Advocates of stronger state chemical security laws plot next move

Lawmakers who support giving states the power to pass and enforce chemical security laws that are stricter than federal regulations might have lost one battle last week, but are now considering the fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill for the next step in their campaign.

A provision that would give states the authority to go beyond federal chemical security laws was originally inserted into the supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the provision, which was strongly opposed by the chemical industry, was removed from the final version of the bill before it was sent to President Bush and signed into law last week.

That has shifted attention to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, according to aides. "It's an obvious vehicle," said an aide to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who has been one of the staunchest advocates for the provision. The aide said Lautenberg remains committed to getting the provision through Congress.

"He's going to push it so that it becomes law," the aide said. "It's not a question of if but when. It will be there, it's just a matter of what the vehicle is."

Democrats on the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee have already inserted such a provision into their version of the fiscal 2008 Homeland Security spending bill. Republicans have vowed to oppose it, though, as the bill moves through a full committee markup in June and goes to the House floor.

It is not yet clear how much support there will be for attaching a similar provision to the Senate's version of the Homeland Security spending bill, which has yet to be marked up.

Supporters say the provision is needed to override new regulations from the Homeland Security Department. Those regulations, set to take effect in June, say state governments cannot pass laws that conflict with or frustrate federal rules when it comes to regulating security at facilities that make, store or process chemicals.

The chemical industry has heavily opposed any legislative attempt to give states the power to pass stronger regulations. Indeed, one of the top goals during a major gathering of the National Association of Chemical Distributors this month was to lobby lawmakers on the issue.

"NACD is pleased that Congress dropped the chemical security provisions from" the emergency supplemental bill, NACD President Christopher Jahn said in a statement. "This is a victory not only for the chemical industry, but for the entire nation. The new Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards are scheduled to take effect in less than two weeks."

He added: "For the first time since the 9/11 terrorist attacks almost six years ago, high-risk chemical facilities throughout the nation will be required by law to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement site security plans. Congress needs to give the new regulations a chance to work before changing the rules."

But Lautenberg's aide noted that governors support legislation that would give their states the power to pass laws that go beyond the federal regulations. The National Governors Association recently sent top House and Senate appropriators a letter in support of such legislation.

"As governors, it is our duty to protect the citizens of our states," NGA wrote. "State and local governments have primary responsibility for zoning [and] housing chemical facilities, and regulating their operations. It is critical that states retain their authority to supplement the federal chemical security program with additional security protections deemed necessary by the state."