Date: 2007-03-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I understand the intent of the gentleman offering the amendment. but. unfortunately. upon reading it. it is obvious that this is a dogood amendment that either does nothing or does harm. The reason I say that is that the subject the gentleman wishes to cover in this amendment is covered by the base bill already which will be retained if. in fact. we pass the managers amendment. Section 124 of the bill. pages 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89 and 90. take into effect what the gentleman is talking about. This is the Markey amendment which was worked out in committee on a bipartisan basis in some detail to work with the problem that you have. the securitysensitive materials. that. encompasses securitysensitive materials. which includes within its universe toxic inhalation hazardous materials. The- issue is. what do we do with the fact that we need some of these products as far as our society goes now but that they would also provide an opportunity for terrorists to utilize them for damage to a particular community? So we crafted a very careful amendment that allows for consideration of the needs here on the economic side and the harm done. The way the gentleman has written his amendment. it requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to minimize the need for transportation of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail only. by rail only. We looked- at that requirement to have the Secretary come up with rules and regulations that were to take into consideration the total threat. the total need here. So by the gentlemans own amendment. we may be required to minimize the travel on rail. which Will maximize the travel on our highways. Now. I do not think the gentleman believes that necessarily makes it safer. or on our barges. This amendment. as drafted so narrowly. would require us to undercut much of what we have done in the base bill as a result. of working on a bipartisan basis with Mr. MARKEY in an area of concern that he has expressed- often on the floor and in committee hearing after committee hearing. That is why I say either it does nothing and. therefore. is harmless or if. in fact. it does something. and there is mandatory language in here requiring the Secretary of Transportation. he shall establish such a program. requires him to move in only one direction which may. in fact. make it more dangerous overall. One of the things we learned in our hearings was that you have to consider the entirety of the threat out there. the entirety of the universe of possible options. The gentleman denies the Secretary to do that by requiring that it minimize the transit of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail only. and it undercuts what we have done in a very. very I think informed way. detailed way. talking about storage patterns. talking about rail transportation routes. talking about the analysis of these storage patterns and then requires a compilation of that information and analysis of that information and consideration of that information and then informed judgment. not something like this which says. you know. you have to do it only one way. So. as I say. I understand what the gentleman has said. It sounds good when you first look at it. but if you really look at what it means. it is going to tie the Secretarys hands to move in a particular direction that may or may not allow us to be safer than we are today. and for that reason. I would hope that we would vote this down. If the gentleman would like to work with us on a bipartisan basis. as I did with Mr. MARKEY before. that would be superior to this. This unfortunately. as I say. is a dogood amendment which either does nothing or does harm to the interests of this bill as presented by our committee on a bipartisan basis.