PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S297-299)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 14, 2003
Chemical Security Act of 2003 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to: (1) designate certain combinations of chemical sources and substances of concern as high priority categories based on the severity of the threat posed by an unauthorized release from chemical sources; and (2) require each owner and operator of a high priority category chemical source to conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the source to a terrorist attack or other unauthorized release, identify hazards that may result from such release, and prepare a prevention, preparedness, and response plan.Sets forth: (1) certification requirements regarding assessments, and completion and review of response plans, by owners and operators of high priority chemical sources; and (2) protocols for protecting information disclosed in such certifications.Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) certification by the Administrator of source assessment and plan compliance with requirements; (2) compliance assistance; and (3) compliance orders.Provides that if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that: (1) a threat of a terrorist attack exists that is beyond the scope of a submitted plan, or that plan implementation is insufficient, the Secretary shall notify each source of the elevated threat; and (2) a source has not taken appropriate action in response to the notification, the Secretary shall notify the source, the Administrator, and the Attorney General. Authorizes the Administrator or the Attorney General to then secure such relief as necessary to abate a threat.Sets forth: (1) source record-keeping requirements; (2) entry and access rights of the Administrator; and (3) civil, criminal, and administrative penalties for violations of this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Corzine, Jon S. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S297-299)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S295-297)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.157 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.157 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.157 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.157 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.