Waiving Points Of Order Against Conference Report On H.R. 5441, Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007; Providing For Consideration
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5441, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 3930, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4772, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 29, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because the legislation would seriously undermine efforts to secure chemical facilities across the country. I want to join in the comments made by the ranking member, Mr. Sabo.
Back in July, the Homeland Security Committee passed by voice vote a bill that would go a long way towards fixing the chemical security problem in the aftermath of 9/11. This is one of the most glaring problems in our post-9/11 security efforts that has been neglected here in Washington by the Congress and by the administration.
Yet rather than moving forward with this bill out of the Homeland Security Committee, bringing to it 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.
Now, this is no way to deal with such a serious security issue. EPA data indicates that there are more than 100 chemical plants across the country that could put over 1 million people at risk in the event of a serious accident or terrorist attack. More than 7,000 chemical plants could put 1,000 people or more at risk.
Yet under the cover of a conference report, the Republican leadership has seriously undermined our efforts to secure these chemical facilities. The language here exempts thousands of chemical plants not deemed ``high risk'' by the Department of Homeland Security, along with 3,000 drinking water and wastewater facilities that use large quantities of chlorine.
It also prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from doing anything to move towards the use of inherently safer technologies or substances. And it fails to protect the rights of States like my own, New Jersey, to implement stronger security requirements at chemical plants.
Mr. Speaker, the consequences of an incident at a chemical facility could be dire for residents of my State of New Jersey. We saw this last 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 here in the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/