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
2009 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2009 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2009 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2009 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2009 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2009 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2009 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2009 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2009 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2009 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2009 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2009 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2009 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2009 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2009 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2009 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2009 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2009 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2009 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2009 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2009 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2009 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2009 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2009 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2009 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2009 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2009 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2009 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2009 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2009 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2009 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2009 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2009 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2009 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2009 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2009 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2009 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2009 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2009 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2009 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2009 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2009 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2009 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2009 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2009 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2009 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2009 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2009 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2009 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2009 State Scorecard Average

3%