GovernmentExecutive.com

Lawmakers and lobbyists are gearing up for the second round of fighting over legislation that would allow states to enforce laws that are stricter than federal rules when it comes to regulating security at chemical facilities.

Language that would allow states to go beyond federal chemical security rules is now in the supplemental war-spending bill headed to President Bush's desk. The language would allow states to require chemical facilities to use alternative technologies, processes or chemicals.

Bush has vowed to veto the bill as early as Tuesday because it includes a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and lawmakers will have to rework the bill and face a decision over whether to include the chemical security language again, which the White House also opposes.

The American Chemistry Council is leading opposition to the language and plans to send House and Senate appropriators a letter Monday urging them to remove it.

"We consistently make the point with members of Congress that these unnecessary and unwise provisions inserted in the Iraq spending bill will weaken the federal government's ability to work with state governments and industry to protect the nation's chemical facilities and communities from a terrorist attack," ACC President Jack Gerard said in a statement. "When Congress revisits this legislation following an expected veto by the president, we urge Congress to remove these unnecessary provisions that will only interfere with the Department of Homeland Security's ability to successfully secure the nation's high-risk chemical facilities."

The Homeland Security Department issued new federal chemical security rules this month. Marty Durbin, the ACC's federal affairs director, said it is not yet clear what lawmakers will do with the language. He said the ACC has been talking with appropriations aides, who say they are waiting for leadership to make a decision. "Leadership hasn't told anybody exactly how they're going to do that," Durbin said.

But supporters of the chemical security language are also rallying to keep it in the reworked supplemental. "It will be in there," said a confident spokesman for Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who was primarily responsible for inserting the language in the supplemental.

Lautenberg fears the new federal rules could pre-empt his state from passing stricter chemical security laws in the future.

"It's still full steam ahead on the supplemental until the ink on a presidential veto is dry," another aide said. But privately, aides acknowledge the language might be stripped from the supplemental and are considering other options.

For example, the language might be inserted into another spending bill or pushed as stand-alone legislation, an aide said. The aide noted that Lautenberg and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., might reintroduce a bill they co-sponsored last year on chemical security.

The ACC's Durbin said the Homeland Security Department's regulations are only intended to prevent states from passing laws that conflict with federal rules. As an example, he said a state might pass a law requiring vulnerability assessments of chemical facilities to be posted on the Internet.

Such a move would violate the federal rules and be opposed by the chemical industry. The ACC says that its members have voluntarily spent more than $3.5 billion to improve security at nearly 2,000 facilities nationwide since 2001.

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.