public health, homeland security, 
     national security, and the national economy that could result 
     from a chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(b) List of Covered Chemical Facilities.--
       ``(1) Criteria for list of facilities.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain a list of covered chemical facilities that the 
     Secretary determines are of sufficient security risk for 
     inclusion on the list based on the following criteria:
       ``(A) The potential threat or likelihood that the chemical 
     facility will be the target of a chemical facility terrorist 
     incident.
       ``(B) The potential extent and likelihood of death, injury, 
     or serious adverse effects to human health, the environment, 
     critical infrastructure, public health, homeland security, 
     national security, and the national economy that could result 
     from a chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(C) The proximity of the chemical facility to large 
     population centers.
       ``(2) Submission of information.--The Secretary may require 
     the submission of information with respect to the quantities 
     of substances of concern that an owner or operator of a 
     chemical facility possesses or plans to possess in order to 
     determine whether to designate a chemical facility as a 
     covered chemical facility for purposes of this title.
       ``(c) Assignment of Chemical Facilities to Risk-Based 
     Tiers.--
       ``(1) Assignment.--The Secretary shall assign each covered 
     chemical facility to one of four risk-based tiers established 
     by the Secretary, with tier one representing the highest 
     degree of risk and tier four the lowest degree of risk.
       ``(2) Provision of information.--The Secretary may request, 
     and the owner or operator of a covered chemical facility 
     shall provide, any additional information beyond any 
     information required to be submitted under subsection (b)(2) 
     that may be necessary for the Secretary to assign the 
     chemical facility to the appropriate tier under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(3) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     on which the Secretary determines that a chemical facility is 
     a covered chemical facility or is no longer a covered 
     chemical facility or changes the tier assignment under 
     paragraph (1) of a covered chemical facility, the Secretary 
     shall notify the owner or operator of that chemical facility 
     of that determination or change together with the reason for 
     the determination or change and, upon the request of the 
     owner or operator of a covered chemical facility, provide to 
     the owner or operator of the covered chemical facility the 
     following information:
       ``(A) The number of individuals at risk of death, injury, 
     or severe adverse effects to human health as a result of a 
     worst case chemical facility terrorist incident at the 
     covered chemical facility.
       ``(B) Information related to the criticality of the covered 
     chemical facility.
       ``(C) The proximity or interrelationship of the covered 
     chemical facility to other critical infrastructure.
       ``(d) Requirement for Review.--The Secretary--
       ``(1) shall periodically review--
       ``(A) the designation of a substance of concern and the 
     threshold quantity under subsection (a)(1); and
       ``(B) the criteria under subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(2) may at any time determine whether a chemical facility 
     is a covered chemical facility or change the tier to which 
     such a facility is assigned under subsection (c)(1).
       ``(e) Provision of Threat-related Information.--In order to 
     effectively assess the vulnerabilities to a covered chemical 
     facility, the Secretary shall provide to the owner, operator, 
     or security officer of a covered chemical facility threat 
     information regarding probable threats to the facility and 
     methods that could be used in a chemical facility terrorist 
     incident.

     ``SEC. 2103. SECURITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND SITE 
                   SECURITY PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish standards, protocols, and procedures for 
     security vulnerability assessments and site security plans to 
     be required for covered chemical facilities;
       ``(B) require the owner or operator of each covered 
     chemical facility to--
       ``(i) conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the 
     covered chemical facility to a range of chemical facility 
     terrorist incidents, including an incident that results in a 
     worst-case release of a substance of concern

[[Page H12500]]

     and submit such assessment to the Secretary;
       ``(ii) prepare and implement a site security plan for that 
     covered chemical facility that addresses the security 
     vulnerability assessment and meets the risk-based chemical 
     security performance standards under subsection (c) and 
     submit such plan to the Secretary;
       ``(iii) include at least one supervisory and at least one 
     non-supervisory employee of the covered chemical facility, 
     and at least one employee representative, from each 
     bargaining agent at the covered chemical facility, if any, in 
     developing the security vulnerability assessment and site 
     security plan required under this section; and
       ``(iv) include, with the submission of a security 
     vulnerability assessment and the site security plan of the 
     covered chemical facility under this title, a signed 
     statement by the owner or operator of the covered chemical 
     facility that certifies that the submission is provided to 
     the Secretary with knowledge of the penalty provisions under 
     section 2107;
       ``(C) set deadlines, by tier, for the completion of 
     security vulnerability assessments and site security plans;
       ``(D) upon request, as necessary, and to the extent that 
     resources permit, provide technical assistance to a covered 
     chemical facility conducting a vulnerability assessment or 
     site security plan required under this section;
       ``(E) establish specific deadlines and requirements for the 
     submission by a covered chemical facility of information 
     describing--
       ``(i) any change in the use by the covered chemical 
     facility of more than a threshold amount of any substance of 
     concern that may affect the requirements of the chemical 
     facility under this title; or
       ``(ii) any material modification to a covered chemical 
     facility's operations or site that may affect the security 
     vulnerability assessment or site security plan submitted by 
     the covered chemical facility;
       ``(F) require the owner or operator of a covered chemical 
     facility to review and resubmit a security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan not less frequently than 
     once every 5 years; and
       ``(G) not later than 180 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary receives a security vulnerability assessment or 
     site security plan under this title, review and approve or 
     disapprove such assessment or plan and notify the covered 
     chemical facility of such approval or disapproval.
       ``(2) Inherently governmental function.--The approval or 
     disapproval of a security vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan under this section is an inherently 
     governmental function.
       ``(b) Participation in Preparation of Security 
     Vulnerability Assessments or Site Security Plans.--Any person 
     selected by the owner or operator of a covered chemical 
     facility or by a certified or recognized bargaining agent of 
     a covered chemical facility to participate in the development 
     of the security vulnerability assessment or site security 
     plan required under this section for such covered chemical 
     facility shall be permitted to participate if the person 
     possesses knowledge, experience, training, or education 
     relevant to the portion of the security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan on which the person is 
     participating.
       ``(c) Risk-based Chemical Security Performance Standards.--
     The Secretary shall establish risk-based chemical security 
     performance standards for the site security plans required to 
     be prepared by covered chemical facilities. In establishing 
     such standards, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) require separate and, as appropriate, increasingly 
     stringent risk-based chemical security performance standards 
     for site security plans as the level of risk associated with 
     the tier increases; and
       ``(2) permit each covered chemical facility submitting a 
     site security plan to select a combination of security 
     measures that satisfy the risk-based chemical security 
     performance standards established by the Secretary under this 
     subsection.
       ``(d) Co-Located Chemical Facilities.--The Secretary may 
     allow an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility 
     that is located geographically close to another covered 
     chemical facility to develop and implement coordinated 
     security vulnerability assessments and site security plans.
       ``(e) Alternate Security Programs Satisfying Requirements 
     for Security Vulnerability Assessment and Site Security 
     Plan.--
       ``(1) Acceptance of program.--In response to a request by 
     an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility, the 
     Secretary may accept an alternate security program submitted 
     by the owner or operator of the facility as a component of 
     the security vulnerability assessment or site security plan 
     required under this section, if the Secretary determines that 
     such alternate security program, in combination with other 
     components of the security vulnerability assessment and site 
     security plan submitted by the owner or operator of the 
     facility--
       ``(A) meets the requirements of this title and the 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to this title;
       ``(B) provides an equivalent level of security to the level 
     of security established pursuant to the regulations 
     promulgated under this title; and
       ``(C) includes employee participation as required under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B)(iii).
       ``(2) Secretarial review required.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall relieve the Secretary of the obligation--
       ``(A) to review a security vulnerability assessment and 
     site security plan submitted by a covered chemical facility 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) to approve or disapprove each such assessment or plan 
     on an individual basis according to the deadlines established 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(3) Covered facility's obligations unaffected.--Nothing 
     in this subsection shall relieve any covered chemical 
     facility of the obligation and responsibility to comply with 
     all of the requirements of this title.
       ``(4) Personnel surety alternate security program.--In 
     response to an application from a non-profit, personnel 
     surety accrediting organization acting on behalf of, and with 
     written authorization from, the owner or operator of a 
     covered chemical facility, the Secretary may accept a 
     personnel surety alternate security program that meets the 
     requirements of section 2115 and provides for a background 
     check process that is--
       ``(A) expedited, affordable, reliable, and accurate;
       ``(B) fully protective of the rights of covered individuals 
     through procedures that are consistent with the privacy 
     protections available under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); and
       ``(C) is a single background check consistent with a risk-
     based tiered program.
       ``(f) Other Authorities.--
       ``(1) Regulation of maritime facilities.--
       ``(A) Risk-based tiering.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the owner or operator of a chemical 
     facility required to submit a facility security plan under 
     section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, shall be 
     required to submit information to the Secretary necessary to 
     determine whether to designate such a facility as a covered 
     chemical facility and to assign the facility to a risk-based 
     tier under section 2102 of this title.
       ``(B) Additional measures.--In the case of a facility 
     designated as a covered chemical facility under this title 
     for which a facility security plan is required to be 
     submitted under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, after consultation 
     with the Secretary, shall require the owner or operator of 
     such facility to update the vulnerability assessments and 
     facility security plans required under that section, if 
     necessary, to ensure an equivalent level of security for 
     substances of concern, including the requirements under 
     section 2111, in the same manner as other covered chemical 
     facilities in this title.
       ``(C) Personnel surety.--
       ``(i) Exception.--A facility designated as a covered 
     chemical facility under this title that has had its facility 
     security plan approved under section 70103(c) of title 46, 
     United States Code, shall not be required to update or amend 
     such plan in order to meet the requirements of section 2115 
     of this title.
       ``(ii) Equivalent access.--An individual described in 
     section 2115(a)(1)(B) who has been granted access to 
     restricted areas or critical assets by the owner or operator 
     of a facility for which a security plan is required to be 
     submitted under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code, may be considered by that owner or operator to have 
     satisfied the requirement for passing a security background 
     check otherwise required under section 2115 for purposes of 
     granting the individual access to restricted areas or 
     critical assets of a covered chemical facility that is owned 
     or operated by the same owner or operator.
       ``(D) Information sharing and protection.--Notwithstanding 
     section 70103(d) of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard, after consultation with the 
     Secretary, shall apply the information sharing and protection 
     requirements in section 2110 of this title to a facility 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(E) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall establish, by 
     rulemaking, procedures to ensure that an owner or operator of 
     a covered chemical facility required to update the 
     vulnerability assessment and facility security plan for the 
     facility under subparagraph (B) is in compliance with the 
     requirements of this title.
       ``(F) Formal agreement.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) require the Office of Infrastructure Protection and 
     the Coast Guard to enter into a formal agreement detailing 
     their respective roles and responsibilities in carrying out 
     the requirements of this title, which shall ensure that the 
     enforcement and compliance requirements under this title and 
     section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, are not 
     conflicting or duplicative; and
       ``(ii) designate the agency responsible for enforcing the 
     requirements of this title with respect to covered chemical 
     facilities for which facility security plans are required to 
     be submitted under section 70103(c) of title 46, United 
     States Code, consistent with the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (D).
       ``(2) Coordination of storage licensing or permitting 
     requirement.--In the case of any storage required to be 
     licensed or permitted under chapter 40 of title 18, United 
     States Code, the Secretary shall prescribe the rules and 
     regulations for the implementation of this section with the 
     concurrence of the Attorney General and avoid unnecessary 
     duplication of regulatory requirements.
       ``(g) Role of Employees.--

[[Page H12501]]

       ``(1) Description of role required.--Site security plans 
     required under this section shall describe the roles or 
     responsibilities that covered individuals are expected to 
     perform to deter or respond to a chemical facility terrorist 
     incident.
       ``(2) Annual training for employees.--The owner or operator 
     of a covered chemical facility required to submit a site 
     security plan under this section shall annually provide each 
     covered individual with a role or responsibility referred to 
     in paragraph (1) at the facility with a minimum of 8 hours of 
     training. Such training shall, as relevant to the role or 
     responsibility of such covered individual--
       ``(A) include an identification and discussion of 
     substances of concern;
       ``(B) include a discussion of possible consequences of a 
     chemical facility terrorist incident;
       ``(C) review and exercise the covered chemical facility's 
     site security plan, including any requirements for differing 
     threat levels;
       ``(D) include a review of information protection 
     requirements;
       ``(E) include a discussion of physical and cyber security 
     equipment, systems, and methods used to achieve chemical 
     security performance standards;
       ``(F) allow training with other relevant participants, 
     including Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities, and 
     first responders, where appropriate;
       ``(G) use existing national voluntary consensus standards, 
     chosen jointly with employee representatives, if any;
       ``(H) allow instruction through government training 
     programs, chemical facilities, academic institutions, 
     nonprofit organizations, industry and private organizations, 
     employee organizations, and other relevant entities that 
     provide such training;
       ``(I) use multiple training media and methods; and
       ``(J) include a discussion of appropriate emergency 
     response procedures, including procedures to mitigate the 
     effects of a chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(3) Equivalent training.--During any year, with respect 
     to any covered individual with roles or responsibilities 
     under paragraph (1), an owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility may satisfy any of the training 
     requirements for such covered individual under subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (J) of paragraph (2) through 
     training that such owner or operator certifies, in a manner 
     prescribed by the Secretary, is equivalent.
       ``(4) Worker training grant program.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish a grant 
     program to award grants to or enter into cooperative 
     agreements with eligible entities to provide for the training 
     and education of covered individuals with roles or 
     responsibilities described in paragraph (1) and first 
     responders and emergency response providers that would 
     respond to a chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(B) Administration.--The Secretary shall seek to enter 
     into an agreement with the Director of the National Institute 
     for Environmental Health Sciences, or with the head of 
     another Federal or State agency, to make and administer 
     grants or cooperative agreements under this paragraph.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--The recipient of funds under this 
     paragraph shall use such funds to provide for the training 
     and education of covered individuals with roles or 
     responsibilities described in paragraph (1), first 
     responders, and emergency response providers, including--
       ``(i) the annual mandatory training specified in paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(ii) other appropriate training to protect nearby 
     persons, property, critical infrastructure, or the 
     environment from the effects of a chemical facility terrorist 
     incident.
       ``(D) Eligible entities.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     an eligible entity is a nonprofit organization with 
     demonstrated experience in implementing and operating 
     successful worker or first responder health and safety or 
     security training programs.
       ``(h) State, Regional, or Local Governmental Entities.--No 
     covered chemical facility shall be required under State, 
     local, or tribal law to provide a vulnerability assessment or 
     site security plan described under this title to any State, 
     regional, local, or tribal government entity solely by reason 
     of the requirement under subsection (a) that the covered 
     chemical facility submit such an assessment and plan to the 
     Secretary.

     ``SEC. 2104. SITE INSPECTIONS.

       ``(a) Right of Entry.--For purposes of carrying out this 
     title, the Secretary shall have, at a reasonable time and on 
     presentation of credentials, a right of entry to, on, or 
     through any property of a covered chemical facility or any 
     property on which any record required to be maintained under 
     this section is located.
       ``(b) Inspections and Verifications.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, at such time and 
     place as the Secretary determines to be reasonable and 
     appropriate, conduct chemical facility security inspections 
     and verifications.
       ``(2) Requirements.--To ensure and evaluate compliance with 
     this title, including any regulations or requirements adopted 
     by the Secretary in furtherance of the purposes of this 
     title, in conducting an inspection or verification under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall have access to the owners, 
     operators, employees, and employee representatives, if any, 
     of a covered chemical facility.
       ``(c) Unannounced Inspections.--In addition to any 
     inspection conducted pursuant to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall require covered chemical facilities assigned 
     to tier 1 and tier 2 under section 2102(c)(1) to undergo 
     unannounced facility inspections. The inspections required 
     under this subsection shall be--
       ``(1) conducted without prior notice to the facility;
       ``(2) designed to evaluate at the chemical facility 
     undergoing inspection--
       ``(A) the ability of the chemical facility to prevent a 
     chemical facility terrorist incident that the site security 
     plan of the facility is intended to prevent;
       ``(B) the ability of the chemical facility to protect 
     against security threats that are required to be addressed by 
     the site security plan of the facility; and
       ``(C) any weaknesses in the site security plan of the 
     chemical facility;
       ``(3) conducted so as not to affect the actual security, 
     physical integrity, safety, or regular operations of the 
     chemical facility or its employees while the inspection is 
     conducted; and
       ``(4) conducted--
       ``(A) every two years in the case of a covered chemical 
     facility assigned to tier 1; and
       ``(B) every four years in the case of a covered chemical 
     facility assigned to tier 2.
       ``(d) Chemical Facility Inspectors Authorized.--During the 
     period of fiscal years 2011 and 2012, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations for such purpose, the 
     Secretary shall increase by not fewer than 100 the total 
     number of chemical facility inspectors within the Department 
     to ensure compliance with this title.
       ``(e) Confidential Communications.--The Secretary shall 
     offer non-supervisory employees the opportunity to 
     confidentially communicate information relevant to the 
     employer's compliance or non-compliance with this title, 
     including compliance or non-compliance with any regulation or 
     requirement adopted by the Secretary in furtherance of the 
     purposes of this title. An employee representative of each 
     certified or recognized bargaining agent at the covered 
     chemical facility, if any, or, if none, a non-supervisory 
     employee, shall be given the opportunity to accompany the 
     Secretary during a physical inspection of such covered 
     chemical facility for the purpose of aiding in such 
     inspection, if representatives of the owner or operator of 
     the covered chemical facility will also be accompanying the 
     Secretary on such inspection.

     ``SEC. 2105. RECORDS.

       ``(a) Request for Records.--In carrying out this title, the 
     Secretary may require submission of, or on presentation of 
     credentials may at reasonable times obtain access to and 
     copy, any records, including any records maintained in 
     electronic format, necessary for--
       ``(1) reviewing or analyzing a security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan submitted under section 
     2103; or
       ``(2) assessing the implementation of such a site security 
     plan.
       ``(b) Proper Handling of Records.--In accessing or copying 
     any records under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that such records are handled and secured appropriately in 
     accordance with section 2110.

     ``SEC. 2106. TIMELY SHARING OF THREAT INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Responsibilities of Secretary.--Upon the receipt of 
     information concerning a threat that is relevant to a certain 
     covered chemical facility, the Secretary shall provide such 
     information in a timely manner, to the maximum extent 
     practicable under applicable authority and in the interests 
     of national security, to the owner, operator, or security 
     officer of that covered chemical facility, to a 
     representative of each recognized or certified bargaining 
     agent at the facility, if any, and to relevant State, local, 
     and tribal authorities, including the State Homeland Security 
     Advisor, if any.
       ``(b) Responsibilities of Owner or Operator.--The Secretary 
     shall require the owner or operator of a covered chemical 
     facility to provide information concerning a threat in a 
     timely manner about any significant security incident or 
     threat to the covered chemical facility or any intentional or 
     unauthorized penetration of the physical security or cyber 
     security of the covered chemical facility whether successful 
     or unsuccessful.

     ``SEC. 2107. ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Review of Security Vulnerability Assessment and Site 
     Security Plan.--
       ``(1) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a 
     security vulnerability assessment or site security plan 
     submitted under this title if the Secretary determines, in 
     his or her discretion, that--
       ``(A) the security vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan does not comply with the standards, protocols, 
     or procedures under section 2103(a)(1)(A); or
       ``(B) in the case of a site security plan--
       ``(i) the plan or the implementation of the plan is 
     insufficient to address vulnerabilities identified in a 
     security vulnerability assessment, site inspection, or 
     unannounced inspection of the covered chemical facility; or
       ``(ii) the plan fails to meet all applicable chemical 
     facility security performance standards.
       ``(2) Notification of disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves the security vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan submitted by a covered chemical facility under 
     this title or the implementation of a site security plan by 
     such a chemical facility, the

[[Page H12502]]

     Secretary shall provide the owner or operator of the covered 
     chemical facility a written notification of the disapproval 
     not later than 14 days after the date on which the Secretary 
     disapproves such assessment or plan, that--
       ``(A) includes a clear explanation of deficiencies in the 
     assessment, plan, or implementation of the plan; and
       ``(B) requires the owner or operator of the covered 
     chemical facility to revise the assessment or plan to address 
     any deficiencies and, by such date as the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate, to submit to the Secretary the 
     revised assessment or plan.
       ``(b) Remedies.--
       ``(1) Order for compliance.--Whenever the Secretary 
     determines that the owner or operator of a covered chemical 
     facility has violated or is in violation of any requirement 
     of this title or has failed or is failing to address any 
     deficiencies in the assessment, plan, or implementation of 
     the plan by such date as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, the Secretary may--
       ``(A) after providing notice to the owner or operator of 
     the covered chemical facility and an opportunity, pursuant to 
     the regulations issued under this title, for such owner or 
     operator to seek review within the Department of the 
     Secretary's determination, issue an order assessing an 
     administrative penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day 
     on which a past or current violation occurs or a failure to 
     comply continues, requiring compliance immediately or within 
     a specified time period, or both; or
       ``(B) in a civil action, obtain appropriate equitable 
     relief, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day 
     on which a past or current violation occurs or a failure to 
     comply continues, or both.
       ``(2) Order to cease operations.--Whenever the Secretary 
     determines that the owner or operator of a covered chemical 
     facility continues to be in noncompliance after an order for 
     compliance is issued under paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     issue an order to the owner or operator to cease operations 
     at the facility until compliance is achieved to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary.
       ``(c) Applicability of Penalties.--A penalty under 
     subsection (b)(1) may be awarded for any violation of this 
     title, including a violation of the whistleblower protections 
     under section 2108.

     ``SEC. 2108. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     provide information to the public regarding a process by 
     which any person may submit a report to the Secretary 
     regarding problems, deficiencies, or vulnerabilities at a 
     covered chemical facility associated with the risk of a 
     chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(b) Confidentiality.--The Secretary shall keep 
     confidential the identity of a person that submits a report 
     under subsection (a) and any such report shall be treated as 
     protected information under section 2110 to the extent that 
     it does not consist of publicly available information.
       ``(c) Acknowledgment of Receipt.--If a report submitted 
     under subsection (a) identifies the person submitting the 
     report, the Secretary shall respond promptly to such person 
     to acknowledge receipt of the report.
       ``(d) Steps to Address Problems.--The Secretary shall 
     review and consider the information provided in any report 
     submitted under subsection (a) and shall, as necessary, take 
     appropriate steps under this title to address any problem, 
     deficiency, or vulnerability identified in the report.
       ``(e) Retaliation Prohibited.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--No owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility, profit or not-for-profit corporation, 
     association, or any contractor, subcontractor or agent 
     thereof, may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate 
     against any employee with respect to the employee's 
     compensation, terms, conditions, or other privileges of 
     employment because the employee (or any person acting 
     pursuant to a request of the employee)--
       ``(A) notified the Secretary, the owner or operator of a 
     covered chemical facility, or the employee's employer of an 
     alleged violation of this title, including notification of 
     such an alleged violation through communications related to 
     carrying out the employee's job duties;
       ``(B) refused to participate in any conduct that the 
     employee reasonably believes is in noncompliance with a 
     requirement of this title, if the employee has identified the 
     alleged noncompliance to the employer;
       ``(C) testified before or otherwise provided information 
     relevant for Congress or for any Federal or State proceeding 
     regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of this 
     title;
       ``(D) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to 
     commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this 
     title;
       ``(E) testified or is about to testify in any such 
     proceeding; or
       ``(F) assisted or participated or is about to assist or 
     participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any 
     other manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to 
     carry out the purposes of this title.
       ``(2) Enforcement action.--Any employee covered by this 
     section who alleges discrimination by an employer in 
     violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action governed by 
     the rules and procedures, legal burdens of proof, and 
     remedies applicable under subsections (d) through (h) of 
     section 20109 of title 49, United States Code. A party may 
     seek district court review as set forth in subsection (d)(3) 
     of such section not later than 90 days after receiving a 
     written final determination by the Secretary of Labor.
       ``(3) Prohibited personnel practices affecting the 
     department.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any individual holding or applying for a position within 
     the Department shall be covered by--
       ``(i) paragraphs (1), (8), and (9) of section 2302(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       ``(ii) any provision of law implementing any of such 
     paragraphs by providing any right or remedy available to an 
     employee or applicant for employment in the civil service; 
     and
       ``(iii) any rule or regulation prescribed under any such 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to affect any rights, apart from those 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), to which an individual 
     described in that subparagraph might otherwise be entitled to 
     under law.

     ``SEC. 2109. FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

       ``This title does not preclude or deny any right of any 
     State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce 
     any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance with 
     respect to a covered chemical facility that is more stringent 
     than a regulation, requirement, or standard of performance 
     issued under this title, or otherwise impair any right or 
     jurisdiction of any State or political subdivision thereof 
     with respect to covered chemical facilities within that State 
     or political subdivision thereof.

