Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008. Almost 5 years after these first two devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit areas continue to rebuild. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help these struggling small businesses become successful once again and hire new workers.

Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that need this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I toured the Bergerons' business back in June. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for their house and another for their small business. As of our visit in June, the Bergerons were down to two employees, not including themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre- Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's insurance.

As of June when I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he will not pay off until he is 101 years old. But just yesterday, Mrs. Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees earlier last year.

The Bergeron's story is one I have heard from countless businesses. Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more recently, the economic downturn, these businesses--the ones that took the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are the ones rebuilding communities need the most because they serve as anchors. If residents see the Bergeron's gas station, or their favorite restaurant, open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their homes.

To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2010. I thank my colleague Representative Charlie Melancon for introducing the House companion bill. Our legislation would provide targeted assistance to as many as 22,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. What these particular businesses have in common is that they received SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive up to $15,000 of interest payments over 3 years, helping to create or save up to 81,000 jobs.

Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The program would end on December 31, 2010.

This program makes a difference because for some businesses, depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/ interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25- year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in 3 years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses, as they are the backbone of our communities.

My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River floods, which forced more than a million people from their homes. In total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in rebuilding their lives and homes.''

As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster- specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the disaster-stricken areas . . . including special measures to help these States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of 3 years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to implement provisions in the Act.

Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our State. Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 in Louisiana alone. Katrina was also the costliest natural

disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in damage.

In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who were still struggling a year on from the hurricane.

These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergerons' story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the economic downturn. My home State of Louisiana was slow to feel the brunt of the credit crunch and economic meltdown, but last year we began to see the drying up of investments and the shrinking of consumers' pocketbooks. I believe the special program implemented following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit businesses in these three states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Given the urgent needs of many of these impacted businesses, I will be reaching out to my colleagues in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to hopefully gain their support for quick passage of this assistance. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well.

In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. However, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a difference for up to 22,000 Main Street business owners and their estimated 81,000 employees in the Gulf Coast.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act of 2010, legislation designed to protect the interests of small businesses and boost their opportunities in the Federal marketplace.

As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy promoting the interests of small businesses in the federal contracting arena. The legislation I am introducing today marks a critical step forward in this process.

As the largest purchaser in the world, the Federal Government is uniquely positioned to offer new and reliable business opportunities for our Main Street businesses. Government contracts are perhaps one of the easiest and most inexpensive ways the government can help immediately increase sales for America's entrepreneurs, giving them the tools they need to keep our economy strong and create jobs. By increasing contracts to small businesses by just 1 percent, we can create more than 100,000 new jobs--and today, we need those jobs more than ever.

But the reality is, small businesses need all the help they can get accessing Federal contracts. In fiscal year 2007, according to the Federal Procurement Data System, the Federal Government missed its 23 percent contracting goal by .992 percent. That .992 percent represents more than $3.74 billion and 93,500 jobs lost for small businesses. The numbers are even worse the next fiscal, in fiscal year 2008 the Federal Procurement Data System reported that the government missed its goal by 1.51 percent--meaning more than $6.51 billion and 162,700 jobs lost. While these numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is vital for our small businesses and our overall economy, they are still only a part of the story of why this legislation is needed.

Our small businesses have been taking the brunt of this economic downturn. In this past year, small businesses accounted for more than 85 percent of job losses. This fact was vividly illustrated to me this weekend when I met with Louisiana business owners and officials. A small business owner who spoke at our meeting told of how he was down from 20 plus employees to three. He was clear that if he had access to federal work he would begin staffing up tomorrow. That is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. These contracting opportunities represent job creation for small businesses in a way that is unique. When large businesses get new work they

typically spread that work among existing employees. When small businesses get these contracts they must staff up to meet the increased demand.

Furthermore, last night President Obama made the case that small businesses need to be the focus of our recovery. I have heard over and over again that small business is the engine that drives our economy. Well, if that is true, then it is time to give that engine some gas. President Obama set the right tone last night and today our bill looks to act on his words and fill that tank as we consider improvements in four key areas.

The first area I attempt to make improvements in is the area of contract bundling. Although contract bundling may have started out as a good idea, it has now become the prime example of the old saying that too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of bundled contracts coupled with the decimation of contracting professionals within the government threatens to kill small businesses' ability to compete for federal contracts.

Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all federal agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by the Small Business Administration, SBA.

The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors.

