WASHINGTON -- So how, did Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., come together this week with a bipartisan chemical regulatory bill that surprised many in industry and environmental groups? Just three weeks ago, Lautenberg had introduced his bill, and Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was working on his own proposal...
WASHINGTON -- So how, did Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., come together this week with a bipartisan chemical regulatory bill that surprised many in industry and environmental groups?
Just three weeks ago, Lautenberg had introduced his bill, and Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was working on his own proposal with other Republicans and some moderate Democrats.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.A Lautenberg aide said that when Vitter's aides approached them with key details of the Louisiana senator's bill, they found the measure a lot closer to their own legislative goals than they anticipated. Lautenberg quickly gave the OK to proceed with negotiations.
"I've told people that if we're talking about a football field, we were on our own 35-yard line and they were on their own 35-yard line," the aide said. "We had to get down to the 50-yard and line we were able to do it."
Vitter aides said the Republican senator had instructed them to develop a bill that strengthened regulations in a transparent way while encouraging innovation and growth of a chemical industry critical to Louisiana's economy.
Lautenberg and Vitter both had good reasons to compromise.
Lautenberg, 89, the oldest member of the Senate, had been working unsuccessfully to reform the federal regulation of chemicals since 2005. Other lawmakers had been trying even longer -- since 1988.
Time was of the essence for Lautenberg, who announced he would not seek re-election in 2014. If he wanted to enact a chemical legislation, he'd have to act quickly and would probably need the help of Vitter, the top Republican on the committee with jurisdiction over environmental regulations.
In this case, both Lautenberg and Vitter benefit from the consensus among both environmentalist and industry advocacy groups that the current regulatory system is broken. Most chemicals are off-limits to federal environmental regulators, yet industry can't get new chemicals and chemical processes approved.
In the end, as is the case with most compromises, both sides got some, though not all, of what they wanted.
The proposed legislation creates a clear path for getting new chemicals on the market, while protecting trade secrets and intellectual property. It also allows for regulation of chemicals that are now off-limits to regulators -- mainly those introduced before 1976 when the Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted.
Under the compromise, all active chemicals in commerce must be evaluated for safety and labeled as either "high" or "low" priority based on the potential risk to human health and the environment. It imposes tighter scrutiny for the higher-risk chemicals.
It mandates that the regulatory process be done with transparency, something Vitter said is missing from many current Environmental Protection Agency regulatory systems.
According to Senate aides, the impetus for a deal began several weeks ago when Vitter approached Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.VA., about supporting his proposal. Manchin suggested Vitter make an effort to work out a compromise with Lautenberg.
Talks between Vitter and Lautenberg staffers followed. It wasn't the first time they had talked. Last year, the two sides tried to reach a deal, but fell short. Lautenberg moved his own bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but it never made it to the Senate floor.
Progress came fairly quickly during the recent round of talks. Vitter met Lautenberg in his office earlier this week and finalized the deal. Details were announced on Wednesday.
"This bipartisan agreement is an historic step toward meaningful reform that protects American families and consumers," Lautenberg said. "Every parent wants to know that the chemicals used in everyday products have been proven safe, but our current chemical laws fail to give parents that peace of mind."
Vitter also hailed the rare bipartisan agreement: "Chemical manufacturing is a big part of Louisiana's economy and across the country, and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act establishes a program that should provide confidence to the public and consumers, by giving the EPA the tools it needs to make critical determinations while providing a more transparent process," Vitter said.
The compromise won compliments from both industry and environmental advocates, though not all.
Some environmental groups complained that Lautenberg had dropped a provision from his bill for more scrutiny of so-called hot spots: communities near chemical facilities with higher incidences of cancer. Environmental justice groups have long complained of health problems in Louisiana's chemical corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, but industry groups have disputed those contentions.
Andy Igrejas, executive director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, offered mixed reviews for the Lautenberg/Vitter compromise. "On the one hand, the bill gives EPA new tools to protect the public from toxic chemicals," Igrejas said. "It also gives state governments, who have made important gains in public health protections, a continued role in chemical regulation. On the other hand the bill omits many of the deadlines in the Lautenberg/Kirsten Gillibrand legislation, its special focus on heavily impacted communities, and other important provisions."