Introduction of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008

INTRODUCTION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2008 -- (Extensions of Remarks - March 11, 2008)

SPEECH OF
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.

Source