Waiving Points of Order Against Conference Report on H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007

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. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much, and this rule is just another appalling case of Republican leadership siding with special interests over the security interests of our country.

In July, the Homeland Security Committee reported a bipartisan chemical security bill. We know that al Qaeda wants to hit huge chemical facilities in our country that could cause between 10,000 and hundreds of thousands of injuries. That was a good bill. It was bipartisan.

It required that there be mandatory enforceable security provisions that apply to all chemical facilities in America. It required the company shift to safer chemicals and methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack. The bill ensured that the States could set higher security standards. The bill contained red teaming exercises to test whether or not security around these chemical facilities was, in fact, adequate. It contained worker training provisions to upgrade workers' ability to protect against an al Qaeda attack. It contained civil and criminal provisions, and it contained whistle-blower protections for chemical industry workers if any Paul Revere-like figure would rise up to warn that there was a danger at a chemical facility.

Democrats and Republicans alike praised the committee's work, and Republicans promised to protect the language as it came out on to the House floor.

But instead, the House Republican leaders refused to allow it to be considered for a vote on the House floor. Instead, the Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee and on the Energy and Commerce Committee acquiesced to the wishes of the chemical industry behind closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language contained in the conference report.

In public, the Republicans profess 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 been pursuing all along, and that is what we are now going to debate on this House floor; not the bipartisan secure chemical bill, but the chemical industry-written bill that the Republicans are now bringing out here in a closed rule that will not have any debate at all.

And by the way, if back home you have a Governor, you have a mayor that is very concerned about the ability of their hometown or their State to put stronger security measures around a chemical facility, well, after today you can just tell your Governor, your mayor, it is up to the Department of Homeland Security. They are not going to be able to increase it back at home. This bill is going to make it possible for the chemical industry to keep the local governments and the State governments wrapped up in red tape forever as those local communities, those local heroes, and by the way, if there is an al Qaeda attack, people are not going to call the Department of Homeland Security. They are going to call the local police, the local fire, the local emergency medical personnel. They are going to be the ones that have to respond, and when this bill is passed their hands are going to be tied behind their back in terms of their ability to put stronger, tougher protections around these chemical facilities, especially in urban areas.

It also reduces the number of facilities that have to be covered. Instead of all of the facilities that could cause upwards of 10,000 fatalities or injuries, they eliminate 90 percent of the facilities from having to be covered by the provisions of the legislation that we are talking about here today. And by the way, the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from disapproving of a facility's security plan because of the absence of any specific security measure.

So the Department of Homeland Security looks at a chemical facility, sees that there is a problem, they still cannot disapprove that plan. How in the world can the Department of Homeland Security be effective if their hands are tied behind their back? This is an area that we know is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist target list, chemical facilities; and on the last day, professing to care about homeland security, and by the way, if al Qaeda is going to attack today, all the wiretapping, everything else that you want to do, if there is a secret group already in America poised to hit a chemical facility, then you better have the protection that is built around it.

What you are doing today in this bill is you are making it infinitely more likely that al Qaeda can make a successful attack against a chemical facility. You are gagging the Democrats. You are handing it over to the chemical industry for them to decide on their bottom line cost-basis analysis of the type of security they want to put in place.

Right now, it is harder to get into some nightclubs in New York City than it is for al Qaeda to get into a chemical facility in the United States of America. That is the bottom line on the bill the Republicans are bringing out here today.

Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov