[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 11382-11383]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        REMARKS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SPENCER BACHUS

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 25, 2005

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to meet with 
the senior operating officials of nearly all of the Nation's freight 
railroads, large and small. What I heard from them, each of them, was 
their continued commitment to the safe and secure transportation of all 
goods tendered to them in interstate commerce.
  I also heard their concern about being caught in the middle of a 
political crossfire over the issue of transporting certain hazardous 
materials through major cities located along their rail lines. They 
find themselves in this untenable position because of a legal duty. The 
common carrier obligation requires them to accept all legal goods for 
transport. Despite this legal duty and with no regard for the vital 
role some of these commodities play in protecting the public health and 
welfare, there are communities like the District of Columbia that are 
using every resource at their disposal to prevent railroads from going 
through their towns with these goods; in particular, hazardous 
materials.
  Railroads clearly are the safest means of transporting hazardous 
materials, with a 99.996 percent safety record. These materials include 
chlorine to clean your water and propane to heat your homes. The 
transportation of the most hazardous chemicals represent three-tenths 
of one percent of the railroads' annual revenue, but well over 50 
percent of their insurance premiums. But the railroads are not allowed 
to get out of the business. And if they did, the transportation of 
these goods would be much less safe.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose local initiatives such as 
those enacted by the District of Columbia and now being contemplated by 
other cities, like Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and 
Atlanta, in trying to prohibit the routing of these goods through their 
cities. The Constitution vests the Federal Government with the 
responsibility for regulating interstate commerce (Article I, Section 
8). Through (among others) the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and ICCTA, Congress has given 
Federal agencies the responsibility to oversee the transportation of 
hazardous materials in interstate commerce. Further, in the case of DC, 
the Department of Homeland Security is actively analyzing rail security 
matters, particularly hazmat transportation (e.g., through the DC Rail 
Corridor Project's vulnerability assessment, and an analysis of 
security of hazmats that pose a toxic inhalation hazard).
  What the DC Council has done, and what other cities are threatening 
to do, not only usurps the responsibilities and actions of the Federal 
Government, but also actually increases the risks of hazmat 
transportation, by increasing transit time and distance due to 
rerouting, and by shifting the risk involved with hazmat transport to 
other areas of the country.

[[Page 11383]]

Rerouting trains carrying hazardous materials will cause delays, idling 
of hazmat containers, and switching of containers to other trains. Each 
handling of hazmat containers raises the risk level. In sum, the re-
routing potentially threatens national security, disrupts interstate 
commerce, and jeopardizes public health.
  We should be constantly vigilant about our national security. Thus, 
we cannot let the misguided efforts of myopic municipalities compromise 
our Nation's health, economy, safety and security through punitive and 
ill-advised legislation, such as that passed by the District of 
Columbia.

                          ____________________