     ``SEC. 2110. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Prohibition of Public Disclosure of Protected 
     Information.--Protected information, as described in 
     subsection (g)--
       ``(1) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(2) shall not be made available pursuant to any State, 
     local, or tribal law requiring disclosure of information or 
     records.
       ``(b) Information Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations, and may issue such orders, as necessary to 
     prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected 
     information, as described in subsection (g).
       ``(2) Sharing of protected information.--The regulations 
     under paragraph (1) shall provide standards for and 
     facilitate the appropriate sharing of protected information 
     with and between Federal, State, local, and tribal 
     authorities, emergency response providers, law enforcement 
     officials, designated supervisory and nonsupervisory covered 
     chemical facility personnel with security, operational, or 
     fiduciary responsibility for the facility, and designated 
     facility employee representatives, if any. Such standards 
     shall include procedures for the sharing of all portions of a 
     covered chemical facility's vulnerability assessment and site 
     security plan relating to the roles and responsibilities of 
     covered individuals under section 2103(g)(1) with a 
     representative of each certified or recognized bargaining 
     agent representing such covered individuals, if any, or, if 
     none, with at least one supervisory and at least one non-
     supervisory employee with roles or responsibilities under 
     section 2103(g)(1).
       ``(3) Penalties.--Protected information, as described in 
     subsection (g), shall not be shared except in accordance with 
     the regulations under paragraph (1). Whoever discloses 
     protected information in knowing violation of the regulations 
     and orders issued under paragraph (1) shall be fined under 
     title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 
     one year, or both, and, in the case of a Federal officeholder 
     or employee, shall be removed from Federal office or 
     employment.
       ``(c) Treatment of Information in Adjudicative 
     Proceedings.--In any judicial or administrative proceeding, 
     protected information described in subsection (g) shall be 
     treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of 
     sensitive security information under section 525 of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 
     (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1381).
       ``(d) Other Obligations Unaffected.--Except as provided in 
     section 2103(h), nothing in this section affects any 
     obligation of the owner or operator of a chemical facility 
     under any other law to submit or make available information 
     required by such other law to facility employees, employee 
     organizations, or a Federal, State, tribal, or local 
     government.
       ``(e) Submission of Information to Congress.--Nothing in 
     this title shall permit or authorize the withholding of 
     information from Congress or any committee or subcommittee 
     thereof.
       ``(f) Disclosure of Independently Furnished Information.--
     Nothing in this title shall affect any authority or 
     obligation of a Federal, State, local, or tribal government 
     agency to protect or disclose any record or information that 
     the Federal, State, local, or tribal government agency 
     obtains from a chemical facility under any other law.
       ``(g) Protected Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, protected 
     information is any of the following:
       ``(A) Security vulnerability assessments and site security 
     plans, including any assessment required under section 2111.
       ``(B) Portions of the following documents, records, orders, 
     notices, or letters that the Secretary determines would be 
     detrimental to chemical facility security if disclosed and 
     that are developed by the Secretary or the owner or operator 
     of a covered chemical facility for the purposes of this 
     title:

[[Page H12503]]

       ``(i) Documents directly related to the Secretary's review 
     and approval or disapproval of vulnerability assessments and 
     site security plans under this title.
       ``(ii) Documents directly related to inspections and audits 
     under this title.
       ``(iii) Orders, notices, or letters regarding the 
     compliance of a covered chemical facility with the 
     requirements of this title.
       ``(iv) Information, documents, or records required to be 
     provided to or created by the Secretary under subsection (b) 
     or (c) of section 2102.
       ``(v) Documents directly related to security drills and 
     training exercises, security threats and breaches of 
     security, and maintenance, calibration, and testing of 
     security equipment.
       ``(C) Other information, documents, or records developed 
     exclusively for the purposes of this title that the Secretary 
     has determined by regulation would, if disclosed, be 
     detrimental to chemical facility security.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--For purposes of this section, protected 
     information does not include--
       ``(A) information that is otherwise publicly available, 
     including information that is required to be made publicly 
     available under any law;
       ``(B) information that a chemical facility has lawfully 
     disclosed other than in accordance with this title; or
       ``(C) information that, if disclosed, would not be 
     detrimental to the security of a chemical facility, including 
     aggregate regulatory data that the Secretary has determined 
     by regulation to be appropriate to describe facility 
     compliance with the requirements of this title and the 
     Secretary's implementation of such requirements.

     ``SEC. 2111. METHODS TO REDUCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A 
                   TERRORIST ATTACK.

       ``(a) Assessment Required.--
       ``(1) Assessment.--The owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility shall include in the site security plan 
     conducted pursuant to section 2103, an assessment of methods 
     to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack on that 
     chemical facility, including--
       ``(A) a description of the methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack implemented and considered 
     for implementation by the covered chemical facility;
       ``(B) the degree to which each method to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack, if already implemented, 
     has reduced, or, if implemented, could reduce, the potential 
     extent of death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human 
     health resulting from a release of a substance of concern;
       ``(C) the technical feasibility, costs, avoided costs 
     (including liabilities), personnel implications, savings, and 
     applicability of implementing each method to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack; and
       ``(D) any other information that the owner or operator of 
     the covered chemical facility considered in conducting the 
     assessment.
       ``(2) Feasible.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     `feasible' means feasible with the use of best technology, 
     techniques, and other means that the Secretary finds, after 
     examination for efficacy under field conditions and not 
     solely under laboratory conditions, are available for use at 
     the covered chemical facility.
       ``(b) Implementation.--
       ``(1) Implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility that is assigned to tier 1 or tier 2 
     because of the potential extent and likelihood of death, 
     injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, the 
     environment, critical infrastructure, public health, homeland 
     security, national security, and the national economy from a 
     release of a substance of concern at the covered chemical 
     facility, shall implement methods to reduce the consequences 
     of a terrorist attack on the chemical facility if the 
     Director of the Office of Chemical Facility Security 
     determines, in his or her discretion, using the assessment 
     conducted pursuant to subsection (a), that the implementation 
     of such methods at the facility--
       ``(i) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury, 
     or serious adverse effects to human health resulting from a 
     chemical facility terrorist incident but--

       ``(I) would not increase the interim storage of a substance 
     of concern outside the facility;
       ``(II) would not directly result in the creation of a new 
     covered chemical facility assigned to tier 1 or tier 2 
     because of the potential extent and likelihood of death, 
     injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, the 
     environment, critical infrastructure, public health, homeland 
     security, national security, and the national economy from a 
     release of a substance of concern at the covered chemical 
     facility;
       ``(III) would not result in the reassignment of an existing 
     covered chemical facility from tier 3 or tier 4 to tier 1 or 
     tier 2 because of the potential extent and likelihood of 
     death, injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, 
     the environment, critical infrastructure, public health, 
     homeland security, national security, and the national 
     economy from a release of a substance of concern at the 
     covered chemical facility; and
       ``(IV) would not significantly increase the potential 
     extent and likelihood of death, injury, and serious adverse 
     effects to human health, the environment, critical 
     infrastructure, public health, homeland security, national 
     security, and the national economy from a release of a 
     substance of concern due to a terrorist attack on the 
     transportation infrastructure of the United States;

       ``(ii) can feasibly be incorporated into the operation of 
     the covered chemical facility; and
       ``(iii) would not significantly and demonstrably impair the 
     ability of the owner or operator of the covered chemical 
     facility to continue the business of the facility at its 
     location.
       ``(B) Written determination.--A determination by the 
     Director of the Office of Chemical Facility Security pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) shall be made in writing and include the 
     basis and reasons for such determination, including the 
     Director's analysis of the covered chemical facility's 
     assessment of the technical feasibility, costs, avoided costs 
     (including liabilities), personnel implications, savings, and 
     applicability of implementing each method to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack.
       ``(C) Maritime facilities.--With respect to a covered 
     chemical facility for which a security plan is required under 
     section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, a written 
     determination pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be made only 
     after consultation with the Captain of the Port for the area 
     in which the covered chemical facility is located.
       ``(2) Review of inability to comply.--
       ``(A) In general.--An owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility who is unable to comply with the Director's 
     determination under paragraph (1) shall, within 120 days of 
     receipt of the Director's determination, provide to the 
     Secretary a written explanation that includes the reasons 
     therefor. Such written explanation shall specify whether the 
     owner or operator's inability to comply arises under clause 
     (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A), or both.
       ``(B) Review.--Not later than 120 days of receipt of an 
     explanation submitted under subparagraph (A), the Secretary, 
     after consulting with the owner or operator of the covered 
     chemical facility who submitted such explanation, as well as 
     experts in the subjects of environmental health and safety, 
     security, chemistry, design and engineering, process controls 
     and implementation, maintenance, production and operations, 
     chemical process safety, and occupational health, as 
     appropriate, shall provide to the owner or operator a written 
     determination, in his or her discretion, of whether 
     implementation shall be required pursuant to paragraph (1). 
     If the Secretary determines that implementation is required, 
     the Secretary shall issue an order that establishes the basis 
     for such determination, including the findings of the 
     relevant experts, the specific methods selected for 
     implementation, and a schedule for implementation of the 
     methods at the facility.
       ``(c) Sectoral Impacts.--
       ``(1) Guidance for farm supplies merchant wholesalers.--The 
     Secretary shall provide guidance and, as appropriate, tools, 
     methodologies or computer software, to assist farm supplies 
     merchant wholesalers in complying with the requirements of 
     this section.   The Secretary may award grants to farm 
     supplies merchant wholesalers to assist with compliance with 
     subsection (a), and in awarding such grants, shall give 
     priority to farm supplies merchant wholesalers that have the 
     greatest need for such grants.
       ``(2) Assessment of impacts of compliance.--Not later than 
     6 months after the date of the enactment of this title, the 
     Secretary shall transmit an assessment of the potential 
     impacts of compliance with provisions of this section 
     regarding the assessment and, as appropriate, implementation, 
     of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack 
     by manufacturers, retailers, aerial commercial applicators, 
     and distributors of pesticide and fertilizer to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate.   Such assessment shall 
     be conducted by the Secretary in consultation with other 
     appropriate Federal agencies and shall include the following:
       ``(A) Data on the scope of facilities covered by this 
     title, including the number and type of manufacturers, 
     retailers, aerial commercial applicators and distributors of 
     pesticide and fertilizer required to assess methods to reduce 
     the consequences of a terrorist attack under subsection (a) 
     and the number and type of manufacturers, retailers, aerial 
     commercial applicators and distributors of pesticide and 
     fertilizer assigned to tier 1 or tier 2 by the Secretary   
     because of  the potential extent and  likelihood of death, 
     injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, the 
     environment, critical infrastructure, public health, homeland 
     security, national security, and the national economy from 
     the release of a substance of concern at the facility.
       ``(B) A survey of known methods, processes or practices, 
     other than elimination of or cessation of manufacture of the 
     pesticide or fertilizer, that manufacturers, retailers, 
     aerial commercial applicators, and distributors of pesticide 
     and fertilizer could use to reduce the consequences of a 
     terrorist attack, including an assessment of the costs and 
     technical feasibility of each such method, process, or 
     practice.
       ``(C) An analysis of how the  assessment of methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a  terrorist attack under 
     subsection (a) by  manufacturers, retailers, aerial 
     commercial applicators, and distributors of pesticide and

[[Page H12504]]

     fertilizer,  and,  as appropriate, the  implementation of 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a  terrorist attack by  
     such manufacturers, retailers, aerial commercial applicators, 
     and distributors of pesticide and fertilizer  subject to  
     subsection (b),  are likely to impact other sectors engaged 
     in commerce.
       ``(D) Recommendations for how to mitigate any adverse 
     impacts identified pursuant to subparagraph (C).
       ``(3) Farm supplies merchant wholesaler.--In this 
     subsection, the term `farm supplies merchant wholesaler' 
     means a covered chemical facility that is primarily engaged 
     in the merchant wholesale distribution of farm supplies, such 
     as animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, 
     pesticides, plant seeds, and plant bulbs.
       ``(d) Assessment of Impacts on Small Covered Chemical 
     Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this title, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an assessment 
     of the potential effects on small covered chemical facilities 
     of compliance with provisions of this section regarding the 
     assessment and, as appropriate, implementation, of methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack. Such 
     assessment shall include--
       ``(A) data on the scope of facilities covered by this 
     title, including the number and type of small covered 
     chemical facilities that are required to assess methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack under 
     subsection (a) and the number and type of small covered 
     chemical facilities assigned to tier 1 or tier 2 under 
     section 2102(c)(1) by the Secretary because of the potential 
     extent and likelihood of death, injury, and serious adverse 
     effects to human health, the environment, critical 
     infrastructure, public health, homeland security, national 
     security, and the national economy from the release of a 
     substance of concern at the facility; and
       ``(B) a discussion of how the Secretary plans to apply the 
     requirement that before requiring a small covered chemical 
     facility that is required to implement methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack under subsection (b) the 
     Secretary shall first determine that the implementation of 
     such methods at the small covered chemical facility not 
     significantly and demonstrably impair the ability of the 
     owner or operator of the covered chemical facility to 
     continue the business of the facility at its location.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `small covered chemical facility' means a covered 
     chemical facility that has fewer than 350 employees employed 
     at the covered chemical facility, and is not a branch or 
     subsidiary of another entity.
       ``(e) Provision of Information on Alternative Approaches.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available 
     information on the use and availability of methods to reduce 
     the consequences of a chemical facility terrorist incident.
       ``(2) Information to be included.--The information under 
     paragraph (1) may include information about--
       ``(A) general and specific types of such methods;
       ``(B) combinations of chemical sources, substances of 
     concern, and hazardous processes or conditions for which such 
     methods could be appropriate;
       ``(C) the availability of specific methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack;
       ``(D) the costs and cost savings resulting from the use of 
     such methods;
       ``(E) emerging technologies that could be transferred from 
     research models or prototypes to practical applications;
       ``(F) the availability of technical assistance and best 
     practices; and
       ``(G) such other matters that the Secretary determines are 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Public availability.--Information made available 
     under this subsection shall not identify any specific 
     chemical facility, violate the protection of information 
     provisions under section 2110, or disclose any proprietary 
     information.
       ``(f) Funding for Methods To Reduce the Consequences of a 
     Terrorist Attack.--The Secretary may make funds available to 
     help defray the cost of implementing methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack to covered chemical 
     facilities that are required by the Secretary to implement 
     such methods.

     ``SEC. 2112. APPLICABILITY.

       ``This title shall not apply to--
       ``(1) any chemical facility that is owned and operated by 
     the Secretary of Defense;
       ``(2) the transportation in commerce, including incidental 
     storage, of any substance of concern regulated as a hazardous 
     material under chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code;
       ``(3) all or a specified portion of any chemical facility 
     that--
       ``(A) is subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the 
     `Commission') or a State that has entered into an agreement 
     with the Commission under section 274 b. of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021 b.);
       ``(B) has had security controls imposed by the Commission 
     or State, whichever has the regulatory authority, on the 
     entire facility or the specified portion of the facility; and
       ``(C) has been designated by the Commission, after 
     consultation with the State, if any, that regulates the 
     facility, and the Secretary, as excluded from the application 
     of this title;
       ``(4) any public water system subject to the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); or
       ``(5) any treatment works, as defined in section 212 of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).

     ``SEC. 2113. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       ``(a) In General.--Nothing in this title shall affect or 
     modify in any way any obligation or liability of any person 
     under any other Federal law, including section 112 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412), the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.), the Emergency Planning and Community 
     Right to Know Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.), the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Maritime 
     Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-295), the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), and the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.).
       ``(b) Other Requirements.--Nothing in this title shall 
     preclude or deny the right of any State or political 
     subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation, 
     requirement, or standard of performance relating to 
     environmental protection, health, or safety.
       ``(c) Access.--Nothing in this title shall abridge or deny 
     access to a chemical facility site to any person where 
     required or permitted under any other law or regulation.

     ``SEC. 2114. OFFICE OF CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established in the Department 
     an Office of Chemical Facility Security, headed by a 
     Director, who shall be a member of the Senior Executive 
     Service in accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 53 of 
     title 5, United States Code, under section 5382 of that 
     title, and who shall be responsible for carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary under this title.
       ``(b) Professional Qualifications.--The individual selected 
     by the Secretary as the Director of the Office of Chemical 
     Facility Security shall have professional qualifications and 
     experience necessary for effectively directing the Office of 
     Chemical Facility Security and carrying out the requirements 
     of this title, including a demonstrated knowledge of physical 
     infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, chemical facility 
     security, hazard analysis, chemical process engineering, 
     chemical process safety reviews, or other such qualifications 
     that the Secretary determines to be necessary.
       ``(c) Selection Process.--The Secretary shall make a 
     reasonable effort to select an individual to serve as the 
     Director from among a group of candidates that is diverse 
     with respect to race, ethnicity, age, gender, and disability 
     characteristics and submit to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate information 
     on the selection process, including details on efforts to 
     assure diversity among the candidates considered for this 
     position.

     ``SEC. 2115. SECURITY BACKGROUND CHECKS OF COVERED 
                   INDIVIDUALS AT CERTAIN CHEMICAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Regulations Issued by the Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     to require covered chemical facilities to establish personnel 
     surety for individuals described in subparagraph (B) by 
     conducting appropriate security background checks and 
     ensuring appropriate credentials for unescorted visitors and 
     chemical facility personnel, including permanent and part-
     time personnel, temporary personnel, and contract personnel, 
     including--
       ``(i) measures designed to verify and validate identity;
       ``(ii) measures designed to check criminal history;
       ``(iii) measures designed to verify and validate legal 
     authorization to work; and
       ``(iv) measures designed to identify people with terrorist 
     ties.
       ``(B) Individuals described.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), an individual described in this subparagraph is--
       ``(i) a covered individual who has unescorted access to 
     restricted areas or critical assets or who is provided with a 
     copy of a security vulnerability assessment or site security 
     plan;
       ``(ii) a person associated with a covered chemical 
     facility, including any designated employee representative, 
     who is provided with a copy of a security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan; or
       ``(iii) a person who is determined by the Secretary to 
     require a security background check based on chemical 
     facility security performance standards.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The regulations required by paragraph 
     (1) shall set forth--
       ``(A) the scope of the security background checks, 
     including the types of disqualifying offenses and the time 
     period covered for each person subject to a security 
     background check under paragraph (1);

[[Page H12505]]

       ``(B) the processes to conduct the security background 
     checks;
       ``(C) the necessary biographical information and other data 
     required in order to conduct the security background checks;
       ``(D) a redress process for an adversely-affected person 
     consistent with subsections (b) and (c); and
       ``(E) a prohibition on an owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility misrepresenting to an employee or other 
     relevant person, including an arbiter involved in a labor 
     arbitration, the scope, application, or meaning of any rules, 
     regulations, directives, or guidance issued by the Secretary 
     related to security background check requirements for covered 
     individuals when conducting a security background check.
       ``(b) Misrepresentation of Adverse Employment Decisions.--
     The regulations required by subsection (a)(1) shall set forth 
     that it shall be a misrepresentation under subsection 
     (a)(2)(E) to attribute an adverse employment decision, 
     including removal or suspension of the employee, to such 
     regulations unless the owner or operator finds, after 
     opportunity for appropriate redress under the processes 
     provided under subsection (c)(1) and (c)(2), that the person 
     subject to such adverse employment decision--
       ``(1) has been convicted of, has been found not guilty of 
     by reason of insanity, or is under want, warrant, or 
     indictment for, a permanent disqualifying criminal offense 
     listed in part 1572 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(2) was convicted of, or found not guilty of by reason of 
     insanity, an interim disqualifying criminal offense listed in 
     part 1572 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, within 7 
     years of the date on which the covered chemical facility 
     performs the security background check;
       ``(3) was incarcerated for an interim disqualifying 
     criminal offense listed in part 1572 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and released from incarceration within 5 
     years of the date that the chemical facility performs the 
     security background check;
       ``(4) is determined by the Secretary to be on the 
     consolidated terrorist watchlist; or
       ``(5) is determined, as a result of the security background 
     check, not to be legally authorized to work in the United 
     States.
       ``(c) Redress Processes.--Upon the issuance of regulations 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) require the owner or operator to provide an adequate 
     and prompt redress process for a person subject to a security 
     background check under subsection (a)(1) who is subjected to 
     an adverse employment decision, including removal or 
     suspension of the employee, due to such regulations that is 
     consistent with the appeals process established for employees 
     subject to consumer reports under the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), as in force on the date of the 
     enactment of this title;
       ``(2) provide an adequate and prompt redress process for a 
     person subject to a security background check under 
     subsection (a)(1) who is subjected to an adverse employment 
     decision, including removal or suspension of the employee, 
     due to a determination by the Secretary under subsection 
     (b)(4), that is consistent with the appeals process 
     established under section 70105(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code, including all rights to hearings before an 
     administrative law judge, scope of review, and a review of an 
     unclassified summary of classified evidence equivalent to the 
     summary provided in part 1515 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations;
       ``(3) provide an adequate and prompt redress process for a 
     person subject to a security background check under 
     subsection (a)(1) who is subjected to an adverse employment 
     decision, including removal or suspension of the employee, 
     due to a violation of subsection (a)(2)(E), which shall not 
     preclude the exercise of any other rights available under 
     collective bargaining agreements or applicable laws;
       ``(4) establish a reconsideration process described in 
     subsection (d) for a person subject to an adverse employment 
     decision that was attributed by an owner or operator to the 
     regulations required by subsection (a)(1);
       ``(5) have the authority to order an appropriate remedy, 
     including reinstatement of the person subject to a security 
     background check under subsection (a)(1), if the Secretary 
     determines that the adverse employment decision was made in 
     violation of the regulations required under subsection (a)(1) 
     or as a result of an erroneous determination by the Secretary 
     under subsection (b)(4);
       ``(6) ensure that the redress processes required under 
     paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) afford to the person a full 
     disclosure of any public-record event covered by subsection 
     (b) that provides the basis for an adverse employment 
     decision; and
       ``(7) ensure that the person subject to a security 
     background check under subsection (a)(1) receives the 
     person's full wages and benefits until all redress processes 
     under this subsection are exhausted.
       ``(d) Reconsideration Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--The reconsideration process required 
     under subsection (c)(4) shall--
       ``(A) require the Secretary to determine, within 30 days 
     after receiving a petition submitted by a person subject to 
     an adverse employment decision that was attributed by an 
     owner or operator to the regulations required by subsection 
     (a)(1), whether such person poses a security risk to the 
     covered chemical facility; and
       ``(B) include procedures consistent with section 70105(c) 
     of title 46, United States Code, including all rights to 
     hearings before an administrative law judge, scope of review, 
     and a review of an unclassified summary of classified 
     evidence equivalent to the summary provided in part 1515 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(2) Determination by the secretary.--In making a 
     determination described under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) give consideration to the circumstance of any 
     disqualifying act or offense, restitution made by the person, 
     Federal and State mitigation remedies, and other factors from 
     which it may be concluded that the person does not pose a 
     security risk to the covered chemical facility; and
       ``(B) provide his or her determination as to whether such 
     person poses a security risk to the covered chemical facility 
     to the petitioner and to the owner or operator of the covered 
     chemical facility.
       ``(3) Owner or operator reconsideration.--If the Secretary 
     determines pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) that the person does 
     not pose a security risk to the covered chemical facility, it 
     shall thereafter constitute a prohibited misrepresentation 
     for the owner or operator of the covered chemical facility to 
     continue to attribute the adverse employment decision to the 
     regulations under subsection (a)(1).
       ``(e) Restrictions on Use and Maintenance of Information.--
     Information obtained under this section by the Secretary or 
     the owner or operator of a covered chemical facility shall be 
     handled as follows:
       ``(1) Such information may not be made available to the 
     public.
       ``(2) Such information may not be accessed by employees of 
     the facility except for such employees who are directly 
     involved with collecting the information or conducting or 
     evaluating security background checks.
       ``(3) Such information shall be maintained confidentially 
     by the facility and the Secretary and may be used only for 
     making determinations under this section.
       ``(4) The Secretary may share such information with other 
     Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
       ``(f) Savings Clause.--
       ``(1) Rights and responsibilities.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to abridge any right or responsibility of 
     a person subject to a security background check under 
     subsection (a)(1) or an owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility under any other Federal, State, local, or 
     tribal law or collective bargaining agreement.
       ``(2) Existing rights.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as creating any new right or modifying any existing 
     right of an individual to appeal a determination by the 
     Secretary as a result of a check against a terrorist watch 
     list.
       ``(g) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to preempt, alter, or affect a Federal, State, 
     local, or tribal law that requires criminal history 
     background checks, checks on the authorization of an 
     individual to work in the United States, or other background 
     checks of persons subject to security background checks under 
     subsection (a)(1).
       ``(h) Definition of Security Background Check.--The term 
     `security background check' means a review at no cost to any 
     person subject to a security background check under 
     subsection (a)(1) of the following for the purpose of 
     identifying individuals who may pose a threat to chemical 
     facility security, to national security, or of terrorism:
       ``(1) Relevant databases to verify and validate identity.
       ``(2) Relevant criminal history databases.
       ``(3) In the case of an alien (as defined in section 101 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3))), 
     the relevant databases to determine the status of the alien 
     under the immigration laws of the United States.
       ``(4) The consolidated terrorist watchlist.
       ``(5) Other relevant information or databases, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(i) Department-Conducted Security Background Check.--The 
     regulations under subsection (a)(1) shall set forth a process 
     by which the Secretary, on an ongoing basis, shall determine 
     whether alternate security background checks conducted by the 
     Department are sufficient to meet the requirements of this 
     section such that no additional security background check 
     under this section is required for an individual for whom 
     such a qualifying alternate security background check was 
     conducted. The Secretary may require the owner or operator of 
     a covered chemical facility to which the individual will have 
     unescorted access to sensitive or restricted areas to submit 
     identifying information about the individual and the 
     alternate security background check conducted for that 
     individual to the Secretary in order to enable the Secretary 
     to verify the validity of the alternate security background 
     check. Such regulations shall provide that no security 
     background check under this section is required for an 
     individual holding a transportation security card issued 
     under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code.
       ``(j) Termination of Employment.--If, as the result of a 
     security background check, an owner or operator of a covered 
     chemical facility finds that a covered individual is not 
     legally authorized to work in the United States, the owner or 
     operator shall cease to employ the covered individual, 
     subject to the appropriate redress processes available to 
     such individual under this section.

