Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 15, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment, and I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of our delegation, for his leadership on this issue. Years ago the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) played a critical role in the passage of the Pipeline Safety Act, which stressed the need for the remote siting of LNG terminals; and since then he has continued to be a national leader and advocate for the needs and safety of our communities.

This is a commonsense amendment that we have before us today. I can tell my colleagues firsthand that the current system does not work. In my district there has been a proposal to construct an LNG storage tank in the middle of Fall River. The site itself would be just 1,200 feet from homes with over 9,000 people living within a 1-mile radius of the tank. Immediately, community and State officials sounded off the alarm. They pointed to environmental concerns, and there are a lot of environmental concerns with the siting in this area, which FERC just dismissed without ever conferring with the EPA.

They also pointed out the fact that if this facility would be constructed, the tankers would have to go under three different bridges in the river, and all three bridges would have to be shut down for a period of time for safety concerns. And the problem with that is that neighboring communities would then be denied access to hospitals that are located in Fall River and other emergency facilities. Again, FERC totally ignored that.

The community raised security concerns which were supported by a report prepared by counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke talking about the potential threat to the community in the case of a terrorist attack or an accident. Yet the Department of Homeland Security was never included in the review process. In fact, despite repeated requests from members of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island delegations, officials from Homeland Security have yet to comment on the site, let alone visit the site.

Instead, they referred our request to the Coast Guard, which is only required to present its recommendation prior to the actual construction of the LNG tanks. So in the end, without any coordination with the necessary Federal agencies, FERC approved the construction of the LNG storage tank in Fall River, Massachusetts.

Now it was only after the Navy intervened, pointing to additional threats to national security, that FERC finally took a step back and are now deciding whether to consider an appeal by the State of Massachusetts.

This one case in Fall River illustrates a larger problem. Our current system fails to ensure a thorough review of all of the issues surrounding LNG sites; and the Markey amendment, by bringing the Coast Guard to the table before new LNG sites are approved, I think is a necessary step in that direction.

As our Nation's energy demands continue to grow, we must work to ensure that adequate energy sources are available; and I would be the last person to argue otherwise. We do need additional LNG facilities in this country. But we must be mindful that our public health, security and safety are not disregarded in the process.

I have never had a more maddening experience in my life than dealing with FERC. They did not consider, let alone discuss, any of the issues that were raised by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by our governor or by local officials or by local public safety officials. They went ahead and approved this and justified the approval without considering any of the evidence that was brought before them, evidence, quite frankly, that points to major security concerns.

I think that what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has done here is proposed an amendment that, you know, should not be controversial. I think all of us here should want to make sure that these facilities are sited in the safest possible areas.

I have a prediction. That is, in the not-too-distant future, some homeland security chief is going to weigh in on this and recommend that LNG facilities not be sited in heavily populated areas and that, instead, they be sited in areas that are not in the middle of a growing urban area or offshore them because of the safety concerns.

So this amendment should be approved. I would hope that my colleagues would join with me in supporting the Markey amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov