|
Washington, D.C. --- U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today voiced opposition to a provision in a Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report that would seriously undermine efforts to secure chemical facilities in New Jersey and across the country.
The conference report, which reconciles separate bills passed earlier this year by the House and Senate, passed the House today. It now goes to the Senate for a final vote before being sent to the president's desk.
The New Jersey congressman, who is the author of the Chemical Security Act (H.R. 2237), which would improve security and reduce hazards at chemical facilities, gave the following statement during floor debate on the rule of the conference report. Pallone voted against the rule, but voted for the final conference report.
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because it protects a provision that would seriously undermine efforts to secure chemical facilities across the country.
"Back in July, the Homeland Security Committee passed by voice vote a bill that would go a long way towards fixing one of the most glaring problems in our post-9/11 security efforts. Yet rather than moving forward with this bill, bringing it to the floor, and having an open debate, Republicans have decided to craft an industry-friendly proposal behind closed doors and stick it in the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference report.
"This is no way to deal with such a serious security issue. EPA data indicates that there are more than 100 plants across the country that could put over one million people at risk in the event of a serious accident or terrorist attack. More than 7000 plants could put 1000 people or more at risk.
"Yet under the cover of a conference report, the Republican leadership has seriously undermined our efforts to secure these facilities. The language here exempts thousands of plants not deemed 'high risk' by the Department of Homeland Security, along with about 3000 drinking water and wastewater facilities that use large quantities of chlorine. It also prohibits DHS from doing anything to move towards the use of inherently safer technologies or substances. And it fails to protect the rights of states like New Jersey to implement stronger security requirements.
"Mr. Speaker, the consequences of an incident at a chemical facility could be dire for residents of my state. We saw this on Tuesday, when an accidental release of sulfur dioxide sent 59 people to the hospital. If that is what happens from one simple mistake, I shudder to think of the consequences of an attack by determined terrorists.
"We need to reject this rule, strip this weak chemical security language from the conference report, and move ahead with strong legislation like what the Homeland Security Committee already passed." |