[[Page H12506]]

     ``SEC. 2116. CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     any person may commence a civil action on such person's own 
     behalf--
       ``(1) against any governmental entity (including the United 
     States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency, 
     to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the 
     Constitution, and any federally owned-contractor operated 
     facility) alleged to be in violation of any order that has 
     become effective pursuant to this title; or
       ``(2) against the Secretary, for an alleged failure to 
     perform any act or duty under this title that is not 
     discretionary for the Secretary.
       ``(b) Court of Jurisdiction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any action under subsection (a)(1) shall 
     be brought in the district court for the district in which 
     the alleged violation occurred. Any action brought under 
     subsection (a)(2) may be brought in the district court for 
     the district in which the alleged violation occurred or in 
     the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(2) Relief.--The district court shall have jurisdiction, 
     without regard to the amount in controversy or the 
     citizenship of the parties to enforce the order referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1), to order such governmental entity to 
     take such action as may be necessary, or both, or, in an 
     action commenced under subsection (a)(2), to order the 
     Secretary to perform the non-discretionary act or duty, and 
     to order any civil penalties, as appropriate, under section 
     2107.
       ``(c) Actions Prohibited.--No action may be commenced under 
     subsection (a) prior to 60 days after the date on which the 
     person commencing the action has given notice of the alleged 
     violation to--
       ``(1) the Secretary; and
       ``(2) in the case of an action under subsection (a)(1), any 
     governmental entity alleged to be in violation of an order.
       ``(d) Notice.--Notice under this section shall be given in 
     such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.
       ``(e) Intervention.--In any action under this section, the 
     Secretary, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of 
     right.
       ``(f) Costs; Bond.--The court, in issuing any final order 
     in any action brought pursuant to this section, may award 
     costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert 
     witness fees) to the prevailing or substantially prevailing 
     party, whenever the court determines such an award is 
     appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order 
     or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a 
     bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(g) Other Rights Preserved.--Nothing in this section 
     shall restrict any right which any person (or class of 
     persons) may have under any statute or common law.

     ``SEC. 2117. CITIZEN PETITIONS.

       ``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     to establish a citizen petition process for petitions 
     described in subsection (b). Such regulations shall include--
       ``(1) the format for such petitions;
       ``(2) the procedure for investigation of petitions;
       ``(3) the procedure for response to such petitions, 
     including timelines; and
       ``(4) the procedure for referral to and review by the 
     Office of the Inspector General of the Department without 
     deference to the Secretary's determination with respect to 
     the petition; and
       ``(5) the procedure for rejection or acceptance by the 
     Secretary of the recommendation of the Office of the 
     Inspector General.
       ``(b) Petitions.--The regulations issued pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall allow any person to file a petition with 
     the Secretary--
       ``(1) identifying any person (including the United States 
     and any other governmental instrumentality or agency, to the 
     extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the 
     Constitution) alleged to be in violation of any standard, 
     regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, plan, or 
     order that has become effective under this title; and
       ``(2) describing the alleged violation of any standard, 
     regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, plan, or 
     order that has become effective under this title by that 
     person.
       ``(c) Requirements.--Upon issuance of regulations under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) accept all petitions described under subsection (b) 
     that meet the requirements of the regulations promulgated 
     under subsection (a);
       ``(2) investigate all allegations contained in accepted 
     petitions;
       ``(3) determine whether enforcement action will be taken 
     concerning the alleged violation or violations;
       ``(4) respond to all accepted petitions promptly and in 
     writing;
       ``(5) include in all responses to petitions a brief and 
     concise statement, to the extent permitted under section 
     2110, of the allegations, the steps taken to investigate, the 
     determination made, and the reasons for such determination;
       ``(6) maintain an internal record including all protected 
     information related to the determination; and
       ``(7) with respect to any petition for which the Secretary 
     has not made a timely response or the Secretary's response is 
     unsatisfactory to the petitioner, provide the petitioner with 
     the opportunity to request--
       ``(A) a review of the full record by the Inspector General 
     of the Department, including a review of protected 
     information; and
       ``(B) the formulation of recommendations by the Inspector 
     General and submittal of such recommendations to the 
     Secretary and, to the extent permitted under section 2110, to 
     the petitioner; and
       ``(8) respond to a recommendation submitted by the 
     Inspector General under paragraph (7) by adopting or 
     rejecting the recommendation.

     ``SEC. 2118. NOTIFICATION SYSTEM TO ADDRESS PUBLIC CONCERNS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     notification system, which shall provide any individual the 
     ability to report a suspected security deficiency or 
     suspected non-compliance with this title. Such notification 
     system shall provide for the ability to report the suspected 
     security deficiency or non-compliance via telephonic and 
     Internet-based means.
       ``(b) Acknowledgment.--When the Secretary receives a report 
     through the notification system established under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall respond to such report in a timely 
     manner, but in no case shall the Secretary respond to such a 
     report later than 30 days after receipt of the report.
       ``(c) Steps to Address Problems.--The Secretary shall 
     review each report received through the notification system 
     established under subsection (a) and shall, as necessary, 
     take appropriate enforcement action under section 2107.
       ``(d) Feedback Required.--Upon request, the Secretary shall 
     provide the individual who reported the suspected security 
     deficiency or non-compliance through the notification system 
     established under subsection (a) a written response that 
     includes the Secretary's findings with respect to the report 
     submitted by the individual and what, if any, compliance 
     action was taken in response to such report.
       ``(e) Inspector General Report Required.--The Inspector 
     General of the Department shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an annual 
     report on the reports received under the notification system 
     established under subsection (a) and the Secretary's 
     disposition of such reports.

     ``SEC. 2119. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) Annual Report.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this title, annually thereafter for 
     the next four years, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on progress in 
     achieving compliance with this title. Each such report shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) A qualitative discussion of how covered chemical 
     facilities, differentiated by tier, have reduced the risks of 
     chemical facility terrorist incidents at such facilities, 
     including--
       ``(A) a generalized summary of measures implemented by 
     covered chemical facilities in order to meet each risk-based 
     chemical facility performance standard established by this 
     title, and those that the facilities already had in place--
       ``(i) in the case of the first report under this section, 
     before the issuance of the final rule implementing the 
     regulations known as the `Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
     Standards', issued on April 9, 2007; and
       ``(ii) in the case of each subsequent report, since the 
     submittal of the most recent report submitted under this 
     section; and
       ``(B) any other generalized summary the Secretary deems 
     appropriate to describe the measures covered chemical 
     facilities are implementing to comply with the requirements 
     of this title.
       ``(2) A quantitative summary of how the covered chemical 
     facilities, differentiated by tier, are complying with the 
     requirements of this title during the period covered by the 
     report and how the Secretary is implementing and enforcing 
     such requirements during such period, including--
       ``(A) the number of chemical facilities that provided the 
     Secretary with information about possessing substances of 
     concern, as described in section 2102(b)(2);
       ``(B) the number of covered chemical facilities assigned to 
     each tier;
       ``(C) the number of security vulnerability assessments and 
     site security plans submitted by covered chemical facilities;
       ``(D) the number of security vulnerability assessments and 
     site security plans approved and disapproved by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(E) the number of covered chemical facilities without 
     approved security vulnerability assessments or site security 
     plans;
       ``(F) the number of chemical facilities that have been 
     assigned to a different tier or are no longer regulated by 
     the Secretary due to implementation of a method to reduce the 
     consequences of a terrorist attack and a description of such 
     implemented methods;
       ``(G) the number of orders for compliance issued by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(H) the administrative penalties assessed by the 
     Secretary for non-compliance with the requirements of this 
     title;
       ``(I) the civil penalties assessed by the court for non-
     compliance with the requirements of this title;
       ``(J) the number of terrorist watchlist checks conducted by 
     the Secretary in order to comply with the requirements of 
     this title, the number of appeals conducted by the Secretary 
     pursuant to the processes described under paragraphs (2), (3) 
     and (4) of

[[Page H12507]]

     section 2115(c), aggregate information regarding the time 
     taken for such appeals, aggregate information regarding the 
     manner in which such appeals were resolved, and, based on 
     information provided to the Secretary annually by each owner 
     or operator of a covered chemical facility, the number of 
     persons subjected to adverse employment decisions that were 
     attributed by the owner or operator to the regulations 
     required by section 2115; and
       ``(K) any other regulatory data the Secretary deems 
     appropriate to describe facility compliance with the 
     requirements of this title and the Secretary's implementation 
     of such requirements.
       ``(b) Public Availability.--A report submitted under this 
     section shall be made publicly available.

     ``SEC. 2120. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to carry out this title--
       ``(1) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which 
     $100,000,000 shall be made available to provide funding for 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, of 
     which up to $3,000,000 shall be made available for grants 
     authorized under section 2111(c)(1);
       ``(2) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which 
     $75,000,000 shall be made available to provide funding for 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, of 
     which up to $3,000,000 shall be made available for grants 
     authorized under section 2111(c)(1); and
       ``(3) $275,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, of which 
     $50,000,000 shall be made available to provide funding for 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, of 
     which up to $3,000,000 shall be made available for grants 
     authorized under section 2111(c)(1).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

  ``TITLE XXI--REGULATION OF SECURITY PRACTICES AT CHEMICAL FACILITIES

``Sec. 2101. Definitions.
``Sec. 2102. Risk-based designation and ranking of chemical facilities.
``Sec. 2103. Security vulnerability assessments and site security 
              plans.
``Sec. 2104. Site inspections.
``Sec. 2105. Records.
``Sec. 2106. Timely sharing of threat information.
``Sec. 2107. Enforcement.
``Sec. 2108. Whistleblower protections.
``Sec. 2109. Federal preemption.
``Sec. 2110. Protection of information.
``Sec. 2111. Methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.
``Sec. 2112. Applicability.
``Sec. 2113. Savings clause.
``Sec. 2114. Office of Chemical Facility Security.
``Sec. 2115. Security background checks of covered individuals at 
              certain chemical facilities.
``Sec. 2116. Citizen enforcement.
``Sec. 2117. Citizen petitions.
``Sec. 2118. Notification system to address public concerns.
``Sec. 2119. Annual report to Congress.
``Sec. 2120. Authorization of appropriations.''.
       (c) Conforming Repeal.--
       (1) Repeal.--The Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295) is amended by 
     striking section 550.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this title.
       (d) Regulations.--
       (1) Deadline.--The Secretary shall issue proposed rules to 
     carry out title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 
     added by subsection (a), by not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and shall issue final 
     rules to carry out such title by not later than 18 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Consultation.--In developing and implementing the rules 
     required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult 
     with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, and other persons, as appropriate, regarding--
       (A) the designation of substances of concern;
       (B) methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist 
     attack;
       (C) security at drinking water facilities and wastewater 
     treatment works;
       (D) the treatment of protected information; and
       (E) such other matters as the Secretary determines 
     necessary.
       (3) Sense of congress regarding cfats.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that the Secretary of Homeland Security was granted 
     statutory authority under section 550 of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-295) to 
     regulate security practices at chemical facilities until 
     October 1, 2009. Pursuant to that section the Secretary 
     prescribed regulations known as the Chemical Facility Anti-
     Terrorism Standards, or ``CFATS'' (referred to in this 
     section as ``CFATS regulations'').
       (4) Interim use and amendment of cfats.--Until the final 
     rules prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1) take effect, in 
     carrying out title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
     as added by subsection (a), the Secretary may, to the extent 
     the Secretary determines appropriate--
       (A) continue to carry out the CFATS regulations, as in 
     effect immediately before the date of the enactment of this 
     title;
       (B) amend any of such regulations as may be necessary to 
     ensure that such regulations are consistent with the 
     requirements of this title and the amendments made by this 
     title; and
       (C) continue using any tools developed for purposes of such 
     regulations, including the list of substances of concern, 
     usually referred to as ``Appendix A'', and the chemical 
     security assessment tool (which includes facility 
     registration, a top-screen questionnaire, a security 
     vulnerability assessment tool, a site security plan template, 
     and a chemical vulnerability information repository).
       (5) Update of facility plans assessments and plans prepared 
     under cfats.--The owner or operator of a covered chemical 
     facility, who, before the effective date of the final 
     regulations issued under title XXI of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), submits a security 
     vulnerability assessment or site security plan under the 
     CFATS regulations, shall be required to update or amend the 
     facility's security vulnerability assessment and site 
     security plan to reflect any additional requirements of this 
     title or the amendments made by this title, according to a 
     timeline established by the Secretary.
       (e) Review of Designation of Sodium Fluoroacetate as a 
     Substance of Concern.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall review the designation of sodium fluoroacetate as a 
     substance of concern pursuant to subsection (d) of section 
     2102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by 
     subsection (a), by the earlier of the following dates:
       (1) The date of the first periodic review conducted 
     pursuant to such subsection after the date of the enactment 
     of this title.
       (2) The date that is one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this title.

                   TITLE II--DRINKING WATER SECURITY

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Drinking Water System 
     Security Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 202. INTENTIONAL ACTS AFFECTING THE SECURITY OF COVERED 
                   WATER SYSTEMS.

       (a) Amendment of Safe Drinking Water Act.--Section 1433 of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300i-2) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1433. INTENTIONAL ACTS.

       ``(a) Risk-based Performance Standards; Vulnerability 
     Assessments; Site Security Plans; Emergency Response Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall issue 
     regulations--
       ``(A) establishing risk-based performance standards for the 
     security of covered water systems; and
       ``(B) establishing requirements and deadlines for each 
     covered water system--
       ``(i) to conduct a vulnerability assessment or, if the 
     system already has a vulnerability assessment, to revise the 
     assessment to be in accordance with this section, and submit 
     such assessment to the Administrator;
       ``(ii) to update the vulnerability assessment not less than 
     every 5 years and promptly after any change at the system 
     that could cause the reassignment of the system to a 
     different risk-based tier under subsection (d);
       ``(iii) to develop, implement, and, as appropriate, revise 
     a site security plan not less than every 5 years and promptly 
     after a revision to the vulnerability assessment and submit 
     such plan to the Administrator;
       ``(iv) to develop an emergency response plan (or, if the 
     system has already developed an emergency response plan, to 
     revise the plan to be in accordance with this section) and 
     revise the plan not less than every 5 years thereafter; and
       ``(v) to provide annual training to employees and 
     contractor employees of covered water systems on implementing 
     site security plans and emergency response plans.
       ``(2) Covered water systems.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `covered water system' means a public water system 
     that--
       ``(A) is a community water system serving a population 
     greater than 3,300; or
       ``(B) in the discretion of the Administrator, presents a 
     security risk making regulation under this section 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Consultation with state authorities.--In developing 
     and carrying out the regulations under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall consult with States exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for public water systems.
       ``(4) Consultation with other persons.--In developing and 
     carrying out the regulations under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and, as appropriate, other persons regarding--
       ``(A) provision of threat-related and other baseline 
     information to covered water systems;
       ``(B) designation of substances of concern;
       ``(C) development of risk-based performance standards;
       ``(D) establishment of risk-based tiers and process for the 
     assignment of covered water systems to risk-based tiers;
       ``(E) process for the development and evaluation of 
     vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency 
     response plans;
       ``(F) treatment of protected information; and
       ``(G) such other matters as the Administrator determines 
     necessary.
       ``(5) Substances of concern.--For purposes of this section, 
     the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security--

[[Page H12508]]

       ``(A) may designate any chemical substance as a substance 
     of concern;
       ``(B) at the time any substance is designated pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), shall establish by rule a threshold 
     quantity for the release or theft of the substance, taking 
     into account the toxicity, reactivity, volatility, 
     dispersability, combustibility, and flammability of the 
     substance and the amount of the substance that, as a result 
     of a release, is known to cause or may be reasonably 
     anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse 
     effects to human health or the environment; and
       ``(C) in making such a designation, shall take into account 
     appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or any successor regulations).
       ``(6) Baseline information.--The Administrator, after 
     consultation with appropriate departments and agencies of the 
     Federal Government and with State, local, and tribal 
     governments, shall, for purposes of facilitating compliance 
     with the requirements of this section, promptly after the 
     effective date of the regulations under subsection (a)(1) and 
     as appropriate thereafter, provide baseline information to 
     covered water systems regarding which kinds of intentional 
     acts are the probable threats to--
       ``(A) substantially disrupt the ability of the system to 
     provide a safe and reliable supply of drinking water;
       ``(B) cause the release of a substance of concern at the 
     covered water system; or
       ``(C) cause the theft, misuse, or misappropriation of a 
     substance of concern.
       ``(b) Risk-Based Performance Standards.--The regulations 
     under subsection (a)(1) shall set forth risk-based 
     performance standards for site security plans required by 
     this section. The standards shall be separate and, as 
     appropriate, increasingly stringent based on the level of 
     risk associated with the covered water system's risk-based 
     tier assignment under subsection (d). In developing such 
     standards, the Administrator shall take into account section 
     27.230 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     successor regulations).
       ``(c) Vulnerability Assessment.--The regulations under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall require each covered water system to 
     assess the system's vulnerability to a range of intentional 
     acts, including an intentional act that results in a release 
     of a substance of concern that is known to cause or may be 
     reasonably anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious 
     adverse effects to human health or the environment. At a 
     minimum, the vulnerability assessment shall include a review 
     of--
       ``(1) pipes and constructed conveyances;
       ``(2) physical barriers;
       ``(3) water collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage, 
     and distribution facilities, including fire hydrants;
       ``(4) electronic, computer, and other automated systems 
     that are used by the covered water system;
       ``(5) the use, storage, or handling of various chemicals, 
     including substances of concern;
       ``(6) the operation and maintenance of the covered water 
     system; and
       ``(7) the covered water system's resiliency and ability to 
     ensure continuity of operations in the event of a disruption 
     caused by an intentional act.
       ``(d) Risk-Based Tiers.--The regulations under subsection 
     (a)(1) shall provide for 4 risk-based tiers applicable to 
     covered water systems, with tier one representing the highest 
     degree of security risk.
       ``(1) Assignment of risk-based tiers.--
       ``(A) Submission of information.--The Administrator may 
     require a covered water system to submit information in order 
     to determine the appropriate risk-based tier for the covered 
     water system.
       ``(B) Factors to consider.--The Administrator shall assign 
     (and reassign when appropriate) each covered water system to 
     one of the risk-based tiers established pursuant to this 
     subsection. In assigning a covered water system to a risk-
     based tier, the Administrator shall consider the potential 
     consequences (such as death, injury, or serious adverse 
     effects to human health, the environment, critical 
     infrastructure, national security, and the national economy) 
     from--
       ``(i) an intentional act to cause a release, including a 
     worst-case release, of a substance of concern at the covered 
     water system;
       ``(ii) an intentional act to introduce a contaminant into 
     the drinking water supply or disrupt the safe and reliable 
     supply of drinking water; and
       ``(iii) an intentional act to steal, misappropriate, or 
     misuse substances of concern.
       ``(2) Explanation for risk-based tier assignment.--The 
     Administrator shall provide each covered water system 
     assigned to a risk-based tier with the reasons for the tier 
     assignment and whether such system is required to submit an 
     assessment under subsection (g)(2).
       ``(e) Development and Implementation of Site Security 
     Plans.--The regulations under subsection (a)(1) shall permit 
     each covered water system, in developing and implementing its 
     site security plan required by this section, to select 
     layered security and preparedness measures that, in 
     combination, appropriately--
       ``(1) address the security risks identified in its 
     vulnerability assessment; and
       ``(2) comply with the applicable risk-based performance 
     standards required under this section.
       ``(f) Role of Employees.--
       ``(1) Description of role.--Site security plans and 
     emergency response plans required under this section shall 
     describe the appropriate roles or responsibilities that 
     employees and contractor employees are expected to perform to 
     deter or respond to the intentional acts described in 
     subsection (d)(1)(B).
       ``(2) Training for employees.--Each covered water system 
     shall annually provide employees and contractor employees 
     with roles or responsibilities described in paragraph (1) 
     with a minimum of 8 hours of training on carrying out those 
     roles or responsibilities.
       ``(3) Employee participation.--In developing, revising, or 
     updating a vulnerability assessment, site security plan, and 
     emergency response plan required under this section, a 
     covered water system shall include--
       ``(A) at least one supervisory and at least one non-
     supervisory employee of the covered water system; and
       ``(B) at least one representative of each certified or 
     recognized bargaining agent representing facility employees 
     or contractor employees with roles or responsibilities 
     described in paragraph (1), if any, in a collective 
     bargaining relationship with the private or public owner or 
     operator of the system or with a contractor to that system.  
       ``(g) Methods To Reduce the Consequences of a Chemical 
     Release From an Intentional Act.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this section, the term `method to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act' means a measure at a covered water system 
     that reduces or eliminates the potential consequences of a 
     release of a substance of concern from an intentional act 
     such as--
       ``(A) the elimination or reduction in the amount of a 
     substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by 
     a covered water system through the use of alternate 
     substances, formulations, or processes;
       ``(B) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or 
     concentrations of a substance of concern; and
       ``(C) the reduction or elimination of onsite handling of a 
     substance of concern through improvement of inventory control 
     or chemical use efficiency.
       ``(2) Assessment.--For each covered water system that 
     possesses or plans to possess a substance of concern in 
     excess of the release threshold quantity set by the 
     Administrator under subsection (a)(5), the regulations under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall require the covered water system to 
     include in its site security plan an assessment of methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act at the covered water system. The covered 
     water system shall provide such assessment to the 
     Administrator and the State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for the covered water system, if any. The 
     regulations under subsection (a)(1) shall require the system, 
     in preparing the assessment, to consider factors appropriate 
     to the system's security, public health, or environmental 
     mission, and include--
       ``(A) a description of the methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act;
       ``(B) how each described method to reduce the consequences 
     of a chemical release from an intentional act could, if 
     applied, reduce the potential extent of death, injury, or 
     serious adverse effects to human health resulting from a 
     chemical release;
       ``(C) how each described method to reduce the consequences 
     of a chemical release from an intentional act could, if 
     applied, affect the presence of contaminants in treated 
     water, human health, or the environment;
       ``(D) whether each described method to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at 
     the covered water system is feasible, as defined in section 
     1412(b)(4)(D), but not including cost calculations under 
     subparagraph (E);
       ``(E) the costs (including capital and operational costs) 
     and avoided costs (including savings and liabilities) 
     associated with applying each described method to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at 
     the covered water system;
       ``(F) any other relevant information that the covered water 
     system relied on in conducting the assessment; and
       ``(G) a statement of whether the covered water system has 
     implemented or plans to implement one or more methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act, a description of any such methods, and, in 
     the case of a covered water system described in paragraph 
     (3)(A), an explanation of the reasons for any decision not to 
     implement any such methods.
       ``(3) Required methods.--
       ``(A) Application.--This paragraph applies to a covered 
     water system--
       ``(i) that is assigned to one of the two highest risk-based 
     tiers under subsection (d); and
       ``(ii) that possesses or plans to possess a substance of 
     concern in excess of the release threshold quantity set by 
     the Administrator under subsection (a)(5).
       ``(B) Highest-risk systems.--If, on the basis of its 
     assessment under paragraph (2), a covered water system 
     described in subparagraph (A) decides not to implement 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act, the State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for the covered water system, if the system is 
     located in such a State, or the Administrator, if the covered 
     water system is not located in such a State, shall, in 
     accordance with a timeline set by the Administrator--

[[Page H12509]]

