The chemical security problem is as urgent as it is obvious. Chemical plants are potentially static weapons of mass destruction: large volumes of ammonia, chlorine, highly flammables like propane, large repositories of chlorinated organic solvents and chemical feedstocks like phosgene and more.
The today, I saw an article about the resistance the Administration has to strengthening the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It is not only depressing, but irritating. (HT: Truthout)
Strengthening of Consumer Agency Opposed by Its Boss
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 30, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The top official for consumer product safety has asked Congress in recent days to reject legislation that would strengthen the agency that polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to tools.
On the eve of an important Senate committee meeting to consider the legislation, Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has asked lawmakers in two letters not to approve the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency's authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.
The article points out that the director, Nancy A. Nord, is opposing reforms that industry leaders are willing to go along with. Specifically, she does not want to see enhanced protection for whistleblowers, even though industry is willing to accept such improvements. Furthermore, she opposes a ban on lead in children's toy's. She does not think the Commission needs a larger budget.
The Senate is considering legislation (S. 2045), approved today by the Commerce Committee:
The Senate Commerce Committee is set to vote on Tuesday on the legislation, which is sponsored by Senator Daniel K. Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who heads the committee, and Senator Mark Pryor, the Arkansas Democrat who heads the consumer affairs subcommittee.
It would more than double the agency's budget, to $141 million, over the next seven years, raise staffing levels by about 20 percent, and give the commission broad new powers to police the marketplace. It would raise the cap on the maximum penalties, to $100 million, from $1.8 million.
Why is more funding needed? Well, consider the situation. The Commission has exactly one full-time employee devoted to testing the safety of toys. They have a total of 15 people to inspect consumer goods. Considering the sheer volume of consumer goods involved, the inspections process is only one notch better than nonexistent.
Now
for the real questions. How is "consumer safety" different
than "homeland security"? I'd say that consumer safety is a
subset of homeland security, just like chemical plant safety.
So why isn't Michael
Chertoff taking an active interest in these issues?
Why does the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) get two
trillion dollars for a war, while the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has to struggle to get an extra $141 million? The answer is that DHS is not really about homeland security. Is exists for a different goal; call it what it is: the Department of Profit Security. If you look at what they actually do, as opposed to what they say they do, you will realize that is what they are. They do not exist to protect the homeland; they exist to protect corporations.
Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)