Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source