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
AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Markey:
In subtitle A of title IV, add at the end the following new section:
SEC. __. SECURITY AND SAFETY REVIEW OF LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES.
(a) Security and Safety Review.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall conduct a comprehensive security and safety review of the proposed construction, expansion, or operation of a waterfront facility for the transfer of liquefied natural gas from ships to land or from land to ships, including proposed shipping routes to or from the facility.
(b) Preparation of Report.--Upon completion of a review under subsection (a), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall prepare a report setting forth the results of the review and including any recommendations for measures that the Commandant believes are necessary to ensure the public safety and security of the proposed facility and the transportation routes to and from the facility, or to mitigate any potential adverse consequences.
(c) Results of Review.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide to each Federal agency responsible for licensing, approval, or other authorization for the relevant construction, expansion, or operation, and to Congress, a report prepared under subsection (c), and shall also provide the information in such report, to the extent consistent with the protection of public safety and security, to affected State and local officials and the public.
(d) Reports to Congress.--
(1) SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN.--Not later than 6 months after a report is provided under subsection (d), the Commandant shall transmit a report to Congress summarizing any action taken by the facility owner or by any appropriate Federal or State agency in response to the Commandant's recommendations contained in such report. If no action has been taken to implement such a recommendation, the Commandant shall report on the reasons why no action has been taken, and shall include views on the failure to take the recommended actions.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT.--The Commandant shall transmit an additional implementation status report to Congress every 6 months until all of the recommendations contained in the Commandant's report prepared under subsection (c) have been implemented, or the Commandant concludes that implementation is no longer necessary and provides an explanation of the reasons for this determination.
(e) Requirement for Approval of Construction or Expansion of Urban Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.--
(1) REQUIREMENT.--No person may construct or expand any urban waterfront facility for the transfer of liquefied natural gas from ships to land or from land to ships unless the Commandant of the Coast Guard has approved such construction or expansion. The Commandant shall not approve any such construction or expansion if, as a result of the review conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the Commandant determines that the proposed facility, or the expansion of the existing facility, would pose a substantial risk to public safety and security in light of the potential loss of life and damage to property that could result.
(2) CIVIL PENALTY.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for each day of such violation.
(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), approval under this subsection shall not affect any other requirement under law to obtain a license, approval, or other authorization for the construction, expansion, or operation of an offshore or waterfront facility for the transfer of liquefied natural gas from ships to land or from land to ships.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which deals with a huge issue which is going to unfold in our country over the next decade, and that is the indisputable need for our country to have a large importation of liquefied natural gas into our country. In New England, already 20 percent of our natural gas is in the form of liquefied natural gas. It comes from overseas. This is a good thing, and it is something that has to expand, not only in New England but all across our country.
The good news is that in the year 2001, there were only two LNG facilities licensed in the United States, one of them in Everett, Massachusetts, in the middle of my congressional district. This is something, however,
[Page: H8048]
which is a legacy from a period that existed before 9/11. There are now 30 proposed additional LNG facilities in the United States, and nine of them have already been licensed.
The question going forward now is not do we need more LNG; the question is how will we have the importation of LNG be done consistent with homeland security principles. And here is the issue: in Boston, right here, coming in a couple of times a month, at least, comes this huge tanker right through the middle of Boston. That is East Boston High School right above it. Outside of Manhattan, this is the most densely populated part of the United States.
Now, we cannot do anything about this facility. It is there. Maybe over time we can phase it out, but it is going to be there. The issue is, going forward, what will be the role of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard which, in this picture, is escorting this LNG tanker right into Boston Harbor, which has to shut down every time one of these tankers comes in? What should the role of the Coast Guard be?
What my amendment says is this: since we are going to have this large importation of LNG in terminals all across our country in the next generation, let us: One, require the Coast Guard to prepare a report on any measures needed to ensure public safety and security of the proposed facility and transportation routes to and from the facility; and, two, require the Coast Guard to report on any action taken by the facility owner or by appropriate Federal and State regulators in response to any findings or recommendations made by the Coast Guard with respect to the proposed facility, including what measures have been put in place to mitigate potential risks; and, third, require the Coast Guard to approve any construction or expansion of an LNG facility before it can go forward, and direct the Coast Guard to not approve any such construction or expansion if it determines that the proposed facility or the expansion of the existing facility would pose a substantial risk to public safety and security in light of the potential loss of life and damage to property that could result.
