An amendment numbered 2 printed Part B of House Report 111-327 to place provisions in the bill allowing the new Federal chemical facility regulations enacted by this bill to preempt state and local laws that "hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the purpose of the federal program".

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 885 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2868.

{time}  1335

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. Salazar
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
November 5, 2009, all time for general debate had expired.
In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committees on Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce printed
in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
part A of House Report 111-327 shall be considered as an original bill
for purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 2868

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical
and Water Security Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 103. Extension, modification, and recodification of authority of
Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate security
practices at chemical facilities.

TITLE II--DRINKING WATER SECURITY

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Intentional acts affecting the security of covered water
systems.
Sec. 203. Study to assess the threat of contamination of drinking water
distribution systems.

TITLE III--WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Wastewater treatment works security.

TITLE I--CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2009''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Nation's chemical sector represents a target that
terrorists could exploit to cause consequences, including
death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health,
the environment, critical infrastructure, public health,
homeland security, national security, and the national
economy.
(2) Chemical facilities that pose such potential
consequences and that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks
must be protected.
(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security has statutory
authority pursuant to section 550 of the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-
295) to regulate the security practices at chemical
facilities that are at significant risk of being terrorist
targets.
(4) The Secretary of Homeland Security issued interim final
regulations called the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards, which became effective on June 8, 2007.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to modify and
make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Homeland
Security to regulate security practices at chemical
facilities.

SEC. 103. EXTENSION, MODIFICATION, AND RECODIFICATION OF
AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO
REGULATE SECURITY PRACTICES AT CHEMICAL
FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new title:

``TITLE XXI--REGULATION OF SECURITY PRACTICES AT CHEMICAL FACILITIES

``SEC. 2101. DEFINITIONS.

``In this title, the following definitions apply:
``(1) The term `chemical facility' means any facility--
``(A) at which the owner or operator of the facility
possesses or plans to possess at any relevant point in time a
substance of concern; or
``(B) that meets other risk-related criteria identified by
the Secretary.
``(2) The term `chemical facility security performance
standards' means risk-based standards established by the
Secretary to ensure or enhance the security of a chemical
facility against a chemical facility terrorist incident that
are designed to address the following:
``(A) Restricting the area perimeter.
``(B) Securing site assets.
``(C) Screening and controlling access to the facility and
to restricted areas within the facility by screening or
inspecting individuals and vehicles as they enter,
including--
``(i) measures to deter the unauthorized introduction of
dangerous substances and devices that may facilitate a
chemical facility terrorist incident or actions having
serious negative consequences for the population surrounding
the chemical facility; and
``(ii) measures implementing a regularly updated
identification system that checks the identification of
chemical facility personnel and other persons seeking access
to the chemical facility and that discourages abuse through
established disciplinary measures.
``(D) Methods to deter, detect, and delay a chemical
facility terrorist incident, creating sufficient time between
detection of a chemical facility terrorist incident and the
point at which the chemical facility terrorist incident
becomes successful, including measures to--
``(i) deter vehicles from penetrating the chemical facility
perimeter, gaining unauthorized access to restricted areas,
or otherwise presenting a hazard to potentially critical
targets;
``(ii) deter chemical facility terrorist incidents through
visible, professional, well-maintained security measures and
systems, including security personnel, detection systems,
barriers and barricades, and hardened or reduced value
targets;
``(iii) detect chemical facility terrorist incidents at
early stages through counter surveillance, frustration of
opportunity to observe potential targets, surveillance and
sensing systems, and barriers and barricades; and
``(iv) delay a chemical facility terrorist incident for a
sufficient period of time so as to allow appropriate response
through on-site security response, barriers and barricades,
hardened targets, and well-coordinated response planning.
``(E) Securing and monitoring the shipping, receipt, and
storage of a substance of concern for the chemical facility.
``(F) Deterring theft or diversion of a substance of
concern.
``(G) Deterring insider sabotage.
``(H) Deterring cyber sabotage, including by preventing
unauthorized onsite or remote access to critical process
controls, including supervisory control and data acquisition
systems, distributed control systems, process control
systems, industrial control systems, critical business
systems, and other sensitive computerized systems.
``(I) Developing and exercising an internal emergency plan
for owners, operators, and covered individuals of a covered
chemical facility for responding to chemical facility
terrorist incidents at the facility. Any such plan shall
include the provision of appropriate information to any local
emergency planning committee, local law enforcement
officials, and emergency response providers to ensure an
effective, collective response to terrorist incidents.
``(J) Maintaining effective monitoring, communications, and
warning systems, including--
``(i) measures designed to ensure that security systems and
equipment are in good working order and inspected, tested,
calibrated, and otherwise maintained;
``(ii) measures designed to regularly test security
systems, note deficiencies, correct for detected
deficiencies, and record results so that they are available
for inspection by the Department; and
``(iii) measures to allow the chemical facility to promptly
identify and respond to security system and equipment
failures or malfunctions.
``(K) Ensuring mandatory annual security training,
exercises, and drills of chemical facility personnel
appropriate to their roles, responsibilities, and access to
chemicals, including participation by local law enforcement,
local emergency response providers, appropriate supervisory
and non-supervisory facility employees and their employee
representatives, if any.
``(L) Performing personnel surety for individuals with
access to restricted areas or critical assets by conducting
appropriate

[[Page H12499]]

background checks and ensuring appropriate credentials for
unescorted visitors and chemical facility personnel,
including permanent and part-time personnel, temporary
personnel, and contract personnel, including--
``(i) measures designed to verify and validate identity;
``(ii) measures designed to check criminal history;
``(iii) measures designed to verify and validate legal
authorization to work; and
``(iv) measures designed to identify people with terrorist
ties.
``(M) Escalating the level of protective measures for
periods of elevated threat.
``(N) Specific threats, vulnerabilities, or risks
identified by the Secretary for that chemical facility.
``(O) Reporting of significant security incidents to the
Department and to appropriate local law enforcement
officials.
``(P) Identifying, investigating, reporting, and
maintaining records of significant security incidents and
suspicious activities in or near the site.
``(Q) Establishing one or more officials and an
organization responsible for--
``(i) security;
``(ii) compliance with the standards under this paragraph;
``(iii) serving as the point of contact for incident
management purposes with Federal, State, local, and tribal
agencies, law enforcement, and emergency response providers;
and
``(iv) coordination with Federal, State, local, and tribal
agencies, law enforcement, and emergency response providers
regarding plans and security measures for the collective
response to a chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(R) Maintaining appropriate records relating to the
security of the facility, including a copy of the most recent
security vulnerability assessment and site security plan at
the chemical facility.
``(S) Assessing and, as appropriate, utilizing methods to
reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.
``(T) Methods to recover or mitigate the release of a
substance of concern in the event of a chemical facility
terrorist incident.
``(U) Any additional security performance standards the
Secretary may specify.
``(3) The term `chemical facility terrorist incident' means
any act or attempted act of terrorism or terrorist activity
committed at, near, or against a chemical facility,
including--
``(A) the release of a substance of concern from a chemical
facility;
``(B) the theft, misappropriation, or misuse of a substance
of concern from a chemical facility; or
``(C) the sabotage of a chemical facility or a substance of
concern at a chemical facility.
``(4) The term `employee representative' means the
representative of the certified or recognized bargaining
agent engaged in a collective bargaining relationship with a
private or public owner or operator of a chemical facility.
``(5) The term `covered individual' means a permanent,
temporary, full-time, or part-time employee of a covered
chemical facility or an employee of an entity with which the
covered chemical facility has entered into a contract who is
performing responsibilities at the facility pursuant to the
contract.
``(6) The term `covered chemical facility' means a chemical
facility that meets the criteria of section 2102(b)(1).
``(7) The term `environment' means--
``(A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous
zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are
under the exclusive management authority of the United States
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); and
``(B) any other surface water, ground water, drinking water
supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air
within the United States or under the jurisdiction of the
United States.
``(8) The term `owner or operator' with respect to a
facility means any of the following:
``(A) The person who owns the facility.
``(B) The person who has responsibility for daily operation
of the facility.
``(C) The person who leases the facility.
``(9) The term `person' means an individual, trust, firm,
joint stock company, corporation (including a government
corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality,
commission, political subdivision of a State, or any
interstate body and shall include each department, agency,
and instrumentality of the United States.
``(10) The term `release' means any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment (including the abandonment or discarding of
barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing
any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant).
``(11) The term `substance of concern' means a chemical
substance in quantity and form that is so designated by the
Secretary under section 2102(a).
``(12) The term `method to reduce the consequences of a
terrorist attack' means a measure used at a chemical facility
that reduces or eliminates the potential consequences of a
chemical facility terrorist incident, including--
``(A) the elimination or reduction in the amount of a
substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by
an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility through
the use of alternate substances, formulations, or processes;
``(B) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or
concentrations of a substance of concern; and
``(C) the reduction or elimination of onsite handling of a
substance of concern through improvement of inventory control
or chemical use efficiency.

``SEC. 2102. RISK-BASED DESIGNATION AND RANKING OF CHEMICAL
FACILITIES.

``(a) Substances of Concern.--
``(1) Designation by the secretary.--The Secretary may
designate any chemical substance as a substance of concern
and establish the threshold quantity for each such substance
of concern.
``(2) Matters for consideration.--In designating a chemical
substance or establishing or adjusting the threshold quantity
for a chemical substance under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall consider the potential extent of death, injury, and
serious adverse effects to human health, the environment,
critical infrastructure, public health, homeland security,
national security, and the national economy that could result
from a chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(b) List of Covered Chemical Facilities.--
``(1) Criteria for list of facilities.--The Secretary shall
maintain a list of covered chemical facilities that the
Secretary determines are of sufficient security risk for
inclusion on the list based on the following criteria:
``(A) The potential threat or likelihood that the chemical
facility will be the target of a chemical facility terrorist
incident.
``(B) The potential extent and likelihood of death, injury,
or serious adverse effects to human health, the environment,
critical infrastructure, public health, homeland security,
national security, and the national economy that could result
from a chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(C) The proximity of the chemical facility to large
population centers.
``(2) Submission of information.--The Secretary may require
the submission of information with respect to the quantities
of substances of concern that an owner or operator of a
chemical facility possesses or plans to possess in order to
determine whether to designate a chemical facility as a
covered chemical facility for purposes of this title.
``(c) Assignment of Chemical Facilities to Risk-Based
Tiers.--
``(1) Assignment.--The Secretary shall assign each covered
chemical facility to one of four risk-based tiers established
by the Secretary, with tier one representing the highest
degree of risk and tier four the lowest degree of risk.
``(2) Provision of information.--The Secretary may request,
and the owner or operator of a covered chemical facility
shall provide, any additional information beyond any
information required to be submitted under subsection (b)(2)
that may be necessary for the Secretary to assign the
chemical facility to the appropriate tier under paragraph
(1).
``(3) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date
on which the Secretary determines that a chemical facility is
a covered chemical facility or is no longer a covered
chemical facility or changes the tier assignment under
paragraph (1) of a covered chemical facility, the Secretary
shall notify the owner or operator of that chemical facility
of that determination or change together with the reason for
the determination or change and, upon the request of the
owner or operator of a covered chemical facility, provide to
the owner or operator of the covered chemical facility the
following information:
``(A) The number of individuals at risk of death, injury,
or severe adverse effects to human health as a result of a
worst case chemical facility terrorist incident at the
covered chemical facility.
``(B) Information related to the criticality of the covered
chemical facility.
``(C) The proximity or interrelationship of the covered
chemical facility to other critical infrastructure.
``(d) Requirement for Review.--The Secretary--
``(1) shall periodically review--
``(A) the designation of a substance of concern and the
threshold quantity under subsection (a)(1); and
``(B) the criteria under subsection (b)(1); and
``(2) may at any time determine whether a chemical facility
is a covered chemical facility or change the tier to which
such a facility is assigned under subsection (c)(1).
``(e) Provision of Threat-related Information.--In order to
effectively assess the vulnerabilities to a covered chemical
facility, the Secretary shall provide to the owner, operator,
or security officer of a covered chemical facility threat
information regarding probable threats to the facility and
methods that could be used in a chemical facility terrorist
incident.

``SEC. 2103. SECURITY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND SITE
SECURITY PLANS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) establish standards, protocols, and procedures for
security vulnerability assessments and site security plans to
be required for covered chemical facilities;
``(B) require the owner or operator of each covered
chemical facility to--
``(i) conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the
covered chemical facility to a range of chemical facility
terrorist incidents, including an incident that results in a
worst-case release of a substance of concern

[[Page H12500]]

and submit such assessment to the Secretary;
``(ii) prepare and implement a site security plan for that
covered chemical facility that addresses the security
vulnerability assessment and meets the risk-based chemical
security performance standards under subsection (c) and
submit such plan to the Secretary;
``(iii) include at least one supervisory and at least one
non-supervisory employee of the covered chemical facility,
and at least one employee representative, from each
bargaining agent at the covered chemical facility, if any, in
developing the security vulnerability assessment and site
security plan required under this section; and
``(iv) include, with the submission of a security
vulnerability assessment and the site security plan of the
covered chemical facility under this title, a signed
statement by the owner or operator of the covered chemical
facility that certifies that the submission is provided to
the Secretary with knowledge of the penalty provisions under
section 2107;
``(C) set deadlines, by tier, for the completion of
security vulnerability assessments and site security plans;
``(D) upon request, as necessary, and to the extent that
resources permit, provide technical assistance to a covered
chemical facility conducting a vulnerability assessment or
site security plan required under this section;
``(E) establish specific deadlines and requirements for the
submission by a covered chemical facility of information
describing--
``(i) any change in the use by the covered chemical
facility of more than a threshold amount of any substance of
concern that may affect the requirements of the chemical
facility under this title; or
``(ii) any material modification to a covered chemical
facility's operations or site that may affect the security
vulnerability assessment or site security plan submitted by
the covered chemical facility;
``(F) require the owner or operator of a covered chemical
facility to review and resubmit a security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan not less frequently than
once every 5 years; and
``(G) not later than 180 days after the date on which the
Secretary receives a security vulnerability assessment or
site security plan under this title, review and approve or
disapprove such assessment or plan and notify the covered
chemical facility of such approval or disapproval.
``(2) Inherently governmental function.--The approval or
disapproval of a security vulnerability assessment or site
security plan under this section is an inherently
governmental function.
``(b) Participation in Preparation of Security
Vulnerability Assessments or Site Security Plans.--Any person
selected by the owner or operator of a covered chemical
facility or by a certified or recognized bargaining agent of
a covered chemical facility to participate in the development
of the security vulnerability assessment or site security
plan required under this section for such covered chemical
facility shall be permitted to participate if the person
possesses knowledge, experience, training, or education
relevant to the portion of the security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan on which the person is
participating.
``(c) Risk-based Chemical Security Performance Standards.--
The Secretary shall establish risk-based chemical security
performance standards for the site security plans required to
be prepared by covered chemical facilities. In establishing
such standards, the Secretary shall--
``(1) require separate and, as appropriate, increasingly
stringent risk-based chemical security performance standards
for site security plans as the level of risk associated with
the tier increases; and
``(2) permit each covered chemical facility submitting a
site security plan to select a combination of security
measures that satisfy the risk-based chemical security
performance standards established by the Secretary under this
subsection.
``(d) Co-Located Chemical Facilities.--The Secretary may
allow an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility
that is located geographically close to another covered
chemical facility to develop and implement coordinated
security vulnerability assessments and site security plans.
``(e) Alternate Security Programs Satisfying Requirements
for Security Vulnerability Assessment and Site Security
Plan.--
``(1) Acceptance of program.--In response to a request by
an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility, the
Secretary may accept an alternate security program submitted
by the owner or operator of the facility as a component of
the security vulnerability assessment or site security plan
required under this section, if the Secretary determines that
such alternate security program, in combination with other
components of the security vulnerability assessment and site
security plan submitted by the owner or operator of the
facility--
``(A) meets the requirements of this title and the
regulations promulgated pursuant to this title;
``(B) provides an equivalent level of security to the level
of security established pursuant to the regulations
promulgated under this title; and
``(C) includes employee participation as required under
subsection (a)(1)(B)(iii).
``(2) Secretarial review required.--Nothing in this
subsection shall relieve the Secretary of the obligation--
``(A) to review a security vulnerability assessment and
site security plan submitted by a covered chemical facility
under this section; and
``(B) to approve or disapprove each such assessment or plan
on an individual basis according to the deadlines established
under subsection (a).
``(3) Covered facility's obligations unaffected.--Nothing
in this subsection shall relieve any covered chemical
facility of the obligation and responsibility to comply with
all of the requirements of this title.
``(4) Personnel surety alternate security program.--In
response to an application from a non-profit, personnel
surety accrediting organization acting on behalf of, and with
written authorization from, the owner or operator of a
covered chemical facility, the Secretary may accept a
personnel surety alternate security program that meets the
requirements of section 2115 and provides for a background
check process that is--
``(A) expedited, affordable, reliable, and accurate;
``(B) fully protective of the rights of covered individuals
through procedures that are consistent with the privacy
protections available under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15
U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); and
``(C) is a single background check consistent with a risk-
based tiered program.
``(f) Other Authorities.--
``(1) Regulation of maritime facilities.--
``(A) Risk-based tiering.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the owner or operator of a chemical
facility required to submit a facility security plan under
section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, shall be
required to submit information to the Secretary necessary to
determine whether to designate such a facility as a covered
chemical facility and to assign the facility to a risk-based
tier under section 2102 of this title.
``(B) Additional measures.--In the case of a facility
designated as a covered chemical facility under this title
for which a facility security plan is required to be
submitted under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States
Code, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, after consultation
with the Secretary, shall require the owner or operator of
such facility to update the vulnerability assessments and
facility security plans required under that section, if
necessary, to ensure an equivalent level of security for
substances of concern, including the requirements under
section 2111, in the same manner as other covered chemical
facilities in this title.
``(C) Personnel surety.--
``(i) Exception.--A facility designated as a covered
chemical facility under this title that has had its facility
security plan approved under section 70103(c) of title 46,
United States Code, shall not be required to update or amend
such plan in order to meet the requirements of section 2115
of this title.
``(ii) Equivalent access.--An individual described in
section 2115(a)(1)(B) who has been granted access to
restricted areas or critical assets by the owner or operator
of a facility for which a security plan is required to be
submitted under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States
Code, may be considered by that owner or operator to have
satisfied the requirement for passing a security background
check otherwise required under section 2115 for purposes of
granting the individual access to restricted areas or
critical assets of a covered chemical facility that is owned
or operated by the same owner or operator.
``(D) Information sharing and protection.--Notwithstanding
section 70103(d) of title 46, United States Code, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, after consultation with the
Secretary, shall apply the information sharing and protection
requirements in section 2110 of this title to a facility
described in subparagraph (B).
``(E) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall establish, by
rulemaking, procedures to ensure that an owner or operator of
a covered chemical facility required to update the
vulnerability assessment and facility security plan for the
facility under subparagraph (B) is in compliance with the
requirements of this title.
``(F) Formal agreement.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) require the Office of Infrastructure Protection and
the Coast Guard to enter into a formal agreement detailing
their respective roles and responsibilities in carrying out
the requirements of this title, which shall ensure that the
enforcement and compliance requirements under this title and
section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, are not
conflicting or duplicative; and
``(ii) designate the agency responsible for enforcing the
requirements of this title with respect to covered chemical
facilities for which facility security plans are required to
be submitted under section 70103(c) of title 46, United
States Code, consistent with the requirements of
subparagraphs (B) and (D).
``(2) Coordination of storage licensing or permitting
requirement.--In the case of any storage required to be
licensed or permitted under chapter 40 of title 18, United
States Code, the Secretary shall prescribe the rules and
regulations for the implementation of this section with the
concurrence of the Attorney General and avoid unnecessary
duplication of regulatory requirements.
``(g) Role of Employees.--

[[Page H12501]]

``(1) Description of role required.--Site security plans
required under this section shall describe the roles or
responsibilities that covered individuals are expected to
perform to deter or respond to a chemical facility terrorist
incident.
``(2) Annual training for employees.--The owner or operator
of a covered chemical facility required to submit a site
security plan under this section shall annually provide each
covered individual with a role or responsibility referred to
in paragraph (1) at the facility with a minimum of 8 hours of
training. Such training shall, as relevant to the role or
responsibility of such covered individual--
``(A) include an identification and discussion of
substances of concern;
``(B) include a discussion of possible consequences of a
chemical facility terrorist incident;
``(C) review and exercise the covered chemical facility's
site security plan, including any requirements for differing
threat levels;
``(D) include a review of information protection
requirements;
``(E) include a discussion of physical and cyber security
equipment, systems, and methods used to achieve chemical
security performance standards;
``(F) allow training with other relevant participants,
including Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities, and
first responders, where appropriate;
``(G) use existing national voluntary consensus standards,
chosen jointly with employee representatives, if any;
``(H) allow instruction through government training
programs, chemical facilities, academic institutions,
nonprofit organizations, industry and private organizations,
employee organizations, and other relevant entities that
provide such training;
``(I) use multiple training media and methods; and
``(J) include a discussion of appropriate emergency
response procedures, including procedures to mitigate the
effects of a chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(3) Equivalent training.--During any year, with respect
to any covered individual with roles or responsibilities
under paragraph (1), an owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility may satisfy any of the training
requirements for such covered individual under subparagraphs
(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (J) of paragraph (2) through
training that such owner or operator certifies, in a manner
prescribed by the Secretary, is equivalent.
``(4) Worker training grant program.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish a grant
program to award grants to or enter into cooperative
agreements with eligible entities to provide for the training
and education of covered individuals with roles or
responsibilities described in paragraph (1) and first
responders and emergency response providers that would
respond to a chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(B) Administration.--The Secretary shall seek to enter
into an agreement with the Director of the National Institute
for Environmental Health Sciences, or with the head of
another Federal or State agency, to make and administer
grants or cooperative agreements under this paragraph.
``(C) Use of funds.--The recipient of funds under this
paragraph shall use such funds to provide for the training
and education of covered individuals with roles or
responsibilities described in paragraph (1), first
responders, and emergency response providers, including--
``(i) the annual mandatory training specified in paragraph
(2); and
``(ii) other appropriate training to protect nearby
persons, property, critical infrastructure, or the
environment from the effects of a chemical facility terrorist
incident.
``(D) Eligible entities.--For purposes of this paragraph,
an eligible entity is a nonprofit organization with
demonstrated experience in implementing and operating
successful worker or first responder health and safety or
security training programs.
``(h) State, Regional, or Local Governmental Entities.--No
covered chemical facility shall be required under State,
local, or tribal law to provide a vulnerability assessment or
site security plan described under this title to any State,
regional, local, or tribal government entity solely by reason
of the requirement under subsection (a) that the covered
chemical facility submit such an assessment and plan to the
Secretary.

``SEC. 2104. SITE INSPECTIONS.

``(a) Right of Entry.--For purposes of carrying out this
title, the Secretary shall have, at a reasonable time and on
presentation of credentials, a right of entry to, on, or
through any property of a covered chemical facility or any
property on which any record required to be maintained under
this section is located.
``(b) Inspections and Verifications.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, at such time and
place as the Secretary determines to be reasonable and
appropriate, conduct chemical facility security inspections
and verifications.
``(2) Requirements.--To ensure and evaluate compliance with
this title, including any regulations or requirements adopted
by the Secretary in furtherance of the purposes of this
title, in conducting an inspection or verification under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall have access to the owners,
operators, employees, and employee representatives, if any,
of a covered chemical facility.
``(c) Unannounced Inspections.--In addition to any
inspection conducted pursuant to subsection (b), the
Secretary shall require covered chemical facilities assigned
to tier 1 and tier 2 under section 2102(c)(1) to undergo
unannounced facility inspections. The inspections required
under this subsection shall be--
``(1) conducted without prior notice to the facility;
``(2) designed to evaluate at the chemical facility
undergoing inspection--
``(A) the ability of the chemical facility to prevent a
chemical facility terrorist incident that the site security
plan of the facility is intended to prevent;
``(B) the ability of the chemical facility to protect
against security threats that are required to be addressed by
the site security plan of the facility; and
``(C) any weaknesses in the site security plan of the
chemical facility;
``(3) conducted so as not to affect the actual security,
physical integrity, safety, or regular operations of the
chemical facility or its employees while the inspection is
conducted; and
``(4) conducted--
``(A) every two years in the case of a covered chemical
facility assigned to tier 1; and
``(B) every four years in the case of a covered chemical
facility assigned to tier 2.
``(d) Chemical Facility Inspectors Authorized.--During the
period of fiscal years 2011 and 2012, subject to the
availability of appropriations for such purpose, the
Secretary shall increase by not fewer than 100 the total
number of chemical facility inspectors within the Department
to ensure compliance with this title.
``(e) Confidential Communications.--The Secretary shall
offer non-supervisory employees the opportunity to
confidentially communicate information relevant to the
employer's compliance or non-compliance with this title,
including compliance or non-compliance with any regulation or
requirement adopted by the Secretary in furtherance of the
purposes of this title. An employee representative of each
certified or recognized bargaining agent at the covered
chemical facility, if any, or, if none, a non-supervisory
employee, shall be given the opportunity to accompany the
Secretary during a physical inspection of such covered
chemical facility for the purpose of aiding in such
inspection, if representatives of the owner or operator of
the covered chemical facility will also be accompanying the
Secretary on such inspection.

``SEC. 2105. RECORDS.

``(a) Request for Records.--In carrying out this title, the
Secretary may require submission of, or on presentation of
credentials may at reasonable times obtain access to and
copy, any records, including any records maintained in
electronic format, necessary for--
``(1) reviewing or analyzing a security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan submitted under section
2103; or
``(2) assessing the implementation of such a site security
plan.
``(b) Proper Handling of Records.--In accessing or copying
any records under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure
that such records are handled and secured appropriately in
accordance with section 2110.

``SEC. 2106. TIMELY SHARING OF THREAT INFORMATION.

``(a) Responsibilities of Secretary.--Upon the receipt of
information concerning a threat that is relevant to a certain
covered chemical facility, the Secretary shall provide such
information in a timely manner, to the maximum extent
practicable under applicable authority and in the interests
of national security, to the owner, operator, or security
officer of that covered chemical facility, to a
representative of each recognized or certified bargaining
agent at the facility, if any, and to relevant State, local,
and tribal authorities, including the State Homeland Security
Advisor, if any.
``(b) Responsibilities of Owner or Operator.--The Secretary
shall require the owner or operator of a covered chemical
facility to provide information concerning a threat in a
timely manner about any significant security incident or
threat to the covered chemical facility or any intentional or
unauthorized penetration of the physical security or cyber
security of the covered chemical facility whether successful
or unsuccessful.

``SEC. 2107. ENFORCEMENT.

``(a) Review of Security Vulnerability Assessment and Site
Security Plan.--
``(1) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a
security vulnerability assessment or site security plan
submitted under this title if the Secretary determines, in
his or her discretion, that--
``(A) the security vulnerability assessment or site
security plan does not comply with the standards, protocols,
or procedures under section 2103(a)(1)(A); or
``(B) in the case of a site security plan--
``(i) the plan or the implementation of the plan is
insufficient to address vulnerabilities identified in a
security vulnerability assessment, site inspection, or
unannounced inspection of the covered chemical facility; or
``(ii) the plan fails to meet all applicable chemical
facility security performance standards.
``(2) Notification of disapproval.--If the Secretary
disapproves the security vulnerability assessment or site
security plan submitted by a covered chemical facility under
this title or the implementation of a site security plan by
such a chemical facility, the

[[Page H12502]]

Secretary shall provide the owner or operator of the covered
chemical facility a written notification of the disapproval
not later than 14 days after the date on which the Secretary
disapproves such assessment or plan, that--
``(A) includes a clear explanation of deficiencies in the
assessment, plan, or implementation of the plan; and
``(B) requires the owner or operator of the covered
chemical facility to revise the assessment or plan to address
any deficiencies and, by such date as the Secretary
determines is appropriate, to submit to the Secretary the
revised assessment or plan.
``(b) Remedies.--
``(1) Order for compliance.--Whenever the Secretary
determines that the owner or operator of a covered chemical
facility has violated or is in violation of any requirement
of this title or has failed or is failing to address any
deficiencies in the assessment, plan, or implementation of
the plan by such date as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, the Secretary may--
``(A) after providing notice to the owner or operator of
the covered chemical facility and an opportunity, pursuant to
the regulations issued under this title, for such owner or
operator to seek review within the Department of the
Secretary's determination, issue an order assessing an
administrative penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day
on which a past or current violation occurs or a failure to
comply continues, requiring compliance immediately or within
a specified time period, or both; or
``(B) in a civil action, obtain appropriate equitable
relief, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day
on which a past or current violation occurs or a failure to
comply continues, or both.
``(2) Order to cease operations.--Whenever the Secretary
determines that the owner or operator of a covered chemical
facility continues to be in noncompliance after an order for
compliance is issued under paragraph (1), the Secretary may
issue an order to the owner or operator to cease operations
at the facility until compliance is achieved to the
satisfaction of the Secretary.
``(c) Applicability of Penalties.--A penalty under
subsection (b)(1) may be awarded for any violation of this
title, including a violation of the whistleblower protections
under section 2108.

``SEC. 2108. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
provide information to the public regarding a process by
which any person may submit a report to the Secretary
regarding problems, deficiencies, or vulnerabilities at a
covered chemical facility associated with the risk of a
chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(b) Confidentiality.--The Secretary shall keep
confidential the identity of a person that submits a report
under subsection (a) and any such report shall be treated as
protected information under section 2110 to the extent that
it does not consist of publicly available information.
``(c) Acknowledgment of Receipt.--If a report submitted
under subsection (a) identifies the person submitting the
report, the Secretary shall respond promptly to such person
to acknowledge receipt of the report.
``(d) Steps to Address Problems.--The Secretary shall
review and consider the information provided in any report
submitted under subsection (a) and shall, as necessary, take
appropriate steps under this title to address any problem,
deficiency, or vulnerability identified in the report.
``(e) Retaliation Prohibited.--
``(1) Prohibition.--No owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility, profit or not-for-profit corporation,
association, or any contractor, subcontractor or agent
thereof, may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate
against any employee with respect to the employee's
compensation, terms, conditions, or other privileges of
employment because the employee (or any person acting
pursuant to a request of the employee)--
``(A) notified the Secretary, the owner or operator of a
covered chemical facility, or the employee's employer of an
alleged violation of this title, including notification of
such an alleged violation through communications related to
carrying out the employee's job duties;
``(B) refused to participate in any conduct that the
employee reasonably believes is in noncompliance with a
requirement of this title, if the employee has identified the
alleged noncompliance to the employer;
``(C) testified before or otherwise provided information
relevant for Congress or for any Federal or State proceeding
regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of this
title;
``(D) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to
commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this
title;
``(E) testified or is about to testify in any such
proceeding; or
``(F) assisted or participated or is about to assist or
participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any
other manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to
carry out the purposes of this title.
``(2) Enforcement action.--Any employee covered by this
section who alleges discrimination by an employer in
violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action governed by
the rules and procedures, legal burdens of proof, and
remedies applicable under subsections (d) through (h) of
section 20109 of title 49, United States Code. A party may
seek district court review as set forth in subsection (d)(3)
of such section not later than 90 days after receiving a
written final determination by the Secretary of Labor.
``(3) Prohibited personnel practices affecting the
department.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any individual holding or applying for a position within
the Department shall be covered by--
``(i) paragraphs (1), (8), and (9) of section 2302(b) of
title 5, United States Code;
``(ii) any provision of law implementing any of such
paragraphs by providing any right or remedy available to an
employee or applicant for employment in the civil service;
and
``(iii) any rule or regulation prescribed under any such
paragraph.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to affect any rights, apart from those
referred to in subparagraph (A), to which an individual
described in that subparagraph might otherwise be entitled to
under law.

``SEC. 2109. FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

``This title does not preclude or deny any right of any
State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce
any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance with
respect to a covered chemical facility that is more stringent
than a regulation, requirement, or standard of performance
issued under this title, or otherwise impair any right or
jurisdiction of any State or political subdivision thereof
with respect to covered chemical facilities within that State
or political subdivision thereof.

``SEC. 2110. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.

``(a) Prohibition of Public Disclosure of Protected
Information.--Protected information, as described in
subsection (g)--
``(1) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code; and
``(2) shall not be made available pursuant to any State,
local, or tribal law requiring disclosure of information or
records.
``(b) Information Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations, and may issue such orders, as necessary to
prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected
information, as described in subsection (g).
``(2) Sharing of protected information.--The regulations
under paragraph (1) shall provide standards for and
facilitate the appropriate sharing of protected information
with and between Federal, State, local, and tribal
authorities, emergency response providers, law enforcement
officials, designated supervisory and nonsupervisory covered
chemical facility personnel with security, operational, or
fiduciary responsibility for the facility, and designated
facility employee representatives, if any. Such standards
shall include procedures for the sharing of all portions of a
covered chemical facility's vulnerability assessment and site
security plan relating to the roles and responsibilities of
covered individuals under section 2103(g)(1) with a
representative of each certified or recognized bargaining
agent representing such covered individuals, if any, or, if
none, with at least one supervisory and at least one non-
supervisory employee with roles or responsibilities under
section 2103(g)(1).
``(3) Penalties.--Protected information, as described in
subsection (g), shall not be shared except in accordance with
the regulations under paragraph (1). Whoever discloses
protected information in knowing violation of the regulations
and orders issued under paragraph (1) shall be fined under
title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than
one year, or both, and, in the case of a Federal officeholder
or employee, shall be removed from Federal office or
employment.
``(c) Treatment of Information in Adjudicative
Proceedings.--In any judicial or administrative proceeding,
protected information described in subsection (g) shall be
treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of
sensitive security information under section 525 of the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
(Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1381).
``(d) Other Obligations Unaffected.--Except as provided in
section 2103(h), nothing in this section affects any
obligation of the owner or operator of a chemical facility
under any other law to submit or make available information
required by such other law to facility employees, employee
organizations, or a Federal, State, tribal, or local
government.
``(e) Submission of Information to Congress.--Nothing in
this title shall permit or authorize the withholding of
information from Congress or any committee or subcommittee
thereof.
``(f) Disclosure of Independently Furnished Information.--
Nothing in this title shall affect any authority or
obligation of a Federal, State, local, or tribal government
agency to protect or disclose any record or information that
the Federal, State, local, or tribal government agency
obtains from a chemical facility under any other law.
``(g) Protected Information.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, protected
information is any of the following:
``(A) Security vulnerability assessments and site security
plans, including any assessment required under section 2111.
``(B) Portions of the following documents, records, orders,
notices, or letters that the Secretary determines would be
detrimental to chemical facility security if disclosed and
that are developed by the Secretary or the owner or operator
of a covered chemical facility for the purposes of this
title:

[[Page H12503]]

``(i) Documents directly related to the Secretary's review
and approval or disapproval of vulnerability assessments and
site security plans under this title.
``(ii) Documents directly related to inspections and audits
under this title.
``(iii) Orders, notices, or letters regarding the
compliance of a covered chemical facility with the
requirements of this title.
``(iv) Information, documents, or records required to be
provided to or created by the Secretary under subsection (b)
or (c) of section 2102.
``(v) Documents directly related to security drills and
training exercises, security threats and breaches of
security, and maintenance, calibration, and testing of
security equipment.
``(C) Other information, documents, or records developed
exclusively for the purposes of this title that the Secretary
has determined by regulation would, if disclosed, be
detrimental to chemical facility security.
``(2) Exclusions.--For purposes of this section, protected
information does not include--
``(A) information that is otherwise publicly available,
including information that is required to be made publicly
available under any law;
``(B) information that a chemical facility has lawfully
disclosed other than in accordance with this title; or
``(C) information that, if disclosed, would not be
detrimental to the security of a chemical facility, including
aggregate regulatory data that the Secretary has determined
by regulation to be appropriate to describe facility
compliance with the requirements of this title and the
Secretary's implementation of such requirements.

``SEC. 2111. METHODS TO REDUCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A
TERRORIST ATTACK.

``(a) Assessment Required.--
``(1) Assessment.--The owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility shall include in the site security plan
conducted pursuant to section 2103, an assessment of methods
to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack on that
chemical facility, including--
``(A) a description of the methods to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack implemented and considered
for implementation by the covered chemical facility;
``(B) the degree to which each method to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack, if already implemented,
has reduced, or, if implemented, could reduce, the potential
extent of death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human
health resulting from a release of a substance of concern;
``(C) the technical feasibility, costs, avoided costs
(including liabilities), personnel implications, savings, and
applicability of implementing each method to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack; and
``(D) any other information that the owner or operator of
the covered chemical facility considered in conducting the
assessment.
``(2) Feasible.--For the purposes of this section, the term
`feasible' means feasible with the use of best technology,
techniques, and other means that the Secretary finds, after
examination for efficacy under field conditions and not
solely under laboratory conditions, are available for use at
the covered chemical facility.
``(b) Implementation.--
``(1) Implementation.--
``(A) In general.--The owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility that is assigned to tier 1 or tier 2
because of the potential extent and likelihood of death,
injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, the
environment, critical infrastructure, public health, homeland
security, national security, and the national economy from a
release of a substance of concern at the covered chemical
facility, shall implement methods to reduce the consequences
of a terrorist attack on the chemical facility if the
Director of the Office of Chemical Facility Security
determines, in his or her discretion, using the assessment
conducted pursuant to subsection (a), that the implementation
of such methods at the facility--
``(i) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury,
or serious adverse effects to human health resulting from a
chemical facility terrorist incident but--

``(I) would not increase the interim storage of a substance
of concern outside the facility;
``(II) would not directly result in the creation of a new
covered chemical facility assigned to tier 1 or tier 2
because of the potential extent and likelihood of death,
injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, the
environment, critical infrastructure, public health, homeland
security, national security, and the national economy from a
release of a substance of concern at the covered chemical
facility;
``(III) would not result in the reassignment of an existing
covered chemical facility from tier 3 or tier 4 to tier 1 or
tier 2 because of the potential extent and likelihood of
death, injury, and serious adverse effects to human health,
the environment, critical infrastructure, public health,
homeland security, national security, and the national
economy from a release of a substance of concern at the
covered chemical facility; and
``(IV) would not significantly increase the potential
extent and likelihood of death, injury, and serious adverse
effects to human health, the environment, critical
infrastructure, public health, homeland security, national
security, and the national economy from a release of a
substance of concern due to a terrorist attack on the
transportation infrastructure of the United States;

``(ii) can feasibly be incorporated into the operation of
the covered chemical facility; and
``(iii) would not significantly and demonstrably impair the
ability of the owner or operator of the covered chemical
facility to continue the business of the facility at its
location.
``(B) Written determination.--A determination by the
Director of the Office of Chemical Facility Security pursuant
to subparagraph (A) shall be made in writing and include the
basis and reasons for such determination, including the
Director's analysis of the covered chemical facility's
assessment of the technical feasibility, costs, avoided costs
(including liabilities), personnel implications, savings, and
applicability of implementing each method to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack.
``(C) Maritime facilities.--With respect to a covered
chemical facility for which a security plan is required under
section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, a written
determination pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be made only
after consultation with the Captain of the Port for the area
in which the covered chemical facility is located.
``(2) Review of inability to comply.--
``(A) In general.--An owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility who is unable to comply with the Director's
determination under paragraph (1) shall, within 120 days of
receipt of the Director's determination, provide to the
Secretary a written explanation that includes the reasons
therefor. Such written explanation shall specify whether the
owner or operator's inability to comply arises under clause
(ii) or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A), or both.
``(B) Review.--Not later than 120 days of receipt of an
explanation submitted under subparagraph (A), the Secretary,
after consulting with the owner or operator of the covered
chemical facility who submitted such explanation, as well as
experts in the subjects of environmental health and safety,
security, chemistry, design and engineering, process controls
and implementation, maintenance, production and operations,
chemical process safety, and occupational health, as
appropriate, shall provide to the owner or operator a written
determination, in his or her discretion, of whether
implementation shall be required pursuant to paragraph (1).
If the Secretary determines that implementation is required,
the Secretary shall issue an order that establishes the basis
for such determination, including the findings of the
relevant experts, the specific methods selected for
implementation, and a schedule for implementation of the
methods at the facility.
``(c) Sectoral Impacts.--
``(1) Guidance for farm supplies merchant wholesalers.--The
Secretary shall provide guidance and, as appropriate, tools,
methodologies or computer software, to assist farm supplies
merchant wholesalers in complying with the requirements of
this section.   The Secretary may award grants to farm
supplies merchant wholesalers to assist with compliance with
subsection (a), and in awarding such grants, shall give
priority to farm supplies merchant wholesalers that have the
greatest need for such grants.
``(2) Assessment of impacts of compliance.--Not later than
6 months after the date of the enactment of this title, the
Secretary shall transmit an assessment of the potential
impacts of compliance with provisions of this section
regarding the assessment and, as appropriate, implementation,
of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack
by manufacturers, retailers, aerial commercial applicators,
and distributors of pesticide and fertilizer to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate.   Such assessment shall
be conducted by the Secretary in consultation with other
appropriate Federal agencies and shall include the following:
``(A) Data on the scope of facilities covered by this
title, including the number and type of manufacturers,
retailers, aerial commercial applicators and distributors of
pesticide and fertilizer required to assess methods to reduce
the consequences of a terrorist attack under subsection (a)
and the number and type of manufacturers, retailers, aerial
commercial applicators and distributors of pesticide and
fertilizer assigned to tier 1 or tier 2 by the Secretary
because of  the potential extent and  likelihood of death,
injury, and serious adverse effects to human health, the
environment, critical infrastructure, public health, homeland
security, national security, and the national economy from
the release of a substance of concern at the facility.
``(B) A survey of known methods, processes or practices,
other than elimination of or cessation of manufacture of the
pesticide or fertilizer, that manufacturers, retailers,
aerial commercial applicators, and distributors of pesticide
and fertilizer could use to reduce the consequences of a
terrorist attack, including an assessment of the costs and
technical feasibility of each such method, process, or
practice.
``(C) An analysis of how the  assessment of methods to
reduce the consequences of a  terrorist attack under
subsection (a) by  manufacturers, retailers, aerial
commercial applicators, and distributors of pesticide and

[[Page H12504]]

fertilizer,  and,  as appropriate, the  implementation of
methods to reduce the consequences of a  terrorist attack by
such manufacturers, retailers, aerial commercial applicators,
and distributors of pesticide and fertilizer  subject to
subsection (b),  are likely to impact other sectors engaged
in commerce.
``(D) Recommendations for how to mitigate any adverse
impacts identified pursuant to subparagraph (C).
``(3) Farm supplies merchant wholesaler.--In this
subsection, the term `farm supplies merchant wholesaler'
means a covered chemical facility that is primarily engaged
in the merchant wholesale distribution of farm supplies, such
as animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals,
pesticides, plant seeds, and plant bulbs.
``(d) Assessment of Impacts on Small Covered Chemical
Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this title, the Secretary shall transmit
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an assessment
of the potential effects on small covered chemical facilities
of compliance with provisions of this section regarding the
assessment and, as appropriate, implementation, of methods to
reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack. Such
assessment shall include--
``(A) data on the scope of facilities covered by this
title, including the number and type of small covered
chemical facilities that are required to assess methods to
reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack under
subsection (a) and the number and type of small covered
chemical facilities assigned to tier 1 or tier 2 under
section 2102(c)(1) by the Secretary because of the potential
extent and likelihood of death, injury, and serious adverse
effects to human health, the environment, critical
infrastructure, public health, homeland security, national
security, and the national economy from the release of a
substance of concern at the facility; and
``(B) a discussion of how the Secretary plans to apply the
requirement that before requiring a small covered chemical
facility that is required to implement methods to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack under subsection (b) the
Secretary shall first determine that the implementation of
such methods at the small covered chemical facility not
significantly and demonstrably impair the ability of the
owner or operator of the covered chemical facility to
continue the business of the facility at its location.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `small covered chemical facility' means a covered
chemical facility that has fewer than 350 employees employed
at the covered chemical facility, and is not a branch or
subsidiary of another entity.
``(e) Provision of Information on Alternative Approaches.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available
information on the use and availability of methods to reduce
the consequences of a chemical facility terrorist incident.
``(2) Information to be included.--The information under
paragraph (1) may include information about--
``(A) general and specific types of such methods;
``(B) combinations of chemical sources, substances of
concern, and hazardous processes or conditions for which such
methods could be appropriate;
``(C) the availability of specific methods to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack;
``(D) the costs and cost savings resulting from the use of
such methods;
``(E) emerging technologies that could be transferred from
research models or prototypes to practical applications;
``(F) the availability of technical assistance and best
practices; and
``(G) such other matters that the Secretary determines are
appropriate.
``(3) Public availability.--Information made available
under this subsection shall not identify any specific
chemical facility, violate the protection of information
provisions under section 2110, or disclose any proprietary
information.
``(f) Funding for Methods To Reduce the Consequences of a
Terrorist Attack.--The Secretary may make funds available to
help defray the cost of implementing methods to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack to covered chemical
facilities that are required by the Secretary to implement
such methods.

``SEC. 2112. APPLICABILITY.

``This title shall not apply to--
``(1) any chemical facility that is owned and operated by
the Secretary of Defense;
``(2) the transportation in commerce, including incidental
storage, of any substance of concern regulated as a hazardous
material under chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code;
``(3) all or a specified portion of any chemical facility
that--
``(A) is subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the
`Commission') or a State that has entered into an agreement
with the Commission under section 274 b. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021 b.);
``(B) has had security controls imposed by the Commission
or State, whichever has the regulatory authority, on the
entire facility or the specified portion of the facility; and
``(C) has been designated by the Commission, after
consultation with the State, if any, that regulates the
facility, and the Secretary, as excluded from the application
of this title;
``(4) any public water system subject to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); or
``(5) any treatment works, as defined in section 212 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).

``SEC. 2113. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

``(a) In General.--Nothing in this title shall affect or
modify in any way any obligation or liability of any person
under any other Federal law, including section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412), the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 151 et seq.), the Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-295), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.).
``(b) Other Requirements.--Nothing in this title shall
preclude or deny the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation,
requirement, or standard of performance relating to
environmental protection, health, or safety.
``(c) Access.--Nothing in this title shall abridge or deny
access to a chemical facility site to any person where
required or permitted under any other law or regulation.

``SEC. 2114. OFFICE OF CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY.

``(a) In General.--There is established in the Department
an Office of Chemical Facility Security, headed by a
Director, who shall be a member of the Senior Executive
Service in accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 53 of
title 5, United States Code, under section 5382 of that
title, and who shall be responsible for carrying out the
responsibilities of the Secretary under this title.
``(b) Professional Qualifications.--The individual selected
by the Secretary as the Director of the Office of Chemical
Facility Security shall have professional qualifications and
experience necessary for effectively directing the Office of
Chemical Facility Security and carrying out the requirements
of this title, including a demonstrated knowledge of physical
infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, chemical facility
security, hazard analysis, chemical process engineering,
chemical process safety reviews, or other such qualifications
that the Secretary determines to be necessary.
``(c) Selection Process.--The Secretary shall make a
reasonable effort to select an individual to serve as the
Director from among a group of candidates that is diverse
with respect to race, ethnicity, age, gender, and disability
characteristics and submit to the Committee on Homeland
Security and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate information
on the selection process, including details on efforts to
assure diversity among the candidates considered for this
position.

``SEC. 2115. SECURITY BACKGROUND CHECKS OF COVERED
INDIVIDUALS AT CERTAIN CHEMICAL FACILITIES.

