[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 11, 2008

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to 
introduce the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008, which was 
marked up and reported favorably by the Committee on Homeland Security 
on March 6, 2008.
  This bill will extend and strengthen the Department of Homeland 
Security's current authority to regulate security practices at our 
Nation's chemical facilities. This legislation must be enacted to 
ensure that there is no lapse in our efforts to protect the Nation's 
chemical infrastructure from the threat of terrorism. The Chemical 
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards regulations currently in effect will 
sunset in October 2009. The passage of this legislation is needed to 
update and improve those regulations and to make them permanent.
  Shielding the Nation's critical infrastructure from foreign and 
domestic terrorism is one of my eight goals in charting the course 
toward freedom from fear. As I see it, extending DHS's authority to 
regulate chemical security is the right thing to do, and this 
legislation does it the right way.
  For 4 months, the committee undertook a bipartisan effort to develop 
this legislation. There were extensive discussions with the Department, 
the chemical industry, including both large and small chemical 
manufacturers, fertilizer manufacturers, petroleum and propane 
manufacturers and distributors, water and wastewater facilities, 
environmental groups, labor organizations, State Governments, and 
academic and independent experts. The legislation I am introducing 
today with every Democratic Member of the Committee on Homeland 
Security is the product of this open, bipartisan process.
  Given this effort, where the ranking member of the full committee and 
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection were involved in 
every aspect of this legislation, I was very disappointed that the 
Republican Members, with few exceptions, chose partisanship over 
progress and voted against the bill. The disagreement that was cited 
was over whether all regulated chemical facilities, or just a subset, 
should be required to assess whether or not they could incorporate 
practices to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack in their 
processes. For the record, the bill requires only facilities assigned 
to a risk-based tier to undertake such an assessment. This is done to 
decrease the likelihood of a potential attack in the first place. 
That's just plain sensible.
  This legislation does not seek to reinvent the wheel, as the 
Democratic Members of this committee believe that the fundamental 
approach taken under the existing chemical security regulations is the 
correct one. At the same time, the bill seeks to make several 
improvements to the program after the sunset expires. For instance, the 
current chemical security regulations exempt water treatment facilities 
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and port facilities 
regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. This bill 
does not have such an exemption and calls for the CFATS to work 
smoothly with the existing authorities. Testimony by the Department at 
previous hearings before this committee demonstrated that facilities 
with the exemption possess the same chemicals and are as proximate to 
major metropolitan areas as the currently regulated facilities. The 
testimony revealed there is no rational public policy reason to exempt 
them from the chemical security regime.
  The bill also recognizes that water facilities need to be treated 
differently than other facilities. That is why we included provisions 
to require that the Secretary must provide funding for those that are 
required to implement inherently safer technology, IST. The bill also 
bars the Secretary from issuing any order or guidance under these 
regulations that contravenes laws, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
and restricts the Secretary from enforcing ``cease operations'' orders 
against water facilities unless their operation represents a clear and 
present danger to homeland security. The provisions are intended to 
ensure that this legislation will not cause water to be less safe for 
communities.
  The bill also protects the rights of States to pass their own 
regulations to secure chemical facilities so long as they do not 
directly conflict with this legislation; requires employee training and 
involvement of employees and their representatives in creating 
vulnerability assessments and security plans; creates strong 
whistleblower protections, and protects against illegitimate use of 
background checks.
  I know that once this bill leaves this committee, there will be an 
effort to weaken it. I hope, however, that Congress will not allow 
narrow interests to interfere with the national security imperative of 
securing our chemical sector from terrorists. Only through the 
comprehensive approach laid out in this bill will we address our 
Nation's current vulnerability to a massive chemical attack using our 
own infrastructure against us. Exempting some facilities will make us 
less safe because those facilities, by their exemption, could become 
more likely to be attacked.
  I hope that Congress will do the right thing to deliver to the 
American people freedom from fear of such a chemical attack by moving 
forward expeditiously to pass this legislation and make it law.

                          ____________________