We know that if that tank was exploded, if the tanks that are on the land where the tanker is going to unload the LNG, that the event would be catastrophic in the middle of the city of Boston; but the same would be true across the whole country. The Sandia Laboratories, in studying an incident that could occur with a tanker such as this, sees a radius of upwards of 2,000 feet that would have levels of heat and fire that would burn buildings, damage steel tanks and machinery; and one can imagine what would happen to every human being inside that radius.
So, for me, to leave it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have exclusive jurisdiction over where one of these facilities is sited, without taking into account what the Coast Guard will have to do as a part of the Department of Homeland Security in safeguarding that shipment, is, in a post-9/11 period, reckless. In a post-New Orleans period, it is reckless.
We must give the people who live in these densely populated areas the benefit of the doubt that the Coast Guard would raise the questions about homeland security, about what would happen if there were a terrorist attack, and then suggest perhaps that the facility be built offshore, and that there be a pipeline brought in, that the facility be built in a more remote area of the State and a pipeline be built to bring it down; but it should be the Coast Guard, the agency of expertise.
I urge an ``aye'' vote to protect public safety in all communities where LNGs will be imported in the generation ahead.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me clear up some misinformation which has been disseminated out here on the House floor. We have, in fact, not debated this issue ever before in the House.
What happened in the energy bill was that the Republican majority made a determination that they were going to remove governors and mayors from the decision-making process as to where an LNG facility can be sited. Until August of 2005, mayors and governors had a say. Now they do not because of the energy bill.
Now we all know that when and if a catastrophic event occurs, people in our country have learned not to depend
[Page: H8050]
upon the Federal Government. They know that the first call has to go to the local fire, the local police. That is who they are going to call, and they have good reason to after what happened in New Orleans. I do not think any city or town is going to repeat the mistake which New Orleans made in waiting for Department of Homeland Security to respond.
But let us just say for the sake of discussion that we are going to remove the mayor and we are going to remove the governor from any say on where an LNG facility can go in the most densely urban populated parts of this State. What my amendment says is, at least allow the Federal Government to have a role. At least allow the Department of Homeland Security to have a role. But the Republican majority says, no, we are only going to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has no jurisdiction over homeland security, no responsibility to look at the public safety issues, they alone will look at these issues.
Well, you know, the recriminations which have taken place in the last 2 weeks all turn on one question. Why did not people listen to the Corps of Engineers? Why did not we give more protection to those people in that community? But we all know that the Corps of Engineers was ignored, that their warnings were ignored.
What the majority Republican party wants to do is to tell the Coast Guard, we do not want to have your view on where an LNG facility should be sited if you are going to tell us you disagree with the energy decision.
It should be all energy. No homeland security at all. No protection for the people who will be living in the mile or two around that facility. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this debate is all about.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and, by the way, each of them could not try harder to get more geographically far away in Nebraska and Illinois from the coastline, our experts today. Mark Twain used to say, an expert is anyone who lives more than 1,000 miles away from a problem, and we have got two experts here today telling us on the coastline what we need.
Well, what we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the Coast Guard to make a determination as to whether or not they can protect against a catastrophic event, and what they are saying is no Coast Guard, no governor, no mayor, nobody but the energy companies. That is what it is all about. It is about the energy companies.
Yes, we need a doubling, yes, we need a tripling, a quadrupling of LNG in our country.
[Time: 15:45]
I have the number one facility in America in my district. We need it in New England more than anyone else. But as a homeland security issue, it should have the Coast Guard making a determination as to whether or not it can be protected against a terrorist attack. And if an alternative is possible offshore or in a more remote area of that State, then they should be given the right to participate in that decision.
If you just leave it to the energy companies, which is what the Republicans want to do, this is just a continuation of their energy bill, letting the consumers get tipped upside down because the energy companies do not want to spend a few extra bucks to add into homeland security, the same way as the catastrophic events of New Orleans were just over saving a few bucks.
Well, this is your chance to do something about LNG facilities in densely populated areas, to give a say to the Coast Guard, rule out your Governor, rule out your mayor, but at least the Coast Guard, at least a part of the Federal Government should be part of this. If you want a Federal solution to the energy problem, you also have to have a Federal component to homeland security in 2005.
Al Qaeda is not taking a break. Al Qaeda is out there. Al Qaeda used the Boston LNG terminal as the route to bring in their Al Qaeda agents.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. MARKEY. Richard Clarke in his book said on September 11, 2001 when he was asked to take over in charge of all homeland security response, his first thought was shut down the port of Boston, call the Coast Guard commandant there. That is where Abdul Meskini and the other al Qaeda agents had come in on the LNG tanker from Algeria into Boston Harbor. That is how they got here. Abdul Meskini is in prison right now for the LAX millennium bombing plot.