``(a) Regulations Issued by the Secretary.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
to require covered chemical facilities to establish personnel
surety for individuals described in subparagraph (B) by
conducting appropriate security background checks and
ensuring appropriate credentials for unescorted visitors and
chemical facility personnel, including permanent and part-
time personnel, temporary personnel, and contract personnel,
including--
``(i) measures designed to verify and validate identity;
``(ii) measures designed to check criminal history;
``(iii) measures designed to verify and validate legal
authorization to work; and
``(iv) measures designed to identify people with terrorist
ties.
``(B) Individuals described.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), an individual described in this subparagraph is--
``(i) a covered individual who has unescorted access to
restricted areas or critical assets or who is provided with a
copy of a security vulnerability assessment or site security
plan;
``(ii) a person associated with a covered chemical
facility, including any designated employee representative,
who is provided with a copy of a security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan; or
``(iii) a person who is determined by the Secretary to
require a security background check based on chemical
facility security performance standards.
``(2) Regulations.--The regulations required by paragraph
(1) shall set forth--
``(A) the scope of the security background checks,
including the types of disqualifying offenses and the time
period covered for each person subject to a security
background check under paragraph (1);

[[Page H12505]]

``(B) the processes to conduct the security background
checks;
``(C) the necessary biographical information and other data
required in order to conduct the security background checks;
``(D) a redress process for an adversely-affected person
consistent with subsections (b) and (c); and
``(E) a prohibition on an owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility misrepresenting to an employee or other
relevant person, including an arbiter involved in a labor
arbitration, the scope, application, or meaning of any rules,
regulations, directives, or guidance issued by the Secretary
related to security background check requirements for covered
individuals when conducting a security background check.
``(b) Misrepresentation of Adverse Employment Decisions.--
The regulations required by subsection (a)(1) shall set forth
that it shall be a misrepresentation under subsection
(a)(2)(E) to attribute an adverse employment decision,
including removal or suspension of the employee, to such
regulations unless the owner or operator finds, after
opportunity for appropriate redress under the processes
provided under subsection (c)(1) and (c)(2), that the person
subject to such adverse employment decision--
``(1) has been convicted of, has been found not guilty of
by reason of insanity, or is under want, warrant, or
indictment for, a permanent disqualifying criminal offense
listed in part 1572 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(2) was convicted of, or found not guilty of by reason of
insanity, an interim disqualifying criminal offense listed in
part 1572 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, within 7
years of the date on which the covered chemical facility
performs the security background check;
``(3) was incarcerated for an interim disqualifying
criminal offense listed in part 1572 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, and released from incarceration within 5
years of the date that the chemical facility performs the
security background check;
``(4) is determined by the Secretary to be on the
consolidated terrorist watchlist; or
``(5) is determined, as a result of the security background
check, not to be legally authorized to work in the United
States.
``(c) Redress Processes.--Upon the issuance of regulations
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
``(1) require the owner or operator to provide an adequate
and prompt redress process for a person subject to a security
background check under subsection (a)(1) who is subjected to
an adverse employment decision, including removal or
suspension of the employee, due to such regulations that is
consistent with the appeals process established for employees
subject to consumer reports under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), as in force on the date of the
enactment of this title;
``(2) provide an adequate and prompt redress process for a
person subject to a security background check under
subsection (a)(1) who is subjected to an adverse employment
decision, including removal or suspension of the employee,
due to a determination by the Secretary under subsection
(b)(4), that is consistent with the appeals process
established under section 70105(c) of title 46, United States
Code, including all rights to hearings before an
administrative law judge, scope of review, and a review of an
unclassified summary of classified evidence equivalent to the
summary provided in part 1515 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations;
``(3) provide an adequate and prompt redress process for a
person subject to a security background check under
subsection (a)(1) who is subjected to an adverse employment
decision, including removal or suspension of the employee,
due to a violation of subsection (a)(2)(E), which shall not
preclude the exercise of any other rights available under
collective bargaining agreements or applicable laws;
``(4) establish a reconsideration process described in
subsection (d) for a person subject to an adverse employment
decision that was attributed by an owner or operator to the
regulations required by subsection (a)(1);
``(5) have the authority to order an appropriate remedy,
including reinstatement of the person subject to a security
background check under subsection (a)(1), if the Secretary
determines that the adverse employment decision was made in
violation of the regulations required under subsection (a)(1)
or as a result of an erroneous determination by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(4);
``(6) ensure that the redress processes required under
paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) afford to the person a full
disclosure of any public-record event covered by subsection
(b) that provides the basis for an adverse employment
decision; and
``(7) ensure that the person subject to a security
background check under subsection (a)(1) receives the
person's full wages and benefits until all redress processes
under this subsection are exhausted.
``(d) Reconsideration Process.--
``(1) In general.--The reconsideration process required
under subsection (c)(4) shall--
``(A) require the Secretary to determine, within 30 days
after receiving a petition submitted by a person subject to
an adverse employment decision that was attributed by an
owner or operator to the regulations required by subsection
(a)(1), whether such person poses a security risk to the
covered chemical facility; and
``(B) include procedures consistent with section 70105(c)
of title 46, United States Code, including all rights to
hearings before an administrative law judge, scope of review,
and a review of an unclassified summary of classified
evidence equivalent to the summary provided in part 1515 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(2) Determination by the secretary.--In making a
determination described under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary
shall--
``(A) give consideration to the circumstance of any
disqualifying act or offense, restitution made by the person,
Federal and State mitigation remedies, and other factors from
which it may be concluded that the person does not pose a
security risk to the covered chemical facility; and
``(B) provide his or her determination as to whether such
person poses a security risk to the covered chemical facility
to the petitioner and to the owner or operator of the covered
chemical facility.
``(3) Owner or operator reconsideration.--If the Secretary
determines pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) that the person does
not pose a security risk to the covered chemical facility, it
shall thereafter constitute a prohibited misrepresentation
for the owner or operator of the covered chemical facility to
continue to attribute the adverse employment decision to the
regulations under subsection (a)(1).
``(e) Restrictions on Use and Maintenance of Information.--
Information obtained under this section by the Secretary or
the owner or operator of a covered chemical facility shall be
handled as follows:
``(1) Such information may not be made available to the
public.
``(2) Such information may not be accessed by employees of
the facility except for such employees who are directly
involved with collecting the information or conducting or
evaluating security background checks.
``(3) Such information shall be maintained confidentially
by the facility and the Secretary and may be used only for
making determinations under this section.
``(4) The Secretary may share such information with other
Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
``(f) Savings Clause.--
``(1) Rights and responsibilities.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to abridge any right or responsibility of
a person subject to a security background check under
subsection (a)(1) or an owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility under any other Federal, State, local, or
tribal law or collective bargaining agreement.
``(2) Existing rights.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as creating any new right or modifying any existing
right of an individual to appeal a determination by the
Secretary as a result of a check against a terrorist watch
list.
``(g) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to preempt, alter, or affect a Federal, State,
local, or tribal law that requires criminal history
background checks, checks on the authorization of an
individual to work in the United States, or other background
checks of persons subject to security background checks under
subsection (a)(1).
``(h) Definition of Security Background Check.--The term
`security background check' means a review at no cost to any
person subject to a security background check under
subsection (a)(1) of the following for the purpose of
identifying individuals who may pose a threat to chemical
facility security, to national security, or of terrorism:
``(1) Relevant databases to verify and validate identity.
``(2) Relevant criminal history databases.
``(3) In the case of an alien (as defined in section 101 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3))),
the relevant databases to determine the status of the alien
under the immigration laws of the United States.
``(4) The consolidated terrorist watchlist.
``(5) Other relevant information or databases, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(i) Department-Conducted Security Background Check.--The
regulations under subsection (a)(1) shall set forth a process
by which the Secretary, on an ongoing basis, shall determine
whether alternate security background checks conducted by the
Department are sufficient to meet the requirements of this
section such that no additional security background check
under this section is required for an individual for whom
such a qualifying alternate security background check was
conducted. The Secretary may require the owner or operator of
a covered chemical facility to which the individual will have
unescorted access to sensitive or restricted areas to submit
identifying information about the individual and the
alternate security background check conducted for that
individual to the Secretary in order to enable the Secretary
to verify the validity of the alternate security background
check. Such regulations shall provide that no security
background check under this section is required for an
individual holding a transportation security card issued
under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code.
``(j) Termination of Employment.--If, as the result of a
security background check, an owner or operator of a covered
chemical facility finds that a covered individual is not
legally authorized to work in the United States, the owner or
operator shall cease to employ the covered individual,
subject to the appropriate redress processes available to
such individual under this section.

[[Page H12506]]

``SEC. 2116. CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
any person may commence a civil action on such person's own
behalf--
``(1) against any governmental entity (including the United
States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency,
to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the
Constitution, and any federally owned-contractor operated
facility) alleged to be in violation of any order that has
become effective pursuant to this title; or
``(2) against the Secretary, for an alleged failure to
perform any act or duty under this title that is not
discretionary for the Secretary.
``(b) Court of Jurisdiction.--
``(1) In general.--Any action under subsection (a)(1) shall
be brought in the district court for the district in which
the alleged violation occurred. Any action brought under
subsection (a)(2) may be brought in the district court for
the district in which the alleged violation occurred or in
the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
``(2) Relief.--The district court shall have jurisdiction,
without regard to the amount in controversy or the
citizenship of the parties to enforce the order referred to
in subsection (a)(1), to order such governmental entity to
take such action as may be necessary, or both, or, in an
action commenced under subsection (a)(2), to order the
Secretary to perform the non-discretionary act or duty, and
to order any civil penalties, as appropriate, under section
2107.
``(c) Actions Prohibited.--No action may be commenced under
subsection (a) prior to 60 days after the date on which the
person commencing the action has given notice of the alleged
violation to--
``(1) the Secretary; and
``(2) in the case of an action under subsection (a)(1), any
governmental entity alleged to be in violation of an order.
``(d) Notice.--Notice under this section shall be given in
such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.
``(e) Intervention.--In any action under this section, the
Secretary, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of
right.
``(f) Costs; Bond.--The court, in issuing any final order
in any action brought pursuant to this section, may award
costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert
witness fees) to the prevailing or substantially prevailing
party, whenever the court determines such an award is
appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order
or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a
bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
``(g) Other Rights Preserved.--Nothing in this section
shall restrict any right which any person (or class of
persons) may have under any statute or common law.

``SEC. 2117. CITIZEN PETITIONS.

``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
to establish a citizen petition process for petitions
described in subsection (b). Such regulations shall include--
``(1) the format for such petitions;
``(2) the procedure for investigation of petitions;
``(3) the procedure for response to such petitions,
including timelines; and
``(4) the procedure for referral to and review by the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department without
deference to the Secretary's determination with respect to
the petition; and
``(5) the procedure for rejection or acceptance by the
Secretary of the recommendation of the Office of the
Inspector General.
``(b) Petitions.--The regulations issued pursuant to
subsection (a) shall allow any person to file a petition with
the Secretary--
``(1) identifying any person (including the United States
and any other governmental instrumentality or agency, to the
extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the
Constitution) alleged to be in violation of any standard,
regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, plan, or
order that has become effective under this title; and
``(2) describing the alleged violation of any standard,
regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, plan, or
order that has become effective under this title by that
person.
``(c) Requirements.--Upon issuance of regulations under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
``(1) accept all petitions described under subsection (b)
that meet the requirements of the regulations promulgated
under subsection (a);
``(2) investigate all allegations contained in accepted
petitions;
``(3) determine whether enforcement action will be taken
concerning the alleged violation or violations;
``(4) respond to all accepted petitions promptly and in
writing;
``(5) include in all responses to petitions a brief and
concise statement, to the extent permitted under section
2110, of the allegations, the steps taken to investigate, the
determination made, and the reasons for such determination;
``(6) maintain an internal record including all protected
information related to the determination; and
``(7) with respect to any petition for which the Secretary
has not made a timely response or the Secretary's response is
unsatisfactory to the petitioner, provide the petitioner with
the opportunity to request--
``(A) a review of the full record by the Inspector General
of the Department, including a review of protected
information; and
``(B) the formulation of recommendations by the Inspector
General and submittal of such recommendations to the
Secretary and, to the extent permitted under section 2110, to
the petitioner; and
``(8) respond to a recommendation submitted by the
Inspector General under paragraph (7) by adopting or
rejecting the recommendation.

``SEC. 2118. NOTIFICATION SYSTEM TO ADDRESS PUBLIC CONCERNS.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
notification system, which shall provide any individual the
ability to report a suspected security deficiency or
suspected non-compliance with this title. Such notification
system shall provide for the ability to report the suspected
security deficiency or non-compliance via telephonic and
Internet-based means.
``(b) Acknowledgment.--When the Secretary receives a report
through the notification system established under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall respond to such report in a timely
manner, but in no case shall the Secretary respond to such a
report later than 30 days after receipt of the report.
``(c) Steps to Address Problems.--The Secretary shall
review each report received through the notification system
established under subsection (a) and shall, as necessary,
take appropriate enforcement action under section 2107.
``(d) Feedback Required.--Upon request, the Secretary shall
provide the individual who reported the suspected security
deficiency or non-compliance through the notification system
established under subsection (a) a written response that
includes the Secretary's findings with respect to the report
submitted by the individual and what, if any, compliance
action was taken in response to such report.
``(e) Inspector General Report Required.--The Inspector
General of the Department shall submit to the Committee on
Homeland Security and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an annual
report on the reports received under the notification system
established under subsection (a) and the Secretary's
disposition of such reports.

``SEC. 2119. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

``(a) Annual Report.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this title, annually thereafter for
the next four years, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on progress in
achieving compliance with this title. Each such report shall
include the following:
``(1) A qualitative discussion of how covered chemical
facilities, differentiated by tier, have reduced the risks of
chemical facility terrorist incidents at such facilities,
including--
``(A) a generalized summary of measures implemented by
covered chemical facilities in order to meet each risk-based
chemical facility performance standard established by this
title, and those that the facilities already had in place--
``(i) in the case of the first report under this section,
before the issuance of the final rule implementing the
regulations known as the `Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards', issued on April 9, 2007; and
``(ii) in the case of each subsequent report, since the
submittal of the most recent report submitted under this
section; and
``(B) any other generalized summary the Secretary deems
appropriate to describe the measures covered chemical
facilities are implementing to comply with the requirements
of this title.
``(2) A quantitative summary of how the covered chemical
facilities, differentiated by tier, are complying with the
requirements of this title during the period covered by the
report and how the Secretary is implementing and enforcing
such requirements during such period, including--
``(A) the number of chemical facilities that provided the
Secretary with information about possessing substances of
concern, as described in section 2102(b)(2);
``(B) the number of covered chemical facilities assigned to
each tier;
``(C) the number of security vulnerability assessments and
site security plans submitted by covered chemical facilities;
``(D) the number of security vulnerability assessments and
site security plans approved and disapproved by the
Secretary;
``(E) the number of covered chemical facilities without
approved security vulnerability assessments or site security
plans;
``(F) the number of chemical facilities that have been
assigned to a different tier or are no longer regulated by
the Secretary due to implementation of a method to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack and a description of such
implemented methods;
``(G) the number of orders for compliance issued by the
Secretary;
``(H) the administrative penalties assessed by the
Secretary for non-compliance with the requirements of this
title;
``(I) the civil penalties assessed by the court for non-
compliance with the requirements of this title;
``(J) the number of terrorist watchlist checks conducted by
the Secretary in order to comply with the requirements of
this title, the number of appeals conducted by the Secretary
pursuant to the processes described under paragraphs (2), (3)
and (4) of

[[Page H12507]]

section 2115(c), aggregate information regarding the time
taken for such appeals, aggregate information regarding the
manner in which such appeals were resolved, and, based on
information provided to the Secretary annually by each owner
or operator of a covered chemical facility, the number of
persons subjected to adverse employment decisions that were
attributed by the owner or operator to the regulations
required by section 2115; and
``(K) any other regulatory data the Secretary deems
appropriate to describe facility compliance with the
requirements of this title and the Secretary's implementation
of such requirements.
``(b) Public Availability.--A report submitted under this
section shall be made publicly available.

``SEC. 2120. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of Homeland Security to carry out this title--
``(1) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which
$100,000,000 shall be made available to provide funding for
methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, of
which up to $3,000,000 shall be made available for grants
authorized under section 2111(c)(1);
``(2) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which
$75,000,000 shall be made available to provide funding for
methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, of
which up to $3,000,000 shall be made available for grants
authorized under section 2111(c)(1); and
``(3) $275,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, of which
$50,000,000 shall be made available to provide funding for
methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, of
which up to $3,000,000 shall be made available for grants
authorized under section 2111(c)(1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``TITLE XXI--REGULATION OF SECURITY PRACTICES AT CHEMICAL FACILITIES

``Sec. 2101. Definitions.
``Sec. 2102. Risk-based designation and ranking of chemical facilities.
``Sec. 2103. Security vulnerability assessments and site security
plans.
``Sec. 2104. Site inspections.
``Sec. 2105. Records.
``Sec. 2106. Timely sharing of threat information.
``Sec. 2107. Enforcement.
``Sec. 2108. Whistleblower protections.
``Sec. 2109. Federal preemption.
``Sec. 2110. Protection of information.
``Sec. 2111. Methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.
``Sec. 2112. Applicability.
``Sec. 2113. Savings clause.
``Sec. 2114. Office of Chemical Facility Security.
``Sec. 2115. Security background checks of covered individuals at
certain chemical facilities.
``Sec. 2116. Citizen enforcement.
``Sec. 2117. Citizen petitions.
``Sec. 2118. Notification system to address public concerns.
``Sec. 2119. Annual report to Congress.
``Sec. 2120. Authorization of appropriations.''.
(c) Conforming Repeal.--
(1) Repeal.--The Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295) is amended by
striking section 550.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this title.
(d) Regulations.--
(1) Deadline.--The Secretary shall issue proposed rules to
carry out title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
added by subsection (a), by not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and shall issue final
rules to carry out such title by not later than 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Consultation.--In developing and implementing the rules
required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and other persons, as appropriate, regarding--
(A) the designation of substances of concern;
(B) methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist
attack;
(C) security at drinking water facilities and wastewater
treatment works;
(D) the treatment of protected information; and
(E) such other matters as the Secretary determines
necessary.
(3) Sense of congress regarding cfats.--It is the sense of
Congress that the Secretary of Homeland Security was granted
statutory authority under section 550 of the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-295) to
regulate security practices at chemical facilities until
October 1, 2009. Pursuant to that section the Secretary
prescribed regulations known as the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards, or ``CFATS'' (referred to in this
section as ``CFATS regulations'').
(4) Interim use and amendment of cfats.--Until the final
rules prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1) take effect, in
carrying out title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
as added by subsection (a), the Secretary may, to the extent
the Secretary determines appropriate--
(A) continue to carry out the CFATS regulations, as in
effect immediately before the date of the enactment of this
title;
(B) amend any of such regulations as may be necessary to
ensure that such regulations are consistent with the
requirements of this title and the amendments made by this
title; and
(C) continue using any tools developed for purposes of such
regulations, including the list of substances of concern,
usually referred to as ``Appendix A'', and the chemical
security assessment tool (which includes facility
registration, a top-screen questionnaire, a security
vulnerability assessment tool, a site security plan template,
and a chemical vulnerability information repository).
(5) Update of facility plans assessments and plans prepared
under cfats.--The owner or operator of a covered chemical
facility, who, before the effective date of the final
regulations issued under title XXI of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), submits a security
vulnerability assessment or site security plan under the
CFATS regulations, shall be required to update or amend the
facility's security vulnerability assessment and site
security plan to reflect any additional requirements of this
title or the amendments made by this title, according to a
timeline established by the Secretary.
(e) Review of Designation of Sodium Fluoroacetate as a
Substance of Concern.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall review the designation of sodium fluoroacetate as a
substance of concern pursuant to subsection (d) of section
2102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by
subsection (a), by the earlier of the following dates:
(1) The date of the first periodic review conducted
pursuant to such subsection after the date of the enactment
of this title.
(2) The date that is one year after the date of the
enactment of this title.

TITLE II--DRINKING WATER SECURITY

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Drinking Water System
Security Act of 2009''.

SEC. 202. INTENTIONAL ACTS AFFECTING THE SECURITY OF COVERED
WATER SYSTEMS.

(a) Amendment of Safe Drinking Water Act.--Section 1433 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300i-2) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 1433. INTENTIONAL ACTS.

``(a) Risk-based Performance Standards; Vulnerability
Assessments; Site Security Plans; Emergency Response Plans.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall issue
regulations--
``(A) establishing risk-based performance standards for the
security of covered water systems; and
``(B) establishing requirements and deadlines for each
covered water system--
``(i) to conduct a vulnerability assessment or, if the
system already has a vulnerability assessment, to revise the
assessment to be in accordance with this section, and submit
such assessment to the Administrator;
``(ii) to update the vulnerability assessment not less than
every 5 years and promptly after any change at the system
that could cause the reassignment of the system to a
different risk-based tier under subsection (d);
``(iii) to develop, implement, and, as appropriate, revise
a site security plan not less than every 5 years and promptly
after a revision to the vulnerability assessment and submit
such plan to the Administrator;
``(iv) to develop an emergency response plan (or, if the
system has already developed an emergency response plan, to
revise the plan to be in accordance with this section) and
revise the plan not less than every 5 years thereafter; and
``(v) to provide annual training to employees and
contractor employees of covered water systems on implementing
site security plans and emergency response plans.
``(2) Covered water systems.--For purposes of this section,
the term `covered water system' means a public water system
that--
``(A) is a community water system serving a population
greater than 3,300; or
``(B) in the discretion of the Administrator, presents a
security risk making regulation under this section
appropriate.
``(3) Consultation with state authorities.--In developing
and carrying out the regulations under paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall consult with States exercising primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems.
``(4) Consultation with other persons.--In developing and
carrying out the regulations under paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and, as appropriate, other persons regarding--
``(A) provision of threat-related and other baseline
information to covered water systems;
``(B) designation of substances of concern;
``(C) development of risk-based performance standards;
``(D) establishment of risk-based tiers and process for the
assignment of covered water systems to risk-based tiers;
``(E) process for the development and evaluation of
vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency
response plans;
``(F) treatment of protected information; and
``(G) such other matters as the Administrator determines
necessary.
``(5) Substances of concern.--For purposes of this section,
the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security--

[[Page H12508]]

``(A) may designate any chemical substance as a substance
of concern;
``(B) at the time any substance is designated pursuant to
subparagraph (A), shall establish by rule a threshold
quantity for the release or theft of the substance, taking
into account the toxicity, reactivity, volatility,
dispersability, combustibility, and flammability of the
substance and the amount of the substance that, as a result
of a release, is known to cause or may be reasonably
anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment; and
``(C) in making such a designation, shall take into account
appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulations).
``(6) Baseline information.--The Administrator, after
consultation with appropriate departments and agencies of the
Federal Government and with State, local, and tribal
governments, shall, for purposes of facilitating compliance
with the requirements of this section, promptly after the
effective date of the regulations under subsection (a)(1) and
as appropriate thereafter, provide baseline information to
covered water systems regarding which kinds of intentional
acts are the probable threats to--
``(A) substantially disrupt the ability of the system to
provide a safe and reliable supply of drinking water;
``(B) cause the release of a substance of concern at the
covered water system; or
``(C) cause the theft, misuse, or misappropriation of a
substance of concern.
``(b) Risk-Based Performance Standards.--The regulations
under subsection (a)(1) shall set forth risk-based
performance standards for site security plans required by
this section. The standards shall be separate and, as
appropriate, increasingly stringent based on the level of
risk associated with the covered water system's risk-based
tier assignment under subsection (d). In developing such
standards, the Administrator shall take into account section
27.230 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations (or any
successor regulations).
``(c) Vulnerability Assessment.--The regulations under
subsection (a)(1) shall require each covered water system to
assess the system's vulnerability to a range of intentional
acts, including an intentional act that results in a release
of a substance of concern that is known to cause or may be
reasonably anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious
adverse effects to human health or the environment. At a
minimum, the vulnerability assessment shall include a review
of--
``(1) pipes and constructed conveyances;
``(2) physical barriers;
``(3) water collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage,
and distribution facilities, including fire hydrants;
``(4) electronic, computer, and other automated systems
that are used by the covered water system;
``(5) the use, storage, or handling of various chemicals,
including substances of concern;
``(6) the operation and maintenance of the covered water
system; and
``(7) the covered water system's resiliency and ability to
ensure continuity of operations in the event of a disruption
caused by an intentional act.
``(d) Risk-Based Tiers.--The regulations under subsection
(a)(1) shall provide for 4 risk-based tiers applicable to
covered water systems, with tier one representing the highest
degree of security risk.
``(1) Assignment of risk-based tiers.--
``(A) Submission of information.--The Administrator may
require a covered water system to submit information in order
to determine the appropriate risk-based tier for the covered
water system.
``(B) Factors to consider.--The Administrator shall assign
(and reassign when appropriate) each covered water system to
one of the risk-based tiers established pursuant to this
subsection. In assigning a covered water system to a risk-
based tier, the Administrator shall consider the potential
consequences (such as death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health, the environment, critical
infrastructure, national security, and the national economy)
from--
``(i) an intentional act to cause a release, including a
worst-case release, of a substance of concern at the covered
water system;
``(ii) an intentional act to introduce a contaminant into
the drinking water supply or disrupt the safe and reliable
supply of drinking water; and
``(iii) an intentional act to steal, misappropriate, or
misuse substances of concern.
``(2) Explanation for risk-based tier assignment.--The
Administrator shall provide each covered water system
assigned to a risk-based tier with the reasons for the tier
assignment and whether such system is required to submit an
assessment under subsection (g)(2).
``(e) Development and Implementation of Site Security
Plans.--The regulations under subsection (a)(1) shall permit
each covered water system, in developing and implementing its
site security plan required by this section, to select
layered security and preparedness measures that, in
combination, appropriately--
``(1) address the security risks identified in its
vulnerability assessment; and
``(2) comply with the applicable risk-based performance
standards required under this section.
``(f) Role of Employees.--
``(1) Description of role.--Site security plans and
emergency response plans required under this section shall
describe the appropriate roles or responsibilities that
employees and contractor employees are expected to perform to
deter or respond to the intentional acts described in
subsection (d)(1)(B).
``(2) Training for employees.--Each covered water system
shall annually provide employees and contractor employees
with roles or responsibilities described in paragraph (1)
with a minimum of 8 hours of training on carrying out those
roles or responsibilities.
``(3) Employee participation.--In developing, revising, or
updating a vulnerability assessment, site security plan, and
emergency response plan required under this section, a
covered water system shall include--
``(A) at least one supervisory and at least one non-
supervisory employee of the covered water system; and
``(B) at least one representative of each certified or
recognized bargaining agent representing facility employees
or contractor employees with roles or responsibilities
described in paragraph (1), if any, in a collective
bargaining relationship with the private or public owner or
operator of the system or with a contractor to that system.
``(g) Methods To Reduce the Consequences of a Chemical
Release From an Intentional Act.--
``(1) Definition.--In this section, the term `method to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act' means a measure at a covered water system
that reduces or eliminates the potential consequences of a
release of a substance of concern from an intentional act
such as--
``(A) the elimination or reduction in the amount of a
substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by
a covered water system through the use of alternate
substances, formulations, or processes;
``(B) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or
concentrations of a substance of concern; and
``(C) the reduction or elimination of onsite handling of a
substance of concern through improvement of inventory control
or chemical use efficiency.
``(2) Assessment.--For each covered water system that
possesses or plans to possess a substance of concern in
excess of the release threshold quantity set by the
Administrator under subsection (a)(5), the regulations under
subsection (a)(1) shall require the covered water system to
include in its site security plan an assessment of methods to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act at the covered water system. The covered
water system shall provide such assessment to the
Administrator and the State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for the covered water system, if any. The
regulations under subsection (a)(1) shall require the system,
in preparing the assessment, to consider factors appropriate
to the system's security, public health, or environmental
mission, and include--
``(A) a description of the methods to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act;
``(B) how each described method to reduce the consequences
of a chemical release from an intentional act could, if
applied, reduce the potential extent of death, injury, or
serious adverse effects to human health resulting from a
chemical release;
``(C) how each described method to reduce the consequences
of a chemical release from an intentional act could, if
applied, affect the presence of contaminants in treated
water, human health, or the environment;
``(D) whether each described method to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at
the covered water system is feasible, as defined in section
1412(b)(4)(D), but not including cost calculations under
subparagraph (E);
``(E) the costs (including capital and operational costs)
and avoided costs (including savings and liabilities)
associated with applying each described method to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at
the covered water system;
``(F) any other relevant information that the covered water
system relied on in conducting the assessment; and
``(G) a statement of whether the covered water system has
implemented or plans to implement one or more methods to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act, a description of any such methods, and, in
the case of a covered water system described in paragraph
(3)(A), an explanation of the reasons for any decision not to
implement any such methods.
``(3) Required methods.--
``(A) Application.--This paragraph applies to a covered
water system--
``(i) that is assigned to one of the two highest risk-based
tiers under subsection (d); and
``(ii) that possesses or plans to possess a substance of
concern in excess of the release threshold quantity set by
the Administrator under subsection (a)(5).
``(B) Highest-risk systems.--If, on the basis of its
assessment under paragraph (2), a covered water system
described in subparagraph (A) decides not to implement
methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act, the State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for the covered water system, if the system is
located in such a State, or the Administrator, if the covered
water system is not located in such a State, shall, in
accordance with a timeline set by the Administrator--