Another way that this bill attempts to tackle the issue of bundling is by creating a joint venture and teaming center at the SBA. This center will provide technical support to associations and businesses who are interested in bidding on larger contracts as part of small business teams or joint ventures. The bill will also ease regulations that serve as a disincentive for small businesses who want to enter into teaming relationships with one another.

The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. The Committee has heard from many businesses about the challenges that some small business subcontractors face when dealing with prime contractors. Business owners have related that the way subcontracting compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the contract is won they never heard from the prime contractor again. Many also complain about a lack of timely payments after they have completed work.

This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation in prime contracts and provides for speedier payments to small business subcontractors who have successfully completed work on behalf of the prime contractor.

The third area I intend to update is the acquisition process. This bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled contracts by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; directing the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to issue guidelines to analyze the use of government credit cards for the purpose of meeting small business goals; and requiring that agencies include meeting small business contracting goals in the performance evaluation of contracting and program personnel.

The last area that I tackle in this legislation is small business size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. It is imperative that small business contracts go to small businesses. Small businesses may be losing billions of dollars in opportunities because of size standard loopholes.

This bill attempts to address these issues by making additions to the Small Business Act that are designed to strengthen the government's ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business certification. To achieve this, the new section: establishes a presumption of loss to the federal government whenever a large business performs a small business contract; requires that small businesses annually certify their size status; requires the development of training programs for small business size standards; requires a detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA within one year; and directs GAO to study the effectiveness of the mentor-protege program.

It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the Federal Government. I believe that this legislation is a good step toward opening those doors of opportunity. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and I look forward to working with them as we work to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to reauthorize it.

The U.S. is home to an astonishing number of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals for legitimate purposes. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial, construction, and agricultural products, chemicals enable the manufacture of more than 70,000 products that improve the well- being of the American people.

The chemical industry is enormous, diverse, and vital to the American economy. It approaches half a trillion dollars annually in sales. It is one of our largest exporters, with exports totaling $174 billion annually. It directly employs more than 850,000 people nationwide and supports millions more indirectly.

These facilities are vital parts of our economy and society. But, to our enemies, they can be potential chemical weapons. Like the airliners of September 11th, it would only take an attack on a few, or even one, to cause a horrifying loss of life.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings to examine the terrorist threat to the nation's chemical facilities and the devastating consequences that could arise from a successful attack. As a result of those hearings, I introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority necessary to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities in the U.S. That bill formed the basis for chemical security legislation signed into law in 2006 as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Specifically, section 550 requires the Department to issue rules requiring all high-risk chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans to address identified vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures necessary to satisfy risk-based performance standards. Section 550 also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and approve those vulnerability assessments and site security plans and to audit and inspect covered chemical facilities for compliance with the performance standards. It also permits the Secretary to shut down covered facilities that are non-compliant.

In April 2007, the Department published interim final rules, known as the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, CFATS, setting forth the requirements that high-risk chemical facilities must meet to comply with the law. Among other things, CFATS establishes 18 risk-based performance standards which facilities must meet to be in compliance with the law. These standards cover items such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring the theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.

CFATS, however, does not dictate specific security measures. Instead, the law allows chemical facilities the flexibility to choose the security measures or programs that the owner or operator of the facility decides would best address the particular facility and its security risks, so long as these security measures satisfy the Department's 18 performance standards.

Since publishing CFATS in 2007, the Department has worked aggressively and diligently on implementation. The Department has hired and trained more than 100 chemical facility field inspectors and headquarters staff. Indeed, by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the Department hopes to employ more than 260 CFATS staff. And, to date, the Department has received over $200 million in funding to support CFATS.

Given the daunting challenges of establishing such a comprehensive regulatory program from scratch, the Department wisely decided to implement CFATS in phases, beginning with those facilities presenting the very highest security risks.

To determine which facilities presented the highest risks, the Department first required chemical plants that possessed certain threshold quantities of specified chemicals to complete an online security assessment--called ``Top-Screen.'' Based on the Top-Screen and any other available information, the Department then ascertained whether a facility ``presented a high level of security risk'' and preliminarily divided such facilities into four tiers of escalating risk. While all covered facilities must satisfy the Department's performance standards, the security measures sufficient to meet them are more robust for those facilities in the higher tiers, such as Tiers 1 and 2.