So let us not kid ourselves. They are coming for urban areas. They are coming for the high-impact areas. They are coming for LNG facilities. They are coming for nuclear facilities. They want to use airplanes. They want the biggest event possible. They want London. They want Madrid. They want New York. They want L.A.
They want the big urban populated areas. Let us not kid ourselves. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Give the Coast Guard the homeland security ability to be able to make a decision to protect the citizens of our country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Markey:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE __.--REQUIREMENTS FOR MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLANS AND ASSESSMENTS
SEC. X01. REQUIREMENTS FOR AREA MARITIME TRANSPORTATION PLANS.
Section 70103(b)(2) of title 46,United States Code, is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as subparagraphs (E) through (H), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) include a list of each facility located in the area covered by the plan that could reduce the health, environmental, or economic consequences associated with a transportation security incident through the substitution of chemicals or processes currently used in the facility with alternative chemicals or processes that would not significantly impair the ability of the facility to conduct its business;
``(D) for areas that include or are near a large population, or that are of special economic, environmental, or national security importance and that might be damaged by a transportation security incident, include a list of special efforts, measures, or procedures required of any new facility proposed to be located within or near the area that will deter a transportation security incident involving the facility;''.
SEC. X02. REQUIREMENTS FOR UNITED STATES FACILITY AND VESSEL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS.
Section 70102(b) of title 46,United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C) by inserting after ``contingency response,'' the following: ``chemicals or processes used by a facility that could be replaced with alternative chemicals or processes that could reduce the health, environmental or economic consequences associated with a transportation security incident in a manner that would not significantly impair the ability of the facility to conduct its business,''; and
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``includes'' and inserting ``adequately addresses''.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I will notify the majority that I intend on withdrawing my amendment, but I just wanted to make this commonsense suggestion at this time that perhaps we could continue to discuss and work on in the months ahead.
My amendment deals with the reality that, especially in coastal areas, that there are huge containers of very dangerous chemicals and other toxic chemicals that are stored in those coastal areas right onshore and that, in many instances, those particular toxic materials have a now more modern, substitutable chemical which could be used in order to achieve the same purposes for the industries within our country.
What my amendment says is that when the Coast Guard writes an area maritime transportation security plan, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, but the Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced.
When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessment for these facilities, as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and it will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its national maritime transportation security plan.
Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept the facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own.
Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson. They will probably have to level a couple of hundred thousand homes in New Orleans, largely because of the toxic materials that have now infiltrated into those homes. Here we have an opportunity moving forward to make sure that we are reducing the most toxic chemicals, even as we substitute other chemicals that can be used in the very same processes to keep our American economy humming.
* [Begin Insert]
Mr. Chairman, the events of the past few weeks have served as a wake-up call in so many areas of our lives. We've learned just how vulnerable some of our cities are to Mother Nature, how vulnerable our oil and gas infrastructure is, and, frankly, how vulnerable we all are as we contemplate the implications of our failed response to Hurricane Katrina to future terrorist attacks that will come with no National Weather Service warnings and could be even more devastating.
While the debate over how we can ensure that we move more quickly and efficiently to respond to the next Katrina or 9/11 will wait until another day, there are aspects of the bill in front of us today that can be changed to increase the chances that the potential consequences of such a catastrophe are minimized.
We have learned, for example, that the hurricane has rendered several gulf coast refineries inoperable, and in some cases this may be the status quo for months. We have also learned that the extent to which the hurricane caused breaches in these and other facilities storing toxic chemicals is not yet clear--the very preliminary EPA tests show highly elevated levels of lead and other toxic materials in some areas of New Orleans, and EPA is really only just beginning its environmental sampling process. We may be looking at an environmental catastrophe that requires an enormous amount of money to remediate, in addition to all the other reconstruction and relief costs.
And, though the hurricane was certainly a catastrophe in and of itself, the reality is that a terrorist attack on just one facility containing toxic chemicals could have led to even more
[Page: H8054]
fatalities. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report I requested, there are about 50 facilities in Louisiana at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk, as well as 2 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people. In Florida, there are more than 20 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk and 7 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people, and in Mississippi, there are 2 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk. Nationwide, more than 100 facilities pose a risk to more than 1 million people--an attack on or major natural disaster near any of these facilities could result in widespread deaths, injuries and environmental contamination.
