Mr. Corzine's Chemical Attack

Question: What does chlorine have to do with terrorism?

Answer: Nothing much, but that isn't stopping New Jersey Democrat and world-class nuisance Jon Corzine from trying to ban it under the guise of homeland security.

The Senate is about to face off over how to secure the nation's chemical facilities from terrorism. On one side is Republican James Inhofe, who soon will introduce a bill to subject sites to oversight by the Department of Homeland Security. On the other is Mr. Corzine, who is using terror fears to sneak through an environmental agenda that has nothing to do with safety.

The U.S. has at least 15,000 chemical plants, refineries or other sites that use or store significant amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals, but no one has fully assessed their security. Mr. Inhofe's bill would require precisely that, giving Homeland Security the power to set standards and then fine (up to $50,000 a day) any site that doesn't comply. Industry has already taken some of these steps, and the American Chemistry Council sees the Inhofe bill as a good start.

In contrast, Senator Corzine's bill is about getting rid of chemicals, period. He'd give half of the responsibilities for coming up with new security regulations to the highly trained, highly motivated anti-al Qaeda special forces at . . . the Environmental Protection Agency. (The other half, and enforcement duties, would go to Homeland Security.)

Mr. Corzine would then require facilities with chemicals to use "inherently safer technologies." In practice, this means the federal government could require sites to replace chemicals it doesn't like with ones it does -- no matter how much more expensive, or less effective. Environmental groups have been trying to outlaw certain chemicals for decades, but they haven't been able to win a majority in Congress because of the cost and potential damage to human health.

It's no accident, therefore, that Greenpeace hailed as a "breakthrough" the original Corzine bill that died last year. That's the outfit that once had as its slogan, "Chlorine Free by '93." Because chlorine can be deadly when inhaled at high concentrations, the Corzine proposal would let the feds demand that facilities manufacture or store or use a "safer" product.

But as any first-year chemistry student knows, you can't just willy-nilly substitute compounds. Chlorine continues to be the most effective chemical for things like water purification, saving millions of lives every year from cholera or dysentery. Today, 85% of all medicines either contain chlorine or use it in the manufacturing process -- and often there is no substitute. Perhaps Mr. Corzine has an "inherently safer" way of treating anthrax than Cipro?

Even when there is a substitute, the cost would be prohibitive. The millions of dollars that small communities would be forced to spend on a chlorine substitute for water purification is money they couldn't use on new fire engines or other first-response equipment. Mr. Corzine's bill would also target anhydrous ammonia, which is integral to fertilizer. If the Senator had his way and it were banned, food costs would rise.

Nowadays the first refuge of political scoundrels is "homeland security." While Congress can no doubt help shore up our defenses, Members can also help by taking a deep breath and sorting the useful proposals from such political Trojan Horses as Mr. Corzine's chemical attack.

Updated May 2, 2003