Senate Declines to Act on Corzine's Chemical Security Amendment

In an effort to break the congressional logjam on chemical security, Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) has offered a piece of compromise legislation as an amendment to the intelligence reform bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was ruled non-germane to the bill and rejected from consideration. More than three years after the 9/11 attacks, there are still no federal security standards for chemical plants. Corzine has offered strong chemical security legislation in the last two sessions of Congress, but each time the bill has stalled because of stiff resistance from the chemical industry. This past session, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Chairmen of the Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced an alternative chemical security bill that effectively stalemated Corzine's proposal. In an effort to move legislation on the important issue of chemical security, Corzine proposed a limited version of his own bill as an amendment to 9/11 legislation. The narrowed amendment had support from environmentalists and labor groups who believed the narrowed proposal still retained the crucial elements needed for a successful chemical security program. Corzine's amendment retained requirements that chemical facilities perform vulnerability and security assessments that consider safer alternatives and submit the reports to the Department of Homeland Security for approval. Under the amendment the highest threat facilities -- 123 plants that each put a million or more people at risk -- would have had to implement all cost-effective methods of reducing risk. The amendment exempted agricultural facilities, such as fertilizer users, that endanger less than 10,000 people. However increased security would have still been required at those locations to prevent theft. Corzine's proposal would also have allowed industry assessment programs to substitute for the government's requirement so long as the programs met minimum standards outlined in the statute, including mandatory consideration of safer alternative technologies. Approval of the industry programs would have required a public rulemaking process. While the Corzine amendment represented a much narrower effort than his original bill, it remained superior to Inhofe's proposal, which does not require consideration of safer alternatives, submission of plans to the government, implementation of cost-effective risk reduction, or public evaluation of industry programs. Inhofe offered his legislation as an alternative amendment but it, too, was ruled non-germane.
back to Blog