While some of the chemicals stored in these facilities are necessary to the products or processes being undertaken there, others are not. For example, a 2003 report entitled ``Eliminating Hometown Hazards'' by Environmental Defense lists several wastewater treatment facilities in Louisiana that use chlorine in amounts that could place hundreds of thousands of people at risk, even though safer and economically competitive alternatives exist and are currently in use elsewhere. Press reports indicate that many wastewater treatment facilities in the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina have been disabled, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of toxic chlorine that must have been onsite. Another 2003 report entitled ``Needless Risk: Oil Refineries and Hazard Reduction'' by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund describes a cost-effective alternative to hydrofluoric acid, which is used by many refineries, including Chalmette Refining in New Orleans which reportedly has 600,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid stored on site. According to the Energy Information Administration and press reports, the Chalmette facility spilled tens of thousands of barrels of oil into the surrounding neighborhoods and could be closed for months, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of hydrofluoric acid that must have been onsite.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act addressed some of the security concerns associated with chemical facilities located at or near ports and waterways. As the damage assessment and remediation associated with Hurricane Katrina proceeds, I believe that we need to focus not just on cleaning up the damage, but also on trying to reduce the consequences of similar damage occurring in the future, be it due to hurricanes, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Other legislation may address the need to strengthen the levee system surrounding New Orleans so that future hurricanes can't breach them as easily--my amendment seeks to reduce the potential environmental consequences associated with a future breach of the facilities that house toxic materials.
Specifically, my amendment makes the following common-sense changes to the Maritime Transportation Security Act:
When the Coast Guard writes its Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack.
The Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or in other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance, so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced.
When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessments for these facilities as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its National Maritime Transportation Security Plan.
Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept a facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own.
Hurricane Katrina taught us that we can't ignore the experts' warnings forever--sooner or later, being shortsighted will catch up to us, and as we've seen, the price we may pay may be both costly and to some extent avoidable. My amendment incorporates some of the experts' warnings on chemical facility security into existing requirements for these facilities. Let's not be short-sighted again. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin just by stating that we were briefed by the EPA yesterday and that the EPA has indicated that they have only just begun sampling and that they have, in fact, found highly elevated levels of lead, e.coli and other toxic substances. We are only at the beginning of this entire story.
If I may say to the gentleman from Alaska, I know what the gentleman is saying about making amendments on this issue to other bills. He has to understand the frustration of being in the minority in this institution.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, try 22 years of being in the minority. That is longer than the gentleman has been in the minority.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has now been able successfully, I would say, to have all of his amnesia treatments be completely accepted by his system because I do not think he can really appreciate how many times I have gone before the Committee on Rules and asked for an amendment on this subject, on the energy bill, on the homeland security bill. So it is out of frustration, and I will admit that, it is out of frustration that I attempt to make it on the Coast Guard bill.
The gentleman has some good points, but this is a point that should be raised, and it should be raised especially in the aftermath of New Orleans and the toxicity that is now rampant throughout that community. There is just the need for us to have this discussion, and it is a Coast Guard mission in
[Page: H8055]
general, safety and security, although I accept the gentleman's point that the EPA would be the point on that, but it is difficult for the minority to have amendments successfully accepted on any issue that deals with the EPA out here on the House floor.
That is the reason I raise the point, and that is the reason I announced I was going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw it as well, so the point would be made that it is an important subject. It should be made in other bills. This was an aperture that I was taking advantage of to really just begin the process of political education, although I know that political activation and political implementation are much further down the line and dependent upon the goodwill of the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership that we have an amendment like that.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I do hope the gentleman will withdraw the amendment for numerous reasons.
I have to acknowledge one thing. He has been allowed to offer this amendment because I asked for an open rule. I did ask for an open rule because I knew the gentleman and some other people wanted an opportunity to use the platform to bring up this type of subject, and I respect that. I just suggest respectfully that this is not the bill to do this on, and I really request the gentleman to think about withdrawing the amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I appreciate the fact that it is an open rule; and, from a rules perspective, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So I am out here, and all of a sudden I run into an open rule; and, believe it or not, for me, it is just you have got to make hay when the sun shines, my father used to say. So this is just my opportunity to be able to make the case, knowing at the end of the day that there were other bills that were more appropriate and agencies that had more expertise to be able to do the subject, and at the end of the day knowing that the Coast Guard will be the agency that deals with the consequences of something not being done.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov