[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 18, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. IKE SKELTON

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 5, 2009

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under 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:

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chair, as the Chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I study national security issues a great deal and fully 
understand the risks posed by terrorism.
  Terrorists from home and abroad have killed innocent Americans, which 
is why we in Congress have an obligation to diminish the likelihood of 
these kinds of terrorist attacks by strengthening our military, by 
giving law enforcement additional tools, and by authorizing common 
sense homeland security regulations. But, in writing laws to protect 
the American people, we must carefully consider how new regulations 
might impact citizens and businesses.
  In 2006, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to 
establish risk-based security performance standards for chemical 
facilities that use or store chemicals that can be attractive to 
terrorists. The Department issued its final chemical security 
regulations--the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards--in 2007, 
and, since then, businesses have been working in a collaborative manner 
with the Department to implement them.
  For agriculture, the Department has acknowledged the unique nature of 
farming with respect to chemical regulations and has indefinitely 
exempted from regulation all end-users of chemicals used in 
agriculture, including farms, ranches, and other crop, feed, or 
livestock facilities.
  In October 2009, the authority for the Department of Homeland 
Security to regulate chemical facilities expired. It was recently 
extended for one year through the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. In an effort to more permanently extend the 
Department's authority to regulate chemical facilities and to expand 
federal regulations to drinking water and waste water facilities, the 
House of Representatives considered H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water 
Security Act of 2009.
  To be sure, improving the security around these entities is an 
important national security objective, and the House Homeland Security 
Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee deserve a great 
deal of praise for gluing together H.R. 2868.
  However, as a Congressman from rural Missouri, I examined H.R. 2868 
through the lens of the farmers I represent. Some in the agricultural 
community do not support portions of this legislation relating to so-
called Inherently Safer Technology requirements. They believe these new 
requirements could force makers of their fertilizers to change to more 
expensive or less effective products, eventually adding to producers' 
input costs.
  I realize that the Committees of jurisdiction over H.R. 2868 worked 
hard to reach out to the agricultural community and that the bill was 
improved in Committee by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR) and Congressman 
Zach Space (D-OH) who added technical assistance grants for 
agricultural wholesalers. I also fully appreciate that the Department 
has exempted farms from its regulations for an indefinite period of 
time.
  But, after careful consideration and review, it seems more work 
remains to assuage agriculture's concerns about the Inherently Safer 
Technology requirements. As H.R. 2868 was presented in the House, I 
could not lend my support to it based on the concerns of my farmers and 
Missouri's agricultural retailers.

                          ____________________