Senators vow tougher chemical security
New measure is needed to clarify that states can surpass federal standards, and require safer technologies and processes, Democrats say.
Two Senate Democrats vowed Wednesday to keep the need for stronger chemical security regulations in the public spotlight, but conceded they will not be able to change compromise legislation that conferees added Monday to the fiscal 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
The spending bill includes a provision that gives the Homeland Security Department authority, for the first time, to regulate chemical facilities that "present high levels of security risk."
Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., who co-wrote a chemical security bill earlier this year, said during a news conference that they will fight during the next session of Congress to pass a stronger regulatory measure. They acknowledged they face an uphill battle.
"We are certainly going to see if there is some way that we can get this back to the attention of the leadership and the attention of the Republican Party," Lautenberg said. "Our options are limited."
They acknowledged, however, that the provision agreed to by House and Senate negotiators Monday eventually will become law because it was attached to a must-pass fiscal 2007 appropriations bill to fund Homeland Security Department operations.
"I guarantee you that if the public understands the potential hazards involved that they will respond rapidly [and] the Congress will be responsible," Obama said. "We want to raise awareness and my anticipation is that when we come back after the election we'll be able to revisit this."
The two said that new legislation should require chemical facilities to use safer technologies and processes, and should make clear that states can pass stronger laws than federal standards.
Republican leaders contend that the compromise chemical security provision in the spending bill is a good step in the right direction.
"The fact is, this is the best proposal we could get and it is, in my opinion, significantly better than nothing," said Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.