       ``(i) determine whether to require the covered water system 
     to implement the methods; and
       ``(ii) for States exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility, report such determination to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(C) State or administrator's considerations.--Before 
     requiring, pursuant to subparagraph (B), the implementation 
     of a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release 
     from an intentional act, the State exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for the covered water system, if 
     the system is located in such a State, or the Administrator, 
     if the covered water system is not located in such a State, 
     shall consider factors appropriate to the security, public 
     health, and environmental missions of covered water systems, 
     including an examination of whether the method--
       ``(i) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury, 
     or serious adverse effects to human health resulting directly 
     from a chemical release from an intentional act at the 
     covered water system;
       ``(ii) would not increase the interim storage of a 
     substance of concern by the covered water system;
       ``(iii) would not render the covered water system unable to 
     comply with other requirements of this Act or drinking water 
     standards established by the State or political subdivision 
     in which the system is located; and
       ``(iv) is feasible, as defined in section 1412(b)(4)(D), to 
     be incorporated into the operation of the covered water 
     system.
       ``(D) Appeal.--Before requiring, pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B), the implementation of a method to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act, 
     the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     the covered water system, if the system is located in such a 
     State, or the Administrator, if the covered water system is 
     not located in such a State, shall provide such covered water 
     system an opportunity to appeal the determination to require 
     such implementation made pursuant to subparagraph (B) by such 
     State or the Administrator.
       ``(4) Incomplete or late assessments.--
       ``(A) Incomplete assessments.--If the Administrator finds 
     that the covered water system, in conducting its assessment 
     under paragraph (2), did not meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) and the applicable regulations, the 
     Administrator shall, after notifying the covered water system 
     and the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility 
     for that system, if any, require the covered water system to 
     submit a revised assessment not later than 60 days after the 
     Administrator notifies such system. The Administrator may 
     require such additional revisions as are necessary to ensure 
     that the system meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and 
     the applicable regulations.
       ``(B) Late assessments.--If the Administrator finds that a 
     covered water system, in conducting its assessment pursuant 
     to paragraph (2), did not complete such assessment in 
     accordance with the deadline set by the Administrator, the 
     Administrator may, after notifying the covered water system 
     and the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility 
     for that system, if any, take appropriate enforcement action 
     under subsection (o).
       ``(C) Review.--The State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for the covered water system, if the system is 
     located in such a State, or the Administrator, if the system 
     is not located in such a State, shall review a revised 
     assessment that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and 
     applicable regulations to determine whether the covered water 
     system will be required to implement methods to reduce the 
     consequences of an intentional act pursuant to paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) Failure by state to make determination.--Whenever the 
     Administrator finds that a State exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for a covered water system has 
     failed to determine whether to require the covered water 
     system to implement methods to reduce the consequences of a 
     chemical release from an intentional act, as required by 
     paragraph (3)(B), the Administrator shall so notify the State 
     and covered water system. If, beyond the thirtieth day after 
     the Administrator's notification under the preceding 
     sentence, the State has failed to make the determination 
     described in such sentence, the Administrator shall so notify 
     the State and covered water system and shall determine 
     whether to require the covered water system to implement 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act based on the factors described in 
     paragraph (3)(C).
       ``(B) Failure by state to bring enforcement action.--If the 
     Administrator finds, with respect to a period in which a 
     State has primary enforcement responsibility for a covered 
     water system, that the system has failed to implement methods 
     to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act (as required by the State or the 
     Administrator under paragraph (3)(B) or the Administrator 
     under subparagraph (A)), the Administrator shall so notify 
     the State and the covered water system. If, beyond the 
     thirtieth day after the Administrator's notification under 
     the preceding sentence, the State has not commenced 
     appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator shall so 
     notify the State and may commence an enforcement action 
     against the system, including by seeking or imposing civil 
     penalties under subsection (o), to require implementation of 
     such methods.
       ``(C) Consideration of continued primary enforcement 
     responsibility.--For a State with primary enforcement 
     responsibility for a covered water system, the Administrator 
     may consider the failure of such State to make a 
     determination as described under subparagraph (A) or to bring 
     enforcement action as described under subparagraph (B) when 
     determining whether a State may retain primary enforcement 
     responsibility under this Act.
       ``(6) Guidance for covered water systems assigned to tier 3 
     and tier 4.--For covered water systems required to conduct an 
     assessment under paragraph (2) and assigned by the 
     Administrator to tier 3 or tier 4 under subsection (d), the 
     Administrator shall issue guidance and, as appropriate, 
     provide or recommend tools, methodologies, or computer 
     software, to assist such covered water systems in complying 
     with the requirements of this section.
       ``(h) Review by Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The regulations under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall require each covered water system to submit its 
     vulnerability assessment and site security plan to the 
     Administrator for review according to deadlines set by the 
     Administrator. The Administrator shall review each 
     vulnerability assessment and site security plan submitted 
     under this section and--
       ``(A) if the assessment or plan has any significant 
     deficiency described in paragraph (2), require the covered 
     water system to correct the deficiency; or
       ``(B) approve such assessment or plan.
       ``(2) Significant deficiencies.--A vulnerability assessment 
     or site security plan of a covered water system has a 
     significant deficiency under this subsection if the 
     Administrator, in consultation, as appropriate, with the 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for such 
     system, if any, determines that--
       ``(A) such assessment does not comply with the regulations 
     established under section (a)(1); or
       ``(B) such plan--
       ``(i) fails to address vulnerabilities identified in a 
     vulnerability assessment; or
       ``(ii) fails to meet applicable risk-based performance 
     standards.   
       ``(3) State, regional, or local governmental entities.--No 
     covered water system shall be required under State, local, or 
     tribal law to provide a vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan described in this section to any State, 
     regional, local, or tribal governmental entity solely by 
     reason of the requirement set forth in paragraph (1) that the 
     system submit such an assessment and plan to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(i) Emergency Response Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each covered water system shall prepare 
     or revise, as appropriate, an emergency response plan that 
     incorporates the results of the system's most current 
     vulnerability assessment and site security plan.
       ``(2) Certification.--Each covered water system shall 
     certify to the Administrator that the system has completed an 
     emergency response plan. The system shall submit such 
     certification to the Administrator not later than 6 months 
     after the system's first completion or revision of a 
     vulnerability assessment under this section and shall submit 
     an additional certification following any update of the 
     emergency response plan.
       ``(3) Contents.--A covered water system's emergency 
     response plan shall include--
       ``(A) plans, procedures, and identification of equipment 
     that can be implemented or used in the event of an 
     intentional act at the covered water system; and
       ``(B) actions, procedures, and identification of equipment 
     that can obviate or significantly lessen the impact of 
     intentional acts on public health and the safety and supply 
     of drinking water provided to communities and individuals.
       ``(4) Coordination.--As part of its emergency response 
     plan, each covered water system shall provide appropriate 
     information to any local emergency planning committee, local 
     law enforcement officials, and local emergency response 
     providers to ensure an effective, collective response.
       ``(j) Maintenance of Records.--Each covered water system 
     shall maintain an updated copy of its vulnerability 
     assessment, site security plan, and emergency response plan.
       ``(k) Audit; Inspection.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1445(b)(2), the 
     Administrator, or duly designated representatives of the 
     Administrator, shall audit and inspect covered water systems, 
     as necessary, for purposes of determining compliance with 
     this section.
       ``(2) Access.--In conducting an audit or inspection of a 
     covered water system, the Administrator or duly designated 
     representatives of the Administrator, as appropriate, shall 
     have access to the owners, operators, employees and 
     contractor employees, and employee representatives, if any, 
     of such covered water system.
       ``(3) Confidential communication of information; aiding 
     inspections.--The Administrator, or a duly designated 
     representative of the Administrator, shall offer non-
     supervisory employees of a covered water system the 
     opportunity confidentially to communicate information 
     relevant to the employer's compliance or noncompliance with 
     this section, including compliance or noncompliance with any 
     regulation or requirement adopted by the Administrator in 
     furtherance

[[Page H12510]]

     of the purposes of this section. A representative of each 
     certified or recognized bargaining agent described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(B), if any, or, if none, a non-supervisory 
     employee, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the 
     Administrator, or the duly designated representative of the 
     Administrator, during the physical inspection of any covered 
     water system for the purpose of aiding such inspection, if 
     representatives of the covered water system will also be 
     accompanying the Administrator or the duly designated 
     representative of the Administrator on such inspection.
       ``(l) Protection of Information.--
       ``(1) Prohibition of public disclosure of protected 
     information.--Protected information shall--
       ``(A) be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) not be made available pursuant to any State, local, 
     or tribal law requiring disclosure of information or records.
       ``(2) Information sharing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall prescribe such 
     regulations, and may issue such orders, as necessary to 
     prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected 
     information, as described in paragraph (7).
       ``(B) Sharing of protected information.--The regulations 
     under subparagraph (A) shall provide standards for and 
     facilitate the appropriate sharing of protected information 
     with and between Federal, State, local, and tribal 
     authorities, first responders, law enforcement officials, 
     designated supervisory and non-supervisory covered water 
     system personnel with security, operational, or fiduciary 
     responsibility for the system, and designated facility 
     employee representatives, if any. Such standards shall 
     include procedures for the sharing of all portions of a 
     covered water system's vulnerability assessment and site 
     security plan relating to the roles and responsibilities of 
     system employees or contractor employees under subsection 
     (f)(1) with a representative of each certified or recognized 
     bargaining agent representing such employees, if any, or, if 
     none, with at least one supervisory and at least one non-
     supervisory employee with roles and responsibilities under 
     subsection (f)(1).
       ``(C) Penalties.--Protected information, as described in 
     paragraph (7), shall not be shared except in accordance with 
     the standards provided by the regulations under subparagraph 
     (A). Whoever discloses protected information in knowing 
     violation of the regulations and orders issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be fined under title 18, United States 
     Code, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, and, in 
     the case of a Federal officeholder or employee, shall be 
     removed from Federal office or employment.
       ``(3) Treatment of information in adjudicative 
     proceedings.--In any judicial or administrative proceeding, 
     protected information, as described in paragraph (7), shall 
     be treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of 
     Sensitive Security Information under section 525 of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 
     (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1381).
       ``(4) Other obligations unaffected.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (h)(3), nothing in this section amends or affects 
     an obligation of a covered water system--
       ``(A) to submit or make available information to system 
     employees, employee organizations, or a Federal, State, 
     tribal, or local government agency under any other law; or
       ``(B) to comply with any other law.
       ``(5) Congressional oversight.--Nothing in this section 
     permits or authorizes the withholding of information from 
     Congress or any committee or subcommittee thereof.
       ``(6) Disclosure of independently furnished information.--
     Nothing in this section amends or affects any authority or 
     obligation of a Federal, State, local, or tribal agency to 
     protect or disclose any record or information that the 
     Federal, State, local, or tribal agency obtains from a 
     covered water system or the Administrator under any other 
     law.
       ``(7) Protected information.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, protected 
     information is any of the following:
       ``(i) Vulnerability assessments and site security plans 
     under this section, including any assessment developed 
     pursuant to subsection (g)(2).
       ``(ii) Documents directly related to the Administrator's 
     review of assessments and plans described in clause (i) and, 
     as applicable, the State's review of an assessment prepared 
     under subsection (g)(2).
       ``(iii) Documents directly related to inspections and 
     audits under this section.
       ``(iv) Orders, notices, or letters regarding the compliance 
     of a covered water system with the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(v) Information, documents, or records required to be 
     provided to or created by, the Administrator under subsection 
     (d).
       ``(vi) Documents directly related to security drills and 
     training exercises, security threats and breaches of 
     security, and maintenance, calibration, and testing of 
     security equipment.
       ``(vii) Other information, documents, and records developed 
     exclusively for the purposes of this section that the 
     Administrator determines would be detrimental to the security 
     of one or more covered water systems if disclosed.
       ``(B) Detriment requirement.--For purposes of clauses (ii), 
     (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of subparagraph (A), the only 
     portions of documents, records, orders, notices, and letters 
     that shall be considered protected information are those 
     portions that--
       ``(i) would be detrimental to the security of one or more 
     covered water systems if disclosed; and
       ``(ii) are developed by the Administrator, the State, or 
     the covered water system for the purposes of this section.
       ``(C) Exclusions.--For purposes of this section, protected 
     information does not include--
       ``(i) information that is otherwise publicly available, 
     including information that is required to be made publicly 
     available under any law;
       ``(ii) information that a covered water system has lawfully 
     disclosed other than in accordance with this section; and
       ``(iii) information that, if disclosed, would not be 
     detrimental to the security of one or more covered water 
     systems, including aggregate regulatory data that the 
     Administrator determines appropriate to describe system 
     compliance with the requirements of this section and the 
     Administrator's implementation of such requirements.
       ``(m) Relation to Chemical Facility Security 
     Requirements.--Title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     and the amendments made by title I of the Chemical and Water 
     Security Act of 2009 shall not apply to any public water 
     system subject to this Act.
       ``(n) Preemption.--This section does not preclude or deny 
     the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to 
     adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of 
     performance with respect to a covered water system that is 
     more stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard of 
     performance under this section.
       ``(o) Violations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered water system that violates any 
     requirement of this section, including by not implementing 
     all or part of its site security plan by such date as the 
     Administrator requires, shall be liable for a civil penalty 
     of not more than $25,000 for each day on which  the violation 
     occurs.
       ``(2) Procedure.--When the Administrator determines that a 
     covered water system is subject to a civil penalty under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator, after consultation with the 
     State, for covered water systems located in a State 
     exercising primary responsibility for the covered water 
     system, and, after considering the severity of the violation 
     or deficiency and the record of the covered water system in 
     carrying out the requirements of this section, may--
       ``(A) after notice and an opportunity for the covered water 
     system to be heard, issue an order assessing a penalty under 
     such paragraph for any past or current violation, requiring 
     compliance immediately or within a specified time period; or
       ``(B) commence a civil action in the United States district 
     court in the district in which the violation occurred for 
     appropriate relief, including temporary or permanent 
     injunction.
       ``(3) Methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical 
     release from an intentional act.--Except as provided in 
     subsections (g)(4) and (g)(5), if a covered water system is 
     located in a State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for the system, the Administrator may not 
     issue an order or commence a civil action under this section 
     for any deficiency in the content or implementation of the 
     portion of the system's site security plan relating to 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act (as defined in subsection (g)(1)).
       ``(p) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) Periodic report.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     effective date of the regulations under subsection (a)(1), 
     and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on progress in achieving 
     compliance with this section. Each such report shall include, 
     at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) A generalized summary of measures implemented by 
     covered water systems in order to meet each risk-based 
     performance standard established by this section.
       ``(B) A summary of how the covered water systems, 
     differentiated by risk-based tier assignment, are complying 
     with the requirements of this section during the period 
     covered by the report and how the Administrator is 
     implementing and enforcing such requirements during such 
     period including--
       ``(i) the number of public water systems that provided the 
     Administrator with information pursuant to subsection (d)(1);
       ``(ii) the number of covered water systems assigned to each 
     risk-based tier;
       ``(iii) the number of vulnerability assessments and site 
     security plans submitted by covered water systems;
       ``(iv) the number of vulnerability assessments and site 
     security plans approved and disapproved by the Administrator;
       ``(v) the number of covered water systems without approved 
     vulnerability assessments or site security plans;
       ``(vi) the number of covered water systems that have been 
     assigned to a different risk-based tier due to implementation 
     of a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release 
     from an intentional act and a description of the types of 
     such implemented methods;
       ``(vii) the number of audits and inspections conducted by 
     the Administrator or duly designated representatives of the 
     Administrator;

[[Page H12511]]

       ``(viii) the number of orders for compliance issued by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(ix) the administrative penalties assessed by the 
     Administrator for non-compliance with the requirements of 
     this section;
       ``(x) the civil penalties assessed by courts for non-
     compliance with the requirements of this section; and
       ``(xi) any other regulatory data the Administrator 
     determines appropriate to describe covered water system 
     compliance with the requirements of this section and the 
     Administrator's implementation of such requirements.
       ``(2) Public availability.--A report submitted under this 
     section shall be made publicly available.
       ``(q) Grant Programs.--
       ``(1) Implementation grants to states.--The Administrator 
     may award grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, States, based on an allocation formula established by 
     the Administrator, to assist the States in implementing this 
     section.
       ``(2) Research, training, and technical assistance 
     grants.--The Administrator may award grants to, or enter into 
     cooperative agreements with, non-profit organizations to 
     provide research, training, and technical assistance to 
     covered water systems to assist them in carrying out their 
     responsibilities under this section.
       ``(3) Preparation grants.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may award grants to, or 
     enter into cooperative agreements with, covered water systems 
     to assist such systems in--
       ``(i) preparing and updating vulnerability assessments, 
     site security plans, and emergency response plans;
       ``(ii) assessing and implementing methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a release of a substance of concern from an 
     intentional act; and
       ``(iii) implementing any other security reviews and 
     enhancements necessary to comply with this section.
       ``(B) Priority.--
       ``(i) Need.--The Administrator, in awarding grants or 
     entering into cooperative agreements for purposes described 
     in subparagraph (A)(i), shall give priority to covered water 
     systems that have the greatest need.
       ``(ii) Security risk.--The Administrator, in awarding 
     grants or entering into cooperative agreements for purposes 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii), shall give priority to 
     covered water systems that pose the greatest security risk.
       ``(4) Worker training grants program authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     grant program to award grants to eligible entities to provide 
     for training and education of employees and contractor 
     employees with roles or responsibilities described in 
     subsection (f)(1) and first responders and emergency response 
     providers who would respond to an intentional act at a 
     covered water system.
       ``(B) Administration.--The Administrator shall enter into 
     an agreement with the National Institute of Environmental 
     Health Sciences to make and administer grants under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--The recipient of a grant under this 
     paragraph shall use the grant to provide for--
       ``(i) training and education of employees and contractor 
     employees with roles or responsibilities described in 
     subsection (f)(1), including the annual mandatory training 
     specified in subsection (f)(2) or training for first 
     responders in protecting nearby persons, property, or the 
     environment from the effects of a release of a substance of 
     concern at the covered water system, with priority given to 
     covered water systems assigned to tier one or tier two under 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(ii) appropriate training for first responders and 
     emergency response providers who would respond to an 
     intentional act at a covered water system.
       ``(D) Eligible entities.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     an eligible entity is a nonprofit organization with 
     demonstrated experience in implementing and operating 
     successful worker or first responder health and safety or 
     security training programs.
       ``(r) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--To carry out this section, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(A) $315,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which up to--
       ``(i) $30,000,000 may be used for administrative costs 
     incurred by the Administrator or the States, as appropriate; 
     and
       ``(ii) $125,000,000 may be used to implement methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act at covered water systems with priority given 
     to covered water systems assigned to tier one or tier two 
     under subsection (d); and
       ``(B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2012 
     through 2015.
       ``(2) Security enhancements.--Funding under this subsection 
     for basic security enhancements shall not include 
     expenditures for personnel costs or monitoring, operation, or 
     maintenance of facilities, equipment, or systems.''.
       (b) Regulations; Transition.--
       (1) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this title, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate final 
     regulations to carry out section 1433 of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act, as amended by subsection (a).
       (2) Effective date.--Until the effective date of the 
     regulations promulgated under paragraph (1), section 1433 of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act, as in effect on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of this title, shall continue to 
     apply.
       (3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendment made by this section shall affect the application 
     of section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as in effect 
     before the effective date of the regulations promulgated 
     under paragraph (1), to any violation of such section 1433 
     occurring before such effective date, and the requirements of 
     such section 1433 shall remain in force and effect with 
     respect to such violation until the violation has been 
     corrected or enforcement proceedings completed, whichever is 
     later.

     SEC. 203. STUDY TO ASSESS THE THREAT OF CONTAMINATION OF 
                   DRINKING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this title, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, shall--
       (1) conduct a study to assess the threat of contamination 
     of drinking water being distributed through public water 
     systems, including fire main systems; and
       (2) submit a report to the Congress on the results of such 
     study.

             TITLE III--WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY

     SECTION 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Wastewater Treatment Works 
     Security Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 302. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 222. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.

       ``(a) Assessment of Treatment Works Vulnerability and 
     Implementation of Site Security and Emergency Response 
     Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each owner or operator of a treatment 
     works with either a treatment capacity of at least 2,500,000 
     gallons per day or, in the discretion of the Administrator, 
     that presents a security risk making coverage under this 
     section appropriate shall, consistent with regulations 
     developed under subsection (b)--
       ``(A) conduct and, as required, update a vulnerability 
     assessment of its treatment works;
       ``(B) develop, periodically update, and implement a site 
     security plan for the treatment works; and
       ``(C) develop and, as required, revise an emergency 
     response plan for the treatment works.
       ``(2) Vulnerability assessment.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this section, the term `vulnerability 
     assessment' means an assessment of the vulnerability of a 
     treatment works to intentional acts that may--
       ``(i) substantially disrupt the ability of the treatment 
     works to safely and reliably operate; or
       ``(ii) have a substantial adverse effect on critical 
     infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment.
       ``(B) Review.--A vulnerability assessment shall include an 
     identification of the vulnerability of the treatment works'--
       ``(i) facilities, systems, and devices used in the storage, 
     treatment, recycling, or reclamation of municipal sewage or 
     industrial wastes;
       ``(ii) intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage 
     collection systems, and other constructed conveyances under 
     the control of the owner or operator of the treatment works;
       ``(iii) electronic, computer, and other automated systems;
       ``(iv) pumping, power, and other equipment;
       ``(v) use, storage, and handling of various chemicals, 
     including substances of concern, as identified by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(vi) operation and maintenance procedures; and
       ``(vii) ability to ensure continuity of operations.
       ``(3) Site security plan.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this section, the term `site security 
     plan' means a process developed by the owner or operator of a 
     treatment works to address security risks identified in a 
     vulnerability assessment developed for the treatment works.
       ``(B) Identification of security enhancements.--A site 
     security plan carried out under paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     identify specific security enhancements, including 
     procedures, countermeasures, or equipment, that, when 
     implemented or utilized, will reduce the vulnerabilities 
     identified in a vulnerability assessment (including the 
     identification of the extent to which implementation or 
     utilization of such security enhancements may impact the 
     operations of the treatment works in meeting the goals and 
     requirements of this Act).
       ``(b) Rulemaking and Guidance Documents.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the 
     Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment, shall issue regulations--
       ``(A) establishing risk-based performance standards for the 
     security of a treatment works identified under subsection 
     (a)(1); and

[[Page H12512]]

       ``(B) establishing requirements and deadlines for each 
     owner or operator of a treatment works identified under 
     subsection (a)(1)--
       ``(i) to conduct and submit to the Administrator a 
     vulnerability assessment or, if the owner or operator of a 
     treatment works already has conducted a vulnerability 
     assessment, to revise and submit to the Administrator such 
     assessment in accordance with this section;
       ``(ii) to update and submit to the Administrator the 
     vulnerability assessment not less than every 5 years and 
     promptly after any change at the treatment works that could 
     cause the reassignment of the treatment works to a different 
     risk-based tier under paragraph (2)(B);
       ``(iii) to develop and implement a site security plan and 
     to update such plan not less than every 5 years and promptly 
     after an update to the vulnerability assessment;
       ``(iv) to develop an emergency response plan (or, if the 
     owner or operator of a treatment works has already developed 
     an emergency response plan, to revise the plan to be in 
     accordance with this section) and to revise the plan not less 
     than every 5 years and promptly after an update to the 
     vulnerability assessment; and
       ``(v) to provide annual training to employees of the 
     treatment works on implementing site security plans and 
     emergency response plans.
       ``(2) Risk-based tiers and performance standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing regulations under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall--
       ``(i) provide for 4 risk-based tiers applicable to 
     treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1), with tier 
     one representing the highest degree of security risk; and
       ``(ii) establish risk-based performance standards for site 
     security plans and emergency response plans required under 
     this section.
       ``(B) Risk-based tiers.--
       ``(i) Assignment of risk-based tiers.--The Administrator 
     shall assign (and reassign when appropriate) each treatment 
     works identified under subsection (a)(1) to one of the risk-
     based tiers established pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Factors to consider.--In assigning a treatment works 
     to a risk-based tier, the Administrator shall consider--

       ``(I) the size of the treatment works;
       ``(II) the proximity of the treatment works to large 
     population centers;
       ``(III) the adverse impacts of an intentional act, 
     including a worst-case release of a substance of concern 
     designated under subsection (c), on the operation of the 
     treatment works or on critical infrastructure, public health 
     or safety, or the environment; and
       ``(IV) any other factor that the Administrator determines 
     to be appropriate.

       ``(iii) Information request for treatment works.--The 
     Administrator may require the owner or operator of a 
     treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) to submit 
     information in order to determine the appropriate risk-based 
     tier for the treatment works.
       ``(iv) Explanation for risk-based tier assignment.--The 
     Administrator shall provide the owner or operator of each 
     treatment works assigned to a risk-based tier with the 
     reasons for the tier assignment and whether such owner or 
     operator of a treatment works is required to submit an 
     assessment under paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(C) Risk-based performance standards.--
       ``(i) Classification.--In establishing risk-based 
     performance standards under subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
     Administrator shall ensure that the standards are separate 
     and, as appropriate, increasingly more stringent based on the 
     level of risk associated with the risk-based tier assignment 
     under subparagraph (B) for the treatment works.
       ``(ii) Consideration.--In carrying out this subparagraph, 
     the Administrator shall take into account section 27.230 of 
     title 6, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor 
     regulation).
       ``(D) Site security plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--In developing regulations under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall permit the owner or 
     operator of a treatment works identified under subsection 
     (a)(1), in developing and implementing a site security plan, 
     to select layered security and preparedness measures that, in 
     combination--

       ``(I) address the security risks identified in its 
     vulnerability assessment; and
       ``(II) comply with the applicable risk-based performance 
     standards required by this subsection.

       ``(3) Methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical 
     release from an intentional act.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this section, the term `method to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act' means a measure at a treatment works 
     identified under subsection (a)(1) that reduces or eliminates 
     the potential consequences of a release of a substance of 
     concern designated under subsection (c) from an intentional 
     act, such as--
       ``(i) the elimination of or a reduction in the amount of a 
     substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by 
     a treatment works through the use of alternate substances, 
     formulations, or processes;
       ``(ii) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or 
     concentrations of a substance of concern; and
       ``(iii) the reduction or elimination of onsite handling of 
     a substance of concern through the improvement of inventory 
     control or chemical use efficiency.
       ``(B) Assessment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In developing the regulations under this 
     subsection, for each treatment works identified under 
     subsection (a)(1) that possesses or plans to possess a 
     substance of concern in excess of the release threshold 
     quantity set by the Administrator under subsection (c)(2), 
     the Administrator shall require the treatment works to 
     include in its site security plan an assessment of methods to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act at the treatment works.
       ``(ii) Considerations for assessment.--In developing the 
     regulations under this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     require the owner or operator of each treatment works, in 
     preparing the assessment, to consider factors appropriate to 
     address the responsibilities of the treatment works to meet 
     the goals and requirements of this Act and to include--

       ``(I) a description of the methods to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act;
       ``(II) a description of how each described method to reduce 
     the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional 
     act could, if applied--

       ``(aa) reduce the extent of death, injury, or serious 
     adverse effects to human health or the environment as a 
     result of a release, theft, or misappropriation of a 
     substance of concern designated under subsection (c); and
       ``(bb) impact the operations of the treatment works in 
     meeting the goals and requirements of this Act;

       ``(III) whether each described method to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at 
     the treatment works is feasible, as determined by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(IV) the costs (including capital and operational costs) 
     and avoided costs (including potential savings) associated 
     with applying each described method to reduce the 
     consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at 
     the treatment works;
       ``(V) any other relevant information that the owner or 
     operator of a treatment works relied on in conducting the 
     assessment; and
       ``(VI) a statement of whether the owner or operator of a 
     treatment works has implemented or plans to implement a 
     method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act, a description of any such method, and, in 
     the case of a treatment works described in subparagraph 
     (C)(i), an explanation of the reasons for any decision not to 
     implement any such method.

       ``(C) Required methods.--
       ``(i) Application.--This subparagraph applies to a 
     treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) that--

       ``(I) is assigned to one of the two highest risk-based 
     tiers established under paragraph (2)(A); and
       ``(II) possesses or plans to possess a substance of concern 
     in excess of the threshold quantity set by the Administrator 
     under subsection (c)(2).

       ``(ii) Highest-risk systems.--If, on the basis of its 
     assessment developed pursuant to subparagraph (B), the owner 
     or operator of a treatment works described in clause (i) 
     decides not to implement a method to reduce the consequences 
     of a chemical release from an intentional act, in accordance 
     with a timeline set by the Administrator--

       ``(I) the Administrator or, where applicable, a State with 
     an approved program under section 402, shall determine 
     whether to require the owner or operator of a treatment works 
     to implement such method; and
       ``(II) in the case of a State with such approved program, 
     the State shall report such determination to the 
     Administrator.

       ``(iii) Considerations.--Before requiring the 
     implementation of a method to reduce the consequences of a 
     chemical release from an intentional act under clause (ii), 
     the Administrator or a State, as the case may be, shall 
     consider factors appropriate to address the responsibilities 
     of the treatment works to meet the goals and requirements of 
     this Act, including an examination of whether the method--

       ``(I) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury, 
     or serious adverse effects to human health resulting from a 
     chemical release from an intentional act at the treatment 
     works;
       ``(II) would not increase the interim storage by the 
     treatment works of a substance of concern designated under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(III) could impact the operations of the treatment works 
     in meeting the goals and requirements of this Act or any more 
     stringent standards established by the State or municipality 
     in which the treatment works is located; and
       ``(IV) is feasible, as determined by the Administrator, to 
     be incorporated into the operations of the treatment works.

