Senate bill includes disputed security provision

Senate Democrats inserted language Thursday into the emergency supplemental spending bill that would give states the power to enforce chemical security laws that are stronger than federal regulations, despite stiff opposition from the chemical industry.

As the Senate Appropriations Committee began marking up the bill this afternoon, the chairman's mark included chemical security language from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., which aides said had the backing of Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

Democrats argued for including the language because the Homeland Security Department has proposed federal regulations that would pre-empt states from passing and enforcing stronger regulations. The department is expected to issue final regulations next month.

"If this Congress is serious about stronger homeland security, this is the moment that counts. The security of our chemical facilities is simply too important to ignore," Lautenberg said. "Our language clearly supports strengthening our chemical security laws and protecting state's rights. Those in opposition are instead supporting the Bush administration's push to undermine these laws and to leave our country at risk of a chemical attack."

Lautenberg's state has some of the strongest chemical security regulations in the country.

The chemical industry was conducting a furious late-hour campaign on Capitol Hill to kill Lautenberg's version.

"We are asking the committee to strike Lautenberg's language," said Scott Jensen, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council. "DHS is just a couple of weeks away from delivering [final regulations]. This will just open up debate again and put us back into the rule-making process, and the nation will continue to not have federal security regulations."

Public interest and environmental organizations, however, were lining up behind Lautenberg. They worry, for example, that Homeland Security's regulations will roll back New Jersey's laws.

"We're looking at an incredibly weak federal program under the current scenario that doesn't even come close to doing as much as the New Jersey program would do," said Andy Igrejas, environmental health campaign director for the National Environmental Trust. The Chemistry Council's Jensen disputed that New Jersey's laws would be rolled back.

Jensen said the chemistry industry was trying to identify a lawmaker to offer an amendment during Thursday's markup to strip out the language. It was not clear if Lautenberg and Byrd would have the votes to beat back any assault, as some Democrats appeared ready to break ranks.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., for example, would lean toward stripping the language, one of her aides said. Louisiana has a large chemical industry.

Supporters of the Lautenberg language, however, were gearing up for a fight. "We're firing on as many cylinders as we can fire on," one aide said. "The gas tank is full of fuel, all cylinders are firing. There's a reasonable chance that we can get this through."

Lautenberg's language essentially mirrors that which was passed by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year. According to the language, the only way a state's laws could be pre-empted is if they come into conflict with federal regulations.

The House emergency supplemental spending bill contains chemical security language that would go further than Lautenberg's language. The House bill does not include the caveat dealing with a conflict between state and federal laws. It would also allow citizens to sue chemical facilities or the Homeland Security Department, a right the department's proposed regulations would deny, and allow the department to require the use of specific security measures when necessary.