Where Are Presidential Candidates & Congress on Chemical Security Legislation?

Obama, McCain, and Other Contenders

The Issue: Chemical Security

Across the country, chemical plants produce lethal poison gas chemicals that have the potential to inflict massive casualties through accidents, during transport, or by terrorist attack. Safe alternatives do exist, so we wanted to know where the candidates and their potential running mates stand on this key issue.

The Results:

The results are in from former presidential candidates Senator John Edwards (D-NC), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and current democratic frontrunner Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).  [Click on their names to read individual responses.]  We’re pleased that all three of them support chemical security legislation that would require the use of safer technologies to reduce or eliminate catastrophic risks.

Unfortunately, John McCain and the other Republican candidates refused to respond to our questionnaire.  Instead we looked up his response to another questionnaire, that asked a similar question. Here’s what we’ve found:

McCain said that implementing life-saving regulations around chemical plants would lead to excessive red tape and paperwork. In fact, here’s an excerpt from what Senator McCain told the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) in their 2007 questionnaire,

“A government controlled chemical substitution program or approaches such as requiring the thousands of facilities across the country that use or store chemicals to prove to the government that safer materials don’t exist could become exercises in excessive bureaucracy and paperwork...”  For his complete answer go to: http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/McCain/tab1.html 

So we wrote Senator McCain a letter and reminded him that “excessive bureaucracy and paperwork” is an over used excuse by special interests who want to avoid any new regulations. In this case, the use of safer technologies would actually reduce a chemical plant’s regulatory obligations. But even if more paperwork were required, it’s a small price to pay to eliminate catastrophic risks to millions of Americans.

We reminded him that time is now running out in this Congress thanks in part to a $12 million dollar lobby campaign led by chemical manufacturers to thwart any legislation in 2007. We also pointed out to Senator McCain that one of his lead campaign staffers, John Green, was officially registered to lobby against strong chemical security this legislation in 2007. Green and four others in his firm, Ogilvy Government Relations, represented the American Chemistry Council, the trade association of Dow, Dupont and other major chemical manufacturers. Our full report on this lobby to stall chemical security legislation in 2007 is at: http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/

The Issue: Our Oceans

Our world’s oceans face a number of threats, from overfishing to pollution, to the illegal hunt of some of its most majestic creatures: whales.

The Results:

Senator Barack Obama is on the record as saying that his administration will play a leading role in whale conservation. Greenpeace welcomes his commitment on behalf of the whales.

In Senator Obama’s response to Greenpeace’s questionnaire about ocean management issues and protecting the marine environment he went on to say “sound science – not ideology or profits – will guide federal environmental policy,” a position long endorsed by Greenpeace.

Like Senator Obama, Senator McCain is also on the record as saying that his administration would take a leading role in whale conservation. Again, we welcome his commitment on behalf of the whales.

Senator McCain responded to a LCV questionnaire with a strong statement about the need to protect coral reefs, while also mentioning that he would take “stakeholder needs” into the decisions about ocean policies. Deferring to “stakeholder needs” is one reason so many of our fisheries have been overfished and are in need of rebuilding from their current depleted status back to healthy population levels. Senator McCain did say he would defend the rights of states like California and Florida to determine whether or not oil and gas drilling should be allowed off their coasts.

The Issue: Nuclear power

Nuclear power undermines our national security and the security of the planet. And, if a meltdown were to occur the accident could kill and injure tens of thousands of people, leaving large regions uninhabitable. After the events of September 11th, the risk of a nuclear reactor meltdown must encompass not only the potential for an accident but also the very real possibility of sabotage.

The Results:

Senator McCain talks of supporting nuclear power. He is quoted as saying, “Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.”

When it comes to storing nuclear waste, McCain is on the record for supporting the use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation’s high level nuclear waste dump. Since then he has reiterated his support for sending nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.
 
He has said that, “I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all the processes it needs to go through.” “But I also support reprocessing. A little straight talk, we have to do both.”

However, perhaps now that Nevada is a potential swing state in November, Senator McCain has also stated that he would seek to dump nuclear waste at some unknown “international” site. We hope Senator McCain will rethink his stance on nuclear waste and expanding nuclear plants in the United States.

Senator Obama responded to our questionnaire by saying that he does not support storing nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain. His response went on to say that, “Despite the fact that our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, it is not clear that nuclear waste can be safely stored there. I believe we should redirect spending to alternatives, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country. At the same time, we should continue looking for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis.”

Congress and Chemical Security

The good news is that the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008” (H.R. 5577) was adopted in a bi-partisan vote in the House Homeland Security Committee on March 6th. This bill makes sure the high-risk plants meet the highest security standards, including the implementation of widely available safer chemicals or processes. Such a program could virtually eliminate the consequences of a terrorist attack or accident at a chemical plant in big cities and about 100 chemical plants each put a million or more people at risk.

Why shouldn’t Congress pass a bill that Greenpeace, the United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, Communication Workers of America, United Food & Commercial Workers, Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Center for American Progress, Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Nurses Association and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) all support?

In February the AAR said it very well, “It’s time for the big chemical companies to do their part to help protect America. They should stop manufacturing dangerous chemicals when safer substitutes are available.  And if they won’t do it, Congress should do it for them in the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.”

While the Senate is far behind the House in moving legislation the House still needs to get H.R. 5577 to the House floor and it is currently stuck in the Energy and Commerce Committee.  That means that all members of Congress need to hear from you. We also wrote to Representative Gene Green (D-TX) the new chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee urging speedy action in the House.