       ``(D) Appeal.--Before requiring the implementation of a 
     method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act under clause (ii), the Administrator or a 
     State, as the case may be, shall provide the owner or 
     operator of the treatment works an opportunity to appeal the 
     determination to require such implementation.
       ``(E) Incomplete or late assessments.--
       ``(i) Incomplete assessments.--If the Administrator 
     determines that a treatment works fails to meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B) and the applicable 
     regulations, the Administrator shall, after notifying the

[[Page H12513]]

     owner or operator of a treatment works and the State in which 
     the treatment works is located, require the owner or operator 
     of the treatment works to submit a revised assessment not 
     later than 60 days after the Administrator notifies the owner 
     or operator. The Administrator may require such additional 
     revisions as are necessary to ensure that the treatment works 
     meets the requirements of subparagraph (B) and the applicable 
     regulations.
       ``(ii) Late assessments.--If the Administrator finds that 
     the owner or operator of a treatment works, in conducting an 
     assessment pursuant to subparagraph (B), did not complete 
     such assessment in accordance with the deadline set by the 
     Administrator, the Administrator may, after notifying the 
     owner or operator of the treatment works and the State in 
     which the treatment works is located, take appropriate 
     enforcement action under subsection (j).
       ``(iii) Review.--A State with an approved program under 
     section 402 or the Administrator, as the case may be, shall 
     review a revised assessment that meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (B) and applicable regulations to determine 
     whether the treatment works will be required to implement 
     methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act pursuant to subparagraph (C).
       ``(F) Enforcement.--
       ``(i) Failure by state to make determination.--

       ``(I) In general.--If the Administrator determines that a 
     State with an approved program under section 402 failed to 
     determine whether to require a treatment works to implement a 
     method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act, as required by subparagraph (C)(ii), the 
     Administrator shall notify the State and the owner or 
     operator of the treatment works.
       ``(II) Administrative action.--If, after 30 days after the 
     notification described in subclause (I), a State fails to 
     make the determination described in that subclause, the 
     Administrator shall notify the State and the owner or 
     operator of the treatment works and shall determine whether 
     to require the owner or operator to implement a method to 
     reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an 
     intentional act based on the factors described in 
     subparagraph (C)(iii).

       ``(ii) Failure by state to bring enforcement action.--

       ``(I) In general.--If, in a State with an approved program 
     under section 402, the Administrator determines that the 
     owner or operator of a treatment works fails to implement a 
     method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act (as required by the State or the 
     Administrator under subparagraph (C)(ii) or the Administrator 
     under clause (i)(II)), the Administrator shall notify the 
     State and the owner or operator of the treatment works.
       ``(II) Administrative enforcement action.--If, after 30 
     days after the notification described in subclause (I), the 
     State has not commenced appropriate enforcement action, the 
     Administrator shall notify the State and may commence an 
     enforcement action against the owner or operator of the 
     treatment works, including by seeking or imposing civil 
     penalties under subsection (j), to require implementation of 
     such method.

       ``(4) Consultation with state authorities.--In developing 
     the regulations under this subsection, the Administrator 
     shall consult with States with approved programs under 
     section 402.
       ``(5) Consultation with other persons.--In developing the 
     regulations under this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, as 
     appropriate, other persons regarding--
       ``(A) the provision of threat-related and other baseline 
     information to treatment works identified under subsection 
     (a)(1);
       ``(B) the designation of substances of concern under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(C) the development of risk-based performance standards;
       ``(D) the establishment of risk-based tiers and the process 
     for the assignment of treatment works identified under 
     subsection (a)(1) to such tiers;
       ``(E) the process for the development and evaluation of 
     vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency 
     response plans;
       ``(F) the treatment of protected information; and
       ``(G) any other factor that the Administrator determines to 
     be appropriate.
       ``(6) Consideration.--In developing the regulations under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall ensure that such 
     regulations are consistent with the goals and requirements of 
     this Act.
       ``(c) Substances of Concern.--For purposes of this section, 
     the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security--
       ``(1) may designate any chemical substance as a substance 
     of concern;
       ``(2) at the time any chemical substance is designated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), shall establish by rulemaking a 
     threshold quantity for the release or theft of a substance, 
     taking into account the toxicity, reactivity, volatility, 
     dispersability, combustability, and flammability of the 
     substance and the amount of the substance, that, as a result 
     of the release or theft, is known to cause death, injury, or 
     serious adverse impacts to human health or the environment; 
     and
       ``(3) in making such a designation, shall take into account 
     appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or any successor regulation).
       ``(d) Review of Vulnerability Assessment and Site Security 
     Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each owner or operator of a treatment 
     works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall submit its 
     vulnerability assessment and site security plan to the 
     Administrator for review in accordance with deadlines 
     established by the Administrator.
       ``(2) Standard of review.--The Administrator shall review 
     each vulnerability assessment and site security plan 
     submitted under this subsection and--
       ``(A) if the assessment or plan has a significant 
     deficiency described in paragraph (3), require the owner or 
     operator of the treatment works to correct the deficiency; or
       ``(B) approve such assessment or plan.
       ``(3) Significant deficiency.--A vulnerability assessment 
     or site security plan of a treatment works has a significant 
     deficiency under this subsection if the Administrator, in 
     consultation, as appropriate, with a State with an approved 
     program under section 402, determines that--
       ``(A) such assessment does not comply with the regulations 
     promulgated under subsection (b); or
       ``(B) such plan--
       ``(i) fails to address vulnerabilities identified in a 
     vulnerability assessment; or
       ``(ii) fails to meet applicable risk-based performance 
     standards.
       ``(4) Identification of deficiencies.--If the Administrator 
     identifies a significant deficiency in the vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan of an owner or operator of a 
     treatment works under paragraph (3), the Administrator shall 
     provide the owner or operator with a written notification of 
     the deficiency that--
       ``(A) includes a clear explanation of the deficiency in the 
     vulnerability assessment or site security plan;
       ``(B) provides guidance to assist the owner or operator in 
     addressing the deficiency; and
       ``(C) requires the owner or operator to correct the 
     deficiency and, by such date as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate, to submit to the Administrator a revised 
     vulnerability assessment or site security plan.
       ``(5) State, local, or tribal governmental entities.--No 
     owner or operator of a treatment works identified under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall be required under State, local, or 
     tribal law to provide a vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan described in this section to any State, local, 
     or tribal governmental entity solely by reason of the 
     requirement set forth in paragraph (1) that the owner or 
     operator of a treatment works submit such an assessment and 
     plan to the Administrator.
       ``(e) Emergency Response Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The owner or operator of a treatment 
     works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall develop or 
     revise, as appropriate, an emergency response plan that 
     incorporates the results of the current vulnerability 
     assessment and site security plan for the treatment works.
       ``(2) Certification.--The owner or operator of a treatment 
     works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall certify to the 
     Administrator that the owner or operator has completed an 
     emergency response plan, shall submit such certification to 
     the Administrator not later than 6 months after the first 
     completion or revision of a vulnerability assessment under 
     this section, and shall submit an additional certification 
     following any update of the emergency response plan.
       ``(3) Contents.--An emergency response plan shall include a 
     description of--
       ``(A) plans, procedures, and identification of equipment 
     that can be implemented or used in the event of an 
     intentional act at the treatment works; and
       ``(B) actions, procedures, and identification of equipment 
     that can obviate or significantly reduce the impact of 
     intentional acts to--
       ``(i) substantially disrupt the ability of the treatment 
     works to safely and reliably operate; or
       ``(ii) have a substantial adverse effect on critical 
     infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment.
       ``(4) Coordination.--As part of its emergency response 
     plan, the owner or operator of a treatment works shall 
     provide appropriate information to any local emergency 
     planning committee, local law enforcement officials, and 
     local emergency response providers to ensure an effective, 
     collective response.
       ``(f) Role of Employees.--
       ``(1) Description of role.--Site security plans and 
     emergency response plans required under this section shall 
     describe the appropriate roles or responsibilities that 
     employees and contractor employees of treatment works are 
     expected to perform to deter or respond to the intentional 
     acts identified in a current vulnerability assessment.
       ``(2) Training for employees.--The owner or operator of a 
     treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall 
     annually provide employees and contractor employees with the 
     roles or responsibilities described in paragraph (1) with 
     sufficient training, as determined by the Administrator, on 
     carrying out those roles or responsibilities.
       ``(3) Employee participation.--In developing, revising, or 
     updating a vulnerability assessment, site security plan, and 
     emergency response plan required under this section, the 
     owner or operator of a treatment works shall include--

[[Page H12514]]

       ``(A) at least one supervisory and at least one 
     nonsupervisory employee of the treatment works; and
       ``(B) at least one representative of each certified or 
     recognized bargaining agent representing facility employees 
     or contractor employees with roles or responsibilities 
     described in paragraph (1), if any, in a collective 
     bargaining relationship with the owner or operator of the 
     treatment works or with a contractor to the treatment works.
       ``(g) Maintenance of Records.--The owner or operator of a 
     treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall 
     maintain an updated copy of its vulnerability assessment, 
     site security plan, and emergency response plan on the 
     premises of the treatment works.
       ``(h) Audit; Inspection.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall audit and 
     inspect a treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1), 
     as necessary, for purposes of determining compliance with 
     this section.
       ``(2) Access.--In conducting an audit or inspection of a 
     treatment works under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 
     have access to the owners, operators, employees and 
     contractor employees, and employee representatives, if any, 
     of such treatment works.
       ``(3) Confidential communication of information; aiding 
     inspections.--The Administrator shall offer nonsupervisory 
     employees of a treatment works the opportunity confidentially 
     to communicate information relevant to the compliance or 
     noncompliance of the owner or operator of the treatment works 
     with this section, including compliance or noncompliance with 
     any regulation or requirement adopted by the Administrator in 
     furtherance of the purposes of this section. A representative 
     of each certified or recognized bargaining agent described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(B), if any, or, if none, a nonsupervisory 
     employee, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the 
     Administrator during the physical inspection of any treatment 
     works for the purpose of aiding such inspection, if 
     representatives of the treatment works will also be 
     accompanying the Administrator on such inspection.
       ``(i) Protection of Information.--
       ``(1) Prohibition of public disclosure of protected 
     information.--Protected information shall--
       ``(A) be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) not be made available pursuant to any State, local, 
     or tribal law requiring disclosure of information or records.
       ``(2) Information sharing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall prescribe such 
     regulations, and may issue such orders, as necessary to 
     prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected 
     information, as described in paragraph (7).
       ``(B) Sharing of protected information.--The regulations 
     under subparagraph (A) shall provide standards for and 
     facilitate the appropriate sharing of protected information 
     with and among Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities, 
     first responders, law enforcement officials, supervisory and 
     nonsupervisory treatment works personnel with security, 
     operational, or fiduciary responsibility for the system 
     designated by the owner or operator of the treatment works, 
     and facility employee representatives designated by the owner 
     or operator of the treatment works, if any.
       ``(C) Information sharing procedures.--Such standards shall 
     include procedures for the sharing of all portions of the 
     vulnerability assessment and site security plan of a 
     treatment works relating to the roles and responsibilities of 
     the employees or contractor employees of a treatment works 
     under subsection (f)(1) with a representative of each 
     certified or recognized bargaining agent representing such 
     employees, if any, or, if none, with at least one supervisory 
     and at least one non-supervisory employee with roles and 
     responsibilities under subsection (f)(1).
       ``(D) Penalties.--Protected information, as described in 
     paragraph (7), shall not be shared except in accordance with 
     the standards provided by the regulations under subparagraph 
     (A). Whoever discloses protected information in knowing 
     violation of the regulations and orders issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be fined under title 18, United States 
     Code, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, and, in 
     the case of a Federal officeholder or employee, shall be 
     removed from Federal office or employment.
       ``(3) Treatment of information in adjudicative 
     proceedings.--In any judicial or administrative proceeding, 
     protected information, as described in paragraph (7), shall 
     be treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of 
     sensitive security information under section 525 of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (120 
     Stat. 1381).
       ``(4) Other obligations unaffected.--Nothing in this 
     section amends or affects an obligation of the owner or 
     operator of a treatment works to--
       ``(A) submit or make available information to employees of 
     the treatment works, employee organizations, or a Federal, 
     State, local, or tribal government agency under any other 
     law; or
       ``(B) comply with any other law.
       ``(5) Congressional oversight.--Nothing in this section 
     permits or authorizes the withholding of information from 
     Congress or any committee or subcommittee thereof.
       ``(6) Disclosure of independently furnished information.--
     Nothing in this section amends or affects any authority or 
     obligation of a Federal, State, local, or tribal agency to 
     protect or disclose any record or information that the 
     Federal, State, local, or tribal agency obtains from a 
     treatment works or the Administrator under any other law 
     except as provided in subsection (d)(5).
       ``(7) Protected information.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, protected 
     information is any of the following:
       ``(i) Vulnerability assessments and site security plans 
     under this section, including any assessment developed under 
     subsection (b)(3)(B).
       ``(ii) Documents directly related to the Administrator's 
     review of assessments and plans described in clause (i) and, 
     as applicable, the State's review of an assessment developed 
     under subsection (b)(3)(B).
       ``(iii) Documents directly related to inspections and 
     audits under this section.
       ``(iv) Orders, notices, or letters regarding the compliance 
     of a treatment works described in subsection (a)(1) with the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(v) Information required to be provided to, or documents 
     and records created by, the Administrator under subsection 
     (b)(2).
       ``(vi) Documents directly related to security drills and 
     training exercises, security threats and breaches of 
     security, and maintenance, calibration, and testing of 
     security equipment.
       ``(vii) Other information, documents, and records developed 
     for the purposes of this section that the Administrator 
     determines would be detrimental to the security of a 
     treatment works if disclosed.
       ``(B) Detriment requirement.--For purposes of clauses (ii), 
     (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of subparagraph (A), the only 
     portions of documents, records, orders, notices, and letters 
     that shall be considered protected information are those 
     portions that--
       ``(i) would be detrimental to the security of a treatment 
     works if disclosed; and
       ``(ii) are developed by the Administrator, the State, or 
     the treatment works for the purposes of this section.
       ``(C) Exclusions.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     protected information does not include--
       ``(i) information that is otherwise publicly available, 
     including information that is required to be made publicly 
     available under any law;
       ``(ii) information that a treatment works has lawfully 
     disclosed other than in accordance with this section; and
       ``(iii) information that, if disclosed, would not be 
     detrimental to the security of a treatment works, including 
     aggregate regulatory data that the Administrator determines 
     appropriate to describe compliance with the requirements of 
     this section and the Administrator's implementation of such 
     requirements.
       ``(j) Violations.--For the purposes of section 309 of this 
     Act, any violation of any requirement of this section, 
     including any regulations promulgated pursuant to this 
     section, by an owner or operator of a treatment works 
     described in subsection (a)(1) shall be treated in the same 
     manner as a violation of a permit condition under section 402 
     of this Act.
       ``(k) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) Periodic report.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     effective date of the regulations issued under subsection (b) 
     and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report on progress in achieving compliance with this section.
       ``(2) Contents of the report.--Each such report shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) A generalized summary of measures implemented by the 
     owner or operator of a treatment works identified under 
     subsection (a)(1) in order to meet each risk-based 
     performance standard established by this section.
       ``(B) A summary of how the treatment works, differentiated 
     by risk-based tier assignment, are complying with the 
     requirements of this section during the period covered by the 
     report and how the Administrator is implementing and 
     enforcing such requirements during such period, including--
       ``(i) the number of treatment works that provided the 
     Administrator with information pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii);
       ``(ii) the number of treatment works assigned to each risk-
     based tier;
       ``(iii) the number of vulnerability assessments and site 
     security plans submitted by treatment works;
       ``(iv) the number of vulnerability assessments and site 
     security plans approved or found to have a significant 
     deficiency under subsection (d)(2) by the Administrator;
       ``(v) the number of treatment works without approved 
     vulnerability assessments or site security plans;
       ``(vi) the number of treatment works that have been 
     assigned to a different risk-based tier due to implementation 
     of a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release 
     from an intentional act and a description of the types of 
     such implemented methods;
       ``(vii) the number of audits and inspections conducted by 
     the Administrator; and
       ``(viii) any other regulatory data the Administrator 
     determines appropriate to describe the compliance of owners 
     or operators of treatment works with the requirements of

[[Page H12515]]

     this section and the Administrator's implementation of such 
     requirements.
       ``(3) Public availability.--A report submitted under this 
     section shall be made publicly available.
       ``(l) Grants for Vulnerability Assessments, Security 
     Enhancements, and Worker Training Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may make a grant to a 
     State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency--
       ``(A) to conduct or update a vulnerability assessment, site 
     security plan, or emergency response plan for a publicly 
     owned treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1);
       ``(B) to implement a security enhancement at a publicly 
     owned treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1), 
     including a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical 
     release from an intentional act, identified in an approved 
     site security plan and listed in paragraph (2);
       ``(C) to implement an additional security enhancement at a 
     publicly owned treatment works identified under subsection 
     (a)(1), including a method to reduce the consequences of a 
     chemical release from an intentional act, identified in an 
     approved site security plan; and
       ``(D) to provide for security-related training of employees 
     or contractor employees of the treatment works and training 
     for first responders and emergency response providers.
       ``(2) Grants for security enhancements.--
       ``(A) Preapproved security enhancements.--The Administrator 
     may make a grant under paragraph (1)(B) to implement a 
     security enhancement of a treatment works for one or more of 
     the following:
       ``(i) Purchase and installation of equipment for access 
     control, intrusion prevention and delay, and detection of 
     intruders and hazardous or dangerous substances, including--

       ``(I) barriers, fencing, and gates;
       ``(II) security lighting and cameras;
       ``(III) metal grates, wire mesh, and outfall entry 
     barriers;
       ``(IV) securing of manhole covers and fill and vent pipes;
       ``(V) installation and re-keying of doors and locks; and
       ``(VI) smoke, chemical, and explosive mixture detection 
     systems.

       ``(ii) Security improvements to electronic, computer, or 
     other automated systems and remote security systems, 
     including controlling access to such systems, intrusion 
     detection and prevention, and system backup.
       ``(iii) Participation in training programs and the purchase 
     of training manuals and guidance materials relating to 
     security.
       ``(iv) Security screening of employees or contractor 
     support services.
       ``(B) Additional security enhancements.--The Administrator 
     may make a grant under paragraph (1)(C) for additional 
     security enhancements not listed in subparagraph (A) that are 
     identified in an approved site security plan. The additional 
     security enhancements may include the implementation of a 
     method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from 
     an intentional act.
       ``(C) Limitation on use of funds.--Grants under this 
     subsection may not be used for personnel costs or operation 
     or maintenance of facilities, equipment, or systems.
       ``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities funded by a grant under paragraph (1) may not 
     exceed 75 percent.
       ``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     subsection, a State, municipality, or intermunicipal or 
     interstate agency shall submit information to the 
     Administrator at such time, in such form, and with such 
     assurances as the Administrator may require.
       ``(m) Preemption.--This section does not preclude or deny 
     the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to 
     adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of 
     performance with respect to a treatment works that is more 
     stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard of 
     performance under this section.
       ``(n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator $200,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for making grants under 
     subsection (l). Such sums shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(o) Relation to Chemical Facility Security 
     Requirements.--Title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     and the amendments made by title I of the Chemical and Water 
     Security Act of 2009 shall not apply to any treatment 
     works.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order 
except those printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
       Page 5, beginning on line 22, strike ``counter 
     surveillance'' and insert ``counter-surveillance''.
       Page 7, beginning on line 2, strike ``. Any such plan shall 
     include'' and insert ``, including''.
       Page 7, line 19, strike ``Department'' and insert 
     ``Secretary''.
       Page 8, line 2, strike ``chemicals'' and insert ``a 
     substance of concern''.
       Page 8, line 4, insert ``and'' after the comma.
       Page 9, line 5, strike ``Department'' and insert 
     ``Secretary''.
       Page 9, line 9, strike ``in'' and insert ``at''.
       Page 9, line 10, strike ``site'' and insert ``covered 
     chemical facility''.
       Page 10, line 6, insert a comma after ``plan''.
       Page 17, line 3, insert ``chemical'' after ``designation of 
     a''.
       Page 17, line 3, insert ``as a substance'' after 
     ``substance''.
        Page 17, line 4, insert ``for the substance'' after 
     ``quantity''.
       Page 17, line 8, strike ``may at any time'' and insert 
     ``may, at any time,''.
       Page 18, line 10, insert a comma after ``concern''.
       Page 18, line 22, strike the comma after 
     ``representative''.
        Page 19, line 6, strike ``this title'' and insert ``this 
     section''.
       Page 22, line 3, insert ``, as determined by the 
     Secretary,'' after ``geographically close''.
       Page 23, line 1, strike ``under'' and insert ``pursuant 
     to''.
        Page 24, line 11, strike ``is''.
       Page 30, line 22, strike ``that'' and insert ``who''.
       Page 34, line 9, strike ``the period of''.
       Page 36, line 8, strike ``information'' and insert ``to the 
     Secretary in a timely manner, information''.
       Page 36, line 9, strike ``in a timely manner''.
       Page 38, line 17, insert ``departmental'' after ``seek''.
       Page 38, line 17, strike ``within the Department''.
       Page 39, line 24, strike ``that'' and insert ``who''.
       Page 39, line 25, insert a comma after ``subsection (a)''.
       Page 40, line 15, strike ``, profit'' and insert ``, for-
     profit''.
       Page 46, line 16, strike ``protected information is any of 
     the following' ''' and insert ``the term `protected 
     information' means any of the following''.
       Page 46, line 22, strike ``determines'' and insert ``has 
     determined by regulation''.
       Page 48, strike lines 3 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Exclusions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term 
     `protected information' does not include--
       ``(A) information, other than a security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan, that the Secretary has 
     determined by regulation to be--
       ``(i) appropriate to describe facility compliance with the 
     requirements of this title and the Secretary's implementation 
     of such requirements; and
       ``(ii) not detrimental to chemical facility security if 
     disclosed; or
       ``(B) information, whether or not also contained in a 
     security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in 
     a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion 
     thereof, described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph 
     (1), that is obtained from another source with respect to 
     which the Secretary has not made a determination under either 
     such subparagraph, including--
       ``(i) information that is required to be made publicly 
     available under any other provision of law; and
       ``(ii) information that a chemical facility has lawfully 
     disclosed other than in a submission to the Secretary 
     pursuant to a requirement of this title.
        Page 54, line 3, strike ``of'' and insert ``after''.
       Page 63, line 7, strike ``1996'' and insert ``1986''.
       Page 75, line 13, strike ``Department'' and insert 
     ``Secretary''.
       Page 92, line 23, insert ``and resubmit'' after ``update''.
       Page 93, beginning on line 10, strike ``(or, if the system 
     has already developed an emergency response plan, to revise 
     the plan to be in accordance with this section)'' and insert 
     ``or, if the system has already developed an emergency 
     response plan, to revise the plan to be in accordance with 
     this section,''.
       Page 110, beginning on line 2, strike ``commence an 
     enforcement action against the system, including by seeking 
     or imposing civil penalties'' and insert ``take appropriate 
     enforcement action''.
       Page 115, beginning on line 22, strike ``, as described in 
     paragraph (7)''.
       Page 116, beginning on line 21, strike ``, as described in 
     paragraph (7),''.
       Page 117, beginning on line 9, strike ``, as described in 
     paragraph (7),''.
       Page 117, line 22, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
       Page 117, line 23, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.

[[Page H12516]]

       Page 118, line 10, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
       Page 118, beginning on line 13, strike ``protected 
     information is any of the following'' and insert ``the term 
     `protected information' means any of the following''.
       Page 119, line 17, strike ``determines'' and insert ``has 
     determined by regulation''.
       Page 120, line 1, insert before ``would'' the following: 
     ``the Secretary has determined by regulation''
       Page 120, strike lines 7 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(C) Exclusions.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), the term `protected information' does not include--
       ``(i) information, other than a security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan, that the Administrator has 
     determined by regulation to be--

       ``(I) appropriate to describe system compliance with the 
     requirements of this title and the Administrator's 
     implementation of such requirements; and
       ``(II) not detrimental to the security of one or more 
     covered water systems if disclosed; or

       ``(ii) information, whether or not also contained in a 
     security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in 
     a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion 
     thereof, described in any of clauses (ii) through (vii) of 
     subparagraph (A) that is obtained from another source with 
     respect to which the Administrator has not made a 
     determination under either subparagraph (A)(vii) or (B), 
     including--

       ``(I) information that is required to be made publicly 
     available under any other provision of law; and
       ``(II) information that a covered water system has lawfully 
     disclosed other than in a submission to the Administrator 
     pursuant to a requirement of this title.

       Page 121, line 3, strike ``the amendments made by''.
       Page 131, beginning on line 3, strike ``threat of 
     contamination of drinking water being distributed through 
     public water systems, including fire main systems'' and 
     insert ``threat to drinking water posed by an intentional act 
     of contamination, and the vulnerability of public water 
     systems, including fire hydrants, to such a threat''.
       Page 151, line 24, after ``cause'' and insert ``, or may be 
     reasonably anticipated to cause,''.
       Page 161, line 12, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
       Page 161, line 13, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
       Page 161, line 25, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
       Page 162, beginning on line 3, strike ``protected 
     information is any of the following'' and insert ``the term 
     `protected information' means any of the following''.
       Page 163, beginning on line 6, strike ``determines'' and 
     insert ``has determined by regulation''.
       Page 163, line 15, before ``would'' insert the following: 
     ``the Secretary has determined by regulation''.
       Strike line 20 on page 163 and all that follows through 
     page 164, line 13, and insert the following:
       ``(C) Exclusions.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), the term `protected information' does not include--
       ``(i) information, other than a security vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan, that the Administrator has 
     determined by regulation to be--

       ``(I) appropriate to describe treatment works compliance 
     with the requirements of this title and the Administrator's 
     implementation of such requirements; and
       ``(II) not detrimental to the security of one or more 
     treatment works if disclosed; or

       ``(ii) information, whether or not also contained in a 
     security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in 
     a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion 
     thereof, described in any of clauses (ii) through (vii) of 
     subparagraph (A) that is obtained from another source with 
     respect to which the Administrator has not made a 
     determination under either subparagraph (A)(vii) or (B), 
     including--

       ``(I) information that is required to be made publicly 
     available under any other provision of law; and
       ``(II) information that a treatment works has lawfully 
     disclosed other than in a submission to the Administrator 
     pursuant to a requirement of this title.