[[Page H12509]]

``(i) determine whether to require the covered water system
to implement the methods; and
``(ii) for States exercising primary enforcement
responsibility, report such determination to the
Administrator.
``(C) State or administrator's considerations.--Before
requiring, pursuant to subparagraph (B), the implementation
of a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release
from an intentional act, the State exercising primary
enforcement responsibility for the covered water system, if
the system is located in such a State, or the Administrator,
if the covered water system is not located in such a State,
shall consider factors appropriate to the security, public
health, and environmental missions of covered water systems,
including an examination of whether the method--
``(i) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury,
or serious adverse effects to human health resulting directly
from a chemical release from an intentional act at the
covered water system;
``(ii) would not increase the interim storage of a
substance of concern by the covered water system;
``(iii) would not render the covered water system unable to
comply with other requirements of this Act or drinking water
standards established by the State or political subdivision
in which the system is located; and
``(iv) is feasible, as defined in section 1412(b)(4)(D), to
be incorporated into the operation of the covered water
system.
``(D) Appeal.--Before requiring, pursuant to subparagraph
(B), the implementation of a method to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act,
the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for
the covered water system, if the system is located in such a
State, or the Administrator, if the covered water system is
not located in such a State, shall provide such covered water
system an opportunity to appeal the determination to require
such implementation made pursuant to subparagraph (B) by such
State or the Administrator.
``(4) Incomplete or late assessments.--
``(A) Incomplete assessments.--If the Administrator finds
that the covered water system, in conducting its assessment
under paragraph (2), did not meet the requirements of
paragraph (2) and the applicable regulations, the
Administrator shall, after notifying the covered water system
and the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility
for that system, if any, require the covered water system to
submit a revised assessment not later than 60 days after the
Administrator notifies such system. The Administrator may
require such additional revisions as are necessary to ensure
that the system meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and
the applicable regulations.
``(B) Late assessments.--If the Administrator finds that a
covered water system, in conducting its assessment pursuant
to paragraph (2), did not complete such assessment in
accordance with the deadline set by the Administrator, the
Administrator may, after notifying the covered water system
and the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility
for that system, if any, take appropriate enforcement action
under subsection (o).
``(C) Review.--The State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for the covered water system, if the system is
located in such a State, or the Administrator, if the system
is not located in such a State, shall review a revised
assessment that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and
applicable regulations to determine whether the covered water
system will be required to implement methods to reduce the
consequences of an intentional act pursuant to paragraph (3).
``(5) Enforcement.--
``(A) Failure by state to make determination.--Whenever the
Administrator finds that a State exercising primary
enforcement responsibility for a covered water system has
failed to determine whether to require the covered water
system to implement methods to reduce the consequences of a
chemical release from an intentional act, as required by
paragraph (3)(B), the Administrator shall so notify the State
and covered water system. If, beyond the thirtieth day after
the Administrator's notification under the preceding
sentence, the State has failed to make the determination
described in such sentence, the Administrator shall so notify
the State and covered water system and shall determine
whether to require the covered water system to implement
methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act based on the factors described in
paragraph (3)(C).
``(B) Failure by state to bring enforcement action.--If the
Administrator finds, with respect to a period in which a
State has primary enforcement responsibility for a covered
water system, that the system has failed to implement methods
to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act (as required by the State or the
Administrator under paragraph (3)(B) or the Administrator
under subparagraph (A)), the Administrator shall so notify
the State and the covered water system. If, beyond the
thirtieth day after the Administrator's notification under
the preceding sentence, the State has not commenced
appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator shall so
notify the State and may commence an enforcement action
against the system, including by seeking or imposing civil
penalties under subsection (o), to require implementation of
such methods.
``(C) Consideration of continued primary enforcement
responsibility.--For a State with primary enforcement
responsibility for a covered water system, the Administrator
may consider the failure of such State to make a
determination as described under subparagraph (A) or to bring
enforcement action as described under subparagraph (B) when
determining whether a State may retain primary enforcement
responsibility under this Act.
``(6) Guidance for covered water systems assigned to tier 3
and tier 4.--For covered water systems required to conduct an
assessment under paragraph (2) and assigned by the
Administrator to tier 3 or tier 4 under subsection (d), the
Administrator shall issue guidance and, as appropriate,
provide or recommend tools, methodologies, or computer
software, to assist such covered water systems in complying
with the requirements of this section.
``(h) Review by Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--The regulations under subsection (a)(1)
shall require each covered water system to submit its
vulnerability assessment and site security plan to the
Administrator for review according to deadlines set by the
Administrator. The Administrator shall review each
vulnerability assessment and site security plan submitted
under this section and--
``(A) if the assessment or plan has any significant
deficiency described in paragraph (2), require the covered
water system to correct the deficiency; or
``(B) approve such assessment or plan.
``(2) Significant deficiencies.--A vulnerability assessment
or site security plan of a covered water system has a
significant deficiency under this subsection if the
Administrator, in consultation, as appropriate, with the
State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for such
system, if any, determines that--
``(A) such assessment does not comply with the regulations
established under section (a)(1); or
``(B) such plan--
``(i) fails to address vulnerabilities identified in a
vulnerability assessment; or
``(ii) fails to meet applicable risk-based performance
standards.
``(3) State, regional, or local governmental entities.--No
covered water system shall be required under State, local, or
tribal law to provide a vulnerability assessment or site
security plan described in this section to any State,
regional, local, or tribal governmental entity solely by
reason of the requirement set forth in paragraph (1) that the
system submit such an assessment and plan to the
Administrator.
``(i) Emergency Response Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Each covered water system shall prepare
or revise, as appropriate, an emergency response plan that
incorporates the results of the system's most current
vulnerability assessment and site security plan.
``(2) Certification.--Each covered water system shall
certify to the Administrator that the system has completed an
emergency response plan. The system shall submit such
certification to the Administrator not later than 6 months
after the system's first completion or revision of a
vulnerability assessment under this section and shall submit
an additional certification following any update of the
emergency response plan.
``(3) Contents.--A covered water system's emergency
response plan shall include--
``(A) plans, procedures, and identification of equipment
that can be implemented or used in the event of an
intentional act at the covered water system; and
``(B) actions, procedures, and identification of equipment
that can obviate or significantly lessen the impact of
intentional acts on public health and the safety and supply
of drinking water provided to communities and individuals.
``(4) Coordination.--As part of its emergency response
plan, each covered water system shall provide appropriate
information to any local emergency planning committee, local
law enforcement officials, and local emergency response
providers to ensure an effective, collective response.
``(j) Maintenance of Records.--Each covered water system
shall maintain an updated copy of its vulnerability
assessment, site security plan, and emergency response plan.
``(k) Audit; Inspection.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1445(b)(2), the
Administrator, or duly designated representatives of the
Administrator, shall audit and inspect covered water systems,
as necessary, for purposes of determining compliance with
this section.
``(2) Access.--In conducting an audit or inspection of a
covered water system, the Administrator or duly designated
representatives of the Administrator, as appropriate, shall
have access to the owners, operators, employees and
contractor employees, and employee representatives, if any,
of such covered water system.
``(3) Confidential communication of information; aiding
inspections.--The Administrator, or a duly designated
representative of the Administrator, shall offer non-
supervisory employees of a covered water system the
opportunity confidentially to communicate information
relevant to the employer's compliance or noncompliance with
this section, including compliance or noncompliance with any
regulation or requirement adopted by the Administrator in
furtherance

[[Page H12510]]

of the purposes of this section. A representative of each
certified or recognized bargaining agent described in
subsection (f)(3)(B), if any, or, if none, a non-supervisory
employee, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the
Administrator, or the duly designated representative of the
Administrator, during the physical inspection of any covered
water system for the purpose of aiding such inspection, if
representatives of the covered water system will also be
accompanying the Administrator or the duly designated
representative of the Administrator on such inspection.
``(l) Protection of Information.--
``(1) Prohibition of public disclosure of protected
information.--Protected information shall--
``(A) be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title
5, United States Code; and
``(B) not be made available pursuant to any State, local,
or tribal law requiring disclosure of information or records.
``(2) Information sharing.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall prescribe such
regulations, and may issue such orders, as necessary to
prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected
information, as described in paragraph (7).
``(B) Sharing of protected information.--The regulations
under subparagraph (A) shall provide standards for and
facilitate the appropriate sharing of protected information
with and between Federal, State, local, and tribal
authorities, first responders, law enforcement officials,
designated supervisory and non-supervisory covered water
system personnel with security, operational, or fiduciary
responsibility for the system, and designated facility
employee representatives, if any. Such standards shall
include procedures for the sharing of all portions of a
covered water system's vulnerability assessment and site
security plan relating to the roles and responsibilities of
system employees or contractor employees under subsection
(f)(1) with a representative of each certified or recognized
bargaining agent representing such employees, if any, or, if
none, with at least one supervisory and at least one non-
supervisory employee with roles and responsibilities under
subsection (f)(1).
``(C) Penalties.--Protected information, as described in
paragraph (7), shall not be shared except in accordance with
the standards provided by the regulations under subparagraph
(A). Whoever discloses protected information in knowing
violation of the regulations and orders issued under
subparagraph (A) shall be fined under title 18, United States
Code, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, and, in
the case of a Federal officeholder or employee, shall be
removed from Federal office or employment.
``(3) Treatment of information in adjudicative
proceedings.--In any judicial or administrative proceeding,
protected information, as described in paragraph (7), shall
be treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of
Sensitive Security Information under section 525 of the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
(Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1381).
``(4) Other obligations unaffected.--Except as provided in
subsection (h)(3), nothing in this section amends or affects
an obligation of a covered water system--
``(A) to submit or make available information to system
employees, employee organizations, or a Federal, State,
tribal, or local government agency under any other law; or
``(B) to comply with any other law.
``(5) Congressional oversight.--Nothing in this section
permits or authorizes the withholding of information from
Congress or any committee or subcommittee thereof.
``(6) Disclosure of independently furnished information.--
Nothing in this section amends or affects any authority or
obligation of a Federal, State, local, or tribal agency to
protect or disclose any record or information that the
Federal, State, local, or tribal agency obtains from a
covered water system or the Administrator under any other
law.
``(7) Protected information.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, protected
information is any of the following:
``(i) Vulnerability assessments and site security plans
under this section, including any assessment developed
pursuant to subsection (g)(2).
``(ii) Documents directly related to the Administrator's
review of assessments and plans described in clause (i) and,
as applicable, the State's review of an assessment prepared
under subsection (g)(2).
``(iii) Documents directly related to inspections and
audits under this section.
``(iv) Orders, notices, or letters regarding the compliance
of a covered water system with the requirements of this
section.
``(v) Information, documents, or records required to be
provided to or created by, the Administrator under subsection
(d).
``(vi) Documents directly related to security drills and
training exercises, security threats and breaches of
security, and maintenance, calibration, and testing of
security equipment.
``(vii) Other information, documents, and records developed
exclusively for the purposes of this section that the
Administrator determines would be detrimental to the security
of one or more covered water systems if disclosed.
``(B) Detriment requirement.--For purposes of clauses (ii),
(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of subparagraph (A), the only
portions of documents, records, orders, notices, and letters
that shall be considered protected information are those
portions that--
``(i) would be detrimental to the security of one or more
covered water systems if disclosed; and
``(ii) are developed by the Administrator, the State, or
the covered water system for the purposes of this section.
``(C) Exclusions.--For purposes of this section, protected
information does not include--
``(i) information that is otherwise publicly available,
including information that is required to be made publicly
available under any law;
``(ii) information that a covered water system has lawfully
disclosed other than in accordance with this section; and
``(iii) information that, if disclosed, would not be
detrimental to the security of one or more covered water
systems, including aggregate regulatory data that the
Administrator determines appropriate to describe system
compliance with the requirements of this section and the
Administrator's implementation of such requirements.
``(m) Relation to Chemical Facility Security
Requirements.--Title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
and the amendments made by title I of the Chemical and Water
Security Act of 2009 shall not apply to any public water
system subject to this Act.
``(n) Preemption.--This section does not preclude or deny
the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to
adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of
performance with respect to a covered water system that is
more stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard of
performance under this section.
``(o) Violations.--
``(1) In general.--A covered water system that violates any
requirement of this section, including by not implementing
all or part of its site security plan by such date as the
Administrator requires, shall be liable for a civil penalty
of not more than $25,000 for each day on which  the violation
occurs.
``(2) Procedure.--When the Administrator determines that a
covered water system is subject to a civil penalty under
paragraph (1), the Administrator, after consultation with the
State, for covered water systems located in a State
exercising primary responsibility for the covered water
system, and, after considering the severity of the violation
or deficiency and the record of the covered water system in
carrying out the requirements of this section, may--
``(A) after notice and an opportunity for the covered water
system to be heard, issue an order assessing a penalty under
such paragraph for any past or current violation, requiring
compliance immediately or within a specified time period; or
``(B) commence a civil action in the United States district
court in the district in which the violation occurred for
appropriate relief, including temporary or permanent
injunction.
``(3) Methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical
release from an intentional act.--Except as provided in
subsections (g)(4) and (g)(5), if a covered water system is
located in a State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for the system, the Administrator may not
issue an order or commence a civil action under this section
for any deficiency in the content or implementation of the
portion of the system's site security plan relating to
methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act (as defined in subsection (g)(1)).
``(p) Report to Congress.--
``(1) Periodic report.--Not later than 3 years after the
effective date of the regulations under subsection (a)(1),
and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall
transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on progress in achieving
compliance with this section. Each such report shall include,
at a minimum, the following:
``(A) A generalized summary of measures implemented by
covered water systems in order to meet each risk-based
performance standard established by this section.
``(B) A summary of how the covered water systems,
differentiated by risk-based tier assignment, are complying
with the requirements of this section during the period
covered by the report and how the Administrator is
implementing and enforcing such requirements during such
period including--
``(i) the number of public water systems that provided the
Administrator with information pursuant to subsection (d)(1);
``(ii) the number of covered water systems assigned to each
risk-based tier;
``(iii) the number of vulnerability assessments and site
security plans submitted by covered water systems;
``(iv) the number of vulnerability assessments and site
security plans approved and disapproved by the Administrator;
``(v) the number of covered water systems without approved
vulnerability assessments or site security plans;
``(vi) the number of covered water systems that have been
assigned to a different risk-based tier due to implementation
of a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release
from an intentional act and a description of the types of
such implemented methods;
``(vii) the number of audits and inspections conducted by
the Administrator or duly designated representatives of the
Administrator;

[[Page H12511]]

``(viii) the number of orders for compliance issued by the
Administrator;
``(ix) the administrative penalties assessed by the
Administrator for non-compliance with the requirements of
this section;
``(x) the civil penalties assessed by courts for non-
compliance with the requirements of this section; and
``(xi) any other regulatory data the Administrator
determines appropriate to describe covered water system
compliance with the requirements of this section and the
Administrator's implementation of such requirements.
``(2) Public availability.--A report submitted under this
section shall be made publicly available.
``(q) Grant Programs.--
``(1) Implementation grants to states.--The Administrator
may award grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements
with, States, based on an allocation formula established by
the Administrator, to assist the States in implementing this
section.
``(2) Research, training, and technical assistance
grants.--The Administrator may award grants to, or enter into
cooperative agreements with, non-profit organizations to
provide research, training, and technical assistance to
covered water systems to assist them in carrying out their
responsibilities under this section.
``(3) Preparation grants.--
``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may award grants to, or
enter into cooperative agreements with, covered water systems
to assist such systems in--
``(i) preparing and updating vulnerability assessments,
site security plans, and emergency response plans;
``(ii) assessing and implementing methods to reduce the
consequences of a release of a substance of concern from an
intentional act; and
``(iii) implementing any other security reviews and
enhancements necessary to comply with this section.
``(B) Priority.--
``(i) Need.--The Administrator, in awarding grants or
entering into cooperative agreements for purposes described
in subparagraph (A)(i), shall give priority to covered water
systems that have the greatest need.
``(ii) Security risk.--The Administrator, in awarding
grants or entering into cooperative agreements for purposes
described in subparagraph (A)(ii), shall give priority to
covered water systems that pose the greatest security risk.
``(4) Worker training grants program authority.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
grant program to award grants to eligible entities to provide
for training and education of employees and contractor
employees with roles or responsibilities described in
subsection (f)(1) and first responders and emergency response
providers who would respond to an intentional act at a
covered water system.
``(B) Administration.--The Administrator shall enter into
an agreement with the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences to make and administer grants under this
paragraph.
``(C) Use of funds.--The recipient of a grant under this
paragraph shall use the grant to provide for--
``(i) training and education of employees and contractor
employees with roles or responsibilities described in
subsection (f)(1), including the annual mandatory training
specified in subsection (f)(2) or training for first
responders in protecting nearby persons, property, or the
environment from the effects of a release of a substance of
concern at the covered water system, with priority given to
covered water systems assigned to tier one or tier two under
subsection (d); and
``(ii) appropriate training for first responders and
emergency response providers who would respond to an
intentional act at a covered water system.
``(D) Eligible entities.--For purposes of this paragraph,
an eligible entity is a nonprofit organization with
demonstrated experience in implementing and operating
successful worker or first responder health and safety or
security training programs.
``(r) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--To carry out this section, there are
authorized to be appropriated--
``(A) $315,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which up to--
``(i) $30,000,000 may be used for administrative costs
incurred by the Administrator or the States, as appropriate;
and
``(ii) $125,000,000 may be used to implement methods to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act at covered water systems with priority given
to covered water systems assigned to tier one or tier two
under subsection (d); and
``(B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2012
through 2015.
``(2) Security enhancements.--Funding under this subsection
for basic security enhancements shall not include
expenditures for personnel costs or monitoring, operation, or
maintenance of facilities, equipment, or systems.''.
(b) Regulations; Transition.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this title, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate final
regulations to carry out section 1433 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended by subsection (a).
(2) Effective date.--Until the effective date of the
regulations promulgated under paragraph (1), section 1433 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, as in effect on the day before
the date of the enactment of this title, shall continue to
apply.
(3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this section or the
amendment made by this section shall affect the application
of section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as in effect
before the effective date of the regulations promulgated
under paragraph (1), to any violation of such section 1433
occurring before such effective date, and the requirements of
such section 1433 shall remain in force and effect with
respect to such violation until the violation has been
corrected or enforcement proceedings completed, whichever is
later.

SEC. 203. STUDY TO ASSESS THE THREAT OF CONTAMINATION OF
DRINKING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this title, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, shall--
(1) conduct a study to assess the threat of contamination
of drinking water being distributed through public water
systems, including fire main systems; and
(2) submit a report to the Congress on the results of such
study.

TITLE III--WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY

SECTION 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Wastewater Treatment Works
Security Act of 2009''.

SEC. 302. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.

(a) In General.--Title II of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``SEC. 222. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.

``(a) Assessment of Treatment Works Vulnerability and
Implementation of Site Security and Emergency Response
Plans.--
``(1) In general.--Each owner or operator of a treatment
works with either a treatment capacity of at least 2,500,000
gallons per day or, in the discretion of the Administrator,
that presents a security risk making coverage under this
section appropriate shall, consistent with regulations
developed under subsection (b)--
``(A) conduct and, as required, update a vulnerability
assessment of its treatment works;
``(B) develop, periodically update, and implement a site
security plan for the treatment works; and
``(C) develop and, as required, revise an emergency
response plan for the treatment works.
``(2) Vulnerability assessment.--
``(A) Definition.--In this section, the term `vulnerability
assessment' means an assessment of the vulnerability of a
treatment works to intentional acts that may--
``(i) substantially disrupt the ability of the treatment
works to safely and reliably operate; or
``(ii) have a substantial adverse effect on critical
infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment.
``(B) Review.--A vulnerability assessment shall include an
identification of the vulnerability of the treatment works'--
``(i) facilities, systems, and devices used in the storage,
treatment, recycling, or reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes;
``(ii) intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage
collection systems, and other constructed conveyances under
the control of the owner or operator of the treatment works;
``(iii) electronic, computer, and other automated systems;
``(iv) pumping, power, and other equipment;
``(v) use, storage, and handling of various chemicals,
including substances of concern, as identified by the
Administrator;
``(vi) operation and maintenance procedures; and
``(vii) ability to ensure continuity of operations.
``(3) Site security plan.--
``(A) Definition.--In this section, the term `site security
plan' means a process developed by the owner or operator of a
treatment works to address security risks identified in a
vulnerability assessment developed for the treatment works.
``(B) Identification of security enhancements.--A site
security plan carried out under paragraph (1)(B) shall
identify specific security enhancements, including
procedures, countermeasures, or equipment, that, when
implemented or utilized, will reduce the vulnerabilities
identified in a vulnerability assessment (including the
identification of the extent to which implementation or
utilization of such security enhancements may impact the
operations of the treatment works in meeting the goals and
requirements of this Act).
``(b) Rulemaking and Guidance Documents.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the
Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment, shall issue regulations--
``(A) establishing risk-based performance standards for the
security of a treatment works identified under subsection
(a)(1); and

[[Page H12512]]

``(B) establishing requirements and deadlines for each
owner or operator of a treatment works identified under
subsection (a)(1)--
``(i) to conduct and submit to the Administrator a
vulnerability assessment or, if the owner or operator of a
treatment works already has conducted a vulnerability
assessment, to revise and submit to the Administrator such
assessment in accordance with this section;
``(ii) to update and submit to the Administrator the
vulnerability assessment not less than every 5 years and
promptly after any change at the treatment works that could
cause the reassignment of the treatment works to a different
risk-based tier under paragraph (2)(B);
``(iii) to develop and implement a site security plan and
to update such plan not less than every 5 years and promptly
after an update to the vulnerability assessment;
``(iv) to develop an emergency response plan (or, if the
owner or operator of a treatment works has already developed
an emergency response plan, to revise the plan to be in
accordance with this section) and to revise the plan not less
than every 5 years and promptly after an update to the
vulnerability assessment; and
``(v) to provide annual training to employees of the
treatment works on implementing site security plans and
emergency response plans.
``(2) Risk-based tiers and performance standards.--
``(A) In general.--In developing regulations under this
subsection, the Administrator shall--
``(i) provide for 4 risk-based tiers applicable to
treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1), with tier
one representing the highest degree of security risk; and
``(ii) establish risk-based performance standards for site
security plans and emergency response plans required under
this section.
``(B) Risk-based tiers.--
``(i) Assignment of risk-based tiers.--The Administrator
shall assign (and reassign when appropriate) each treatment
works identified under subsection (a)(1) to one of the risk-
based tiers established pursuant to this paragraph.
``(ii) Factors to consider.--In assigning a treatment works
to a risk-based tier, the Administrator shall consider--

``(I) the size of the treatment works;
``(II) the proximity of the treatment works to large
population centers;
``(III) the adverse impacts of an intentional act,
including a worst-case release of a substance of concern
designated under subsection (c), on the operation of the
treatment works or on critical infrastructure, public health
or safety, or the environment; and
``(IV) any other factor that the Administrator determines
to be appropriate.

