Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the Chemical and Water Security Act, legislation that is a product of about 9 months of effort by the House Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. We've worked as partners towards the final construction of this legislation.

Now, I come from a district that was home to some of the 9/11 terrorists before they launched their attacks, before they walked in our streets, scoped out our airports, rehearsed their mission. The September 11th attacks demonstrated that America's very strengths, its technology, could be turned into weapons of mass destruction to be used against us.

Mohammed Atta and the other nine terrorists that hijacked those two planes at Logan Airport on September 11th were roaming around my district for about a year trying to determine how they could exploit deficiencies in technology. And when they found it, they struck. And more than 150 people were on those planes flying from Logan towards New York City. It is something that is etched forever in my mind, and I am committed to ensuring that it is not repeated.

Since 9/11, as a result of what happened on that day, we have enacted legislation to secure aviation, to secure maritime, rail, mass transit, nuclear energy, and other sectors. But what we have yet to do is act on comprehensive legislation to secure the facilities that make or store dangerous chemicals. Instead, we have relied on an incomplete and an adequate legislative rider that was inserted into an appropriations bill in 2006 that amounted to little more than a long run-on sentence.

The chemical sector represents the best of American technological might. Its products help to purify our water; make the microchips used in our computers, cell phones, and military technologies; refine our oil; grow our food. But these same chemicals could also be turned into a weapon of mass destruction, something we are reminded of just recently when we learned of a disrupted terrorist plot to use hydrogen peroxide purchased in Colorado for a bomb planned to be detonated in New York.

While the Department of Homeland Security has done an admirable job of implementing the rather hastily crafted legislative rider from 2006, the bill before us today closes the loopholes left open by that provision that could be exploited by terrorists.

The bill contains provisions that represent more than 5 years of work on my part to ensure that facilities containing toxic chemicals switch to safer processes or substances only when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so. Terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there. The language in this bill represents a true compromise that the Energy and Commerce Committee developed in close consultation with and using considerable input from the American Chemistry Council. Only the riskiest facilities would be subject to this provision. The Department of Homeland Security puts the number at between 100 and 200 out of a total of more than 6,000 regulated facilities.

Under 3 percent of the chemical facilities in our country would be covered under this legislation, the most dangerous, the most vulnerable, the most likely targets by al Qaeda in our country. And we know that al Qaeda has metastasized around the world. They are still trying to find the most vulnerable way that our country can be exploited, and it is our job to make sure that we pass the legislation that closes those vulnerabilities.

The American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates have endorsed the citizen enforcement provisions which were added in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee markup. These provisions remove all lawsuits against private companies, a change that the Chamber of Commerce has also deemed positive. The bill retains the ability for citizens to bring suit only against the Department of Homeland Security for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties and against Federal facilities for failure to comply with orders. It also establishes a citizen petition process to give citizens an official forum to report alleged security problems at private facilities to the Department of Homeland Security.

The legislation closes what both the Bush and Obama administrations have called a ``critical security gap'' for drinking water and wastewater facilities that were exempted from the 2006 law and the powers given to the Department of Homeland Security to close homeland security gaps that can be exploited by al Qaeda. In this bill, we grant the Environmental Protection Agency authority to establish a parallel security program for the water sector, consistent with the Bush and Obama administrations' views that EPA should be the lead regulator for these facilities.

Like the chemical facility language, drinking and wastewater facilities that use and store chemicals in amounts that could cause injury in the event of a release must assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes and that these processes may be required by State regulators only if, and I repeat, only if they are economically and technologically feasible and if their adoption will not impair water quality. The Blue-Green coalition of environmental and labor organizations, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, whose member utilities provide safe drinking to more than 125 million Americans, and the Association of California Water Agencies have all endorsed the drinking water title of this bill.

This legislation is a compromise. We engaged with all of the stakeholders and crafted language that addresses all of the concerns. And it is notable that even the Chamber of Commerce has said that it ``recognizes that several provisions have been reworked and modified to address concerns raised by the business community.''

This, ladies and gentlemen of the House, is still a glaring regulatory black hole that we must ensure is closed. We cannot allow al Qaeda to exploit this weakness that exists in the security that we place around the chemical facilities in our country. We know that it is at or near the very top of the al Qaeda target terrorist list. This legislation closes that loophole. It ensures that we are going to provide the protection for the American public from that attack, which we know somewhere in the world al Qaeda is planning if they can only find the way to exploit a weakness in our defense.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Michal Freedhoff from my staff; and Alison Cassady, David Leviss, Jacqueline Cohen, Phil Barnett, Greg Dotson, Kristin Amerling, Peter Ketcham-Caldwill and Melissa Cheatham from Chairman Waxman's staff. I would also like to thank Chris Debosier of Mr. Melancon's staff and Derrick Ramos from Mr. Green's staff.

This is not an environmental bill. This is not a bill banning chemicals. This is a bill about national security, to make sure that al Qaeda cannot turn a chemical facility in our country into a weapon of mass destruction in some hometown in our country. That is what this bill is all about.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source