Frank Pallone: “in 2003 the U.S. General Accounting Office released a report that was done at the request of myself and the gentleman…”

“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.…”