``(iii) Information request for treatment works.--The
Administrator may require the owner or operator of a
treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) to submit
information in order to determine the appropriate risk-based
tier for the treatment works.
``(iv) Explanation for risk-based tier assignment.--The
Administrator shall provide the owner or operator of each
treatment works assigned to a risk-based tier with the
reasons for the tier assignment and whether such owner or
operator of a treatment works is required to submit an
assessment under paragraph (3)(B).
``(C) Risk-based performance standards.--
``(i) Classification.--In establishing risk-based
performance standards under subparagraph (A)(ii), the
Administrator shall ensure that the standards are separate
and, as appropriate, increasingly more stringent based on the
level of risk associated with the risk-based tier assignment
under subparagraph (B) for the treatment works.
``(ii) Consideration.--In carrying out this subparagraph,
the Administrator shall take into account section 27.230 of
title 6, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation).
``(D) Site security plans.--
``(i) In general.--In developing regulations under this
subsection, the Administrator shall permit the owner or
operator of a treatment works identified under subsection
(a)(1), in developing and implementing a site security plan,
to select layered security and preparedness measures that, in
combination--

``(I) address the security risks identified in its
vulnerability assessment; and
``(II) comply with the applicable risk-based performance
standards required by this subsection.

``(3) Methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical
release from an intentional act.--
``(A) Definition.--In this section, the term `method to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act' means a measure at a treatment works
identified under subsection (a)(1) that reduces or eliminates
the potential consequences of a release of a substance of
concern designated under subsection (c) from an intentional
act, such as--
``(i) the elimination of or a reduction in the amount of a
substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by
a treatment works through the use of alternate substances,
formulations, or processes;
``(ii) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or
concentrations of a substance of concern; and
``(iii) the reduction or elimination of onsite handling of
a substance of concern through the improvement of inventory
control or chemical use efficiency.
``(B) Assessment.--
``(i) In general.--In developing the regulations under this
subsection, for each treatment works identified under
subsection (a)(1) that possesses or plans to possess a
substance of concern in excess of the release threshold
quantity set by the Administrator under subsection (c)(2),
the Administrator shall require the treatment works to
include in its site security plan an assessment of methods to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act at the treatment works.
``(ii) Considerations for assessment.--In developing the
regulations under this subsection, the Administrator shall
require the owner or operator of each treatment works, in
preparing the assessment, to consider factors appropriate to
address the responsibilities of the treatment works to meet
the goals and requirements of this Act and to include--

``(I) a description of the methods to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act;
``(II) a description of how each described method to reduce
the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional
act could, if applied--

``(aa) reduce the extent of death, injury, or serious
adverse effects to human health or the environment as a
result of a release, theft, or misappropriation of a
substance of concern designated under subsection (c); and
``(bb) impact the operations of the treatment works in
meeting the goals and requirements of this Act;

``(III) whether each described method to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at
the treatment works is feasible, as determined by the
Administrator;
``(IV) the costs (including capital and operational costs)
and avoided costs (including potential savings) associated
with applying each described method to reduce the
consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at
the treatment works;
``(V) any other relevant information that the owner or
operator of a treatment works relied on in conducting the
assessment; and
``(VI) a statement of whether the owner or operator of a
treatment works has implemented or plans to implement a
method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act, a description of any such method, and, in
the case of a treatment works described in subparagraph
(C)(i), an explanation of the reasons for any decision not to
implement any such method.

``(C) Required methods.--
``(i) Application.--This subparagraph applies to a
treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) that--

``(I) is assigned to one of the two highest risk-based
tiers established under paragraph (2)(A); and
``(II) possesses or plans to possess a substance of concern
in excess of the threshold quantity set by the Administrator
under subsection (c)(2).

``(ii) Highest-risk systems.--If, on the basis of its
assessment developed pursuant to subparagraph (B), the owner
or operator of a treatment works described in clause (i)
decides not to implement a method to reduce the consequences
of a chemical release from an intentional act, in accordance
with a timeline set by the Administrator--

``(I) the Administrator or, where applicable, a State with
an approved program under section 402, shall determine
whether to require the owner or operator of a treatment works
to implement such method; and
``(II) in the case of a State with such approved program,
the State shall report such determination to the
Administrator.

``(iii) Considerations.--Before requiring the
implementation of a method to reduce the consequences of a
chemical release from an intentional act under clause (ii),
the Administrator or a State, as the case may be, shall
consider factors appropriate to address the responsibilities
of the treatment works to meet the goals and requirements of
this Act, including an examination of whether the method--

``(I) would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury,
or serious adverse effects to human health resulting from a
chemical release from an intentional act at the treatment
works;
``(II) would not increase the interim storage by the
treatment works of a substance of concern designated under
subsection (c);
``(III) could impact the operations of the treatment works
in meeting the goals and requirements of this Act or any more
stringent standards established by the State or municipality
in which the treatment works is located; and
``(IV) is feasible, as determined by the Administrator, to
be incorporated into the operations of the treatment works.

``(D) Appeal.--Before requiring the implementation of a
method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act under clause (ii), the Administrator or a
State, as the case may be, shall provide the owner or
operator of the treatment works an opportunity to appeal the
determination to require such implementation.
``(E) Incomplete or late assessments.--
``(i) Incomplete assessments.--If the Administrator
determines that a treatment works fails to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (B) and the applicable
regulations, the Administrator shall, after notifying the

[[Page H12513]]

owner or operator of a treatment works and the State in which
the treatment works is located, require the owner or operator
of the treatment works to submit a revised assessment not
later than 60 days after the Administrator notifies the owner
or operator. The Administrator may require such additional
revisions as are necessary to ensure that the treatment works
meets the requirements of subparagraph (B) and the applicable
regulations.
``(ii) Late assessments.--If the Administrator finds that
the owner or operator of a treatment works, in conducting an
assessment pursuant to subparagraph (B), did not complete
such assessment in accordance with the deadline set by the
Administrator, the Administrator may, after notifying the
owner or operator of the treatment works and the State in
which the treatment works is located, take appropriate
enforcement action under subsection (j).
``(iii) Review.--A State with an approved program under
section 402 or the Administrator, as the case may be, shall
review a revised assessment that meets the requirements of
subparagraph (B) and applicable regulations to determine
whether the treatment works will be required to implement
methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act pursuant to subparagraph (C).
``(F) Enforcement.--
``(i) Failure by state to make determination.--

``(I) In general.--If the Administrator determines that a
State with an approved program under section 402 failed to
determine whether to require a treatment works to implement a
method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act, as required by subparagraph (C)(ii), the
Administrator shall notify the State and the owner or
operator of the treatment works.
``(II) Administrative action.--If, after 30 days after the
notification described in subclause (I), a State fails to
make the determination described in that subclause, the
Administrator shall notify the State and the owner or
operator of the treatment works and shall determine whether
to require the owner or operator to implement a method to
reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an
intentional act based on the factors described in
subparagraph (C)(iii).

``(ii) Failure by state to bring enforcement action.--

``(I) In general.--If, in a State with an approved program
under section 402, the Administrator determines that the
owner or operator of a treatment works fails to implement a
method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act (as required by the State or the
Administrator under subparagraph (C)(ii) or the Administrator
under clause (i)(II)), the Administrator shall notify the
State and the owner or operator of the treatment works.
``(II) Administrative enforcement action.--If, after 30
days after the notification described in subclause (I), the
State has not commenced appropriate enforcement action, the
Administrator shall notify the State and may commence an
enforcement action against the owner or operator of the
treatment works, including by seeking or imposing civil
penalties under subsection (j), to require implementation of
such method.

``(4) Consultation with state authorities.--In developing
the regulations under this subsection, the Administrator
shall consult with States with approved programs under
section 402.
``(5) Consultation with other persons.--In developing the
regulations under this subsection, the Administrator shall
consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, as
appropriate, other persons regarding--
``(A) the provision of threat-related and other baseline
information to treatment works identified under subsection
(a)(1);
``(B) the designation of substances of concern under
subsection (c);
``(C) the development of risk-based performance standards;
``(D) the establishment of risk-based tiers and the process
for the assignment of treatment works identified under
subsection (a)(1) to such tiers;
``(E) the process for the development and evaluation of
vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency
response plans;
``(F) the treatment of protected information; and
``(G) any other factor that the Administrator determines to
be appropriate.
``(6) Consideration.--In developing the regulations under
this subsection, the Administrator shall ensure that such
regulations are consistent with the goals and requirements of
this Act.
``(c) Substances of Concern.--For purposes of this section,
the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security--
``(1) may designate any chemical substance as a substance
of concern;
``(2) at the time any chemical substance is designated
pursuant to paragraph (1), shall establish by rulemaking a
threshold quantity for the release or theft of a substance,
taking into account the toxicity, reactivity, volatility,
dispersability, combustability, and flammability of the
substance and the amount of the substance, that, as a result
of the release or theft, is known to cause death, injury, or
serious adverse impacts to human health or the environment;
and
``(3) in making such a designation, shall take into account
appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulation).
``(d) Review of Vulnerability Assessment and Site Security
Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Each owner or operator of a treatment
works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall submit its
vulnerability assessment and site security plan to the
Administrator for review in accordance with deadlines
established by the Administrator.
``(2) Standard of review.--The Administrator shall review
each vulnerability assessment and site security plan
submitted under this subsection and--
``(A) if the assessment or plan has a significant
deficiency described in paragraph (3), require the owner or
operator of the treatment works to correct the deficiency; or
``(B) approve such assessment or plan.
``(3) Significant deficiency.--A vulnerability assessment
or site security plan of a treatment works has a significant
deficiency under this subsection if the Administrator, in
consultation, as appropriate, with a State with an approved
program under section 402, determines that--
``(A) such assessment does not comply with the regulations
promulgated under subsection (b); or
``(B) such plan--
``(i) fails to address vulnerabilities identified in a
vulnerability assessment; or
``(ii) fails to meet applicable risk-based performance
standards.
``(4) Identification of deficiencies.--If the Administrator
identifies a significant deficiency in the vulnerability
assessment or site security plan of an owner or operator of a
treatment works under paragraph (3), the Administrator shall
provide the owner or operator with a written notification of
the deficiency that--
``(A) includes a clear explanation of the deficiency in the
vulnerability assessment or site security plan;
``(B) provides guidance to assist the owner or operator in
addressing the deficiency; and
``(C) requires the owner or operator to correct the
deficiency and, by such date as the Administrator determines
appropriate, to submit to the Administrator a revised
vulnerability assessment or site security plan.
``(5) State, local, or tribal governmental entities.--No
owner or operator of a treatment works identified under
subsection (a)(1) shall be required under State, local, or
tribal law to provide a vulnerability assessment or site
security plan described in this section to any State, local,
or tribal governmental entity solely by reason of the
requirement set forth in paragraph (1) that the owner or
operator of a treatment works submit such an assessment and
plan to the Administrator.
``(e) Emergency Response Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The owner or operator of a treatment
works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall develop or
revise, as appropriate, an emergency response plan that
incorporates the results of the current vulnerability
assessment and site security plan for the treatment works.
``(2) Certification.--The owner or operator of a treatment
works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall certify to the
Administrator that the owner or operator has completed an
emergency response plan, shall submit such certification to
the Administrator not later than 6 months after the first
completion or revision of a vulnerability assessment under
this section, and shall submit an additional certification
following any update of the emergency response plan.
``(3) Contents.--An emergency response plan shall include a
description of--
``(A) plans, procedures, and identification of equipment
that can be implemented or used in the event of an
intentional act at the treatment works; and
``(B) actions, procedures, and identification of equipment
that can obviate or significantly reduce the impact of
intentional acts to--
``(i) substantially disrupt the ability of the treatment
works to safely and reliably operate; or
``(ii) have a substantial adverse effect on critical
infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment.
``(4) Coordination.--As part of its emergency response
plan, the owner or operator of a treatment works shall
provide appropriate information to any local emergency
planning committee, local law enforcement officials, and
local emergency response providers to ensure an effective,
collective response.
``(f) Role of Employees.--
``(1) Description of role.--Site security plans and
emergency response plans required under this section shall
describe the appropriate roles or responsibilities that
employees and contractor employees of treatment works are
expected to perform to deter or respond to the intentional
acts identified in a current vulnerability assessment.
``(2) Training for employees.--The owner or operator of a
treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall
annually provide employees and contractor employees with the
roles or responsibilities described in paragraph (1) with
sufficient training, as determined by the Administrator, on
carrying out those roles or responsibilities.
``(3) Employee participation.--In developing, revising, or
updating a vulnerability assessment, site security plan, and
emergency response plan required under this section, the
owner or operator of a treatment works shall include--

[[Page H12514]]

``(A) at least one supervisory and at least one
nonsupervisory employee of the treatment works; and
``(B) at least one representative of each certified or
recognized bargaining agent representing facility employees
or contractor employees with roles or responsibilities
described in paragraph (1), if any, in a collective
bargaining relationship with the owner or operator of the
treatment works or with a contractor to the treatment works.
``(g) Maintenance of Records.--The owner or operator of a
treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1) shall
maintain an updated copy of its vulnerability assessment,
site security plan, and emergency response plan on the
premises of the treatment works.
``(h) Audit; Inspection.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall audit and
inspect a treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1),
as necessary, for purposes of determining compliance with
this section.
``(2) Access.--In conducting an audit or inspection of a
treatment works under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
have access to the owners, operators, employees and
contractor employees, and employee representatives, if any,
of such treatment works.
``(3) Confidential communication of information; aiding
inspections.--The Administrator shall offer nonsupervisory
employees of a treatment works the opportunity confidentially
to communicate information relevant to the compliance or
noncompliance of the owner or operator of the treatment works
with this section, including compliance or noncompliance with
any regulation or requirement adopted by the Administrator in
furtherance of the purposes of this section. A representative
of each certified or recognized bargaining agent described in
subsection (f)(3)(B), if any, or, if none, a nonsupervisory
employee, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the
Administrator during the physical inspection of any treatment
works for the purpose of aiding such inspection, if
representatives of the treatment works will also be
accompanying the Administrator on such inspection.
``(i) Protection of Information.--
``(1) Prohibition of public disclosure of protected
information.--Protected information shall--
``(A) be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title
5, United States Code; and
``(B) not be made available pursuant to any State, local,
or tribal law requiring disclosure of information or records.
``(2) Information sharing.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall prescribe such
regulations, and may issue such orders, as necessary to
prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected
information, as described in paragraph (7).
``(B) Sharing of protected information.--The regulations
under subparagraph (A) shall provide standards for and
facilitate the appropriate sharing of protected information
with and among Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities,
first responders, law enforcement officials, supervisory and
nonsupervisory treatment works personnel with security,
operational, or fiduciary responsibility for the system
designated by the owner or operator of the treatment works,
and facility employee representatives designated by the owner
or operator of the treatment works, if any.
``(C) Information sharing procedures.--Such standards shall
include procedures for the sharing of all portions of the
vulnerability assessment and site security plan of a
treatment works relating to the roles and responsibilities of
the employees or contractor employees of a treatment works
under subsection (f)(1) with a representative of each
certified or recognized bargaining agent representing such
employees, if any, or, if none, with at least one supervisory
and at least one non-supervisory employee with roles and
responsibilities under subsection (f)(1).
``(D) Penalties.--Protected information, as described in
paragraph (7), shall not be shared except in accordance with
the standards provided by the regulations under subparagraph
(A). Whoever discloses protected information in knowing
violation of the regulations and orders issued under
subparagraph (A) shall be fined under title 18, United States
Code, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, and, in
the case of a Federal officeholder or employee, shall be
removed from Federal office or employment.
``(3) Treatment of information in adjudicative
proceedings.--In any judicial or administrative proceeding,
protected information, as described in paragraph (7), shall
be treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of
sensitive security information under section 525 of the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (120
Stat. 1381).
``(4) Other obligations unaffected.--Nothing in this
section amends or affects an obligation of the owner or
operator of a treatment works to--
``(A) submit or make available information to employees of
the treatment works, employee organizations, or a Federal,
State, local, or tribal government agency under any other
law; or
``(B) comply with any other law.
``(5) Congressional oversight.--Nothing in this section
permits or authorizes the withholding of information from
Congress or any committee or subcommittee thereof.
``(6) Disclosure of independently furnished information.--
Nothing in this section amends or affects any authority or
obligation of a Federal, State, local, or tribal agency to
protect or disclose any record or information that the
Federal, State, local, or tribal agency obtains from a
treatment works or the Administrator under any other law
except as provided in subsection (d)(5).
``(7) Protected information.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, protected
information is any of the following:
``(i) Vulnerability assessments and site security plans
under this section, including any assessment developed under
subsection (b)(3)(B).
``(ii) Documents directly related to the Administrator's
review of assessments and plans described in clause (i) and,
as applicable, the State's review of an assessment developed
under subsection (b)(3)(B).
``(iii) Documents directly related to inspections and
audits under this section.
``(iv) Orders, notices, or letters regarding the compliance
of a treatment works described in subsection (a)(1) with the
requirements of this section.
``(v) Information required to be provided to, or documents
and records created by, the Administrator under subsection
(b)(2).
``(vi) Documents directly related to security drills and
training exercises, security threats and breaches of
security, and maintenance, calibration, and testing of
security equipment.
``(vii) Other information, documents, and records developed
for the purposes of this section that the Administrator
determines would be detrimental to the security of a
treatment works if disclosed.
``(B) Detriment requirement.--For purposes of clauses (ii),
(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of subparagraph (A), the only
portions of documents, records, orders, notices, and letters
that shall be considered protected information are those
portions that--
``(i) would be detrimental to the security of a treatment
works if disclosed; and
``(ii) are developed by the Administrator, the State, or
the treatment works for the purposes of this section.
``(C) Exclusions.--For purposes of this paragraph,
protected information does not include--
``(i) information that is otherwise publicly available,
including information that is required to be made publicly
available under any law;
``(ii) information that a treatment works has lawfully
disclosed other than in accordance with this section; and
``(iii) information that, if disclosed, would not be
detrimental to the security of a treatment works, including
aggregate regulatory data that the Administrator determines
appropriate to describe compliance with the requirements of
this section and the Administrator's implementation of such
requirements.
``(j) Violations.--For the purposes of section 309 of this
Act, any violation of any requirement of this section,
including any regulations promulgated pursuant to this
section, by an owner or operator of a treatment works
described in subsection (a)(1) shall be treated in the same
manner as a violation of a permit condition under section 402
of this Act.
``(k) Report to Congress.--
``(1) Periodic report.--Not later than 3 years after the
effective date of the regulations issued under subsection (b)
and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall
transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report on progress in achieving compliance with this section.
``(2) Contents of the report.--Each such report shall
include, at a minimum, the following:
``(A) A generalized summary of measures implemented by the
owner or operator of a treatment works identified under
subsection (a)(1) in order to meet each risk-based
performance standard established by this section.
``(B) A summary of how the treatment works, differentiated
by risk-based tier assignment, are complying with the
requirements of this section during the period covered by the
report and how the Administrator is implementing and
enforcing such requirements during such period, including--
``(i) the number of treatment works that provided the
Administrator with information pursuant to subsection
(b)(2)(B)(iii);
``(ii) the number of treatment works assigned to each risk-
based tier;
``(iii) the number of vulnerability assessments and site
security plans submitted by treatment works;
``(iv) the number of vulnerability assessments and site
security plans approved or found to have a significant
deficiency under subsection (d)(2) by the Administrator;
``(v) the number of treatment works without approved
vulnerability assessments or site security plans;
``(vi) the number of treatment works that have been
assigned to a different risk-based tier due to implementation
of a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release
from an intentional act and a description of the types of
such implemented methods;
``(vii) the number of audits and inspections conducted by
the Administrator; and
``(viii) any other regulatory data the Administrator
determines appropriate to describe the compliance of owners
or operators of treatment works with the requirements of

[[Page H12515]]

this section and the Administrator's implementation of such
requirements.
``(3) Public availability.--A report submitted under this
section shall be made publicly available.
``(l) Grants for Vulnerability Assessments, Security
Enhancements, and Worker Training Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may make a grant to a
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency--
``(A) to conduct or update a vulnerability assessment, site
security plan, or emergency response plan for a publicly
owned treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1);
``(B) to implement a security enhancement at a publicly
owned treatment works identified under subsection (a)(1),
including a method to reduce the consequences of a chemical
release from an intentional act, identified in an approved
site security plan and listed in paragraph (2);
``(C) to implement an additional security enhancement at a
publicly owned treatment works identified under subsection
(a)(1), including a method to reduce the consequences of a
chemical release from an intentional act, identified in an
approved site security plan; and
``(D) to provide for security-related training of employees
or contractor employees of the treatment works and training
for first responders and emergency response providers.
``(2) Grants for security enhancements.--
``(A) Preapproved security enhancements.--The Administrator
may make a grant under paragraph (1)(B) to implement a
security enhancement of a treatment works for one or more of
the following:
``(i) Purchase and installation of equipment for access
control, intrusion prevention and delay, and detection of
intruders and hazardous or dangerous substances, including--

``(I) barriers, fencing, and gates;
``(II) security lighting and cameras;
``(III) metal grates, wire mesh, and outfall entry
barriers;
``(IV) securing of manhole covers and fill and vent pipes;
``(V) installation and re-keying of doors and locks; and
``(VI) smoke, chemical, and explosive mixture detection
systems.

``(ii) Security improvements to electronic, computer, or
other automated systems and remote security systems,
including controlling access to such systems, intrusion
detection and prevention, and system backup.
``(iii) Participation in training programs and the purchase
of training manuals and guidance materials relating to
security.
``(iv) Security screening of employees or contractor
support services.
``(B) Additional security enhancements.--The Administrator
may make a grant under paragraph (1)(C) for additional
security enhancements not listed in subparagraph (A) that are
identified in an approved site security plan. The additional
security enhancements may include the implementation of a
method to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from
an intentional act.
``(C) Limitation on use of funds.--Grants under this
subsection may not be used for personnel costs or operation
or maintenance of facilities, equipment, or systems.
``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities funded by a grant under paragraph (1) may not
exceed 75 percent.
``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this
subsection, a State, municipality, or intermunicipal or
interstate agency shall submit information to the
Administrator at such time, in such form, and with such
assurances as the Administrator may require.
``(m) Preemption.--This section does not preclude or deny
the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to
adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of
performance with respect to a treatment works that is more
stringent than a regulation, requirement, or standard of
performance under this section.
``(n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator $200,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for making grants under
subsection (l). Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
``(o) Relation to Chemical Facility Security
Requirements.--Title XXI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
and the amendments made by title I of the Chemical and Water
Security Act of 2009 shall not apply to any treatment
works.''.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
Page 5, beginning on line 22, strike ``counter
surveillance'' and insert ``counter-surveillance''.
Page 7, beginning on line 2, strike ``. Any such plan shall
include'' and insert ``, including''.
Page 7, line 19, strike ``Department'' and insert
``Secretary''.
Page 8, line 2, strike ``chemicals'' and insert ``a
substance of concern''.
Page 8, line 4, insert ``and'' after the comma.
Page 9, line 5, strike ``Department'' and insert
``Secretary''.
Page 9, line 9, strike ``in'' and insert ``at''.
Page 9, line 10, strike ``site'' and insert ``covered
chemical facility''.
Page 10, line 6, insert a comma after ``plan''.
Page 17, line 3, insert ``chemical'' after ``designation of
a''.
Page 17, line 3, insert ``as a substance'' after
``substance''.
Page 17, line 4, insert ``for the substance'' after
``quantity''.
Page 17, line 8, strike ``may at any time'' and insert
``may, at any time,''.
Page 18, line 10, insert a comma after ``concern''.
Page 18, line 22, strike the comma after
``representative''.
Page 19, line 6, strike ``this title'' and insert ``this
section''.
Page 22, line 3, insert ``, as determined by the
Secretary,'' after ``geographically close''.
Page 23, line 1, strike ``under'' and insert ``pursuant
to''.
Page 24, line 11, strike ``is''.
Page 30, line 22, strike ``that'' and insert ``who''.
Page 34, line 9, strike ``the period of''.
Page 36, line 8, strike ``information'' and insert ``to the
Secretary in a timely manner, information''.
Page 36, line 9, strike ``in a timely manner''.
Page 38, line 17, insert ``departmental'' after ``seek''.
Page 38, line 17, strike ``within the Department''.
Page 39, line 24, strike ``that'' and insert ``who''.
Page 39, line 25, insert a comma after ``subsection (a)''.
Page 40, line 15, strike ``, profit'' and insert ``, for-
profit''.
Page 46, line 16, strike ``protected information is any of
the following' ''' and insert ``the term `protected
information' means any of the following''.
Page 46, line 22, strike ``determines'' and insert ``has
determined by regulation''.
Page 48, strike lines 3 through 17 and insert the
following:
``(2) Exclusions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term
`protected information' does not include--
``(A) information, other than a security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan, that the Secretary has
determined by regulation to be--
``(i) appropriate to describe facility compliance with the
requirements of this title and the Secretary's implementation
of such requirements; and
``(ii) not detrimental to chemical facility security if
disclosed; or
``(B) information, whether or not also contained in a
security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in
a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion
thereof, described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph
(1), that is obtained from another source with respect to
which the Secretary has not made a determination under either
such subparagraph, including--
``(i) information that is required to be made publicly
available under any other provision of law; and
``(ii) information that a chemical facility has lawfully
disclosed other than in a submission to the Secretary
pursuant to a requirement of this title.
Page 54, line 3, strike ``of'' and insert ``after''.
Page 63, line 7, strike ``1996'' and insert ``1986''.
Page 75, line 13, strike ``Department'' and insert
``Secretary''.
Page 92, line 23, insert ``and resubmit'' after ``update''.
Page 93, beginning on line 10, strike ``(or, if the system
has already developed an emergency response plan, to revise
the plan to be in accordance with this section)'' and insert
``or, if the system has already developed an emergency
response plan, to revise the plan to be in accordance with
this section,''.
Page 110, beginning on line 2, strike ``commence an
enforcement action against the system, including by seeking
or imposing civil penalties'' and insert ``take appropriate
enforcement action''.
Page 115, beginning on line 22, strike ``, as described in
paragraph (7)''.
Page 116, beginning on line 21, strike ``, as described in
paragraph (7),''.
Page 117, beginning on line 9, strike ``, as described in
paragraph (7),''.
Page 117, line 22, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
Page 117, line 23, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.

