WASHINGTON, D.C.  -- U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, delivered the following statement today, condemning a Homeland Security Appropriations bill, for its staggeringly weak chemical security provisions. While in July the Homeland Security committee provided bipartisan support for a bill mandating that facilities shift to safer chemicals and methods at high risk sites, the Republicans’ back-room deal exempts 90% of facilities that could harm more than 10,000 people from any risk assessment and site security measures whatsoever. Markey urged his colleagues to strike key provisions that weakened the bill, in order to diminish the vulnerabilities such facilities have to terrorist attack.

Rep. Markey stated, “There are night clubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants.  Yet the Republicans acquiesced to the wishes of the chemical industry behind closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language contained in this conference report. 

There are 4 main problems with the Republican-industry written bill:
1.      Exempts all but the high-risk facilities from the risk assessments and site security plans.    DHS has said that it is focusing on under 300 facilities, and there are 3000 facilities in this country which could harm more than 10,000 people during a terrorist attack.  This bill exempts 90 percent of these facilities from any risk assessment.
2.      For the facilities covered, DHS is prohibited from disapproving a facility’s security plan because of the absence of any specific security measure (i.e. broken fences, cameras, etc.).
3.      Exempts even high-risk facilities that are regulated under other laws from being regulated for security by DHS. Hundreds of water facilities that could endanger millions of Americans will not be subject to even these inadequate provisions.
4.      This language doesn’t protect States’ rights to set higher standards.

Rep. Markey’s prepared statement is below:

We know that Al Qaeda is desperately seeking to attack us on our own soil. Chemical plants are at the top of Al Qaeda’s terrorist target list.

Yet there are night clubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants!

The language in the Homeland Security Appropriations conference report is yet another appalling case of Republicans caving to the wishes of the special interests instead of crafting strong chemical security legislation needed to protect the American people.

In July, the Homeland Security Committee reported a bipartisan chemical security bill.  The bill contained mandatory, enforceable security provisions that applied to ALL chemical facilities.  The bill required companies to shift to safer chemicals and methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack. The bill ensured that States could set higher security standards. The bill contained red teaming exercises, it contained worker training provisions, it contained civil and criminal liability provisions, and it contained whistleblower protections for chemical industry workers.

Republicans and Democrats alike praised the Committee’s work, and Republicans promised to protect the language as the bill moved forward. 

Instead, House Republican leaders refused to allow it to be considered for a vote on the Floor.

Instead, Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee acquiesced to the wishes of the chemical industry behind closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language contained in this conference report.

In public, Republicans professed their support for strong chemical security legislation.  But in private, they provided their chemical industry allies with an early Christmas present – the weak legislation the industry had had been pushing for.  This is unacceptable.
    - This language exempts all but the high-risk facilities from the risk assessments and site security plans.    DHS has said that it is focusing on under 300 facilities, and there are 3000 facilities in this country which could harm more than 10,000 people during a terrorist attack -- so this new language will be used to exempt 90 percent of these facilities from any risk assessment at all!.  This bill leaves millions of Americans living near chemical facilities without even meager protections.
For those few facilities covered by this language, it actually prohibits DHS from disapproving a facility’s security plan because of the absence of any specific security measure.  How can we expect DHS to be able to tell a chemical facility to fix a broken fence or protect the toxic materials with both hands tied behind its back?
    - This language exempts even high-risk facilities that are regulated under other laws from being regulated for security by DHS. That means hundreds of water facilities that endanger millions of Americans will not be subject to even these inadequate provisions. And finally,
    - This language doesn’t protect States’ rights to set higher standards.

If there is a successful attack at a chemical plant in one of our communities, the residents in the surrounding areas will not call the Department of Homeland Security for help.  They will call their local fire department, police department or emergency medical personnel.  These first responders are hometown heroes, but even heroes need help.

But this bill makes it harder for our first responders, because it does not require security safeguards that could mitigate the damage resulting from an attack or accident.

I urge the support of my colleagues for the Democratic motion to order the previous question so that key weakening provisions can be struck from the bill.  Make no mistake about it – if the Republican language is enacted, this bill will become the poster-child for a Congress intent on protecting special interests instead of the American people.  

For more information, please go to http://markey.house.gov