[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10774-10775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CHEMICAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the U.S. General Accounting Office 
released a report that was done at the request of myself and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and, I believe, other Members of 
Congress that found with regard to terrorist threats that no Federal 
agency has assessed the extent of security preparedness at chemical 
plants and that no Federal requirements are in place to require 
chemical plants to assess their vulnerabilities and take steps to 
reduce them.
  I wanted to talk briefly tonight about this issue of the need for 
security at chemical plants. I was very pleased to note yesterday in 
the New York Times the lead editorial addressed this issue. I wanted to 
read from some sections of that editorial and comment on it.
  In one part of the New York Times editorial yesterday it says, 
``There is no way to guarantee that terrorists will not successfully 
attack a chemical facility, but it would be grossly negligent not to 
take defensive measures. The question Americans should be asking 
themselves, says Rick Hind, Legislative Director of the Greenpeace 
Toxics Campaign, is, `If you fast-forward to a disaster, what would you 
want to have done?'''
  And this is what the New York Times and what Greenpeace say should be 
some of the priorities:
  ``First, tighter plant security. There should be tough Federal 
standards for perimeter fencing. Concrete blockades, armed guards and 
other forms of security at all of the 15,000 facilities that use deadly 
chemicals.
  ``Second, use of safer chemicals. Refineries, when practical, should 
adopt processes that do not use hydrofluoric acid, the chemical that is 
now putting New Orleans at risk. Some plants that once used chlorine, 
such as the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant in Washington, DC, 
have switched to safer alternatives.
  ``Third, reducing quantities of dangerous chemicals. An important 
reason that chemical facilities make such tempting targets for 
terrorists is the enormous quantity of chemicals they have on hand. The 
industry should be encouraged and in some cases required to store and 
transport dangerous chemicals in smaller quantities.
  ``Fourth, limiting chemical facilities in highly populated areas. 
Many chemical facilities were built long before terrorism was a concern 
and when fewer people lived in their surrounding areas. There should be 
a national initiative to move dangerous chemical facilities, where 
practical, to lower population areas.
  ``Fifth, government oversight of chemical safety. The chemical 
industry wants to police itself through voluntary programs, but the 
risks are too great to leave chemical security in private hands. 
Facilities that use dangerous chemicals should be required to identify 
their vulnerabilities to the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of Homeland Security and to meet Federal safety standards.''
  Now, those are the five points that were are mentioned by the New 
York Times yesterday in their editorial, and also by Greenpeace. But I 
wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that more than 3

[[Page 10775]]

years have passed since 9/11 and Congress has yet to seriously address 
the need to secure our Nation's chemical plants. We are finally seeing 
some movement in the Senate, but not yet in the House. And it is time 
to take serious action to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical 
facility which would endanger millions of lives.
  Last month I reintroduced the Chemical Security Act, H.R. 2237, which 
requires the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security to work 
together to identify high-priority chemical facilities. Once 
identified, these facilities would be required to assess 
vulnerabilities and hazards and then development and implement a plan 
to improve security and use safer technologies within 18 months. 
Senator Corzine has introduced this bill in the Senate.
  Now, since the legislation was first introduced in the House in 2002, 
I have tried to get the Republican leadership to conduct a 
congressional hearing on chemical security. And I welcomed the 
announcement last week on the House floor during the discussion or 
debate on the Homeland Security bill, there was an announcement that 
the House Select Committee on Homeland Security chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) said his committee would hold a hearing or 
start a series of hearings on chemical security beginning June 14.
  I would also like to see my own committee, the House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over chemical facilities, 
to follow the gentleman from California's (Mr. Cox) lead and schedule 
hearings or begin to have hearings this summer.
  Hopefully, we will see some positive signs, some movement in the 
House, at least to have hearings on the issue, but it really is a very 
important issue, not only for New Jersey, my home State, but throughout 
the country. I am also pleased that the New York Times has pointed this 
out.
  Greenpeace, of course, has talked about a number of initiatives even 
beyond the ones that were mentioned in the New York Times, and I plan 
to spend some time over the next few weeks talking to Greenpeace about 
whether additional legislation is necessary to address some of their 
concerns.

                          ____________________