For chemical facilities that qualified as ``preliminarily high risk,'' the Department required the preparation and submission of security vulnerability assessments. These assessments enabled the Department to identify more accurately each facility's risk and, thus, to assign final risk tier rankings. Based on these final tier rankings, these facilities must develop site security plans and submit to inspections or audits to ensure their compliance.

The men and women of the Department have processed a tremendous amount of information in a relatively short period of time. According to the Department, since establishing CFATS, it has reviewed almost 38,000 Top-Screen submissions and notified more than 7,000 facilities of their high-risk designations and preliminary tiers.

As of December 2009, CFATS covered only 6,000 facilities. Some facilities closed; others made material modifications that altered their risk profile. Of those remaining, the Department has assigned final tiers to almost 3,000--including all of the facilities in Tiers 1 and 2--and is now reviewing their site security plans.

Although the Department remains in the midst of implementing CFATS, it has generally received positive reviews for its work. The private sector has become a partner in the program's success. The collaborative nature of the program has been praised by many experts as a model for security-related regulation.

Notwithstanding the Department's success in administering the CFATS program and the considerable costs that facilities have incurred in complying with it, some now want to ``swap horses in midstream'' by radically overhauling the law.

Indeed, in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would dramatically alter the nature of CFATS, requiring the Department to completely rework the program and stop its considerable progress--dead in its tracks. Among other things, the House bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new risk-based performance standards, require covered chemical facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to implement so-called ``inherently safer technology'', IST, and allow third-party lawsuits against the Department over CFATS implementation.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the changes proposed by the House will in no way enhance the nation's security. They will, however, impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy and destroy the collaborative public-private partnership critical to CFATS' success.

The House provision that would allow the Department to mandate that certain chemical facilities implement IST is an example. IST is an approach

to process engineering involving the use of less dangerous chemicals, less energetic reaction conditions, or reduced chemical inventories. It is not, however, a security measure. And because there is no precise methodology by which to measure whether one technology or process is safer than another, an IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer the risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere on the supply chain.

For example, it is my understanding that after careful evaluations of the available alternatives, many drinking water utilities have determined that gaseous chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial cost considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of gaseous chlorine use compared to those inherent with the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area. Because the facility is so isolated from population centers, the gas released in the event of an accident would almost certainly dissipate before reaching populated areas.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.

Moreover, the increased cost of a mandatory IST program could encourage chemical companies to transfer their operations overseas, costing thousands of American jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities will want to use IST. But the decision to implement IST should be that of the owner or operator, not a Washington bureaucrat.

In fact, the evidence is quite compelling that many chemical facilities, based on an assessment of many complex factors, have already taken steps to avoid the use, storage, and handling of extremely dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternative processes. The Department's own data indicate that nearly 1,000 facilities voluntarily adopted safer alternative processes.

Notwithstanding all of the other changes to CFATS passed by the House, the mandatory IST requirement itself will bring CFATS to a screeching halt. This is neither necessary nor wise. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

That is precisely why Senators Pryor, Voinovich, Landrieu, and I are introducing the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010. Instead of directing the Department to start again from scratch, our legislation would reauthorize section 550 for five more years. Such an extension would provide the Department with sufficient time to fully implement the CFATS program in its current form. It would also provide a stable regulatory environment to encourage chemical innovation and industry confidence.

Our legislation also contains two improvements, both of which are based on similar provisions from the Security and Accountability For Every, SAFE, Port Act of 2006. The first would direct the Secretary to establish a voluntary Chemical Security Training Program to enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments, chemical industry personnel, and governmental and nongovernmental emergency response providers to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies that could affect chemical facilities. The second would create a voluntary program to test and evaluate these capabilities.

Not only is the chemical industry vital to our country's economy, but also it is the linchpin to the important advancements and innovations in critical fields such as science, technology, agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing.

As one of the co-authors of the first chemical security law, no one is more conscious than I am of the risks that attacks on chemical facilities pose to the nation. The Department has done a remarkable job developing a comprehensive chemical security program.

If our true intent is to secure high-risk facilities, then it is incumbent upon Congress to allow the Department to continue doing its job implementing CFATS.

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to reauthorize it.

The U.S. is home to an astonishing number of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals for legitimate purposes. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial, construction, and agricultural products, chemicals enable the manufacture of more than 70,000 products that improve the well- being of the American people.

The chemical industry is enormous, diverse, and vital to the American economy. It approaches half a trillion dollars annually in sales. It is one of our largest exporters, with exports totaling $174 billion annually. It directly employs more than 850,000 people nationwide and supports millions more indirectly.

These facilities are vital parts of our economy and society. But, to our enemies, they can be potential chemical weapons. Like the airliners of September 11th, it would only take an attack on a few, or even one, to cause a horrifying loss of life.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings to examine the terrorist threat to the nation's chemical facilities and the devastating consequences that could arise from a successful attack. As a result of those hearings, I introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority necessary to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities in the U.S. That bill formed the basis for chemical security legislation signed into law in 2006 as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Specifically, section 550 requires the Department to issue rules requiring all high-risk chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans to address identified vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures necessary to satisfy risk-based performance standards. Section 550 also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and approve those vulnerability assessments and site security plans and to audit and inspect covered chemical facilities for compliance with the performance standards. It also permits the Secretary to shut down covered facilities that are non-compliant.

In April 2007, the Department published interim final rules, known as the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, CFATS, setting forth the requirements that high-risk chemical facilities must meet to comply with the law. Among other things, CFATS establishes 18 risk-based performance standards which facilities must meet to be in compliance with the law. These standards cover items such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring the theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.

CFATS, however, does not dictate specific security measures. Instead, the law allows chemical facilities the flexibility to choose the security measures or programs that the owner or operator of the facility decides would best address the particular facility and its security risks, so long as these security measures satisfy the Department's 18 performance standards.

Since publishing CFATS in 2007, the Department has worked aggressively and diligently on implementation. The Department has hired and trained more than 100 chemical facility field inspectors and headquarters staff. Indeed, by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the Department hopes to employ more than 260 CFATS staff. And, to date, the Department has received over $200 million in funding to support CFATS.

Given the daunting challenges of establishing such a comprehensive regulatory program from scratch, the Department wisely decided to implement CFATS in phases, beginning with those facilities presenting the very highest security risks.

To determine which facilities presented the highest risks, the Department first required chemical plants that possessed certain threshold quantities of specified chemicals to complete an online security assessment--called ``Top-Screen.'' Based on the Top-Screen and any other available information, the Department then ascertained whether a facility ``presented a high level of security risk'' and preliminarily divided such facilities into four tiers of escalating risk. While all covered facilities must satisfy the Department's performance standards, the security measures sufficient to meet them are more robust for those facilities in the higher tiers, such as Tiers 1 and 2.

For chemical facilities that qualified as ``preliminarily high risk,'' the Department required the preparation and submission of security vulnerability assessments. These assessments enabled the Department to identify more accurately each facility's risk and, thus, to assign final risk tier rankings. Based on these final tier rankings, these facilities must develop site security plans and submit to inspections or audits to ensure their compliance.

The men and women of the Department have processed a tremendous amount of information in a relatively short period of time. According to the Department, since establishing CFATS, it has reviewed almost 38,000 Top-Screen submissions and notified more than 7,000 facilities of their high-risk designations and preliminary tiers.

As of December 2009, CFATS covered only 6,000 facilities. Some facilities closed; others made material modifications that altered their risk profile. Of those remaining, the Department has assigned final tiers to almost 3,000--including all of the facilities in Tiers 1 and 2--and is now reviewing their site security plans.

Although the Department remains in the midst of implementing CFATS, it has generally received positive reviews for its work. The private sector has become a partner in the program's success. The collaborative nature of the program has been praised by many experts as a model for security-related regulation.

Notwithstanding the Department's success in administering the CFATS program and the considerable costs that facilities have incurred in complying with it, some now want to ``swap horses in midstream'' by radically overhauling the law.

Indeed, in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would dramatically alter the nature of CFATS, requiring the Department to completely rework the program and stop its considerable progress--dead in its tracks. Among other things, the House bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new risk-based performance standards, require covered chemical facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to implement so-called ``inherently safer technology'', IST, and allow third-party lawsuits against the Department over CFATS implementation.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the changes proposed by the House will in no way enhance the nation's security. They will, however, impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy and destroy the collaborative public-private partnership critical to CFATS' success.

The House provision that would allow the Department to mandate that certain chemical facilities implement IST is an example. IST is an approach

to process engineering involving the use of less dangerous chemicals, less energetic reaction conditions, or reduced chemical inventories. It is not, however, a security measure. And because there is no precise methodology by which to measure whether one technology or process is safer than another, an IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer the risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere on the supply chain.