       Page 171, line 5, strike ``the amendments made by''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, before discussing the 
specifics of my amendment, I would like to address an argument that I 
expect we will hear throughout the day.
  The other side of the aisle seems to be arguing that the economy is 
so delicate that we simply cannot afford to protect the American people 
from terrorism. Democrats fundamentally reject that argument. In fact, 
we have testimony from labor that this bill is no threat to jobs. They 
have testified ``that the bill will have zero impact on employment.''
  We also reject the Republicans' argument because if there is one 
thing the American people expect us to do, it is to ensure that the 
country is protected from terrorism. Some facility operators may find 
it inconvenient to make their facilities more secure, but, frankly, the 
security of the American people is more important.
  My manager's amendment makes a number of technical and clerical 
corrections to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. My 
amendment clarifies the types of information we were excluding from the 
definition of protected information.
  Specifically, it clarifies that DHS cannot include in the definition 
of protected information any information that, number one, is required 
to be made publicly available under any other law, or information that 
a chemical facility has lawfully disclosed under another law. DHS can 
determine by regulation that certain information provided for 
compliance purposes is not protected. This information may include 
summary data on the number of facilities that have submitted site 
security plans or the number of enforcement actions taken, so long as 
information detrimental to chemical security is not disclosed. This 
clarification is made in all three titles.
  I urge support of this clarifying amendment.
  I would also like to address an issue that seems to have come up 
yesterday. There was a question about the bill's intention regarding 
DHS' indefinite extension for farmers. Both committee reports filed on 
this bill speak to this issue.
  The Homeland Security report states that the Department has been 
appropriately sensitive to the concerns of agricultural end users, 
farms and farmers, regarding chemical security. The Energy and Commerce 
report states that the committee does not intend for this legislation 
to require the Department to deviate from its current plan to address 
the security of agricultural end users on a separate timeline.
  Our position is clear. This legislation in no way disturbs the 
current extension. That said, I am willing to explore how we could make 
this bill clearer on this point as the legislation moves forward.
  Before I reserve the balance of my time, I would like to take a 
moment to acknowledge the staff that has worked so diligently and 
collaboratively to get us to this day. On my staff, Chris Beck, Michael 
Beland, Michael Stroud, Brian Turbyfill, Rosaline Cohen, and Lanier 
Avant; the Energy and Commerce Committee team, led by Alison Cassidy 
and Michael Freedhoff; and Ryan Seigert on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  With that, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
manager's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, normally, you do not object, even 
in the minority, to a manager's amendment that supposedly is a 
technical manager's amendment, technical in nature, so it is unusual 
for myself as the ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee to rise in opposition to this particular amendment. But I am 
doing so for one reason: It is not a technical amendment.
  Now, here is the manager's amendment; and, if you could read it, for 
the first two to three pages, it is very technical. It is just changing 
one word here or there, or putting a sentence here, or a semicolon, or 
something like that.
  But then you get down to the bottom the third page, and I am going to 
read this so that the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, understands exactly what the 
opposition is.
  ``Page 48, strike lines 3 through 17 and insert the following:''
  So we are getting away from a technical amendment and you are 
actually putting substantive policy into the manager's amendment.
  ``Exclusions. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the term `protected 
information' does not include (A) information, other than a security 
vulnerability assessment or site security plan, that the

[[Page H12517]]

Secretary has determined by regulation to be (i) appropriate to 
describe the facility compliance with the requirements of this title 
and the Secretary's implementation of such requirements; and (ii) not 
detrimental to the chemical facility security if disclosed; or,'' and 
this is where it gets really interesting, ``(B) information, whether or 
not contained in the security vulnerability assessment, site security 
plan, or in a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion 
thereof, described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), that is 
obtained from another source.''
  So what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is saying, as the 
distinguished chairman said, we don't want to try to give the 
Department of Homeland Security the ability to prevent information that 
has already been publicly disclosed by somebody we regulate as part of 
the site security plan. But then they are creating this new loophole, 
that if a group that is not controlled by Homeland Security somehow 
gets information, they can publish it. They can put it on their Web 
site, and they're not liable.

                              {time}  1345

  They are not subject to the penalties.
  That's wrong, Mr. Chair. That's just wrong. It does it in not only 
one place. These are three different bills that were merged. It goes on 
in other parts of the manager's amendment and makes those same changes 
in two to three other places. That's not a technical manager's 
amendment. That's a substantive policy change that's detrimental to the 
security, in my opinion, of the United States of America.
  So while it is somewhat unusual to object to the manager's amendment 
that's portrayed as a technical amendment, this is not a technical 
amendment--or at least those portions of it. So I am very strongly in 
opposition to this.
  I think on a day on which we have another reported shooting in 
Orlando, Florida, which may or may not be of a terrorist nature, and a 
shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday which was, we think, possibly 
of a terrorist nature, that if we're going to have a terrorist security 
bill on the floor for chemical plants and water facilities, it ought to 
be a real terrorist security bill.
  But the underlying bill is not about more guards and more physical 
security and more computer protections, as we said in the general 
debate yesterday. The underlying bill is about enforcing this new 
standard of IST, or inherently safer technology. In my opinion, it is a 
radical environmental bill masquerading as a security bill. So I am 
strongly opposed to Mr. Thompson's manager's amendment because it is a 
substantive policy amendment, in my opinion, that fundamentally weakens 
the ostensible purpose of the bill.
  With that, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for his excellent 
work on this legislation. We are not talking here about an 
environmental bill. We are talking about a security bill. We are 
talking about the targets which we know al Qaeda has on their target 
list. That's what this whole debate is about. It's to protect the 
American people from the attempts by al Qaeda to come back to our 
country and to strike us once again, and we must protect against that 
attack. That's all this debate is about.
  It's not any attempt to have an environmental agenda here at all. It 
is solely to ensure that al Qaeda cannot attack us in our country and 
to put in place the same protections at chemical facilities that we now 
have at airports, that we now have at nuclear power plants. That is all 
that this debate is about, and I urge support for the manager's 
amendment propounded by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. Both sides have 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I assume Chairman Thompson has the right to 
close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas actually has the right to 
close.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I will let Mr. Thompson close.
  In the remaining 30 seconds, let me simply say that I agree with what 
Mr. Markey said, but I will also say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that this bill doesn't do any of that. I wish we were 
debating a true safety bill, a true antiterrorism bill, but inherently 
safer technology deals with processes and chemical manufacturing. It 
doesn't deal with real security.
  In Chairman Thompson's manager's amendment, some of which is 
technical, the part that I oppose is a glaring creation of a loophole 
to give environmental groups and other outside groups the ability to 
put information on their Web sites that's not subject to the penalties 
of this bill. So I would oppose the manager's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. To the ranking member, you are exactly 
wrong on your definition. It does the exact opposite. It protects 
information, and that's why we put it in there. It was recommended by 
the Judiciary Committee, and this is a security piece of legislation, 
not safety. I think if the Chair would recognize that, we would all be 
better.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair, would it not be parliamentarily 
correct to now call for the yeas and nays on that vote since we 
requested it?
  The Acting CHAIR. The yeas and nays are not available in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry, so I will have to 
ask for that when we come back into the Whole House?
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the request for 
a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi was postponed.


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the podium.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Barton of Texas:
       Page 43, strike lines 7 through 16, and insert the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2109. FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

       ``No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or 
     attempt to enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard 
     of performance with respect to a covered chemical facility if 
     such regulation, requirement, or standard of performance 
     poses obstacles to, hinders, or frustrates the purpose of any 
     requirement or standard of performance under this title.
       Page 121, strike lines 6 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(n) Preemption.--No State or political subdivision 
     thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any regulation, 
     requirement, or standard of performance with respect to a 
     covered water system if such regulation, requirement, or 
     standard of performance poses obstacles to, hinders, or 
     frustrates the purpose of any requirement or standard of 
     performance under this section.
       Page 170, strike lines 17 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(m) Preemption.--No State or political subdivision 
     thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any regulation, 
     requirement, or standard of performance with respect to a 
     treatment works if such regulation, requirement, or standard 
     of performance poses obstacles to, hinders, or frustrates the 
     purpose of any requirement or standard of performance under 
     this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman

[[Page H12518]]

from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  The merged bill that's before us gives States the right, if they want 
to do things that are more strict or different than in the pending 
bill, they have the right to do that. The Federal Government, which 
normally in a bill of this sort there would be a Federal preemption 
standard that would preempt States from doing things differently than 
the Federal standard, this bill sets a floor but does not set a ceiling 
on what the States can do.
  So the amendment that we have before us, Mr. Chair, does create the 
traditional Federal preemption in these areas. There are three sections 
in today's bill that allow State, local, or tribal governments to enact 
more stringent laws and regulations from chemical, drinking water and 
wastewater treatment facilities. This is not only a new standard for 
chemical security legislation. It is a new standard, and I think a 
troubling standard, for comprehensive security legislation.
  Where did this come from? Like many other provisions in this 
legislation, the standard is borrowed directly from Federal 
environmental law, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 
the Superfund law, to name a few.
  This so-called new stringency standard appears only once in the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002. In there, it relates to information 
protection, not to security operations. Allowing State, local, or 
tribal governments to be more stringent in the context of national 
security, in my opinion, is problematic because it means that there 
will be no certainty associated with the Federal standard.
  Why have a Federal standard, Mr. Chair, if any State, local, or 
tribal government can supersede it? Proving my point, other national 
security laws, including nuclear, hazmat, aviation and port security 
make the Federal Government the dominant regulator with clear Federal 
preemption standards.
  In the 111th Congress, the Democrat majority specifically included 
Federal preemption provisions in both the TSA Authorization Act and the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. These were both security-related 
legislative vehicles. Mr. Chair, we should not import environmental 
provisions into security law. Local pollution control is obviously much 
different than terrorism protection and prevention.
  Unlike local pollution problems, security at chemical and water 
facilities does require national coordination. The principle is simple: 
national problems should have national solutions. This is why Federal 
preemption has always been the norm in aviation security, nuclear 
security, hazardous materials transportation security, and port 
security.
  My amendment is very simple. It would replace the State's stringency 
standard with provisions allowing the Federal Government to preempt 
State and local law that ``hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the 
purpose of the Federal program.'' This would allow the Federal 
Government to operate a truly national network to fight terror in the 
same way the Armed Forces are coordinated through a central command.
  Mr. Chair, I have several other written comments that I will submit 
for the Record, but my amendment is straightforward. It sets a Federal 
preemption standard as opposed to the State-by-State or local 
stringency standard under the current bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I rise to claim the 5 minutes in 
opposition to the Barton amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. The section which Mr. Barton is referring to 
is on page 42 of the bill and extends over to page 43.
  Mr. Chair, I rise strongly against Ranking Member Barton's amendment 
to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. It would strip 
State preemption language out of this bill. Simply put, that's what it 
would do. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I worked hard 
to secure language in this bill that protects the rights of States to 
mandate higher chemical security standards than the Federal Government.
  It is bizarre that you want to take that right away from the States. 
It is bizarre. Most of the time, you are always fighting that we ignore 
States' rights. Here is a perfect example. In fact, it is very clear in 
the Constitution of the United States of America, article VI, paragraph 
2:
  ``This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be 
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be 
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, 
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary 
notwithstanding.''
  This is a very clear violation of that. I have to say that I am 
surprised that the Ranking Member, who hails from the proud State of 
Texas, would now want to infringe on the right of the States to take 
extra steps. You know what's happened in New Jersey. We have been the 
pioneers of being first on this issue. We have stringent rules. No part 
of the chemical industry has opposed those rules. There is not one 
chemical facility that is opposed to what has gone on in the State of 
New Jersey. What right does the Federal Government have to come in and 
say that you should lower your standards and increase the risks of the 
citizens?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. The New Jersey Turnpike, the FBI has ruled very 
specifically that it is the most dangerous section in the whole 
country. We can't protect ourselves? The volatile chemicals that are on 
that site would put a million people in jeopardy, God forbid, if 
something happens. We need to raise Federal standards, not force States 
to lower theirs. We can all agree. And I just got a letter from the 
National Governors Association in total support of this legislation, 
opposed to this amendment; and they write in the letter that the bill 
rifely clarifies that chemical facility antiterrorism standards 
represent a floor, not a ceiling.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Could I inquire as to the time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a distinguished minority member of the 
Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify one point. I understand 
the sensitivities in the State of New Jersey. It is a great State. But 
I do want to say that New Jersey IST assessments are required. 
Implementation of IST is not required. The huge cost with this 
legislation is in the implementation of IST. The legislation we're 
considering here today goes far beyond New Jersey standards and would 
actually require an IST implementation as well as the assessment, which 
will add an enormous cost and put a number of jobs at risk. I just 
wanted to point that out for the record.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This is a very simple principle that the gentleman from New Jersey 
has been making reference to. Al Qaeda was in Newark, New Jersey, on 
September 11. Al Qaeda was in Boston on September 11. Al Qaeda attacked 
New York City on September 11. If the Governor of New York, if the 
Governor of Massachusetts, if the Governor of New Jersey wishes to 
promulgate stronger regulations to protect the chemical facilities in 
their States, that should be their right.

                              {time}  1400

  They should be making the public safety determination.
  These people who rushed into the World Trade Center, these first 
responders, they're firemen, they're policemen from the local 
community. They're health care workers from the local community. 
They're heroes. But while waiting for the Federal Government to come, 
it is the local public safety people who have to respond. If they want 
to put stronger protections

[[Page H12519]]

around these facilities, knowing that al Qaeda was there on September 
11th already, that that is where the attack emanated from, they should 
have their right. That is why the National Governors Association 
opposes this amendment. They should have, as the highest public safety 
official in their States, the right to determine how much protection 
they give to their citizens, how much extra measure of safety they give 
for their policemen, for their firemen, for their public health 
officials who will have to rush in in the aftermath of a successful 
attack.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  My friends, let's be clear. I oppose the underlying bill. I'm going 
to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. But if we're going to have a 
Federal bill, we ought to have a Federal bill. It should preempt the 
States.
  My friends on the other side are trying to have it both ways. You 
want a Federal bill that does lots of things that I don't support, but 
then you want to let the States that want to to go beyond the Federal 
bill. If that's the case, you don't need a Federal bill. I'd be happy 
to let each State decide what they wanted to do.
  I would point out to my good friend from New Jersey, who was such an 
excellent baseball player in our congressional baseball game, that what 
has to be implemented in this bill is stronger than what currently 
exists in New Jersey. But if we don't accept the Barton amendment, New 
Jersey could go beyond what's in this bill. And, again, if you're going 
to have a Federal system for security, it should be a Federal system.
  So I very respectfully ask my friends on the majority to accept the 
Barton amendment, and if we are going to have a Federal standard within 
a Federal bill, let's have a Federal standard in a Federal bill.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is written so imprecisely 
that it could preempt the rights of States and localities to pass or 
enforce any State regulation or standard that applies to a chemical 
facility, such as worker safety laws or even zoning laws. Try that on 
for size. One could even read the language as prohibiting States from 
passing stronger drinking water standards.
  This is an unacceptable infringement on the right of States. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Please vote ``no'' on 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 65, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(d) Outreach Support.--
       ``(1) Point of contact.--The Secretary shall designate a 
     point of contact for the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, and the head of any other agency 
     designated by the Secretary, with respect to the requirements 
     of this title.
       ``(2) Outreach.--The Secretary shall, as appropriate, and 
     in accordance with this title, inform State emergency 
     response commissions appointed pursuant to section 301(a) of 
     the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) and local emergency planning 
     committees appointed pursuant to section 301(c) of such Act, 
     and any other entity designated by the Secretary, of the 
     findings of the Office of Chemical Facility Security so that 
     such commissions and committees may update emergency planning 
     and training procedures.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I once again 
thank Chairman Bennie Thompson for offering this vital legislation, and 
I thank him for supporting this amendment.
  As Vice Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I commend the recognition of the potential risks 
associated with our chemical manufacturing and water treatment 
infrastructure. Securing these industries is vital not only to 
America's economic viability, it is essential to the human security of 
surrounding communities.
  My amendment will strengthen the Office of Chemical Facility Security 
created by designating a specific point of contact for interagency 
coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and other 
agencies. This amendment also requires the Secretary to proactively 
inform State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency 
Planning Committees about activities related to the implementation of 
the act so that they may update their emergency planning and training 
procedures.
  I know that Chairman Thompson would agree with the fact that many 
facilities that will be designated with significant risk through the 
implementation of this legislation lie in communities of significant 
economic need and vulnerability to chemical and contaminant exposure. 
For this reason, many of such areas are characterized as environmental 
justice communities. It is necessary that these communities be better 
empowered to strategically plan for potential chemical releases and 
security risks.
  The fact is incidents like the 1984 methyl isocyanate released from a 
chemical facility in Bhopal, India continue to happen throughout the 
United States on a smaller scale. Until we enforce chemical release 
regulations and take aggressive steps to protect vulnerable 
environmental justice communities, they will be at even greater risk 
for acts of terror.
  Also, the amendment designates a specific point of contact for 
interagency coordination to ensure greater transparency when it comes 
to our oversight responsibilities as Members of Congress. This 
adjustment will ensure that all agencies invoked by this legislation 
will cooperate as closely as possible.
  I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, though I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENT. This amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to establish a point of contact with the Administrator of the EPA. The 
amendment also requires the Secretary to notify State and local 
emergency planning committees of findings that may be necessary to 
update their emergency plans. This amendment certainly encourages the 
sharing of information with the appropriate people at the State and 
local level, those responsible for developing emergency planning and 
training procedures. And while the bill envisions this type of 
information sharing, the amendment certainly makes it explicit. 
Additionally, this bill requires a single point of contact for the EPA 
Administrator.
  Knowing how bad bureaucracy can be, we certainly understand the need 
of legislating communication between two agencies and ensuring that 
State and local first responders are included in these information-
sharing regimes.
  And I should point out that my good friend Mr. Pascrell from New 
Jersey has a smile on his face still from the

[[Page H12520]]

New York Yankees' victory over my Philadelphia Phillies. I had to get 
that off my chest after the ribbing you gave me yesterday, along with 
our good friend Mr. King. And, again, congratulations. It still hurts. 
I'm a Phillies fan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the distinguished subcommittee Chair, Mr. Pascrell.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, this amendment I support gives effective 
coordination, which we certainly had been lacking, between the 
Department of Homeland Security and Environmental Protection Agency in 
carrying out the requirements of the bill. In committee, we worked to 
require the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chairman, to alert 
State Homeland advisers on any chemical security emergencies. This is a 
big relief, as my friend from Pennsylvania said. And I want to 
reiterate and support his words that this will be a great big help to 
first responders all across this United States of America.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Dent

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Dent:
       Page 2, beginning on line 1, strike title I and insert the 
     following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

                  TITLE I--CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical Facility Security 
     Authorization Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY TO REGULATE THE SECURITY OF CHEMICAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 6 U.S.C. 121 
     note) is amended by striking ``three years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on October 1, 2012''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Mr. Olson.
  This amendment would simply strike title I and extend the 
Department's current regulatory authority until October 2012. Simply, 
it extends the current CFATS regulations until 2012.
  This amendment addresses the largest problem of the underlying bill, 
that the bill is a so-called solution in search of a problem.
  The majority will argue that chemical facilities need to be secure. 
We agree. That's why we acted swiftly 3 years ago to give the 
Department of Homeland Security the regulatory authority it needed to 
secure them. In the 3 years since, the Department has taken steps to 
implement that authority, but it is far from complete.
  As of last week, the Department of Homeland Security had not reviewed 
two-thirds of the over 6,000 security vulnerability assessments it 
required regulated facilities to submit based on regulations it issued 
in June of 2007. The addition of drinking water and wastewater 
facilities by titles II and III of this bill will double the 6,000 
security vulnerability assessments already required by the Department. 
We are asking too much of the Department too soon.
  The bill proposes to nearly double the Department's workload. The 
Department should be allowed to fully implement its existing regulatory 
authority. By all accounts, including those of the Democratic majority, 
the Department is doing an excellent job implementing its current 
regulatory framework.
  In the committee hearing on the subject this past June, Chairman 
Thompson stated, ``As a close observer, I give credit to the Department 
for the good job it has done so far in promulgating and enforcing the 
CFATS regulations.'' We agree with him.
  Why are we here today looking to make significant and costly changes 
to the manner in which the Department is regulating chemical facilities 
if, as the chairman himself has said, the Department is doing a ``good 
job''?
  Despite the fact that the Department has yet to conduct a single 
onsite inspection, not a single one, the majority seeks to halt the 
progress the Department has made and start over with new costly and 
burdensome requirements.
  This amendment maintains the current authorizing language, requiring 
security vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and 
enforcement. But it does not include costly IST assessments or 
mandatory implementation that will cost Americans their jobs. It does 
not include civil suit provisions that would allow any person, whether 
in Peoria or Pakistan, the authority to sue the Secretary and the 
Department of Homeland Security. It does not include weakened 
information protection language that makes prosecution for unauthorized 
disclosures nearly impossible.
  This amendment would maintain the drinking and wastewater security 
titles of the bill. When will the Democratic leadership recognize that 
moving precipitously in unchartered territory through legislation is 
ill-advised and a rush to judgment? A Democrat-imposed 100 percent 
maritime cargo-scanning mandate legislated before the results of a 
pilot program were published has led the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to state on the record that it was an unachievable goal. A Democrat-
imposed 100 percent aviation cargo-scanning mandate legislated before 
any feasibility studies were completed has led the Acting Administrator 
of the TSA to state on the record that it cannot be done. Requiring 
costly IST assessments and mandatory implementation and then studying 
its effect on the agricultural sector and small business is equally 
ill-advised.
  If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And as Chairman Thompson said, the 
Department of Homeland Security is doing a ``good job.'' Let them 
finish their work, learn from the process, and consider this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank 
Chairman Thompson for years of commitment to this process, listening to 
our friends from the other side of the aisle. Frankly, I remember 
sitting in Cannon room 311 when we were in the minority and the 
cooperation we worked through when we were dealing with our farmers. 
Each step of the way, we made efforts to be responsive to the security 
of the Nation and the elements to which my good friends speak of.
  Let me also mention our other collaborators, Energy and Commerce, 
Chairman Markey, and my subcommittee of Transportation and 
Infrastructure which had any number of hearings to answer the question: 
Why? So I stand here today in the backdrop of recognizing the 
importance of securing the Nation. And I am proud to have co-authored 
H.R. 2868 and to pass it through the subcommittee I chair, before full 
committee.
  Might I just indicate for a moment that I come from Texas, and I 
would be remiss not to acknowledge the devastation of yesterday. Of 
course, we have heard of another tragedy today in Florida. But my 
sympathy to the families of the 13 dead and 31 wounded. Never again. 
That is why we stand here today as Homeland Security members.
  The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security 
program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we 
included in H.R. 2868.
  Section 550 of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations, a provision that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend, was just a page-
and-a-half long and had many deficiencies. He is eliminating the 
inherently secure technology for chemical facilities, the very 
facilities that are in the eye of the storm. He apparently does not 
believe

