Chemical Security

House Roll Call Vote 875

2009 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

230

Votes Against

193

Not Voting

11

After the September 11th attacks, chemical plants were recognized as one of the sectors most vulnerable to terrorism. According to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, an attack on a chemical facility in a major U.S. city could result in 100,000 casualties. According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, 110 million Americans live in vulnerability zones surrounding 300 chemical facilities.

Since 2001, more than 200 facilities switched to safer chemical processes, eliminating themselves as targets and reducing the risk posed to millions of Americans. Yet more than 6,000 chemical facilities have been designated as “high risk” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2006 Congress enacted a temporary law championed by the chemical lobby barring the DHS from requiring the use of safer chemical processes and exempting thousands of water treatment plants and port facilities. That law is set to expire on October 4, 2010.

In 2009, Representatives Thompson (D-MS), Waxman (D-CA), and Oberstar (D-MN) co-authored a compromise bill, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868). H.R. 2868 authorizes the DHS and the EPA to set comprehensive security standards for all chemical facilities, requiring each plant to evaluate safer available processes and highest risk plants to use safer processes, if they are feasible and cost-effective.

On November 6, the House passed H.R. 2868 by a vote of 230-193 (House roll call vote 875). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate did not act on companion legislation in 2009.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%