Senator seeks to take chemical security bill fight to the floor

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, urged colleagues Tuesday to proceed with Senate floor action on a chemical security bill, saying differences should be debated on the Senate floor.

The bill, which her committee approved unanimously in June, has been bogged down over objections from more than a dozen senators. It would give the Homeland Security Department the authority, for the first time, to regulate and establish security standards for facilities that produce, use or store chemical substances, and penalize facilities that do not comply.

"The time to move forward with my chemical security legislation is now," Collins said in a letter to Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, a member of Collins' panel. Collins' letter was in response to one Voinovich and 13 other senators, including Democrats, sent Collins last month asking that several issues be resolved before the bill came to the floor.

The July 13 letter calls for the bill to include provisions that would pre-empt states from passing stronger chemical security regulations than federal law; ensure protection of sensitive information; not disrupt the Coast Guard's regulatory regime of chemical facilities at seaports, and prohibit Homeland Security from mandating "inherently safer technology" at facilities, which include alternative chemicals, manufacturing processes and even video cameras for physical security.

The issues identified in the letter are similar to those made by industry groups, such as the American Chemistry Council. Environmental and public health groups, however, argue that states should be able to pass stronger laws than federal regulations and the government should encourage -- and possibly require -- chemical sites to use safer technologies and materials.

Collins noted that all the provisions cited in the letter were addressed by amendments offered by Voinovich during a markup of the bill in June.

For example, a Voinovich amendment to pre-empt stronger state regulations was rejected by the committee. "I understand that you continue to have concerns about pre-emption, and obviously you would be able to submit this issue to the full Senate when [the bill] comes to the floor," Collins said.

On information protection, Collins noted that her staff worked with Voinovich's staff to reach an agreement that exempts sensitive information from public disclosure.

On current security regulations, Collins said she is "open to further discussions" regarding the Coast Guard's regulatory regime compared to what the bill would require. And Collins said an amendment by Voinovich was approved during markup that would prohibit the Homeland Security Department from rejecting a chemical site's security plan based on whether or not it contained the use of "inherently safer technology."

Like Voinovich, Collins opposes adding any IST requirements to the bill.

"Not only is there no mandatory IST in the bill, but also, the language of your amendment ensures that the secretary of DHS cannot impose particular safer technologies upon a chemical facility," Collins wrote. "I frankly do not see what more is needed."