[[Page H12521]]

it is important to protect workers, to improve the program so that the 
deficiencies in the current chemical facilities security program by 
including provisions that strengthen enforcement to provide workers 
subject to background checks with access to adequate redress and 
strengthen whistleblower protections.
  Our challenge is to be fair. This legislation is fair. We must pass 
H.R. 2868.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security 
program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we 
included in H.R. 2868. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The Department of Homeland Security set up the Chemical Facility 
Anti-Terrorism Standards in 2007 when DHS was granted narrow authority 
in an appropriations bill to regulate security at most chemical plants.
  Section 550 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Act--the provision 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend--was just 14 
lines long and had many deficiencies.
  It is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation 
that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year. 
H.R. 2868 is the product of years of work by multiple committees and 
extensive input from the chemical industry, water sector, Department of 
Homeland Security, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as 
environmental and labor organizations.
  We have the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the 
Department to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about 
how this program should be executed.
  The gentleman's amendment ignores our responsibility to respond to 
what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the 
Bush and Obama administrations requested. It just kicks the can down 
the road another three years.
  H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical 
facility security program by including provisions that strengthen 
enforcement, provide workers subject to background checks with access 
to adequate redress, and strengthen whistleblower protections.
  It also requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation 
of safer technologies.
  If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of 
these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and 
testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in 
several key areas.
  The American Chemistry Council, which represents the largest chemical 
companies, said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee that, 
and I quote, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a 
permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of 
Farmer Cooperatives share this view.
  It is time for us to pass comprehensive legislation to address 
chemical facility security in this country.
  I reserve my time at this time, as this debate proceeds.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
sponsoring this amendment with me and for his leadership on this issue.
  Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security began developing 
the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, and since that time DHS 
has implemented an objective, risk-based approach to regulating 
chemical facilities. This includes a risk-based tiering system for 
chemical plants and requires them to implement specific security 
measures in accordance with their level of risk.
  While much progress has been made, much remains to be done. Instead 
of allowing the work to be completed properly, the majority wishes to 
rush to solutions and mandate that DHS scrap the current program and 
start over. Such a move would take 2 years of hard work and throw it 
out the window.
  Our amendment is simple: Extend the current risk-based regulations 
through 2012 and let the professionals do their job. Nothing more, 
nothing less.
  I urge Members to support the Dent-Olson amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. I want to say, as a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, when we had hearings on this issue, we learned from the 
Homeland Security folks that there were no inspections. They had not 
conducted one single inspection during the time they had this authority 
before them.
  We know that chemical companies across the country have invested more 
than $18 billion to try to make sure that their places are secure. We 
heard the terrible news this morning about unemployment going up to 
10.2 percent. We have lost one in five manufacturing jobs in the last 
year and a half. There is almost 12 percent unemployment in 
manufacturing. How is this going to help us keep more job? They are 
going to leave. Those companies are going to look at the added expenses 
that they are going to have, and they are going to move like you know 
to other countries and other places and those jobs are going to be 
lost.
  So I would like to think that we will learn our lesson. We can have 
the inspections and go through what is right and what is wrong. I would 
urge my colleagues to accept this amendment offered by Mr. Dent so we 
can bring some reasonableness to the issue.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say once again, I 
think extending these CFATS regulations until 2012 is a reasonable 
approach. The Department of Homeland Security is doing a good job with 
these regulations. We need to give them more time to implement the 
existing regulations that will require security assessments.
  As we said, 2,000 of the 6,000 required have been completed. So let's 
give them some time. The Department of Homeland Security has not spoken 
in support of this legislation in its entirety. Again, this bill is a 
solution in search of a problem. Please accept the Dent-Olson amendment 
that is a reasonable approach, accepting the regulations that we just 
approved as part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. So let's 
do that. It is the right way to go.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have worked for 4 years on this legislation. Can you 
imagine 2009 to 2012, 7 years to put the American people in jeopardy. 
The Department of Homeland Security is for this legislation, and the 
approach that our friends are using is no substitute for the 
comprehensive authorization legislation that moved through regular 
order in the relevant committees this year.
  H.R. 2868 is a product of years of work by multiple committees and 
extensive input from the chemical industry. Let me cite for you the 
letter from the American Chemistry Council which represents the largest 
chemical companies. They said, in a letter to Energy and Commerce, 
``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS 
program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives share the same view.
  So what are my colleagues suggesting? They want us to shortchange the 
American people. I stood here with all of the solemnness that I could, 
when the House recognized those lost at Fort Hood. Others at Fort Hood 
were wounded in my home State. We mourn them, we honor them, but we 
have the responsibility to stand on their side.
  Just as we have to get to the bottom of the tragedy at Fort Hood, 
Texas, we have to get to the bottom of realizing that it is on our 
table to ensure that whistleblowers are protected, as provided for in 
H.R. 2868 to make sure that inherently safer technologies are used in 
chemical facilities, and, yes, that jobs are not lost. But jobs will 
not be lost when you improve technology. You will become more 
efficient, and you will protect not only the water and wastewater 
systems in our communities but you will have workers working in safe, 
productive chemical facilities that will be part of the economic 
engine.
  Jobs are important. But so is the security of this Nation. That is 
what this particular committee has done over a 4-year period. We have 
worked in consultation with those in business as well as those in law 
enforcement. I don't know how we can stand here and oppose the 
Department of Homeland Security's Department that supports us moving 
forward on this legislation, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act 
2009.
  I ask my colleagues, consider the fact of what their responsibility 
is. Their

[[Page H12522]]

responsibility again is to stand with those who we have to secure. I 
think that the Dent-Olson amendment, my good friends on the committee 
have good intentions, but those intentions are quashed by the 
responsibility that we have and the long work that we have done to 
ensure inherently safer technologies for chemical facilities.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, again, in response to 
securing America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Dent

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of offering an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Dent:
       Page 25, line 12, strike ``, including the requirements 
     under section 2111''.
       Page 46, line 18, strike ``, including any assessment 
     required under section 2111''.
       Page 48, beginning on line 18, strike the proposed section 
     2111 and redesignate the proposed sections 2112 through 2120 
     as sections 2111 through 2119, respectively.
       Pg 87, line 4, strike ``, of which up to $3,000,000 shall 
     be made available for grants authorized under section 
     2111(c)(1)''.
       Pg 87, line 10, strike ``, of which up to $3,000,000 shall 
     be made available for grants authorized under section 
     2111(c)(1)''.
       Pg 87, line 16, strike ``, of which up to $3,000,000 shall 
     be made available for grants authorized under section 
     2111(c)(1)''.
       Page 88, in the proposed amendment to the table of contents 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, strike the item 
     relating to section 2111 and redesignate the items relating 
     to sections 2112 through 2120 as items relating to sections 
     2111 through 2119, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, too, for the record, the 
American Chemistry Council, just referenced a moment ago by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), in a letter dated October 20, 
the ACC basically said that the IST provisions which authorize DHS to 
order the mandatory implementation of IST have proven the most 
difficult issue on which to find common ground and the primary reason 
ACC is unable to endorse this bill. They do not support the bill. To be 
very clear about that, they do not support this legislation.
  Now, with respect to the Dent-Austria amendment that we are talking 
about now, this amendment would strike the IST provisions in the bill. 
IST is inherently subjective and without a widely accepted definition. 
When the Department of Homeland Security's subject matter expert on IST 
was specifically asked what IST was, she responded, ``There's enough 
debate in industry and academia that I can't take a position on that 
very topic.'' The Deputy Under Secretary responsible for overseeing the 
program stated unequivocally that the Department had no staff--no 
staff--capable of conducting an IST assessment.
  Under direct questioning, Deputy Under Secretary Reitinger made it 
very clear that neither the fiscal year 2009 nor the fiscal year 2010 
budget included any funding to hire the necessary expertise to review 
IST assessments and recommend alternative methods for complex 
engineering processes.
  Again, under direct questioning, most of the witnesses considered IST 
unnecessary, with the Department's witness adding that the facilities 
can and are already doing IST.
  Clearly, no one at DHS is in a position to dictate to a wide range of 
facilities what engineering process or chemicals should be used to make 
plastics, prescription drugs, or computer chips. Despite its fancy 
labeling, and its inclusion in a security bill, IST is not about 
security and may simply shift the security risk.
  A decision to keep fewer chemicals on site will likely require more 
frequent shipments of chemicals. This increases the risk of an attack 
on the transportation of the chemicals or an accident releasing the 
substances of concern into neighborhoods outside the security 
perimeters.
  It would be foolish to mandate IST in this bill when there is so much 
uncertainty and lack of expertise in the Department.
  Finally, and most importantly, IST will cost American jobs. Let me 
say that again: IST will cost American jobs. With the national 
unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, and rising, can we really afford 
unnecessary congressional mandates that provide little security?
  Conducting an IST assessment will be costly, too costly for many 
small businesses to afford. Experts estimate that a simple one-
ingredient substitution would take two persons 2 weeks to complete and 
cost between $10,000 and $40,000, and that is on the low end. A 
pharmaceutical pilot plant with about 12 products would take three to 
six persons up to 10 weeks to complete an assessment at a cost of 
$100,000 to a half million dollars.
  Larger facilities with particularly hazardous chemicals already 
regulated by OSHA would require 8 to 10 people 6 months or more to 
complete, and cost over $1 million for the assessment. Fifty-nine 
percent of the facilities regulated under current CFATS regulations 
that would be required to conduct these costs assessments employ 50 or 
fewer employees.
  Mandating IST will be devastating for small businesses. According to 
a California fertilizer manufacturer, eliminating the use of anhydrous 
ammonia and substituting it with urea can cost a 1,000 acre farm up to 
$15,000 per application. This would be a recurring cost passed to the 
consumer.

                              {time}  1430

  As we heard earlier, in the current state of our economy, small 
businesses relying on chemicals simply may not survive. Today, the 
Department of Labor announced that unemployment has reached 10.2 
percent. Does anybody in this Chamber expect that unemployment figure 
to go down any time soon? We hope it does, but this is not going to 
help.
  ``If I were to build a 20-foot high, 20-foot thick concrete barricade 
that surrounded my facility on all sides, utilized the most state-of-
the-art intrusion detection systems and was better protected than the 
White House, this legislation would still require me to conduct an IST 
assessment and potentially implement the findings of that assessment.''
  Let me close by quoting subcommittee chairman and chief sponsor, Mr. 
Markey, who stated at the Energy and Commerce Committee on the markup 
on October 21 of the proposed legislation, ``The safer technology 
requirement is not about bolstering security.'' If it's not about 
security, why is IST in the bill? Why are we asking the smallest of 
small businesses to pay for it?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady 
from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
ongoing leadership.
  Let me just cite the language out of the letter that my dear friend 
just read: ``The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, H.R. 
2868, is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS 
program.'' We've answered that question.
  And, secondarily, it's not a notion because Clorox announced its 
plans to begin transitioning U.S. operations to high-strength bleach 
and to be able to use inherently safer technologies.
  What we are speaking about today, this is a way of creating jobs, in 
a secure environment but also it is a way of securing America.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page H12523]]

  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security 
program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we 
included in H.R. 2868. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The Department of Homeland Security set up the Chemical Facility 
AntiTerrorism Standards in 2007 when DHS was granted narrow authority 
in an appropriations bill to regulate security at most chemical plants.
  Section 550 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Act--the provision 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend--was just a 
page and a half long and had many deficiencies.
  It is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation 
that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year. 
H.R. 2868 is the product of years of work by multiple committees and 
extensive input from the chemical industry, water sector, Department of 
Homeland Security, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as 
environmental and labor organizations.
  We have the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the 
Department to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about 
how this program should be executed.
  The gentleman's amendment ignores our responsibility to respond to 
what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the 
Bush and Obama administrations requested. It just kicks the can down 
the road another three years.
  H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical 
facility security program by including provisions that strengthen 
enforcement, provide workers subject to background checks with access 
to adequate redress, and strengthen whistleblower protections.
  It also requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation 
of safer technologies.
  If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of 
these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and 
testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in 
several key areas.
  The American Chemistry Council, which represents the largest chemical 
companies, said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee that, 
and I quote, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a 
permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of 
Farmer Cooperatives share this view.
  It is time for us to pass comprehensive legislation to address 
chemical facility security in this country.

 Clorox Announces Plans To Begin Transitioning U.S. Operations to High-
                            Strength Bleach

       Oakland, Calif., Nov. 2, 2009.--The Clorox Company (NYSE: 
     CLX) today announced that it plans to begin modifying 
     manufacturing processes in its U.S. bleach operations. The 
     initiative calls for Clorox to begin transitioning from 
     chlorine to high-strength bleach as a raw material for making 
     its namesake bleach.
       ``This decision was driven by our commitment to strengthen 
     our operations and add another layer of security,'' said 
     Chairman and CEO Don Knauss.
       Clorox will start with its Fairfield, Calif., plant. The 
     company expects to complete the transition there within six 
     months, followed by a phased, multiyear transition for six 
     additional plants.
       ``This process requires significant expertise, training, 
     and changes in infrastructure and equipment,'' Knauss said. 
     ``Our plant-by-plant approach will also enable us to apply 
     what we learn along the way, ensure supply availability, 
     minimize business disruptions and help make sure the 
     transition is undertaken in the most effective manner 
     possible.''
       ``Clorox leads our industry in safety and security,'' 
     Knauss said. ``Our bleach plant employees are experts at 
     handling chlorine, and we're proud of the fact that we've 
     used it responsibly for our entire 96-year history. Even so, 
     we're pleased to begin implementing this process change to 
     make our products using high-strength bleach.''


                           The Clorox Company

       The Clorox Company is a leading manufacturer and marketer 
     of consumer products with fiscal year 2009 revenues of $5.5 
     billion. Clorox markets some of consumers' most trusted and 
     recognized brand names, including its namesake bleach and 
     cleaning products, Green Works natural cleaners, 
     Armor All and SIP auto-care products, 
     Fresh Step and Scoop Away cat litter, 
     Kingsford charcoal, Hidden Valley, and K 
     C Masterpiece dressings and sauces, 
     Brita, water-filtration systems, Glad 
     bags, wraps and containers, and Burt's Bees' 
     natural personal care products. With approximately 8,300 
     employees worldwide, the company manufactures products in 
     more than two dozen countries and markets them in more than 
     100 countries. Clorox is committed to making a positive 
     difference in the communities where its employees work and 
     live. Founded in 1980, The Clorox Company Foundation has 
     awarded cash grants totaling more than $77 million to 
     nonprofit organizations, schools and colleges. In fiscal 2009 
     alone, the foundation awarded $3.6 million in cash grants, 
     and Clorox made product donations valued at $7.8 million. For 
     more information about Clorox, visit 
     www.TheCloroxCompany.com.
                                  ____



                                   American Chemistry Council,

                                  Arlington, VA, October 20, 2009.
     Hon. Henry Waxman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Waxman: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) 
     strongly supports DHS' existing Chemical Facility Anti-
     Terrorism Standards (CFATS). The program should be made 
     permanent and DHS should be given adequate resources to fully 
     implement and enforce the regulations. The Chemical Facility 
     Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, H.R. 2868, is the appropriate 
     vehicle for a permanent CFATS program. As the full Energy and 
     Commerce Committee prepares to mark up H.R. 2868, I want to 
     provide you with ACC's views on the bill.
       First, I want to commend you, Subcommittee Chairman Markey 
     and your staffs for the willingness to invite and consider 
     our views. While ACC is unable to endorse H.R. 2868 due 
     primarily to concerns over the potential impact of the 
     authority granted to DHS to mandate the implementation of 
     inherently safer technology (IST), the manager's amendment 
     reflects several months of serious, constructive dialog that 
     has, I believe, resulted in important improvements to H.R. 
     2868. For example:
       Employee participation and training provisions were 
     modified to make them more consistent with existing company 
     programs, to ensure that employee representatives possess the 
     necessary knowledge or experience to work on Security 
     Vulnerability Assessments or Site Security Plans, and to help 
     provide proper protections for security sensitive 
     information.
       Unannounced inspections would be performed using a more 
     meaningful measure, and in a manner that would not 
     significantly interfere with regular operations.
       Significant provisions concerning MTSA facilities were 
     added, ensuring that the United States Coast Guard maintains, 
     in its role as guardian of our ports, the lead regulator 
     role, and limiting any possible duplication of the efforts 
     that would result from the harmonization of MTSA and CFATS 
     requirements.
       The civil lawsuit provision was appropriately modified so 
     that chemical companies would not be subject to civil actions 
     brought by private citizens. The modification helps prevent 
     the disclosure of sensitive security information and leaves 
     enforcement authority in the hands of DHS and its security 
     professionals. ACC can, therefore, support this modified 
     provision.
       The IST provisions, which authorize DHS to order the 
     mandatory implementation of IST, have proven the most 
     difficult issue on which to find common ground, and are the 
     primary reason ACC is unable to endorse the bill. ACC members 
     are concerned that providing government with authority to 
     direct process changes or product substitutions could result 
     in making critical products unavailable throughout our 
     economy, with potentially significant impact on our companies 
     and our customers. We acknowledge, however, that certain 
     modifications made in the manager's amendment reflect input 
     from ACC and its members and direct DHS to focus on risk. 
     Further, the creation of an IST technical appeal process 
     which factors unique facility characteristics into the DHS 
     decision making process recognizes that IST implementation is 
     a complicated and complex issue faced by our companies.
       After 9/11, ACC and many others in the chemical industry 
     stepped up and implemented serious, stringent security 
     programs at their facilities before there was any government 
     direction. To date, ACC members have invested nearly $8 
     billion in security enhancements under our own Responsible 
     Care Security Code'. We remain committed to 
     working with this committee, the Congress, and the 
     Administration to move forward with a strong, smart 
     regulatory program to protect our facilities, our employees, 
     the communities in which we operate, and the products we 
     supply throughout our economy.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Cal Dooley,
                                                President and CEO.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlelady.
  Can we get a review of where we are in time, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 30 seconds 
remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. I must remind my friend from Pennsylvania, my good

[[Page H12524]]

friend, that you voted for this bill last session.
  Mr. DENT. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, sure.
  Mr. DENT. This is a very different bill than the one from last 
session. This bill has citizen suits in it and all kinds of--it's a 
very different bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, that's your story. We come here 
with different stories, many rise quickly to the specter of terror and 
cause fear in people. But you're the last to act to protect the 
American people. You get some flak from an industry, and all of a 
sudden you back off. Clorox did this voluntarily; November 2 they made 
the announcement.
  Because these simple assessments that you have tried to minimize not 
only help protect and save lives, but they have also proven to actually 
save the chemical companies money, which is just the opposite of what 
you tried to communicate to the American people and to this body for 
the last 25 minutes, just the opposite: greater efficiencies and safety 
measures that prevent catastrophic accidents.
  And it only stands to reason if you're using highly volatile 
chemicals, it would seem that you would want to reduce your risk, and 
providing it is because most of the companies aren't going to be forced 
to do anything, if you read the legislation. Please read the 
legislation. I say that to all bills, not just health bills. I say that 
to security bills. Read it, you may like it. Please, get off the kick 
of using the industry's program. I think highly of you. Don't follow 
the script.


                    announcement by the acting chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair must remind all Members to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. DENT. At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for offering 
this amendment, and I support this amendment.
  Conducting an inherently safer technology, IST, assessment will be 
costly, too costly for many of our small businesses to afford. I 
submitted a commonsense amendment to the Rules Committee that would 
have exempted small businesses from this new costly and burdensome 
requirement. I might add that it would not exempt them from the current 
law, but from these new costly and burdensome requirements. 
Unfortunately for our Nation's small businesses, the majority decided 
not to allow a vote on that commonsense amendment on the floor.
  Just to reiterate what the chairman said, over half of our facilities 
currently regulated under CFATS regulations that would now be regulated 
by these new costly assessments employing 50 or fewer employees. 
Mandating IST will be devastating for our small businesses.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I will complete debate on this 
amendment. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is not providing more security in 
the classic sense of the word. What we're really doing is saying, what 
happens if al Qaeda is successful in penetrating into the heart of a 
chemical facility? What will the consequences be for the workers on 
site? What will the consequences be for the population area in the 
vicinity of that chemical facility? That's what this debate is all 
about.
  What we are trying to do is to minimize the impact after al Qaeda has 
in fact been successful in launching an attack on a chemical facility. 
But what we say in the language is that, while there has to be an 
evaluation of the level of security at each one of the facilities, the 
language in our bill makes it quite clear that if the inherently safer 
technology or process costs too much, it doesn't have to be 
implemented. If there is no feasible, safer technology or process, the 
facility doesn't have to implement one. If implementing the inherently 
safer technology or process would not reduce the risk at the facility 
or would shift it elsewhere, it doesn't have to be implemented.
  And so what we say here is that, yes, we need to make it clear that 
we don't want al Qaeda to have a successful attack, and if it is 
successful, have catastrophic consequences, but at the same time, there 
has to be an evaluation as to whether or not it is economically 
feasible at each facility. That is the balance which we strike. But I 
don't think anyone here for a second would want to have unnecessarily 
dangerous chemicals in highly populated areas that, if al Qaeda could 
be successful, would cause an event which would once again cripple our 
economy as did the attack on September 11. That is the heart of 
terrorism, having a population which is frightened.
  At Logan Airport, we lost 27 percent of our air traffic for 2 years 
after 9/11. The same thing happened in Newark. It happened at 
LaGuardia; it happened at JFK. It happened all around the country. It 
plummeted, and that was key to their success.
  So this amendment is something that was language developed in close 
consultation with and considerable input from the American Chemistry 
Council. It is something which should be adopted, and the amendment 
which is under consideration should be rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 6.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(E) Presumption of congress relating to competitive 
     procedures.--
       ``(i) Presumption.--It is the presumption of Congress that 
     grants awarded under this paragraph will be awarded using 
     competitive procedures based on merit.
       ``(ii) Report to congress.--If grants are awarded under 
     this paragraph using procedures other than competitive 
     procedures, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     explaining why competitive procedures were not used.
       ``(F) Prohibition on earmarks.--None of the funds 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph may be used for a 
     congressional earmark as defined in clause 9d, of Rule XXI of 
     the rules of the House of Representatives of the 111th 
     Congress.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have offered different iterations of this 
noncontroversial amendment many times during this Congress and the 
last. This particular amendment was offered last June to the TSA 
Authorization Act when it was adopted by voice vote.
  H.R. 2868 establishes a new Worker Training Grants program that seeks 
to provide grants to nonprofit organizations with demonstrated 
experience in implementing and operating successful worker or first 
responder health and safety training programs. This amendment would 
simply prohibit the Worker Training Grants program from being earmarked 
by Members for pet projects or favored entities back home. This 
amendment also establishes that it is the presumption of Congress that 
these grants would be awarded competitively based on merit.
  I am often asked why I offer this. These are set up to be programs 
that are competitively awarded, but sometimes it's explicitly stated, 
sometimes it's not. In either case, sometimes when it is explicitly 
stated--and when it's not--these grant programs are sometimes just 
earmarked, all of them. All of the money in some of these accounts, if 
you take, for example, some of the programs in the Homeland Security 
bill, nearly 100 percent of the funds in one particular grant program 
were earmarked in the most recent Homeland Security spending bill.
  So what we are seeking to do is make sure that people who want to 
apply for

[[Page H12525]]

these grants are able to, and that Members aren't able to simply 
earmark that money for people in their district or favored entities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment 
that seeks to ensure that worker training grants are distributed based 
on merit. This was a longstanding fight in Homeland Security to deal 
with risk rather than spreading out money across the landscape.
  I have worked to make sure Homeland Security grants are given on the 
basis of merit, as I have with the successful Fire Act and the SAFER 
Act.
  Under the chemical security regulations, facility operators are 
responsible for adhering to the risk-based, performance-based site 
security plans that they develop internally. A key feature of any site 
security plan under H.R. 2868 is the provision of annual security 
training to each worker in the facility.
  The worker training grants are intended to help create an environment 
where there is a cadre of qualified organizations that are available to 
help facility operators fulfill this important requirement.
  The underlying bill does a good job of setting forth what qualifies 
as an ``eligible entity,'' but with the helpful addition of the 
language authored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), there can 
be no ambiguity about what is expected, none whatsoever.
  Grants are to be distributed based on merit and cannot be earmarked. 
That may have a spillover to other things, who knows. That makes sense 
security-wise and is a solid approach. I urge my fellow Members to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. And would that all chairmen shared 
your view on earmarks and programs of this type. I am glad the chairman 
has agreed to accept this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Schrader:
       Page 54, line 24, strike ``Sectoral Impacts'' and insert 
     ``Agricultural Sector''.
       Page 55, beginning on line 12, strike ``impacts of 
     compliance'' and insert ``agricultural impacts''.
       Page 55, beginning on line 19, strike ``by manufacturers, 
     retailers, aerial commercial applicators, and distributors of 
     pesticide and fertilizer'' and insert ``on the agricultural 
     sector''.
       Page 55, line 23, insert a comma after ``Representatives''.
       Page 55, line 24, strike ``and'' before ``the Committee''.
       Page 55 line 25, insert ``, the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate'' after 
     ``Senate''.
       Page 56, line 4, insert ``agricultural'' after ``scope 
     of''.
       Page 57, beginning on line 15, strike ``other sectors 
     engaged in commerce'' and insert ``agricultural end-users''.
       Strike line 20 on page 57 and all that follows through page 
     58, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Farm supplies merchant wholesaler.--The term `farm 
     supplies merchant wholesaler' means a covered chemical 
     facility that is primarily engaged in the merchant wholesale 
     distribution of farm supplies, such as animal feeds, 
     fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, plant seeds, 
     and plant bulbs.
       ``(B) Agricultural end-users.--The term `agricultural end-
     users' means facilities such as--
       ``(i) farms, including crop, fruit, nut, and vegetable 
     farms;
       ``(ii) ranches and rangeland;
       ``(iii) poultry, dairy, and equine facilities;
       ``(iv) turfgrass growers;
       ``(v) golf courses;
       ``(vi) nurseries;
       ``(vii) floricultural operations; and
       ``(viii) public and private parks.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Kissell from North 
Carolina for working with me on this amendment to help address some of 
the concerns from the agricultural community with the underlying bill.
  The Schrader-Kissell amendment is a perfecting amendment, and it 
builds on the efforts of Mr. Ross of Arkansas, of Mr. Space of Ohio, 
and of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the consideration of H.R. 
2868. I believe it is noncontroversial and that it has broad support 
from the agricultural community.
  There are concerns within the ag community that H.R. 2868 has the 
potential to cause undue burdens, possibly resulting in the industry's 
dropping widely used and essential products listed as ``chemicals of 
interest'' due to increased regulatory costs and liability concerns.
  This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to 
conduct an impact assessment that an inherently safer technology would 
have on agricultural facilities covered by these security regulations. 
Through this impact assessment, we hope to determine whether an IST 
mandate would result in fewer product options for farmers or ranchers, 
possibly leading to increased production costs as alternative, higher-
priced crop input products that may not have the same agronomic 
benefits may only be available and could impact their crop yields. 
Additionally, the amendment would authorize grant funding for 
agricultural facilities to assist with any IST compliance requirements.
  I think my colleagues will all agree we want to ensure the highest 
safety standards possible for facilities using these potentially 
dangerous chemicals. However, it is also essential we have all of the 
data at our disposal, so we will proceed in a thoughtful manner and 
will fully understand the impacts these new regulations may have on our 
family farms and ranchers.
  I ask that my colleagues support this amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. KISSELL. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
recognizing me.
  Mr. Chair, I would just like to add to what Mr. Schrader has said. 
This bill is straight, simple--straightforward.
  In the agricultural community, farm supply wholesalers and 
agriculture end users very much want to protect homeland security. They 
very much want to protect the safety of the facilities of whose 
products end up in our food supply. Also, they are concerned about what 
possible ramifications the bill may have.
  This is just simply calling for a study to see what impacts may be 
had. It strengthens the language that is already in the bill. It 
strengthens that language so that we can see what the results may be in 
terms of ranchers and farmers and the agricultural community all 
together.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in 
opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would support 
this amendment as it does give, after the fact, support for the 
position of agriculture in this debate over the imposition of ISTs, 
which I would remind my colleagues, from every single expert who 
testified before our committee, is a concept, not a completed process 
or product. Yet we are requiring that which is a concept, for which