[[Page H12516]]

Page 118, line 10, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
Page 118, beginning on line 13, strike ``protected
information is any of the following'' and insert ``the term
`protected information' means any of the following''.
Page 119, line 17, strike ``determines'' and insert ``has
determined by regulation''.
Page 120, line 1, insert before ``would'' the following:
``the Secretary has determined by regulation''
Page 120, strike lines 7 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(C) Exclusions.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the term `protected information' does not include--
``(i) information, other than a security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan, that the Administrator has
determined by regulation to be--

``(I) appropriate to describe system compliance with the
requirements of this title and the Administrator's
implementation of such requirements; and
``(II) not detrimental to the security of one or more
covered water systems if disclosed; or

``(ii) information, whether or not also contained in a
security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in
a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion
thereof, described in any of clauses (ii) through (vii) of
subparagraph (A) that is obtained from another source with
respect to which the Administrator has not made a
determination under either subparagraph (A)(vii) or (B),
including--

``(I) information that is required to be made publicly
available under any other provision of law; and
``(II) information that a covered water system has lawfully
disclosed other than in a submission to the Administrator
pursuant to a requirement of this title.

Page 121, line 3, strike ``the amendments made by''.
Page 131, beginning on line 3, strike ``threat of
contamination of drinking water being distributed through
public water systems, including fire main systems'' and
insert ``threat to drinking water posed by an intentional act
of contamination, and the vulnerability of public water
systems, including fire hydrants, to such a threat''.
Page 151, line 24, after ``cause'' and insert ``, or may be
reasonably anticipated to cause,''.
Page 161, line 12, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
Page 161, line 13, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
Page 161, line 25, insert ``provision of'' before ``law''.
Page 162, beginning on line 3, strike ``protected
information is any of the following'' and insert ``the term
`protected information' means any of the following''.
Page 163, beginning on line 6, strike ``determines'' and
insert ``has determined by regulation''.
Page 163, line 15, before ``would'' insert the following:
``the Secretary has determined by regulation''.
Strike line 20 on page 163 and all that follows through
page 164, line 13, and insert the following:
``(C) Exclusions.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the term `protected information' does not include--
``(i) information, other than a security vulnerability
assessment or site security plan, that the Administrator has
determined by regulation to be--

``(I) appropriate to describe treatment works compliance
with the requirements of this title and the Administrator's
implementation of such requirements; and
``(II) not detrimental to the security of one or more
treatment works if disclosed; or

``(ii) information, whether or not also contained in a
security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in
a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion
thereof, described in any of clauses (ii) through (vii) of
subparagraph (A) that is obtained from another source with
respect to which the Administrator has not made a
determination under either subparagraph (A)(vii) or (B),
including--

``(I) information that is required to be made publicly
available under any other provision of law; and
``(II) information that a treatment works has lawfully
disclosed other than in a submission to the Administrator
pursuant to a requirement of this title.

Page 171, line 5, strike ``the amendments made by''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
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.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
manager's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, normally, you do not object, even
in the minority, to a manager's amendment that supposedly is a
technical manager's amendment, technical in nature, so it is unusual
for myself as the ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee to rise in opposition to this particular amendment. But I am
doing so for one reason: It is not a technical amendment.
Now, here is the manager's amendment; and, if you could read it, for
the first two to three pages, it is very technical. It is just changing
one word here or there, or putting a sentence here, or a semicolon, or
something like that.
But then you get down to the bottom the third page, and I am going to
read this so that the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, understands exactly what the
opposition is.
``Page 48, strike lines 3 through 17 and insert the following:''
So we are getting away from a technical amendment and you are
actually putting substantive policy into the manager's amendment.
``Exclusions. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the term `protected
information' does not include (A) information, other than a security
vulnerability assessment or site security plan, that the

[[Page H12517]]

Secretary has determined by regulation to be (i) appropriate to
describe the facility compliance with the requirements of this title
and the Secretary's implementation of such requirements; and (ii) not
detrimental to the chemical facility security if disclosed; or,'' and
this is where it gets really interesting, ``(B) information, whether or
not contained in the security vulnerability assessment, site security
plan, or in a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion
thereof, described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), that is
obtained from another source.''
So what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is saying, as the
distinguished chairman said, we don't want to try to give the
Department of Homeland Security the ability to prevent information that
has already been publicly disclosed by somebody we regulate as part of
the site security plan. But then they are creating this new loophole,
that if a group that is not controlled by Homeland Security somehow
gets information, they can publish it. They can put it on their Web
site, and they're not liable.

{time}  1345

They are not subject to the penalties.
That's wrong, Mr. Chair. That's just wrong. It does it in not only
one place. These are three different bills that were merged. It goes on
in other parts of the manager's amendment and makes those same changes
in two to three other places. That's not a technical manager's
amendment. That's a substantive policy change that's detrimental to the
security, in my opinion, of the United States of America.
So while it is somewhat unusual to object to the manager's amendment
that's portrayed as a technical amendment, this is not a technical
amendment--or at least those portions of it. So I am very strongly in
opposition to this.
I think on a day on which we have another reported shooting in
Orlando, Florida, which may or may not be of a terrorist nature, and a
shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday which was, we think, possibly
of a terrorist nature, that if we're going to have a terrorist security
bill on the floor for chemical plants and water facilities, it ought to
be a real terrorist security bill.
But the underlying bill is not about more guards and more physical
security and more computer protections, as we said in the general
debate yesterday. The underlying bill is about enforcing this new
standard of IST, or inherently safer technology. In my opinion, it is a
radical environmental bill masquerading as a security bill. So I am
strongly opposed to Mr. Thompson's manager's amendment because it is a
substantive policy amendment, in my opinion, that fundamentally weakens
the ostensible purpose of the bill.
With that, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for his excellent
work on this legislation. We are not talking here about an
environmental bill. We are talking about a security bill. We are
talking about the targets which we know al Qaeda has on their target
list. That's what this whole debate is about. It's to protect the
American people from the attempts by al Qaeda to come back to our
country and to strike us once again, and we must protect against that
attack. That's all this debate is about.
It's not any attempt to have an environmental agenda here at all. It
is solely to ensure that al Qaeda cannot attack us in our country and
to put in place the same protections at chemical facilities that we now
have at airports, that we now have at nuclear power plants. That is all
that this debate is about, and I urge support for the manager's
amendment propounded by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. Both sides have 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I assume Chairman Thompson has the right to
close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas actually has the right to
close.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I will let Mr. Thompson close.
In the remaining 30 seconds, let me simply say that I agree with what
Mr. Markey said, but I will also say to the gentleman from
Massachusetts that this bill doesn't do any of that. I wish we were
debating a true safety bill, a true antiterrorism bill, but inherently
safer technology deals with processes and chemical manufacturing. It
doesn't deal with real security.
In Chairman Thompson's manager's amendment, some of which is
technical, the part that I oppose is a glaring creation of a loophole
to give environmental groups and other outside groups the ability to
put information on their Web sites that's not subject to the penalties
of this bill. So I would oppose the manager's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas will state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair, would it not be parliamentarily
correct to now call for the yeas and nays on that vote since we
requested it?
The Acting CHAIR. The yeas and nays are not available in the
Committee of the Whole.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry, so I will have to
ask for that when we come back into the Whole House?
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the request for
a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi was postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the podium.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Barton of Texas:
Page 43, strike lines 7 through 16, and insert the
following:

``SEC. 2109. FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

``No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or
attempt to enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard
of performance with respect to a covered chemical facility if
such regulation, requirement, or standard of performance
poses obstacles to, hinders, or frustrates the purpose of any
requirement or standard of performance under this title.
Page 121, strike lines 6 through 11, and insert the
following:
``(n) Preemption.--No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any regulation,
requirement, or standard of performance with respect to a
covered water system if such regulation, requirement, or
standard of performance poses obstacles to, hinders, or
frustrates the purpose of any requirement or standard of
performance under this section.
Page 170, strike lines 17 through 22, and insert the
following:
``(m) Preemption.--No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any regulation,
requirement, or standard of performance with respect to a
treatment works if such regulation, requirement, or standard
of performance poses obstacles to, hinders, or frustrates the
purpose of any requirement or standard of performance under
this section.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman

[[Page H12518]]

from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The merged bill that's before us gives States the right, if they want
to do things that are more strict or different than in the pending
bill, they have the right to do that. The Federal Government, which
normally in a bill of this sort there would be a Federal preemption
standard that would preempt States from doing things differently than
the Federal standard, this bill sets a floor but does not set a ceiling
on what the States can do.
So the amendment that we have before us, Mr. Chair, does create the
traditional Federal preemption in these areas. There are three sections
in today's bill that allow State, local, or tribal governments to enact
more stringent laws and regulations from chemical, drinking water and
wastewater treatment facilities. This is not only a new standard for
chemical security legislation. It is a new standard, and I think a
troubling standard, for comprehensive security legislation.
Where did this come from? Like many other provisions in this
legislation, the standard is borrowed directly from Federal
environmental law, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and
the Superfund law, to name a few.
This so-called new stringency standard appears only once in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. In there, it relates to information
protection, not to security operations. Allowing State, local, or
tribal governments to be more stringent in the context of national
security, in my opinion, is problematic because it means that there
will be no certainty associated with the Federal standard.
Why have a Federal standard, Mr. Chair, if any State, local, or
tribal government can supersede it? Proving my point, other national
security laws, including nuclear, hazmat, aviation and port security
make the Federal Government the dominant regulator with clear Federal
preemption standards.
In the 111th Congress, the Democrat majority specifically included
Federal preemption provisions in both the TSA Authorization Act and the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. These were both security-related
legislative vehicles. Mr. Chair, we should not import environmental
provisions into security law. Local pollution control is obviously much
different than terrorism protection and prevention.
Unlike local pollution problems, security at chemical and water
facilities does require national coordination. The principle is simple:
national problems should have national solutions. This is why Federal
preemption has always been the norm in aviation security, nuclear
security, hazardous materials transportation security, and port
security.
My amendment is very simple. It would replace the State's stringency
standard with provisions allowing the Federal Government to preempt
State and local law that ``hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the
purpose of the Federal program.'' This would allow the Federal
Government to operate a truly national network to fight terror in the
same way the Armed Forces are coordinated through a central command.
Mr. Chair, I have several other written comments that I will submit
for the Record, but my amendment is straightforward. It sets a Federal
preemption standard as opposed to the State-by-State or local
stringency standard under the current bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I rise to claim the 5 minutes in
opposition to the Barton amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. The section which Mr. Barton is referring to
is on page 42 of the bill and extends over to page 43.
Mr. Chair, I rise strongly against Ranking Member Barton's amendment
to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. It would strip
State preemption language out of this bill. Simply put, that's what it
would do. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I worked hard
to secure language in this bill that protects the rights of States to
mandate higher chemical security standards than the Federal Government.
It is bizarre that you want to take that right away from the States.
It is bizarre. Most of the time, you are always fighting that we ignore
States' rights. Here is a perfect example. In fact, it is very clear in
the Constitution of the United States of America, article VI, paragraph
2:
``This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.''
This is a very clear violation of that. I have to say that I am
surprised that the Ranking Member, who hails from the proud State of
Texas, would now want to infringe on the right of the States to take
extra steps. You know what's happened in New Jersey. We have been the
pioneers of being first on this issue. We have stringent rules. No part
of the chemical industry has opposed those rules. There is not one
chemical facility that is opposed to what has gone on in the State of
New Jersey. What right does the Federal Government have to come in and
say that you should lower your standards and increase the risks of the
citizens?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 30 additional seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. The New Jersey Turnpike, the FBI has ruled very
specifically that it is the most dangerous section in the whole
country. We can't protect ourselves? The volatile chemicals that are on
that site would put a million people in jeopardy, God forbid, if
something happens. We need to raise Federal standards, not force States
to lower theirs. We can all agree. And I just got a letter from the
National Governors Association in total support of this legislation,
opposed to this amendment; and they write in the letter that the bill
rifely clarifies that chemical facility antiterrorism standards
represent a floor, not a ceiling.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Could I inquire as to the time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a distinguished minority member of the
Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify one point. I understand
the sensitivities in the State of New Jersey. It is a great State. But
I do want to say that New Jersey IST assessments are required.
Implementation of IST is not required. The huge cost with this
legislation is in the implementation of IST. The legislation we're
considering here today goes far beyond New Jersey standards and would
actually require an IST implementation as well as the assessment, which
will add an enormous cost and put a number of jobs at risk. I just
wanted to point that out for the record.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
This is a very simple principle that the gentleman from New Jersey
has been making reference to. Al Qaeda was in Newark, New Jersey, on
September 11. Al Qaeda was in Boston on September 11. Al Qaeda attacked
New York City on September 11. If the Governor of New York, if the
Governor of Massachusetts, if the Governor of New Jersey wishes to
promulgate stronger regulations to protect the chemical facilities in
their States, that should be their right.

{time}  1400

They should be making the public safety determination.
These people who rushed into the World Trade Center, these first
responders, they're firemen, they're policemen from the local
community. They're health care workers from the local community.
They're heroes. But while waiting for the Federal Government to come,
it is the local public safety people who have to respond. If they want
to put stronger protections

[[Page H12519]]

around these facilities, knowing that al Qaeda was there on September
11th already, that that is where the attack emanated from, they should
have their right. That is why the National Governors Association
opposes this amendment. They should have, as the highest public safety
official in their States, the right to determine how much protection
they give to their citizens, how much extra measure of safety they give
for their policemen, for their firemen, for their public health
officials who will have to rush in in the aftermath of a successful
attack.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Barton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
My friends, let's be clear. I oppose the underlying bill. I'm going
to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. But if we're going to have a
Federal bill, we ought to have a Federal bill. It should preempt the
States.
My friends on the other side are trying to have it both ways. You
want a Federal bill that does lots of things that I don't support, but
then you want to let the States that want to to go beyond the Federal
bill. If that's the case, you don't need a Federal bill. I'd be happy
to let each State decide what they wanted to do.
I would point out to my good friend from New Jersey, who was such an
excellent baseball player in our congressional baseball game, that what
has to be implemented in this bill is stronger than what currently
exists in New Jersey. But if we don't accept the Barton amendment, New
Jersey could go beyond what's in this bill. And, again, if you're going
to have a Federal system for security, it should be a Federal system.
So I very respectfully ask my friends on the majority to accept the
Barton amendment, and if we are going to have a Federal standard within
a Federal bill, let's have a Federal standard in a Federal bill.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Barton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is written so imprecisely
that it could preempt the rights of States and localities to pass or
enforce any State regulation or standard that applies to a chemical
facility, such as worker safety laws or even zoning laws. Try that on
for size. One could even read the language as prohibiting States from
passing stronger drinking water standards.
This is an unacceptable infringement on the right of States. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Please vote ``no'' on
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 65, after line 2, insert the following:
``(d) Outreach Support.--
``(1) Point of contact.--The Secretary shall designate a
point of contact for the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the head of any other agency
designated by the Secretary, with respect to the requirements
of this title.
``(2) Outreach.--The Secretary shall, as appropriate, and
in accordance with this title, inform State emergency
response commissions appointed pursuant to section 301(a) of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) and local emergency planning
committees appointed pursuant to section 301(c) of such Act,
and any other entity designated by the Secretary, of the
findings of the Office of Chemical Facility Security so that
such commissions and committees may update emergency planning
and training procedures.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I once again
thank Chairman Bennie Thompson for offering this vital legislation, and
I thank him for supporting this amendment.
As Vice Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I commend the recognition of the potential risks
associated with our chemical manufacturing and water treatment
infrastructure. Securing these industries is vital not only to
America's economic viability, it is essential to the human security of
surrounding communities.
My amendment will strengthen the Office of Chemical Facility Security
created by designating a specific point of contact for interagency
coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and other
agencies. This amendment also requires the Secretary to proactively
inform State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency
Planning Committees about activities related to the implementation of
the act so that they may update their emergency planning and training
procedures.
I know that Chairman Thompson would agree with the fact that many
facilities that will be designated with significant risk through the
implementation of this legislation lie in communities of significant
economic need and vulnerability to chemical and contaminant exposure.
For this reason, many of such areas are characterized as environmental
justice communities. It is necessary that these communities be better
empowered to strategically plan for potential chemical releases and
security risks.
The fact is incidents like the 1984 methyl isocyanate released from a
chemical facility in Bhopal, India continue to happen throughout the
United States on a smaller scale. Until we enforce chemical release
regulations and take aggressive steps to protect vulnerable
environmental justice communities, they will be at even greater risk
for acts of terror.
Also, the amendment designates a specific point of contact for
interagency coordination to ensure greater transparency when it comes
to our oversight responsibilities as Members of Congress. This
adjustment will ensure that all agencies invoked by this legislation
will cooperate as closely as possible.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition to the
amendment, though I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. This amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to establish a point of contact with the Administrator of the EPA. The
amendment also requires the Secretary to notify State and local
emergency planning committees of findings that may be necessary to
update their emergency plans. This amendment certainly encourages the
sharing of information with the appropriate people at the State and
local level, those responsible for developing emergency planning and
training procedures. And while the bill envisions this type of
information sharing, the amendment certainly makes it explicit.
Additionally, this bill requires a single point of contact for the EPA
Administrator.
Knowing how bad bureaucracy can be, we certainly understand the need
of legislating communication between two agencies and ensuring that
State and local first responders are included in these information-
sharing regimes.
And I should point out that my good friend Mr. Pascrell from New
Jersey has a smile on his face still from the

[[Page H12520]]

New York Yankees' victory over my Philadelphia Phillies. I had to get
that off my chest after the ribbing you gave me yesterday, along with
our good friend Mr. King. And, again, congratulations. It still hurts.
I'm a Phillies fan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the distinguished subcommittee Chair, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, this amendment I support gives effective
coordination, which we certainly had been lacking, between the
Department of Homeland Security and Environmental Protection Agency in
carrying out the requirements of the bill. In committee, we worked to
require the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chairman, to alert
State Homeland advisers on any chemical security emergencies. This is a
big relief, as my friend from Pennsylvania said. And I want to
reiterate and support his words that this will be a great big help to
first responders all across this United States of America.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Dent

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Dent:
Page 2, beginning on line 1, strike title I and insert the
following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE I--CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical Facility Security
Authorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY TO REGULATE THE SECURITY OF CHEMICAL
FACILITIES.

Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 6 U.S.C. 121
note) is amended by striking ``three years after the date of
enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on October 1, 2012''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of
myself and Mr. Olson.
This amendment would simply strike title I and extend the
Department's current regulatory authority until October 2012. Simply,
it extends the current CFATS regulations until 2012.
This amendment addresses the largest problem of the underlying bill,
that the bill is a so-called solution in search of a problem.
The majority will argue that chemical facilities need to be secure.
We agree. That's why we acted swiftly 3 years ago to give the
Department of Homeland Security the regulatory authority it needed to
secure them. In the 3 years since, the Department has taken steps to
implement that authority, but it is far from complete.
As of last week, the Department of Homeland Security had not reviewed
two-thirds of the over 6,000 security vulnerability assessments it
required regulated facilities to submit based on regulations it issued
in June of 2007. The addition of drinking water and wastewater
facilities by titles II and III of this bill will double the 6,000
security vulnerability assessments already required by the Department.
We are asking too much of the Department too soon.
The bill proposes to nearly double the Department's workload. The
Department should be allowed to fully implement its existing regulatory
authority. By all accounts, including those of the Democratic majority,
the Department is doing an excellent job implementing its current
regulatory framework.
In the committee hearing on the subject this past June, Chairman
Thompson stated, ``As a close observer, I give credit to the Department
for the good job it has done so far in promulgating and enforcing the
CFATS regulations.'' We agree with him.
Why are we here today looking to make significant and costly changes
to the manner in which the Department is regulating chemical facilities
if, as the chairman himself has said, the Department is doing a ``good
job''?
Despite the fact that the Department has yet to conduct a single
onsite inspection, not a single one, the majority seeks to halt the
progress the Department has made and start over with new costly and
burdensome requirements.
This amendment maintains the current authorizing language, requiring
security vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and
enforcement. But it does not include costly IST assessments or
mandatory implementation that will cost Americans their jobs. It does
not include civil suit provisions that would allow any person, whether
in Peoria or Pakistan, the authority to sue the Secretary and the
Department of Homeland Security. It does not include weakened
information protection language that makes prosecution for unauthorized
disclosures nearly impossible.
This amendment would maintain the drinking and wastewater security
titles of the bill. When will the Democratic leadership recognize that
moving precipitously in unchartered territory through legislation is
ill-advised and a rush to judgment? A Democrat-imposed 100 percent
maritime cargo-scanning mandate legislated before the results of a
pilot program were published has led the Secretary of Homeland Security
to state on the record that it was an unachievable goal. A Democrat-
imposed 100 percent aviation cargo-scanning mandate legislated before
any feasibility studies were completed has led the Acting Administrator
of the TSA to state on the record that it cannot be done. Requiring
costly IST assessments and mandatory implementation and then studying
its effect on the agricultural sector and small business is equally
ill-advised.
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And as Chairman Thompson said, the
Department of Homeland Security is doing a ``good job.'' Let them
finish their work, learn from the process, and consider this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time}  1415

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank
Chairman Thompson for years of commitment to this process, listening to
our friends from the other side of the aisle. Frankly, I remember
sitting in Cannon room 311 when we were in the minority and the
cooperation we worked through when we were dealing with our farmers.
Each step of the way, we made efforts to be responsive to the security
of the Nation and the elements to which my good friends speak of.
Let me also mention our other collaborators, Energy and Commerce,
Chairman Markey, and my subcommittee of Transportation and
Infrastructure which had any number of hearings to answer the question:
Why? So I stand here today in the backdrop of recognizing the
importance of securing the Nation. And I am proud to have co-authored
H.R. 2868 and to pass it through the subcommittee I chair, before full
committee.
Might I just indicate for a moment that I come from Texas, and I
would be remiss not to acknowledge the devastation of yesterday. Of
course, we have heard of another tragedy today in Florida. But my
sympathy to the families of the 13 dead and 31 wounded. Never again.
That is why we stand here today as Homeland Security members.
The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security
program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we
included in H.R. 2868.
Section 550 of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations, a provision that
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend, was just a page-
and-a-half long and had many deficiencies. He is eliminating the
inherently secure technology for chemical facilities, the very
facilities that are in the eye of the storm. He apparently does not
believe

