Senator Bob Smith
Opening Statement
Chemical Site Security
November 14, 2001
Thank you, Senator, for holding this hearing
today on a topic that is important to all of us. I want to thank our witnesses for coming here
to discuss chemical security.
The attacks of September 11 have left us all
with a sense of vulnerability. Since that day, we have been reevaluating
security measures at what are potential targets across this nation, whether it is our
airports, water facilities, nuclear power plants, transportation
infrastructure, or our manufacturing facilities. Sadly, September 11 changed us
forever -- we are now caught in an
on-going process of adjusting to a new “normal.”
I continue to be a strong supporter of
ensuring the most effective security possible. I have authored legislation to
deal with security measures for our water infrastructure facilities and I have
joined Senator Inhofe in introducing a bill to address security measures at
nuclear power plants. I am pleased to be working with the Chairman of the full committee to
address many other security and terrorism response related issues. I will work
with any member of this committee to ensure that any potential security gaps
are identified and properly addressed.
The protection of our country is not a
partisan issue -- and I will never treat it as such. When we talk about
security, we must realize that there comes a responsibility to legislate in the
most effective and efficient manner possible.
We must base our decisions on an accurate
assessment of the situation, needs, and clear understanding of the role of the
private sector -- and the role and responsibility of the government. We cannot base our decisions on sensationalism or in
response to fear tactics B we must rely on the facts.
I want to commend Senator Corzine for his
interest and efforts with regard to Chemical Site security -- but,
unfortunately, I do not believe his legislation is the right answer. I certainly share
with him a desire for our chemical infrastructure to be safe and prepared, but
I would advocate a different approach for achieving security.
Security should be a cooperative effort
between the facilities and local, state and federal law enforcement. It should be a partnership
with a constant line of open communication. It is only through working together and building trust that will
provide for the highest level of security against any potential attack. Cooperation,
partnership, teamwork and coordination are the hallmarks of a successful
security apparatus.
Unfortunately, this bill takes a different
approach. S. 1602 establishes a new regulatory, punitive regime that will
create an adversarial relationship between industry and government. A strained
relationship between the private sector and government will not lead to
increase security, but will only serve to weaken our ability to protect the
public. And I know that is not the goal of the author of this bill, and it is
certainly not the outcome I desire.
Another fundamental
question that this bill brings to the fore is: What is the proper role of a
private sector entity in protecting itself against potential criminal acts or
acts of war?
Clearly the acts of terrorism that we have
seen are acts of war. It is a question that I wish to pose to each of our
witnesses: Where do you believe the line of responsibility is for protection
against criminal acts? -- where does the private sector’s responsibility end
and law enforcement’s begin?
We all pay taxes that support a military and
local law enforcement. The Constitution mandates a primary responsibility of
the government to “provide for the common defense.” In this bill that law
enforcement responsibility is that of the facility.
This bill actually makes it a crime for not
being able to prevent a act of terrorism.
In fact, it would be a crime to be the victim of a criminal act that
caused a release. That is a disconcerting proposition for the many small businesses
around this nation who would fall under this legislation.
I do support measures that will improve our
industrial security, and I do believe that it is the responsibility of these
private facilities to take all reasonable measures in providing security,
preventing releases and responding if one occurs. And a post-September
11 security assessment of all this nation’s infrastructure is an absolute must.
I am disappointed that the previous
Administration did not do this -- as the law did require. But any security
measures by individual facilities should not be expected to take the place of
law enforcement. They should be done in concert with law enforcement.
I am also very
concerned with provisions in this bill that gives the federal government the
power to determine manufacturing processes and changes in a facility’s physical
structure. It puts the government in a position of making business decisions.
S. 1602 is
basically one of role reversal -- The
bill would put the government in charge of chemical manufacturing and chemical
manufacturers in charge of fighting terrorism. I do have a number of other
concerns with the bill -- such as the redundancies with other laws, including
transportation laws, that could cause problems. But given that I am short on
time, I will stop here.
I would like to ask
unanimous consent that a letter from the Association of American Railroads
expressing opposition to S. 1602 be placed into the record. I do, again, want
to commend Senator Corzine on his efforts, and I hope to work with him to
address these concerns and the mutual desire we all share with protecting this
nation from terrorists’ attacks.
Thank you.