For example, it is my understanding that after careful evaluations of the available alternatives, many drinking water utilities have determined that gaseous chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial cost considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of gaseous chlorine use compared to those inherent with the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area. Because the facility is so isolated from population centers, the gas released in the event of an accident would almost certainly dissipate before reaching populated areas.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.

Moreover, the increased cost of a mandatory IST program could encourage chemical companies to transfer their operations overseas, costing thousands of American jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities will want to use IST. But the decision to implement IST should be that of the owner or operator, not a Washington bureaucrat.

In fact, the evidence is quite compelling that many chemical facilities, based on an assessment of many complex factors, have already taken steps to avoid the use, storage, and handling of extremely dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternative processes. The Department's own data indicate that nearly 1,000 facilities voluntarily adopted safer alternative processes.

Notwithstanding all of the other changes to CFATS passed by the House, the mandatory IST requirement itself will bring CFATS to a screeching halt. This is neither necessary nor wise. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

That is precisely why Senators Pryor, Voinovich, Landrieu, and I are introducing the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010. Instead of directing the Department to start again from scratch, our legislation would reauthorize section 550 for five more years. Such an extension would provide the Department with sufficient time to fully implement the CFATS program in its current form. It would also provide a stable regulatory environment to encourage chemical innovation and industry confidence.

Our legislation also contains two improvements, both of which are based on similar provisions from the Security and Accountability For Every, SAFE, Port Act of 2006. The first would direct the Secretary to establish a voluntary Chemical Security Training Program to enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments, chemical industry personnel, and governmental and nongovernmental emergency response providers to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies that could affect chemical facilities. The second would create a voluntary program to test and evaluate these capabilities.

Not only is the chemical industry vital to our country's economy, but also it is the linchpin to the important advancements and innovations in critical fields such as science, technology, agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing.

As one of the co-authors of the first chemical security law, no one is more conscious than I am of the risks that attacks on chemical facilities pose to the nation. The Department has done a remarkable job developing a comprehensive chemical security program.

If our true intent is to secure high-risk facilities, then it is incumbent upon Congress to allow the Department to continue doing its job implementing CFATS.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year.

Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, 794,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2007. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2007, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 40 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children aged 4 years and younger accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under reported.

Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families.

Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom 2/3 will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse.

Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent.

In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many states educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education, and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist.

With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts.

The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need. Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head.

Additionally, this bill will include a study to identify the current data collected on Shaken Baby Syndrome and examine the feasibility of collecting uniform, accurate data from all states regarding the incidence rates of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the characteristics of perpetrators, and the characteristics of victims. It is my hope that having this information will enable us to better reach those who may be at risk for Shaken Baby Syndrome and, thus, prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome.

On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia Gibbs from New York, Hannah Juceum from California, Sarah Donohue from New York, Kierra Harrison from Nevada, Miranda Raymond from Pennsylvania, Taylor Rogers from Illinois, Cassandra Castens from Arizona, Gabriela Poole from Florida, Amber Stone from New York, Bennett Sandwell from Missouri, Jamison Carmichael from Florida, Margaret Dittman from Texas, Dalton Fish from Indiana, Stephen Siegfried from Texas, Kaden Isings from Washington, Joseph Wells from Texas, Dawson Rath from Pennsylvania, Macie McCarty from Minnesota, Jake Belisle from Maine, Benjamin Zentz from Michigan, Chloe Salazar from New Mexico, Madison Musser of Oklahoma, Daniel Carbajal from Texas, Nykkole Becker from Minnesota, Gianna D'Alessio from Rhode Island, Brynn Ackley from Washington, Rachael Kang from Texas, John Sprague from Maryland, Ryan Sanders from Virginia, David Sedlet from California, Reagan Johnson from Virginia, Skipper Lithco from New York, Brittney Sheets from New York, Madilyne Wentz from Missouri, Nicolette Klinker from Colorado, Brianna Moore from West Virginia, Shania Maria from Massachusetts, Dayton Jones from Pennsylvania, Breanna Sherer from California, Evelyn Biondo from New York, Kenneth Hardy from Pennsylvania, Alexis Vazquez from Florida, Joshua True from Washington, Stephen David from California, Michael Blair from Arkansas, Olivia Thomas from Ohio, Kaleb Schwade from Florida, Aiden Jenkins from Pennsylvania, Isabella Clark from Pennsylvania, Aaron Cherry from Texas, Dominic Morelock from Ohio, Emmy Cole from Maine, Chelsea Forant from Massachusetts, Joshua Cross from Ohio, Gavin Calloway from Maryland, Christopher Daughtrey from North Carolina, McKynzee Goin from Oregon, Bryce McCormick from Florida, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the management our public lands by increasing the fines and penalties associated with violations of law--and regulation--governing the use of these lands.

Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an expanded use and enjoyment of our public lands. These uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such uses. As a result, many of our public lands are being damaged.

While most users are responsible and law-abiding, some either knowingly or inadvertently violate these rules and damage these precious natural resources, which harms wildlife, increases run-off and sediment loading in rivers and streams, diminishes the enjoyment of other users, and impacts sensitive high-alpine tundra, desert soils, and wetlands. In addition, as we have seen over the past decade, the careless use of fire can catastrophically damage homes and habitat, and can result in the tragic loss of life.

Often times, when these violations occur, the federal public land agencies do not have the authority to charge fines commensurate with the damage that results. For example, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management is limited to a fine of $1,000 no matter how great the damage. That figure has remained unchanged for a quarter of a century, and does not reflect the fact that in many cases the damage from violations will cost thousands more to repair.

The bill I am introducing today would provide for increased fines for such knowing violations to $100,000, and possible imprisonment, and for other non-willful violations to $5,000. The bill is similar to one that I cosponsored in previous Congresses. The need for this legislation was demonstrated by incidents in several states, including some in Colorado.

For example, in the summer of 2000, two recreational off-road vehicles ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, CO. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain.

At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with others to pull them out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted

in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it's helpless against big tires.''

Despite the extent of the damage, the violators were only fined $600 apiece--hardly adequate to restore the area, or to deter others.

Another example was an event in the mountains near Boulder, CO, that became popularly known as the ``mudfest.''

Two Denver radio personalities announced that they were going to take their off-road four-wheel drive vehicles for a weekend's outing on an area of private property along an existing access road used by recreational off-road vehicles. Their on-air announcement resulted in hundreds of people showing up and driving their vehicles in a sensitive wetland area, an area that is prime habitat of the endangered boreal toad. As a result, seven acres of wetland were destroyed and another 18 acres were seriously damaged. Estimates of the costs to repair the damage ranged from $66,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Most of the ``mudfest'' damage occurred on private property. However, to get to those lands the off-road vehicle users had to cross a portion of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--but the Forest Service only assessed a $50 fine to the two radio disc jockeys for not securing a special use permit to cross the lands.

Again, this fine is not commensurate to the seriousness of the violation or the damage that ensued, and is an ineffective deterrent for future similar behavior.

These are but two examples. And these violations are not just limited to off-road vehicle use. Regrettably, there have been many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west from a range of public land uses. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. If we are to deter such activity and recover the damaged lands, we need to increase the authorities of the federal public land agencies.

My bill would do just that. Specifically, it would amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and other relevant laws governing the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize these agencies to assess greater fines on those who violate laws and regulations governing the use of these special lands. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to assess up to $100,000 in fines, or up to 12 months in jail, or both, for violations of these laws and regulations. In addition, the bill establishes that any reckless use of fire on these public lands shall be punishable by fines of no less than $500.

This bill augments another bill, S. 720, the Federal Land Restoration, Enhancement, Public Education, and Information Resources Act or the Federal Land REPAIR Act, which I have introduced this session with my colleague Senator Bennet. S. 720 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from violations to the area that was damaged or affected by such violations, and to increase public awareness of the need for proper recreational use of our federal lands.

With the increase in fines established by this bill, along with the authorization to apply these funds to restoring damaged lands under the REPAIR Act, these public land agencies could restore address impacts on these public lands. Specifically, these bills would allow the public land agencies to repair damaged wildlife habitat, replant wetland vegetation, re-vegetate scarred lands, repair trails, roadways, and embankments to stem erosion and restore riparian ecosystems, and install barriers and other security measures to help deter violations in the first place.

Together, these bills can go a long way to giving the federal public land agencies the tools they need to better protect and restore these sensitive and critical lands for the use and enjoyment for generations to come. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.