[[Page H12521]]

it is important to protect workers, to improve the program so that the
deficiencies in the current chemical facilities security program by
including provisions that strengthen enforcement to provide workers
subject to background checks with access to adequate redress and
strengthen whistleblower protections.
Our challenge is to be fair. This legislation is fair. We must pass
H.R. 2868.
Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security
program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we
included in H.R. 2868. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
The Department of Homeland Security set up the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards in 2007 when DHS was granted narrow authority
in an appropriations bill to regulate security at most chemical plants.
Section 550 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Act--the provision
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend--was just 14
lines long and had many deficiencies.
It is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation
that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year.
H.R. 2868 is the product of years of work by multiple committees and
extensive input from the chemical industry, water sector, Department of
Homeland Security, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as
environmental and labor organizations.
We have the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the
Department to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about
how this program should be executed.
The gentleman's amendment ignores our responsibility to respond to
what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the
Bush and Obama administrations requested. It just kicks the can down
the road another three years.
H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical
facility security program by including provisions that strengthen
enforcement, provide workers subject to background checks with access
to adequate redress, and strengthen whistleblower protections.
It also requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation
of safer technologies.
If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of
these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and
testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in
several key areas.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the largest chemical
companies, said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee that,
and I quote, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a
permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives share this view.
It is time for us to pass comprehensive legislation to address
chemical facility security in this country.
I reserve my time at this time, as this debate proceeds.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
sponsoring this amendment with me and for his leadership on this issue.
Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security began developing
the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, and since that time DHS
has implemented an objective, risk-based approach to regulating
chemical facilities. This includes a risk-based tiering system for
chemical plants and requires them to implement specific security
measures in accordance with their level of risk.
While much progress has been made, much remains to be done. Instead
of allowing the work to be completed properly, the majority wishes to
rush to solutions and mandate that DHS scrap the current program and
start over. Such a move would take 2 years of hard work and throw it
out the window.
Our amendment is simple: Extend the current risk-based regulations
through 2012 and let the professionals do their job. Nothing more,
nothing less.
I urge Members to support the Dent-Olson amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. I want to say, as a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, when we had hearings on this issue, we learned from the
Homeland Security folks that there were no inspections. They had not
conducted one single inspection during the time they had this authority
before them.
We know that chemical companies across the country have invested more
than $18 billion to try to make sure that their places are secure. We
heard the terrible news this morning about unemployment going up to
10.2 percent. We have lost one in five manufacturing jobs in the last
year and a half. There is almost 12 percent unemployment in
manufacturing. How is this going to help us keep more job? They are
going to leave. Those companies are going to look at the added expenses
that they are going to have, and they are going to move like you know
to other countries and other places and those jobs are going to be
lost.
So I would like to think that we will learn our lesson. We can have
the inspections and go through what is right and what is wrong. I would
urge my colleagues to accept this amendment offered by Mr. Dent so we
can bring some reasonableness to the issue.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say once again, I
think extending these CFATS regulations until 2012 is a reasonable
approach. The Department of Homeland Security is doing a good job with
these regulations. We need to give them more time to implement the
existing regulations that will require security assessments.
As we said, 2,000 of the 6,000 required have been completed. So let's
give them some time. The Department of Homeland Security has not spoken
in support of this legislation in its entirety. Again, this bill is a
solution in search of a problem. Please accept the Dent-Olson amendment
that is a reasonable approach, accepting the regulations that we just
approved as part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. So let's
do that. It is the right way to go.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have worked for 4 years on this legislation. Can you
imagine 2009 to 2012, 7 years to put the American people in jeopardy.
The Department of Homeland Security is for this legislation, and the
approach that our friends are using is no substitute for the
comprehensive authorization legislation that moved through regular
order in the relevant committees this year.
H.R. 2868 is a product of years of work by multiple committees and
extensive input from the chemical industry. Let me cite for you the
letter from the American Chemistry Council which represents the largest
chemical companies. They said, in a letter to Energy and Commerce,
``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS
program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives share the same view.
So what are my colleagues suggesting? They want us to shortchange the
American people. I stood here with all of the solemnness that I could,
when the House recognized those lost at Fort Hood. Others at Fort Hood
were wounded in my home State. We mourn them, we honor them, but we
have the responsibility to stand on their side.
Just as we have to get to the bottom of the tragedy at Fort Hood,
Texas, we have to get to the bottom of realizing that it is on our
table to ensure that whistleblowers are protected, as provided for in
H.R. 2868 to make sure that inherently safer technologies are used in
chemical facilities, and, yes, that jobs are not lost. But jobs will
not be lost when you improve technology. You will become more
efficient, and you will protect not only the water and wastewater
systems in our communities but you will have workers working in safe,
productive chemical facilities that will be part of the economic
engine.
Jobs are important. But so is the security of this Nation. That is
what this particular committee has done over a 4-year period. We have
worked in consultation with those in business as well as those in law
enforcement. I don't know how we can stand here and oppose the
Department of Homeland Security's Department that supports us moving
forward on this legislation, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act
2009.
I ask my colleagues, consider the fact of what their responsibility
is. Their

[[Page H12522]]

responsibility again is to stand with those who we have to secure. I
think that the Dent-Olson amendment, my good friends on the committee
have good intentions, but those intentions are quashed by the
responsibility that we have and the long work that we have done to
ensure inherently safer technologies for chemical facilities.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, again, in response to
securing America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Dent

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of offering an
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Dent:
Page 25, line 12, strike ``, including the requirements
under section 2111''.
Page 46, line 18, strike ``, including any assessment
required under section 2111''.
Page 48, beginning on line 18, strike the proposed section
2111 and redesignate the proposed sections 2112 through 2120
as sections 2111 through 2119, respectively.
Pg 87, line 4, strike ``, of which up to $3,000,000 shall
be made available for grants authorized under section
2111(c)(1)''.
Pg 87, line 10, strike ``, of which up to $3,000,000 shall
be made available for grants authorized under section
2111(c)(1)''.
Pg 87, line 16, strike ``, of which up to $3,000,000 shall
be made available for grants authorized under section
2111(c)(1)''.
Page 88, in the proposed amendment to the table of contents
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, strike the item
relating to section 2111 and redesignate the items relating
to sections 2112 through 2120 as items relating to sections
2111 through 2119, respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, too, for the record, the
American Chemistry Council, just referenced a moment ago by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), in a letter dated October 20,
the ACC basically said that the IST provisions which authorize DHS to
order the mandatory implementation of IST have proven the most
difficult issue on which to find common ground and the primary reason
ACC is unable to endorse this bill. They do not support the bill. To be
very clear about that, they do not support this legislation.
Now, with respect to the Dent-Austria amendment that we are talking
about now, this amendment would strike the IST provisions in the bill.
IST is inherently subjective and without a widely accepted definition.
When the Department of Homeland Security's subject matter expert on IST
was specifically asked what IST was, she responded, ``There's enough
debate in industry and academia that I can't take a position on that
very topic.'' The Deputy Under Secretary responsible for overseeing the
program stated unequivocally that the Department had no staff--no
staff--capable of conducting an IST assessment.
Under direct questioning, Deputy Under Secretary Reitinger made it
very clear that neither the fiscal year 2009 nor the fiscal year 2010
budget included any funding to hire the necessary expertise to review
IST assessments and recommend alternative methods for complex
engineering processes.
Again, under direct questioning, most of the witnesses considered IST
unnecessary, with the Department's witness adding that the facilities
can and are already doing IST.
Clearly, no one at DHS is in a position to dictate to a wide range of
facilities what engineering process or chemicals should be used to make
plastics, prescription drugs, or computer chips. Despite its fancy
labeling, and its inclusion in a security bill, IST is not about
security and may simply shift the security risk.
A decision to keep fewer chemicals on site will likely require more
frequent shipments of chemicals. This increases the risk of an attack
on the transportation of the chemicals or an accident releasing the
substances of concern into neighborhoods outside the security
perimeters.
It would be foolish to mandate IST in this bill when there is so much
uncertainty and lack of expertise in the Department.
Finally, and most importantly, IST will cost American jobs. Let me
say that again: IST will cost American jobs. With the national
unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, and rising, can we really afford
unnecessary congressional mandates that provide little security?
Conducting an IST assessment will be costly, too costly for many
small businesses to afford. Experts estimate that a simple one-
ingredient substitution would take two persons 2 weeks to complete and
cost between $10,000 and $40,000, and that is on the low end. A
pharmaceutical pilot plant with about 12 products would take three to
six persons up to 10 weeks to complete an assessment at a cost of
$100,000 to a half million dollars.
Larger facilities with particularly hazardous chemicals already
regulated by OSHA would require 8 to 10 people 6 months or more to
complete, and cost over $1 million for the assessment. Fifty-nine
percent of the facilities regulated under current CFATS regulations
that would be required to conduct these costs assessments employ 50 or
fewer employees.
Mandating IST will be devastating for small businesses. According to
a California fertilizer manufacturer, eliminating the use of anhydrous
ammonia and substituting it with urea can cost a 1,000 acre farm up to
$15,000 per application. This would be a recurring cost passed to the
consumer.

{time}  1430

As we heard earlier, in the current state of our economy, small
businesses relying on chemicals simply may not survive. Today, the
Department of Labor announced that unemployment has reached 10.2
percent. Does anybody in this Chamber expect that unemployment figure
to go down any time soon? We hope it does, but this is not going to
help.
``If I were to build a 20-foot high, 20-foot thick concrete barricade
that surrounded my facility on all sides, utilized the most state-of-
the-art intrusion detection systems and was better protected than the
White House, this legislation would still require me to conduct an IST
assessment and potentially implement the findings of that assessment.''
Let me close by quoting subcommittee chairman and chief sponsor, Mr.
Markey, who stated at the Energy and Commerce Committee on the markup
on October 21 of the proposed legislation, ``The safer technology
requirement is not about bolstering security.'' If it's not about
security, why is IST in the bill? Why are we asking the smallest of
small businesses to pay for it?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time
in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady
from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his
ongoing leadership.
Let me just cite the language out of the letter that my dear friend
just read: ``The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, H.R.
2868, is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS
program.'' We've answered that question.
And, secondarily, it's not a notion because Clorox announced its
plans to begin transitioning U.S. operations to high-strength bleach
and to be able to use inherently safer technologies.
What we are speaking about today, this is a way of creating jobs, in
a secure environment but also it is a way of securing America.
Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page H12523]]

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security
program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we
included in H.R. 2868. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
The Department of Homeland Security set up the Chemical Facility
AntiTerrorism Standards in 2007 when DHS was granted narrow authority
in an appropriations bill to regulate security at most chemical plants.
Section 550 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Act--the provision
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend--was just a
page and a half long and had many deficiencies.
It is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation
that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year.
H.R. 2868 is the product of years of work by multiple committees and
extensive input from the chemical industry, water sector, Department of
Homeland Security, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as
environmental and labor organizations.
We have the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the
Department to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about
how this program should be executed.
The gentleman's amendment ignores our responsibility to respond to
what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the
Bush and Obama administrations requested. It just kicks the can down
the road another three years.
H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical
facility security program by including provisions that strengthen
enforcement, provide workers subject to background checks with access
to adequate redress, and strengthen whistleblower protections.
It also requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation
of safer technologies.
If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of
these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and
testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in
several key areas.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the largest chemical
companies, said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee that,
and I quote, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a
permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives share this view.
It is time for us to pass comprehensive legislation to address
chemical facility security in this country.

Clorox Announces Plans To Begin Transitioning U.S. Operations to High-
Strength Bleach

Oakland, Calif., Nov. 2, 2009.--The Clorox Company (NYSE:
CLX) today announced that it plans to begin modifying
manufacturing processes in its U.S. bleach operations. The
initiative calls for Clorox to begin transitioning from
chlorine to high-strength bleach as a raw material for making
its namesake bleach.
``This decision was driven by our commitment to strengthen
our operations and add another layer of security,'' said
Chairman and CEO Don Knauss.
Clorox will start with its Fairfield, Calif., plant. The
company expects to complete the transition there within six
months, followed by a phased, multiyear transition for six
additional plants.
``This process requires significant expertise, training,
and changes in infrastructure and equipment,'' Knauss said.
``Our plant-by-plant approach will also enable us to apply
what we learn along the way, ensure supply availability,
minimize business disruptions and help make sure the
transition is undertaken in the most effective manner
possible.''
``Clorox leads our industry in safety and security,''
Knauss said. ``Our bleach plant employees are experts at
handling chlorine, and we're proud of the fact that we've
used it responsibly for our entire 96-year history. Even so,
we're pleased to begin implementing this process change to
make our products using high-strength bleach.''

The Clorox Company

The Clorox Company is a leading manufacturer and marketer
of consumer products with fiscal year 2009 revenues of $5.5
billion. Clorox markets some of consumers' most trusted and
recognized brand names, including its namesake bleach and
cleaning products, Green Works<register> natural cleaners,
Armor All<register> and SIP<register> auto-care products,
Fresh Step<register> and Scoop Away<register> cat litter,
Kingsford<register> charcoal, Hidden Valley<register>, and K
C Masterpiece<register> dressings and sauces,
Brita<register>, water-filtration systems, Glad<register>
bags, wraps and containers, and Burt's Bees'<register>
natural personal care products. With approximately 8,300
employees worldwide, the company manufactures products in
more than two dozen countries and markets them in more than
100 countries. Clorox is committed to making a positive
difference in the communities where its employees work and
live. Founded in 1980, The Clorox Company Foundation has
awarded cash grants totaling more than $77 million to
nonprofit organizations, schools and colleges. In fiscal 2009
alone, the foundation awarded $3.6 million in cash grants,
and Clorox made product donations valued at $7.8 million. For
more information about Clorox, visit

www.
TheCloroxCompany.com.
____

American Chemistry Council,

Arlington, VA, October 20, 2009.
Hon. Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Waxman: The American Chemistry Council (ACC)
strongly supports DHS' existing Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards (CFATS). The program should be made
permanent and DHS should be given adequate resources to fully
implement and enforce the regulations. The Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, H.R. 2868, is the appropriate
vehicle for a permanent CFATS program. As the full Energy and
Commerce Committee prepares to mark up H.R. 2868, I want to
provide you with ACC's views on the bill.
First, I want to commend you, Subcommittee Chairman Markey
and your staffs for the willingness to invite and consider
our views. While ACC is unable to endorse H.R. 2868 due
primarily to concerns over the potential impact of the
authority granted to DHS to mandate the implementation of
inherently safer technology (IST), the manager's amendment
reflects several months of serious, constructive dialog that
has, I believe, resulted in important improvements to H.R.
2868. For example:
Employee participation and training provisions were
modified to make them more consistent with existing company
programs, to ensure that employee representatives possess the
necessary knowledge or experience to work on Security
Vulnerability Assessments or Site Security Plans, and to help
provide proper protections for security sensitive
information.
Unannounced inspections would be performed using a more
meaningful measure, and in a manner that would not
significantly interfere with regular operations.
Significant provisions concerning MTSA facilities were
added, ensuring that the United States Coast Guard maintains,
in its role as guardian of our ports, the lead regulator
role, and limiting any possible duplication of the efforts
that would result from the harmonization of MTSA and CFATS
requirements.
The civil lawsuit provision was appropriately modified so
that chemical companies would not be subject to civil actions
brought by private citizens. The modification helps prevent
the disclosure of sensitive security information and leaves
enforcement authority in the hands of DHS and its security
professionals. ACC can, therefore, support this modified
provision.
The IST provisions, which authorize DHS to order the
mandatory implementation of IST, have proven the most
difficult issue on which to find common ground, and are the
primary reason ACC is unable to endorse the bill. ACC members
are concerned that providing government with authority to
direct process changes or product substitutions could result
in making critical products unavailable throughout our
economy, with potentially significant impact on our companies
and our customers. We acknowledge, however, that certain
modifications made in the manager's amendment reflect input
from ACC and its members and direct DHS to focus on risk.
Further, the creation of an IST technical appeal process
which factors unique facility characteristics into the DHS
decision making process recognizes that IST implementation is
a complicated and complex issue faced by our companies.
After 9/11, ACC and many others in the chemical industry
stepped up and implemented serious, stringent security
programs at their facilities before there was any government
direction. To date, ACC members have invested nearly $8
billion in security enhancements under our own Responsible
Care Security Code<sup>'</sup>. We remain committed to
working with this committee, the Congress, and the
Administration to move forward with a strong, smart
regulatory program to protect our facilities, our employees,
the communities in which we operate, and the products we
supply throughout our economy.
Sincerely,
Cal Dooley,
President and CEO.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlelady.
Can we get a review of where we are in time, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 30 seconds
remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. I must remind my friend from Pennsylvania, my good

[[Page H12524]]

friend, that you voted for this bill last session.
Mr. DENT. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, sure.
Mr. DENT. This is a very different bill than the one from last
session. This bill has citizen suits in it and all kinds of--it's a
very different bill.
Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, that's your story. We come here
with different stories, many rise quickly to the specter of terror and
cause fear in people. But you're the last to act to protect the
American people. You get some flak from an industry, and all of a
sudden you back off. Clorox did this voluntarily; November 2 they made
the announcement.
Because these simple assessments that you have tried to minimize not
only help protect and save lives, but they have also proven to actually
save the chemical companies money, which is just the opposite of what
you tried to communicate to the American people and to this body for
the last 25 minutes, just the opposite: greater efficiencies and safety
measures that prevent catastrophic accidents.
And it only stands to reason if you're using highly volatile
chemicals, it would seem that you would want to reduce your risk, and
providing it is because most of the companies aren't going to be forced
to do anything, if you read the legislation. Please read the
legislation. I say that to all bills, not just health bills. I say that
to security bills. Read it, you may like it. Please, get off the kick
of using the industry's program. I think highly of you. Don't follow
the script.

announcement by the acting chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair must remind all Members to direct their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. DENT. At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for offering
this amendment, and I support this amendment.
Conducting an inherently safer technology, IST, assessment will be
costly, too costly for many of our small businesses to afford. I
submitted a commonsense amendment to the Rules Committee that would
have exempted small businesses from this new costly and burdensome
requirement. I might add that it would not exempt them from the current
law, but from these new costly and burdensome requirements.
Unfortunately for our Nation's small businesses, the majority decided
not to allow a vote on that commonsense amendment on the floor.
Just to reiterate what the chairman said, over half of our facilities
currently regulated under CFATS regulations that would now be regulated
by these new costly assessments employing 50 or fewer employees.
Mandating IST will be devastating for our small businesses.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I will complete debate on this
amendment. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is not providing more security in
the classic sense of the word. What we're really doing is saying, what
happens if al Qaeda is successful in penetrating into the heart of a
chemical facility? What will the consequences be for the workers on
site? What will the consequences be for the population area in the
vicinity of that chemical facility? That's what this debate is all
about.
What we are trying to do is to minimize the impact after al Qaeda has
in fact been successful in launching an attack on a chemical facility.
But what we say in the language is that, while there has to be an
evaluation of the level of security at each one of the facilities, the
language in our bill makes it quite clear that if the inherently safer
technology or process costs too much, it doesn't have to be
implemented. If there is no feasible, safer technology or process, the
facility doesn't have to implement one. If implementing the inherently
safer technology or process would not reduce the risk at the facility
or would shift it elsewhere, it doesn't have to be implemented.
And so what we say here is that, yes, we need to make it clear that
we don't want al Qaeda to have a successful attack, and if it is
successful, have catastrophic consequences, but at the same time, there
has to be an evaluation as to whether or not it is economically
feasible at each facility. That is the balance which we strike. But I
don't think anyone here for a second would want to have unnecessarily
dangerous chemicals in highly populated areas that, if al Qaeda could
be successful, would cause an event which would once again cripple our
economy as did the attack on September 11. That is the heart of
terrorism, having a population which is frightened.
At Logan Airport, we lost 27 percent of our air traffic for 2 years
after 9/11. The same thing happened in Newark. It happened at
LaGuardia; it happened at JFK. It happened all around the country. It
plummeted, and that was key to their success.
So this amendment is something that was language developed in close
consultation with and considerable input from the American Chemistry
Council. It is something which should be adopted, and the amendment
which is under consideration should be rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated
as No. 6.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
``(E) Presumption of congress relating to competitive
procedures.--
``(i) Presumption.--It is the presumption of Congress that
grants awarded under this paragraph will be awarded using
competitive procedures based on merit.
``(ii) Report to congress.--If grants are awarded under
this paragraph using procedures other than competitive
procedures, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
explaining why competitive procedures were not used.
``(F) Prohibition on earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated to carry out this paragraph may be used for a
congressional earmark as defined in clause 9d, of Rule XXI of
the rules of the House of Representatives of the 111th
Congress.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have offered different iterations of this
noncontroversial amendment many times during this Congress and the
last. This particular amendment was offered last June to the TSA
Authorization Act when it was adopted by voice vote.
H.R. 2868 establishes a new Worker Training Grants program that seeks
to provide grants to nonprofit organizations with demonstrated
experience in implementing and operating successful worker or first
responder health and safety training programs. This amendment would
simply prohibit the Worker Training Grants program from being earmarked
by Members for pet projects or favored entities back home. This
amendment also establishes that it is the presumption of Congress that
these grants would be awarded competitively based on merit.
I am often asked why I offer this. These are set up to be programs
that are competitively awarded, but sometimes it's explicitly stated,
sometimes it's not. In either case, sometimes when it is explicitly
stated--and when it's not--these grant programs are sometimes just
earmarked, all of them. All of the money in some of these accounts, if
you take, for example, some of the programs in the Homeland Security
bill, nearly 100 percent of the funds in one particular grant program
were earmarked in the most recent Homeland Security spending bill.
So what we are seeking to do is make sure that people who want to
apply for

[[Page H12525]]

these grants are able to, and that Members aren't able to simply
earmark that money for people in their district or favored entities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment
that seeks to ensure that worker training grants are distributed based
on merit. This was a longstanding fight in Homeland Security to deal
with risk rather than spreading out money across the landscape.
I have worked to make sure Homeland Security grants are given on the
basis of merit, as I have with the successful Fire Act and the SAFER
Act.
Under the chemical security regulations, facility operators are
responsible for adhering to the risk-based, performance-based site
security plans that they develop internally. A key feature of any site
security plan under H.R. 2868 is the provision of annual security
training to each worker in the facility.
The worker training grants are intended to help create an environment
where there is a cadre of qualified organizations that are available to
help facility operators fulfill this important requirement.
The underlying bill does a good job of setting forth what qualifies
as an ``eligible entity,'' but with the helpful addition of the
language authored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), there can
be no ambiguity about what is expected, none whatsoever.
Grants are to be distributed based on merit and cannot be earmarked.
That may have a spillover to other things, who knows. That makes sense
security-wise and is a solid approach. I urge my fellow Members to
support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. And would that all chairmen shared
your view on earmarks and programs of this type. I am glad the chairman
has agreed to accept this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Schrader

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Schrader:
Page 54, line 24, strike ``Sectoral Impacts'' and insert
``Agricultural Sector''.
Page 55, beginning on line 12, strike ``impacts of
compliance'' and insert ``agricultural impacts''.
Page 55, beginning on line 19, strike ``by manufacturers,
retailers, aerial commercial applicators, and distributors of
pesticide and fertilizer'' and insert ``on the agricultural
sector''.
Page 55, line 23, insert a comma after ``Representatives''.
Page 55, line 24, strike ``and'' before ``the Committee''.
Page 55 line 25, insert ``, the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate'' after
``Senate''.
Page 56, line 4, insert ``agricultural'' after ``scope
of''.
Page 57, beginning on line 15, strike ``other sectors
engaged in commerce'' and insert ``agricultural end-users''.
Strike line 20 on page 57 and all that follows through page
58, line 2, and insert the following:
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Farm supplies merchant wholesaler.--The term `farm
supplies merchant wholesaler' means a covered chemical
facility that is primarily engaged in the merchant wholesale
distribution of farm supplies, such as animal feeds,
fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, plant seeds,
and plant bulbs.
``(B) Agricultural end-users.--The term `agricultural end-
users' means facilities such as--
``(i) farms, including crop, fruit, nut, and vegetable
farms;
``(ii) ranches and rangeland;
``(iii) poultry, dairy, and equine facilities;
``(iv) turfgrass growers;
``(v) golf courses;
``(vi) nurseries;
``(vii) floricultural operations; and
``(viii) public and private parks.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