[[Page H12526]]

there are no true methodologies, to be imposed by the Secretary.
  This is better than nothing, I suppose, because what this amendment 
does is it requires a report to be submitted to Congress after the 
mandates on agriculture go into effect, so at least we'll know how bad 
it is.
  I support this amendment because, as I say, it's better than nothing, 
but I would remind my colleagues that, in the letter of November 3, 
2009, signed by representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, 
the Chemical Producers and Distributors Association, the National 
Agriculture Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the 
National Cotton Council, The Fertilizer Institute, and the USA Rice 
Federation, they oppose this bill precisely because of the mandate of 
inherently safer technologies on their industries.
  It is not a question of the great men and women in agriculture being 
opposed to securing this Nation against a terrorist attack. It is the 
position of the great men and women in agriculture that this is an 
imposition of a technology or a process or a concept, whatever you want 
to call it, that those who came up with it testified before our 
committee does not fit neatly into a legislative mandate. Nonetheless, 
we here on this floor are saying we know better than those who came up 
with the concept those who actually will suffer from this concept being 
imposed on them.
  I support this amendment. I only wish that this amendment were 
stronger because, unfortunately, it is going to mandate a report that 
will come too late, a report to tell us what the effects of the mandate 
of IST will be or will have been on agriculture.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will support this amendment. I only wish 
we could have had a stronger amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I just urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McCaul

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. McCaul:
       Page 76, beginning on line 11, strike the proposed section 
     2116 and redesignate the proposed sections 2117 through 2120 
     as sections 2116 through 2119, respectively.
       Page 88, in the proposed amendment to the table of contents 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, strike the item 
     relating to section 2116 and redesignate the items relating 
     to sections 2117 through 2120 as items relating to sections 
     2116 through 2119, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the provision authorizing 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to be subjected to civil suits by 
uninjured third parties. If complaints have been made against the 
Secretary for failing to enforce the law, the inspector general of DHS 
can already initiate an investigation. If that is insufficient, then 
Congress can act.
  Allowing any third party--anybody--to sue the Secretary is both 
reckless and unnecessary. This provision would be a boon to trial 
lawyers and to environmentalists at the expense of the Department of 
Homeland Security and national security interests. Citizen suits have 
no place in a national security context, and this would be the very 
first time that Congress would be authorizing such suits in the 
homeland security arena.
  Environmentalists file hundreds of citizen suits annually, and they 
consume substantial governmental resources and taxpayer funds. Some 
agencies expend almost their entire annual budgets simply responding to 
these lawsuits. For instance, in May of 2008, The Washington Post noted 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service had been caught in a legal vise that 
has forced it to spend most of its time responding to lawsuits and 
following judges' orders while its mission has slowed to a near halt. 
We cannot afford the same consequence with the Department of Homeland 
Security. In the meantime, the mission of the agency falls by the 
wayside.
  This bill currently allows a citizen suit by any person. There is no 
requirement that the person be harmed or that the person be a local 
resident or even a United States citizen. The Congress has always 
treated national security as an inherently governmental matter and one 
in which sensitive security-related information has been rigorously 
protected. This marks the first time that citizen suits may result in 
the disclosure of very sensitive chemical facility vulnerability 
information.
  The Department of Homeland Security also opposes the civil suit 
provisions. Deputy Under Secretary Philip Reitinger, who I had the 
pleasure to work with at the Department of Justice, testified that it 
is true that any civil suit provision at least raises a specter of some 
diversion of resources. As a former longtime litigator in the DOJ, he 
also testified that, inevitably, there is some risk of disclosure of 
information, and this information is very sensitive. That means 
sensitive security information could easily get into the wrong hands. I 
think yesterday is a reminder that we need to stay vigilant.
  Committee staff spoke just this Tuesday with DHS staff to see if 
their position on this citizen suit provision had changed. It had not. 
They are still strongly opposed to this provision.
  Introducing these provisions in the national security arena has the 
potential not only to divert DHS from its security-related missions but 
to also result in the disclosure of protected sensitive information. 
This entire bill, including the provision I am trying to strike, will 
inadvertently have an impact on the private sector, on business, and on 
the overall economy at a time when we can least afford it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
Brother McCaul's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. First of all, this bill does not authorize suits by 
uninjured parties. Article III of the Constitution is very, very clear. 
It requires that any person who files a lawsuit be able to show injury. 
H.R. 2868 will have no effect on this constitutional requirement 
whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly 
held that Congress cannot pass a law changing this requirement. So it's 
in the Constitution. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court of this 
country.
  I oppose this amendment. It works against government accountability 
and against the security of our chemical facilities.
  Title I of H.R. 2868 allows citizens to file suit against the 
Secretary of Homeland Security for failing to meet her duties, such as 
issuing regulations or reviewing site security plans in a timely 
manner, in other words, if the Secretary, whomever that may be, does 
not do what he is supposed to do according to law.
  Are you putting our citizens in further jeopardy? Is this what you 
think of the American citizens that they cannot speak for themselves?
  This bill does not allow citizens to file suit against privately 
owned chemical facilities for alleged violations. Here is the bill. On 
pages 66, 67, 68, it doesn't say it. I don't know what you're reading.
  Therefore, this bill will not compel a chemical facility to turn over 
sensitive security information in court. It will not put this 
information at risk of public disclosure. Moreover, citizens cannot 
file suit against the Secretary for making a decision that is 
discretionary. It is very different from what the Constitution is 
talking about, such as whether to require a facility to switch 
chemicals or processes. Any claims to the contrary are simply false. 
This amendment would strip citizen enforcement out entirely.
  Why would we want to discourage the enforcement of these critical 
security standards? The American Chemical

[[Page H12527]]

Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and its affiliate, and 
the environmental and labor groups have endorsed the citizen 
enforcement provisions in this bill. I rest my case. With that breadth 
of support for the compromise, this amendment is an ineffective 
solution for a nonexistent problem.
  The members of the Energy and Commerce Committee devoted considerable 
time to crafting a solution that ensures government accountability 
while protecting sensitive information. Eliminating citizen suits 
without replacement is unnecessary. It undermines accountability, and 
it will leave our Nation less secure.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. McCaul's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. Both sides have 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCAUL. Very quickly, to my good friend from New Jersey, courts 
have broadly and loosely interpreted the constitutional standing 
requirement to virtually allow anyone with any evidence of perceived 
harm to bring a lawsuit under these citizen suits.
  With respect to sensitive information, we are now going to turn that 
over into the discovery process as to what is sensitive and what 
information is not.
  With respect to the groups that my good friend mentioned, it is my 
understanding, while they are not opposed to the bill, they have 
certainly not endorsed this bill.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, specifically, I stand in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. I probably represent as many, if not more, refineries and 
chemical plants as any Member of Congress.
  I agree. It is imperative that we have security at these 
institutions, at these plants. I do believe, however, that the citizen 
suit problem exposes two specific issues, one of which is that it's too 
broad. It allows anybody to file a lawsuit, and it leaves the 
discretion as to what is sensitive material up to the Federal judges, 
and the Federal judges have broad discretion as to what material they 
will release and will make public.
  The second problem I see--and it's specifically under (b)(2)--is that 
``the district court will have jurisdiction without regard of the 
amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.'' I am not 
clear why that would be added, but it allows standing to anyone, 
regardless of citizenship of the parties, to file a lawsuit. 
Specifically, it gives that permission.

                              {time}  1500

  Under the environmental suits that have been filed, standing has 
always been regarded--in most cases it's very broad, giving many people 
that standing. I think it's unwise. What it will do is bring 
unnecessary litigation. I think that's the purpose and duty of the 
Federal agencies, to bring this litigation against these chemical 
plants and not citizens because, of course, it will promote litigation; 
it will promote discovery of sensitive information; and it will allow 
anyone, anywhere, to file these lawsuits.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things here. First, the 
groups that I mentioned before support that part of the legislation 
which I mentioned. Number two, let's get to the meat and potatoes: this 
bill does not create a boon for trial lawyers. No one is eligible to 
receive damage awards in lawsuits under this bill.
  Mr. McCAUL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL. They certainly will receive attorneys' fees. They're 
being paid by these organizations to bring lawsuits.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, no one is eligible to receive 
damage awards. Lawyers will not receive a dime of any civil penalties 
that the courts may award because they are paid to the United States 
Treasury. I don't think that this is a Treasury scheme by any stretch 
of the imagination.
  This bill is not the first time citizen suits have been authorized in 
a national security context. Since the passage of the Bioterrorism Act 
in 2002, citizen suits have been available to enforce the requirements 
of section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is focused on 
security at drinking water facilities throughout the United States of 
America.
  By the way, to my other friend from Texas, this is very standard 
language that is used throughout this legislation.
  I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I just want to say that this is just 
giving the right to ordinary people to sue their own government because 
they're not providing for the security around facilities that could be 
attacked by al Qaeda. This is at the essence of the philosophy of the 
tea-baggers, to give ordinary citizens the right to challenge their 
government, to be able to rise up and to be able to say, you are not 
doing your job to protect us, your fundamental responsibility to 
protect the security of citizens in their homes and where they work.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, we must remember also--I think you 
would agree with me, Mr. Chairman--that nowhere in this legislation are 
we in any manner, shape or form jeopardizing the private plans of any 
facility, any chemical facility.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moran of Virginia). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Halvorson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Halvorson:
       Page 58, beginning on line 3, strike ``Assessment of 
     Impacts on Small Covered Chemical Facilities'' and insert 
     ``Small Covered Chemical Facilities''.
       Page 58, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(1) Guidance for small covered chemical facilities.--The 
     Secretary may provide guidance and, as appropriate, tools, 
     methodologies, or computer software, to assist small covered 
     chemical facilities in complying with the requirements of 
     this section.
       Page 58, line 5, strike  ``(1) in general'' and insert 
     ``(2) assessment of impacts on small covered chemical 
     facilities''.
       Page 59, line 20, strike ``(2) Definition'' and insert 
     ``(3) Definition''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Halvorson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, as a small business owner and as a 
member of the Small Business Committee, I understand the challenges 
that small business owners face on a day-to-day basis. I offer this 
amendment to help small chemical facilities in meeting some of those 
challenges.
  My amendment is straightforward and necessary. It would improve this 
bill by giving the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the 
authority to provide facilities with less than 350 employees the 
guidance, tools and software to help them comply with the security 
requirements of this bill.
  We have a responsibility to make sure chemical facilities are safe, 
but we also have a responsibility to make sure that small businesses 
have the assistance and the resources that they need to comply with new 
security requirements. That is what my amendment does. It helps small 
chemical facilities to comply with security standards in an effective 
and profitable manner.
  Based on DHS analysis, we can expect that 15 to 20 percent of the 
chemical facilities across the country have

[[Page H12528]]

less than 350 employees onsite. That's a significant number of small 
businesses that we cannot forget as we move forward on security 
requirements. These are facilities that create jobs that invest in 
economic growth. In a tough economic environment, these small 
businesses need to have the tools available to compete and succeed and, 
again, that's what this amendment does.
  The bottom line is that we need small chemical facilities to be 
secure, but we also need them to be successful. This is an important 
amendment, and it will help make sure that those two critical goals are 
accomplished. We can't forget that as we move forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I don't 
necessarily oppose the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows the Secretary to 
provide guidance, tools, methodologies or computer software to assist 
small covered chemical facilities in complying with the IST assessments 
and implementation requirements of the act.
  While I support the sentiment behind the amendment, given the costs 
associated with IST assessments and mandatory implementation, I am 
genuinely concerned there will be few small businesses left that would 
benefit from any guidance the Secretary may or may not provide based on 
this provision.
  This amendment simply gives the Secretary the option of providing 
guidance to small businesses to meet the costly IST provisions of the 
bill. How much guidance do we expect from an office that employs fewer 
than 200 people and is responsible for overseeing a program that covers 
6,100 facilities?
  While it's difficult to object to Mrs. Halvorson's amendment, I find 
it ironic that the majority would make in order an amendment that 
recognizes that small businesses will be affected by the IST mandate. 
But rather than address the problem before they create it, they ask the 
Secretary to clean up the mess for them.
  I would have preferred to debate Mr. Austria's amendment that was not 
ruled in order. That amendment would have been a real benefit to the 
3,630 smallest of the small businesses by exempting them altogether 
from this costly and unnecessary provision.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
gentlelady's amendment. The size of a facility's workforce or annual 
operating budget has nothing to do with the facility's security risk.
  At our October 1 hearing, we heard testimony from Rand Beers, 
Undersecretary of the DHS, about this issue. He said, and I quote, this 
is not an issue of defining whether the risk is less important because 
the size of a firm is small. The risk doesn't change with respect to 
the size of a firm.
  But what is different about small businesses is that some lack the 
administrative resources of large multibillion-dollar chemical 
companies. They might not have an in-house security expert that can 
direct or prepare their security vulnerability assessment or site 
security plan. They might not know how to navigate the Washington 
bureaucracy in order to learn how to best comply with these new 
regulations.
  The underlying legislation does acknowledge that the impact of 
inherently safer technology provisions on small businesses should be 
examined by the Department of Homeland Security. DHS has told us that 
they estimate that 15 to 20 percent of all regulated facilities might 
be classified as small businesses.
  I think the gentlelady's amendment takes the language one useful step 
further by giving DHS the authority to create tools specifically for 
small businesses to help them in complying with the inherent safer 
technology provisions of the bill. This could be guidance and outreach 
directed to the small business community or it could be software or 
other methodologies that could make compliance easier.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Halvorson amendment.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HALVORSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Foster

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Foster:
       Page 13, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(13) The term `academic laboratory' means a facility or 
     area owned by an institution of higher education (as defined 
     under section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001)) or a non-profit research institute or teaching 
     hospital that has a formal affiliation with an institution of 
     higher education, including photo laboratories, art studios, 
     field laboratories, research farms, chemical stockrooms, and 
     preparatory laboratories, where relatively small quantities 
     of chemicals and other substances, as determined by the 
     Secretary, are used on a non-production basis for teaching, 
     research, or diagnostic purposes, and are stored and used in 
     containers that are typically manipulated by one person.
       Page 20, line 12, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 20, line 19, strike the period after ``disapproval'' 
     and insert ``; and''.
       Page 20, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(H) establish, as appropriate, modified or separate 
     standards, protocols, and procedures for security 
     vulnerability assessments and site security plans for covered 
     chemical facilities that are also academic laboratories.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would like to first thank Mr. Lujan of New Mexico for allowing me 
to work with him on this important and commonsense amendment to the 
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act.
  The underlying bill is a positive step towards ensuring the security 
of America's chemical facilities, but overlooks key differences between 
commercial facilities and university and educational laboratories. This 
amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take a 
graduated approach to security in school labs and to create a separate 
and appropriate set of protocols for university affiliated laboratories 
with relatively small quantities of chemicals.
  One-size-fits-all safety regulations only create more paperwork, more 
bureaucracy and more confusion without necessarily making us safer. 
This is especially true in educational settings where large numbers of 
students move in and out of smaller chemical labs constantly, making it 
difficult and expensive to impose on them the same security protocols 
as large commercial facilities.
  However, this amendment does not let our schools off the hook for 
maintaining a safe and secure environment. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security will still require that universities create and report a 
security plan of precaution and prevention as part of normal campus 
safety procedures. At a time when university budgets are already tight, 
this amendment will avoid placing potentially large financial hardships 
on our educational institutions.
  This amendment is supported by a number of higher educational 
associations, including the American Council on Education, the 
Association of American Universities, and the Association of Public and 
Land-grant Universities. I was very happy to be able to work on this 
commonsense solution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but do not 
necessarily oppose the underlying amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses academic 
laboratories which is defined as a facility

[[Page H12529]]

owned by an institution of higher learning where relatively small 
quantities of substances are used for teaching or research purposes.
  These types of institutions are vastly different from the majority of 
chemical facilities that we all think of in terms of large 
manufacturing plants. The Secretary is required to take these 
differences into account and may develop modified or separate 
procedures for such institutions.
  The American Council on Education supports this amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  They will still be required to conduct security vulnerability 
assessments and site security plans.
  The qualifier ``as appropriate'' included in the amendment still 
gives the Secretary some direction as to if she wants to provide 
separate procedures for conducting the vulnerability assessments and 
site security plans. Most colleges and universities have already 
completed these required vulnerability assessments, and so this 
language, while well-intended, will have little impact.
  It is unfortunate that the amendment does not provide colleges and 
universities any exceptions or alternative procedures for the IST 
assessment and implementation requirements of this legislation. Despite 
this amendment, 99 colleges and universities will have to conduct 
costly IST assessments, and 23 of them in 14 States may be required to 
implement the findings of these assessments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I happily yield such time as he may consume 
to my colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. Foster, for 
recognition and for his cooperation in working on this amendment. I 
also commend Chairman Thompson for bringing this important legislation 
to the floor.
  In universities, colleges, and educational institutions across the 
Nation, researchers and students are currently utilizing educational 
laboratories to expand the limits of our scientific knowledge and 
develop the skills needed to thrive in high-tech jobs of tomorrow. This 
is an important opportunity to make sure that we are preparing them for 
the jobs of the future.
  This commonsense amendment will allow this work to continue, while 
ensuring that academic laboratories are protected from the unique 
security threats that they may face. Through this amendment, the 
Department of Homeland Security will have the flexibility to recognize 
that these labs, which may contain a large variety of chemicals, rarely 
possess any specific chemical in the large quantities typical of 
industrial facilities. The Department will have the capability to 
assess and oversee specific security challenges these labs face from 
infiltration, tampering, theft or attack.
  This amendment is supported by the American Chemical Society, and I 
want to reiterate and emphasize it is also supported by the American 
Council of Education and institutions of learning across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment, which 
will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security adequately 
protects our Nation's students, teachers, and research institutions.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, with no one on my side waiting to speak, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
111-327 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Barton of Texas.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. McCaul of Texas
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 168, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 869]

                               AYES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--168

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham

[[Page H12530]]


     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Aderholt
     Bishop (GA)
     Boehner
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Conaway
     Costa
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Meeks (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier

                              {time}  1544

  Messrs. CALVERT, McHENRY, PLATTS and CAO changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 869, I 
had a personal emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 262, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 870]

                               AYES--165

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Cardoza
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Aderholt
     Boehner
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chandler
     Conaway
     Ehlers
     McDermott
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1551

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Dent

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 241, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 871]

                               AYES--186

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy

[[Page H12531]]


     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Aderholt
     Carter
     Chandler
     Conaway
     Ehlers
     Farr
     Marchant
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schock


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1558

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Dent

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 872]

                               AYES--193

     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott

[[Page H12532]]


     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Carter
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Conaway
     Ehlers
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on 
this vote.

                              {time}  1605

  Mrs. CAPPS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McCaul

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
McCaul) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 232, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 873]

                               AYES--196

     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Carter
     Chandler
     Conaway
     Ehlers
     Gohmert
     King (IA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on 
this vote.

                              {time}  1612

  Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pastor of Arizona) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran of Virginia, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 2868) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend, 
modify, and recodify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism 
against chemical facilities, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 885, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page H12533]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1615


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DENT. I am, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Dent moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2868 to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 52, line 16, strike ``and''.
       Page 52, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 52, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(iv) would not significantly or demonstrably reduce the 
     operations of the covered chemical facility or result in any 
     net reduction in private sector employment when national 
     unemployment is above 4 percent.''.

  Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued 
the most recent unemployment numbers, and they rose yet again to 10.2 
percent, the highest unemployment rate in over 25 years. Last month, 
190,000 hardworking Americans lost their jobs, almost a third of which 
came from the manufacturing sector.
  Now, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the inclusion of any IST 
mandate in this bill; it's a vague and subjective philosophy that will 
cost facilities millions of dollars. The Department has no experts on 
IST, inherently safer technologies, nor any plans to hire them. And 
it's not really even about security at all.
  But the worst part of the IST mandate is that nowhere in the current 
bill is the Secretary required to consider the impact on the local 
economy and on the local workforce before imposing these unnecessary 
requirements. This is simply unimaginable in the current economy. 
Unemployment is now at 10.2 percent.
  The agricultural sector, much of which will now be regulated under 
this bill, has an unemployment rate of over 11 percent. Perhaps that's 
why agriculture groups, including the Farm Bureau and others, warn that 
IST ``could have a devastating impact on American agriculture.'' That's 
the Farm Bureau's words, not mine.
  Mandating implementation would result in increased costs, higher 
consumer prices, and lower crop yields. And for those of you who say 
that sector will be exempt, I say prove it. That's not true. That's not 
in the legislation. If it is, just tell me which page to turn to in 
here, and we'll try to find it. It's not in here.
  The cost of mandating IST is staggering. Twenty-seven associations, 
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated that the costs are 
estimated to range from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars per 
facility--millions of dollars. Almost 60 percent of the facilities 
regulated under this act employ fewer than 50 individuals. These are 
the smallest of small businesses. Do we really think they can afford to 
put millions of dollars into the redesigning of processes and 
facilities during these difficult economic times?
  We know the reality of these expenses. When the cost of doing 
business goes up, there are only two options: you can pass the cost on 
to consumers, or you can lay off workers. In today's competitive 
market, unfortunately, it is much easier to shed a few employees than 
to raise prices. You know it, I know it, and the American people know 
it.
  This is just the latest in a string of bills that will cost American 
jobs. The health care bill will result in millions of lost jobs across 
the country. In my district alone, more than 2,000 jobs are at risk 
because of the medical device tax, and another 300 are in jeopardy just 
because of the dental provisions in the health care bill.
  The cap-and-trade bill, the national energy tax will force the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to shed as many as 66,000 jobs by 2020, 
according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and raise 
energy costs for consumers and businesses alike. Every district in 
every State will point to similar job losses as a result of these 
detrimental policies.
  The hemorrhaging of American jobs must stop. I'm not sure about other 
Members in this Chamber, but to me every job is important and every job 
counts. This motion to recommit simply requires the Secretary to 
consider the jobs of hardworking Americans before imposing a mandate to 
implement inherently safer technologies, ISTs.
  This in no way reduces our Nation's security. They are still required 
to implement site security plans, but as Chairman Markey said during 
markup, The safer technology requirement is not about bolstering 
security. When I offered a similar amendment at the full committee, my 
friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee, and my friend, Mr. Cuellar, both spoke in 
strong support stating, We want to make sure that it does not adversely 
affect the workforce, which is something we all support. That provision 
passed unanimously. That's why I was angered when it was stripped out 
by the Rules Committee.
  Now, I say enough is enough. This motion simply says we've lost 
enough American jobs, and we don't need to lose anymore.
  We heard the promises from the majority to create jobs. We heard that 
the stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8 percent. Just yesterday, 
I heard several Members of Congress say that this legislation would not 
cost American jobs. If you believe that, if that wasn't just talk for 
the television cameras, then you should support this motion to 
recommit.
  This is an opportunity to save jobs before they need creating, to 
prevent putting more hardworking Americans on unemployment, to stand up 
for the farmers who put food on our table, to stand up for 
manufacturers and to stand up for the small businesses owners.
  Support the motion to recommit and let's keep America working.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in 
opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Mississippi opposed to 
the motion?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I can say to my colleague 
in this motion to recommit, we will have a jobs bill coming out of this 
body in the not-too-distant future. I look forward to Republican 
support of that jobs bill when it comes forth.
  But this is a security bill, Mr. Speaker. How in the world can we 
sacrifice security and tie it to unemployment? Can you believe when the 
terrorists come they'll say, Is the unemployment rate low enough for us 
to attack you, or should we wait until it gets to 4 percent? In the 
last 478 months, we've had 4 percent unemployment 6 of those months. So 
we're going to have to wait all that time before we invest in security.
  This is a security bill; it is not a jobs bill. We will have an 
opportunity to do a jobs bill later. I look forward to the Republican 
support for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, 
and I thank him for his great work on this historic legislation.
  Unemployment has not been under 4 percent since September 11. One of 
the reasons that it has not been under 4 percent since September 11 is 
the attack on September 11, which paralyzed our airline industry, 
paralyzed our tourism industry, and led to a precipitous drop in GDP 
because of the reaction to it.
  And by the way, these workers that the Republicans want to protect, 
well, we received a letter from the Steelworkers, the Communications 
Workers, the Autoworkers, the Chemical Workers, the Teamsters, the 
SEIU. Here is their letter to us: ``We oppose amendments that purport 
to protect jobs but

[[Page H12534]]

in fact only hinder the implementation of methods to reduce the 
consequences of a terrorist attack.''
  And why do they take that position? They take that position because 
the attack is coming on them, the workers at these plants.
  So the nuclear industry, we have the protections in place, the 
aviation industry, the cargo industry, the rail industry, the shipping 
industry; but the chemical industry, with facilities in urban areas or 
near large population areas, the Republicans for 7 years have said no 
protection. When unemployment was at 5 percent, they said no; 6 
percent; 7 percent; 8 percent; 9 percent; no, no, no, no protection for 
these workers at chemical facilities and those who live around them.
  Al Qaeda has metastasized in the last 7 years. They are coming back; 
that is their goal. Chemical facilities are at the top of their 
terrorist target list. We are trying to, finally, in this one last 
industry, put in place the security around these facilities to protect 
the American people, to protect the workers at these facilities. That's 
what this debate is all about. This amendment will undermine, will make 
it impossible for us to give those protections to the American people.
  We need a resounding ``no'' against this recommittal motion. We must 
stand up for the workers of this country; we must give them the 
protection that they need. Vote ``no'' on the recommittal motion of the 
Republicans.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 874]

                               AYES--189

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massa
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Aderholt
     Carter
     Chandler
     Conaway
     Ehlers
     Issa
     Murphy, Patrick
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.

                              {time}  1643

  Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 193, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 875]

                               AYES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey

[[Page H12535]]


     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--193

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Carter
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Conaway
     Ehlers
     McDermott
     Murphy, Patrick
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1651

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of 
terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water 
Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of 
wastewater treatment works, and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________