The effort to establish stronger chemical security measures suffered a significant setback the week of May 21 with the loss of a provision from the Iraq supplemental spending bill that would have prohibited the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from preempting state law on matters of chemical security. In order to galvanize support for comprehensive chemical security reform, a group of public interest and environmental organizations wrote to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection. The letter encouraged the members to continue their work on ensuring strong chemical security protections.

In April 2007, DHS finalized chemical security regulations, which included assertions of authority to preempt state chemical security programs. OMB Watch commented on the shortcomings of the regulations. Preemption by DHS may block stronger state chemical security programs, thereby nullifying state programs like New Jersey's that require companies to consider or implement safer technologies and procedures.

Receiving bipartisan support, measures were passed in the House and Senate that would have prevented DHS from nullifying stronger state chemical security programs. Normally, matching provisions in House and Senate legislation all but guarantee the inclusion of the provision in the final legislation reported out of conference. But in this case, during negotiations between the White House and conference committee members, the provision was removed from the final version of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act (H.R. 2206). The New York Times reported that, in addition to the White House, the National Association of Manufacturers encouraged members of the conference committee to remove the provision.

Following that action, a coalition of environmental and public interest organizations encouraged the House Homeland Security Committee to move forward on comprehensive chemical security legislation. In a letter sent May 24 to Thompson and Jackson-Lee, OMB Watch, US PIRG, Greenpeace, National Environmental Trust, United Steelworkers and other unions urged the members "to reintroduce comprehensive chemical security legislation at the earliest possible date."

The groups advocated for the reintroduction of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 (H.R. 5695), as reported out of committee last year, with important modifications on matters of state preemption, safer procedures and technologies, and accountability. Given the already full congressional schedule, the earliest Congress, which is currently in recess, might be able to begin discussions on new chemical security legislation would be several weeks from now.