{time}  1445

Mr. SCHRADER. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Kissell from North
Carolina for working with me on this amendment to help address some of
the concerns from the agricultural community with the underlying bill.
The Schrader-Kissell amendment is a perfecting amendment, and it
builds on the efforts of Mr. Ross of Arkansas, of Mr. Space of Ohio,
and of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the consideration of H.R.
2868. I believe it is noncontroversial and that it has broad support
from the agricultural community.
There are concerns within the ag community that H.R. 2868 has the
potential to cause undue burdens, possibly resulting in the industry's
dropping widely used and essential products listed as ``chemicals of
interest'' due to increased regulatory costs and liability concerns.
This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to
conduct an impact assessment that an inherently safer technology would
have on agricultural facilities covered by these security regulations.
Through this impact assessment, we hope to determine whether an IST
mandate would result in fewer product options for farmers or ranchers,
possibly leading to increased production costs as alternative, higher-
priced crop input products that may not have the same agronomic
benefits may only be available and could impact their crop yields.
Additionally, the amendment would authorize grant funding for
agricultural facilities to assist with any IST compliance requirements.
I think my colleagues will all agree we want to ensure the highest
safety standards possible for facilities using these potentially
dangerous chemicals. However, it is also essential we have all of the
data at our disposal, so we will proceed in a thoughtful manner and
will fully understand the impacts these new regulations may have on our
family farms and ranchers.
I ask that my colleagues support this amendment and urge its
adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. KISSELL. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for
recognizing me.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to add to what Mr. Schrader has said.
This bill is straight, simple--straightforward.
In the agricultural community, farm supply wholesalers and
agriculture end users very much want to protect homeland security. They
very much want to protect the safety of the facilities of whose
products end up in our food supply. Also, they are concerned about what
possible ramifications the bill may have.
This is just simply calling for a study to see what impacts may be
had. It strengthens the language that is already in the bill. It
strengthens that language so that we can see what the results may be in
terms of ranchers and farmers and the agricultural community all
together.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in
opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would support
this amendment as it does give, after the fact, support for the
position of agriculture in this debate over the imposition of ISTs,
which I would remind my colleagues, from every single expert who
testified before our committee, is a concept, not a completed process
or product. Yet we are requiring that which is a concept, for which

[[Page H12526]]

there are no true methodologies, to be imposed by the Secretary.
This is better than nothing, I suppose, because what this amendment
does is it requires a report to be submitted to Congress after the
mandates on agriculture go into effect, so at least we'll know how bad
it is.
I support this amendment because, as I say, it's better than nothing,
but I would remind my colleagues that, in the letter of November 3,
2009, signed by representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation,
the Chemical Producers and Distributors Association, the National
Agriculture Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the
National Cotton Council, The Fertilizer Institute, and the USA Rice
Federation, they oppose this bill precisely because of the mandate of
inherently safer technologies on their industries.
It is not a question of the great men and women in agriculture being
opposed to securing this Nation against a terrorist attack. It is the
position of the great men and women in agriculture that this is an
imposition of a technology or a process or a concept, whatever you want
to call it, that those who came up with it testified before our
committee does not fit neatly into a legislative mandate. Nonetheless,
we here on this floor are saying we know better than those who came up
with the concept those who actually will suffer from this concept being
imposed on them.
I support this amendment. I only wish that this amendment were
stronger because, unfortunately, it is going to mandate a report that
will come too late, a report to tell us what the effects of the mandate
of IST will be or will have been on agriculture.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will support this amendment. I only wish
we could have had a stronger amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I just urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McCaul

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. McCaul:
Page 76, beginning on line 11, strike the proposed section
2116 and redesignate the proposed sections 2117 through 2120
as sections 2116 through 2119, respectively.
Page 88, in the proposed amendment to the table of contents
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, strike the item
relating to section 2116 and redesignate the items relating
to sections 2117 through 2120 as items relating to sections
2116 through 2119, respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the provision authorizing
the Secretary of Homeland Security to be subjected to civil suits by
uninjured third parties. If complaints have been made against the
Secretary for failing to enforce the law, the inspector general of DHS
can already initiate an investigation. If that is insufficient, then
Congress can act.
Allowing any third party--anybody--to sue the Secretary is both
reckless and unnecessary. This provision would be a boon to trial
lawyers and to environmentalists at the expense of the Department of
Homeland Security and national security interests. Citizen suits have
no place in a national security context, and this would be the very
first time that Congress would be authorizing such suits in the
homeland security arena.
Environmentalists file hundreds of citizen suits annually, and they
consume substantial governmental resources and taxpayer funds. Some
agencies expend almost their entire annual budgets simply responding to
these lawsuits. For instance, in May of 2008, The Washington Post noted
that the Fish and Wildlife Service had been caught in a legal vise that
has forced it to spend most of its time responding to lawsuits and
following judges' orders while its mission has slowed to a near halt.
We cannot afford the same consequence with the Department of Homeland
Security. In the meantime, the mission of the agency falls by the
wayside.
This bill currently allows a citizen suit by any person. There is no
requirement that the person be harmed or that the person be a local
resident or even a United States citizen. The Congress has always
treated national security as an inherently governmental matter and one
in which sensitive security-related information has been rigorously
protected. This marks the first time that citizen suits may result in
the disclosure of very sensitive chemical facility vulnerability
information.
The Department of Homeland Security also opposes the civil suit
provisions. Deputy Under Secretary Philip Reitinger, who I had the
pleasure to work with at the Department of Justice, testified that it
is true that any civil suit provision at least raises a specter of some
diversion of resources. As a former longtime litigator in the DOJ, he
also testified that, inevitably, there is some risk of disclosure of
information, and this information is very sensitive. That means
sensitive security information could easily get into the wrong hands. I
think yesterday is a reminder that we need to stay vigilant.
Committee staff spoke just this Tuesday with DHS staff to see if
their position on this citizen suit provision had changed. It had not.
They are still strongly opposed to this provision.
Introducing these provisions in the national security arena has the
potential not only to divert DHS from its security-related missions but
to also result in the disclosure of protected sensitive information.
This entire bill, including the provision I am trying to strike, will
inadvertently have an impact on the private sector, on business, and on
the overall economy at a time when we can least afford it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
Brother McCaul's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. First of all, this bill does not authorize suits by
uninjured parties. Article III of the Constitution is very, very clear.
It requires that any person who files a lawsuit be able to show injury.
H.R. 2868 will have no effect on this constitutional requirement
whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that Congress cannot pass a law changing this requirement. So it's
in the Constitution. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court of this
country.
I oppose this amendment. It works against government accountability
and against the security of our chemical facilities.
Title I of H.R. 2868 allows citizens to file suit against the
Secretary of Homeland Security for failing to meet her duties, such as
issuing regulations or reviewing site security plans in a timely
manner, in other words, if the Secretary, whomever that may be, does
not do what he is supposed to do according to law.
Are you putting our citizens in further jeopardy? Is this what you
think of the American citizens that they cannot speak for themselves?
This bill does not allow citizens to file suit against privately
owned chemical facilities for alleged violations. Here is the bill. On
pages 66, 67, 68, it doesn't say it. I don't know what you're reading.
Therefore, this bill will not compel a chemical facility to turn over
sensitive security information in court. It will not put this
information at risk of public disclosure. Moreover, citizens cannot
file suit against the Secretary for making a decision that is
discretionary. It is very different from what the Constitution is
talking about, such as whether to require a facility to switch
chemicals or processes. Any claims to the contrary are simply false.
This amendment would strip citizen enforcement out entirely.
Why would we want to discourage the enforcement of these critical
security standards? The American Chemical

[[Page H12527]]

Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and its affiliate, and
the environmental and labor groups have endorsed the citizen
enforcement provisions in this bill. I rest my case. With that breadth
of support for the compromise, this amendment is an ineffective
solution for a nonexistent problem.
The members of the Energy and Commerce Committee devoted considerable
time to crafting a solution that ensures government accountability
while protecting sensitive information. Eliminating citizen suits
without replacement is unnecessary. It undermines accountability, and
it will leave our Nation less secure.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. McCaul's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. Both sides have 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. McCAUL. Very quickly, to my good friend from New Jersey, courts
have broadly and loosely interpreted the constitutional standing
requirement to virtually allow anyone with any evidence of perceived
harm to bring a lawsuit under these citizen suits.
With respect to sensitive information, we are now going to turn that
over into the discovery process as to what is sensitive and what
information is not.
With respect to the groups that my good friend mentioned, it is my
understanding, while they are not opposed to the bill, they have
certainly not endorsed this bill.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, specifically, I stand in support of the gentleman's
amendment. I probably represent as many, if not more, refineries and
chemical plants as any Member of Congress.
I agree. It is imperative that we have security at these
institutions, at these plants. I do believe, however, that the citizen
suit problem exposes two specific issues, one of which is that it's too
broad. It allows anybody to file a lawsuit, and it leaves the
discretion as to what is sensitive material up to the Federal judges,
and the Federal judges have broad discretion as to what material they
will release and will make public.
The second problem I see--and it's specifically under (b)(2)--is that
``the district court will have jurisdiction without regard of the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.'' I am not
clear why that would be added, but it allows standing to anyone,
regardless of citizenship of the parties, to file a lawsuit.
Specifically, it gives that permission.

{time}  1500

Under the environmental suits that have been filed, standing has
always been regarded--in most cases it's very broad, giving many people
that standing. I think it's unwise. What it will do is bring
unnecessary litigation. I think that's the purpose and duty of the
Federal agencies, to bring this litigation against these chemical
plants and not citizens because, of course, it will promote litigation;
it will promote discovery of sensitive information; and it will allow
anyone, anywhere, to file these lawsuits.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things here. First, the
groups that I mentioned before support that part of the legislation
which I mentioned. Number two, let's get to the meat and potatoes: this
bill does not create a boon for trial lawyers. No one is eligible to
receive damage awards in lawsuits under this bill.
Mr. McCAUL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL. They certainly will receive attorneys' fees. They're
being paid by these organizations to bring lawsuits.
Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, no one is eligible to receive
damage awards. Lawyers will not receive a dime of any civil penalties
that the courts may award because they are paid to the United States
Treasury. I don't think that this is a Treasury scheme by any stretch
of the imagination.
This bill is not the first time citizen suits have been authorized in
a national security context. Since the passage of the Bioterrorism Act
in 2002, citizen suits have been available to enforce the requirements
of section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is focused on
security at drinking water facilities throughout the United States of
America.
By the way, to my other friend from Texas, this is very standard
language that is used throughout this legislation.
I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I just want to say that this is just
giving the right to ordinary people to sue their own government because
they're not providing for the security around facilities that could be
attacked by al Qaeda. This is at the essence of the philosophy of the
tea-baggers, to give ordinary citizens the right to challenge their
government, to be able to rise up and to be able to say, you are not
doing your job to protect us, your fundamental responsibility to
protect the security of citizens in their homes and where they work.
Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, we must remember also--I think you
would agree with me, Mr. Chairman--that nowhere in this legislation are
we in any manner, shape or form jeopardizing the private plans of any
facility, any chemical facility.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moran of Virginia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Halvorson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Halvorson:
Page 58, beginning on line 3, strike ``Assessment of
Impacts on Small Covered Chemical Facilities'' and insert
``Small Covered Chemical Facilities''.
Page 58, after line 4, insert the following:
``(1) Guidance for small covered chemical facilities.--The
Secretary may provide guidance and, as appropriate, tools,
methodologies, or computer software, to assist small covered
chemical facilities in complying with the requirements of
this section.
Page 58, line 5, strike  ``(1) in general'' and insert
``(2) assessment of impacts on small covered chemical
facilities''.
Page 59, line 20, strike ``(2) Definition'' and insert
``(3) Definition''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Halvorson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, as a small business owner and as a
member of the Small Business Committee, I understand the challenges
that small business owners face on a day-to-day basis. I offer this
amendment to help small chemical facilities in meeting some of those
challenges.
My amendment is straightforward and necessary. It would improve this
bill by giving the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the
authority to provide facilities with less than 350 employees the
guidance, tools and software to help them comply with the security
requirements of this bill.
We have a responsibility to make sure chemical facilities are safe,
but we also have a responsibility to make sure that small businesses
have the assistance and the resources that they need to comply with new
security requirements. That is what my amendment does. It helps small
chemical facilities to comply with security standards in an effective
and profitable manner.
Based on DHS analysis, we can expect that 15 to 20 percent of the
chemical facilities across the country have

[[Page H12528]]

less than 350 employees onsite. That's a significant number of small
businesses that we cannot forget as we move forward on security
requirements. These are facilities that create jobs that invest in
economic growth. In a tough economic environment, these small
businesses need to have the tools available to compete and succeed and,
again, that's what this amendment does.
The bottom line is that we need small chemical facilities to be
secure, but we also need them to be successful. This is an important
amendment, and it will help make sure that those two critical goals are
accomplished. We can't forget that as we move forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I don't
necessarily oppose the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows the Secretary to
provide guidance, tools, methodologies or computer software to assist
small covered chemical facilities in complying with the IST assessments
and implementation requirements of the act.
While I support the sentiment behind the amendment, given the costs
associated with IST assessments and mandatory implementation, I am
genuinely concerned there will be few small businesses left that would
benefit from any guidance the Secretary may or may not provide based on
this provision.
This amendment simply gives the Secretary the option of providing
guidance to small businesses to meet the costly IST provisions of the
bill. How much guidance do we expect from an office that employs fewer
than 200 people and is responsible for overseeing a program that covers
6,100 facilities?
While it's difficult to object to Mrs. Halvorson's amendment, I find
it ironic that the majority would make in order an amendment that
recognizes that small businesses will be affected by the IST mandate.
But rather than address the problem before they create it, they ask the
Secretary to clean up the mess for them.
I would have preferred to debate Mr. Austria's amendment that was not
ruled in order. That amendment would have been a real benefit to the
3,630 smallest of the small businesses by exempting them altogether
from this costly and unnecessary provision.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
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.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. HALVORSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Foster

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 111-327.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Foster:
Page 13, after line 21, insert the following:
``(13) The term `academic laboratory' means a facility or
area owned by an institution of higher education (as defined
under section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001)) or a non-profit research institute or teaching
hospital that has a formal affiliation with an institution of
higher education, including photo laboratories, art studios,
field laboratories, research farms, chemical stockrooms, and
preparatory laboratories, where relatively small quantities
of chemicals and other substances, as determined by the
Secretary, are used on a non-production basis for teaching,
research, or diagnostic purposes, and are stored and used in
containers that are typically manipulated by one person.
Page 20, line 12, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 20, line 19, strike the period after ``disapproval''
and insert ``; and''.
Page 20, after line 19, insert the following:
``(H) establish, as appropriate, modified or separate
standards, protocols, and procedures for security
vulnerability assessments and site security plans for covered
chemical facilities that are also academic laboratories.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 885, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I would like to first thank Mr. Lujan of New Mexico for allowing me
to work with him on this important and commonsense amendment to the
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act.
The underlying bill is a positive step towards ensuring the security
of America's chemical facilities, but overlooks key differences between
commercial facilities and university and educational laboratories. This
amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take a
graduated approach to security in school labs and to create a separate
and appropriate set of protocols for university affiliated laboratories
with relatively small quantities of chemicals.
One-size-fits-all safety regulations only create more paperwork, more
bureaucracy and more confusion without necessarily making us safer.
This is especially true in educational settings where large numbers of
students move in and out of smaller chemical labs constantly, making it
difficult and expensive to impose on them the same security protocols
as large commercial facilities.
However, this amendment does not let our schools off the hook for
maintaining a safe and secure environment. The Secretary of Homeland
Security will still require that universities create and report a
security plan of precaution and prevention as part of normal campus
safety procedures. At a time when university budgets are already tight,
this amendment will avoid placing potentially large financial hardships
on our educational institutions.
This amendment is supported by a number of higher educational
associations, including the American Council on Education, the
Association of American Universities, and the Association of Public and
Land-grant Universities. I was very happy to be able to work on this
commonsense solution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but do not
necessarily oppose the underlying amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses academic
laboratories which is defined as a facility

[[Page H12529]]

owned by an institution of higher learning where relatively small
quantities of substances are used for teaching or research purposes.
These types of institutions are vastly different from the majority of
chemical facilities that we all think of in terms of large
manufacturing plants. The Secretary is required to take these
differences into account and may develop modified or separate
procedures for such institutions.
The American Council on Education supports this amendment.

{time}  1515

They will still be required to conduct security vulnerability
assessments and site security plans.
The qualifier ``as appropriate'' included in the amendment still
gives the Secretary some direction as to if she wants to provide
separate procedures for conducting the vulnerability assessments and
site security plans. Most colleges and universities have already
completed these required vulnerability assessments, and so this
language, while well-intended, will have little impact.
It is unfortunate that the amendment does not provide colleges and
universities any exceptions or alternative procedures for the IST
assessment and implementation requirements of this legislation. Despite
this amendment, 99 colleges and universities will have to conduct
costly IST assessments, and 23 of them in 14 States may be required to
implement the findings of these assessments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I happily yield such time as he may consume
to my colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. Foster, for
recognition and for his cooperation in working on this amendment. I
also commend Chairman Thompson for bringing this important legislation
to the floor.
In universities, colleges, and educational institutions across the
Nation, researchers and students are currently utilizing educational
laboratories to expand the limits of our scientific knowledge and
develop the skills needed to thrive in high-tech jobs of tomorrow. This
is an important opportunity to make sure that we are preparing them for
the jobs of the future.
This commonsense amendment will allow this work to continue, while
ensuring that academic laboratories are protected from the unique
security threats that they may face. Through this amendment, the
Department of Homeland Security will have the flexibility to recognize
that these labs, which may contain a large variety of chemicals, rarely
possess any specific chemical in the large quantities typical of
industrial facilities. The Department will have the capability to
assess and oversee specific security challenges these labs face from
infiltration, tampering, theft or attack.
This amendment is supported by the American Chemical Society, and I
want to reiterate and emphasize it is also supported by the American
Council of Education and institutions of learning across the country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment, which
will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security adequately
protects our Nation's students, teachers, and research institutions.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, with no one on my side waiting to speak, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
111-327 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Barton of Texas.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. McCaul of Texas
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253,
noes 168, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 869]

AYES--253

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--168

Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham

[[Page H12530]]

LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Aderholt
Bishop (GA)
Boehner
Carter
Cassidy
Chandler
Christensen
Conaway
Costa
Ehlers
Emerson
Johnson, E. B.
Meeks (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Norton
Nunes
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Speier

{time}  1544

Messrs. CALVERT, McHENRY, PLATTS and CAO changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 869, I
had a personal emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 262, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 870]

AYES--165

Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Cardoza
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Cooper
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Olson
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOES--262

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Aderholt
Boehner
Carter
Cassidy
Chandler
Conaway
Ehlers
McDermott
Murphy, Patrick
Norton
Nunes
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining
in this vote.

{time}  1551

Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Dent

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 241, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 871]

AYES--186

Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cassidy

[[Page H12531]]

Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--241

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Aderholt
Carter
Chandler
Conaway
Ehlers
Farr
Marchant
Murphy, Patrick
Norton
Nunes
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schock

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining
in this vote.

{time}  1558

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Dent

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 872]

AYES--193

Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--236

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott

[[Page H12532]]

McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Aderholt
Carter
Chandler
Cleaver
Conaway
Ehlers
Murphy, Patrick
Norton
Nunes
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.

{time}  1605

Mrs. CAPPS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McCaul

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
McCaul) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 232, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 873]

AYES--196

Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watt
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--232

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Aderholt
Carter
Chandler
Conaway
Ehlers
Gohmert
King (IA)
Murphy, Patrick
Norton
Nunes
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.

{time}  1612

Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pastor of Arizona) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 885, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.

[[Page H12533]]

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

{time}  1615

Motion to Recommit

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DENT. I am, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dent moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2868 to the
Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 52, line 16, strike ``and''.
Page 52, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 52, after line 21, insert the following:
``(iv) would not significantly or demonstrably reduce the
operations of the covered chemical facility or result in any
net reduction in private sector employment when national
unemployment is above 4 percent.''.

Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued
the most recent unemployment numbers, and they rose yet again to 10.2
percent, the highest unemployment rate in over 25 years. Last month,
190,000 hardworking Americans lost their jobs, almost a third of which
came from the manufacturing sector.
Now, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the inclusion of any IST
mandate in this bill; it's a vague and subjective philosophy that will
cost facilities millions of dollars. The Department has no experts on
IST, inherently safer technologies, nor any plans to hire them. And
it's not really even about security at all.
But the worst part of the IST mandate is that nowhere in the current
bill is the Secretary required to consider the impact on the local
economy and on the local workforce before imposing these unnecessary
requirements. This is simply unimaginable in the current economy.
Unemployment is now at 10.2 percent.
The agricultural sector, much of which will now be regulated under
this bill, has an unemployment rate of over 11 percent. Perhaps that's
why agriculture groups, including the Farm Bureau and others, warn that
IST ``could have a devastating impact on American agriculture.'' That's
the Farm Bureau's words, not mine.
Mandating implementation would result in increased costs, higher
consumer prices, and lower crop yields. And for those of you who say
that sector will be exempt, I say prove it. That's not true. That's not
in the legislation. If it is, just tell me which page to turn to in
here, and we'll try to find it. It's not in here.
The cost of mandating IST is staggering. Twenty-seven associations,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated that the costs are
estimated to range from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars per
facility--millions of dollars. Almost 60 percent of the facilities
regulated under this act employ fewer than 50 individuals. These are
the smallest of small businesses. Do we really think they can afford to
put millions of dollars into the redesigning of processes and
facilities during these difficult economic times?
We know the reality of these expenses. When the cost of doing
business goes up, there are only two options: you can pass the cost on
to consumers, or you can lay off workers. In today's competitive
market, unfortunately, it is much easier to shed a few employees than
to raise prices. You know it, I know it, and the American people know
it.
This is just the latest in a string of bills that will cost American
jobs. The health care bill will result in millions of lost jobs across
the country. In my district alone, more than 2,000 jobs are at risk
because of the medical device tax, and another 300 are in jeopardy just
because of the dental provisions in the health care bill.
The cap-and-trade bill, the national energy tax will force the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to shed as many as 66,000 jobs by 2020,
according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and raise
energy costs for consumers and businesses alike. Every district in
every State will point to similar job losses as a result of these
detrimental policies.
The hemorrhaging of American jobs must stop. I'm not sure about other
Members in this Chamber, but to me every job is important and every job
counts. This motion to recommit simply requires the Secretary to
consider the jobs of hardworking Americans before imposing a mandate to
implement inherently safer technologies, ISTs.
This in no way reduces our Nation's security. They are still required
to implement site security plans, but as Chairman Markey said during
markup, The safer technology requirement is not about bolstering
security. When I offered a similar amendment at the full committee, my
friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee, and my friend, Mr. Cuellar, both spoke in
strong support stating, We want to make sure that it does not adversely
affect the workforce, which is something we all support. That provision
passed unanimously. That's why I was angered when it was stripped out
by the Rules Committee.
Now, I say enough is enough. This motion simply says we've lost
enough American jobs, and we don't need to lose anymore.
We heard the promises from the majority to create jobs. We heard that
the stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8 percent. Just yesterday,
I heard several Members of Congress say that this legislation would not
cost American jobs. If you believe that, if that wasn't just talk for
the television cameras, then you should support this motion to
recommit.
This is an opportunity to save jobs before they need creating, to
prevent putting more hardworking Americans on unemployment, to stand up
for the farmers who put food on our table, to stand up for
manufacturers and to stand up for the small businesses owners.
Support the motion to recommit and let's keep America working.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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).
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi,
and I thank him for his great work on this historic legislation.
Unemployment has not been under 4 percent since September 11. One of
the reasons that it has not been under 4 percent since September 11 is
the attack on September 11, which paralyzed our airline industry,
paralyzed our tourism industry, and led to a precipitous drop in GDP
because of the reaction to it.
And by the way, these workers that the Republicans want to protect,
well, we received a letter from the Steelworkers, the Communications
Workers, the Autoworkers, the Chemical Workers, the Teamsters, the
SEIU. Here is their letter to us: ``We oppose amendments that purport
to protect jobs but

[[Page H12534]]

in fact only hinder the implementation of methods to reduce the
consequences of a terrorist attack.''
And why do they take that position? They take that position because
the attack is coming on them, the workers at these plants.
So the nuclear industry, we have the protections in place, the
aviation industry, the cargo industry, the rail industry, the shipping
industry; but the chemical industry, with facilities in urban areas or
near large population areas, the Republicans for 7 years have said no
protection. When unemployment was at 5 percent, they said no; 6
percent; 7 percent; 8 percent; 9 percent; no, no, no, no protection for
these workers at chemical facilities and those who live around them.
Al Qaeda has metastasized in the last 7 years. They are coming back;
that is their goal. Chemical facilities are at the top of their
terrorist target list. We are trying to, finally, in this one last
industry, put in place the security around these facilities to protect
the American people, to protect the workers at these facilities. That's
what this debate is all about. This amendment will undermine, will make
it impossible for us to give those protections to the American people.
We need a resounding ``no'' against this recommittal motion. We must
stand up for the workers of this country; we must give them the
protection that they need. Vote ``no'' on the recommittal motion of the
Republicans.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 874]

AYES--189

Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Massa
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--236

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Aderholt
Carter
Chandler
Conaway
Ehlers
Issa
Murphy, Patrick
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.

{time}  1643

Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 193, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 875]

AYES--230

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey

[[Page H12535]]

Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--193

Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Aderholt
Carter
Chandler
Cleaver
Conaway
Ehlers
McDermott
Murphy, Patrick
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Waters

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time}  1651

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of
terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water
Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of
wastewater treatment works, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________