WASHINGTON,
D.C.—The House today failed to strengthen a weak chemical security
program crafted behind closed doors and attached to the Homeland
Security funding bill. The vote came on a procedural motion to limit
debate and amendments to the funding bill and effectively prevented
consideration of an amendment by Representative Sabo (MN) to
dramatically improve the underlying chemical security provisions.
“The
House missed a critical opportunity to improve a do-nothing chemical
security program and in so doing did a huge disservice to the American
public,” said U.S. PIRG staff attorney Alex Fidis. “These security
measures have consistently been referred to as ‘better than nothing,’
but in reality they are worse than nothing because our nation now has
the equivalent to imposing shopping mall-level security at dangerous
chemical plants.”
The
funding bill security provisions were added after a backroom deal
between Homeland Security Committee chairs Senator Collins (ME) and
Representative King (NY), and did not include input from other
lawmakers. The final deal closely mirrored provisions the chemical
industry promoted last week.
The
final provisions authorize the Department of Homeland Security to
regulate only the chemical plants it determines present a “high risk,”
while exempting all other plants from any security regulations.
Regulated facilities must develop and submit security plans, but the
Department is explicitly prohibited from requiring any specific
security measures, leaving security improvement decisions in the hands
of the chemical industry. It is also unclear whether the provisions
will displace more complete state security laws.
“Without
the authority to impose specific security requirements, the Department
is left with a rubber stamp program to legitimize the industry’s
security status quo,” said Fidis. “It’s pathetic that in five years the
best thing Congress can come up with is a rubber stamp program. What
happened today is not national security, but Congressional capitulation
to the interests of a powerful chemical industry.”
The
security provisions added to the funding bill displaced comprehensive
chemical security legislation that received bipartisan support and
unanimous approval in the House Homeland Security Committee. With the
funding provisions in place there is less incentive to develop a
meaningful and comprehensive chemical security program.
