These days, legislation rarely makes it through Congress without support from interest groups on both sides of the issue, forcing lawmakers to draft bills that are largely balanced. Now, however, the American people are being pushed by big polluters to accept “chemical safety” legislation advanced by one of Washington’s most ardent anti-environmental advocates, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that has virtually zero support in the environmental and public health communities.
The bill is the industry-backed Chemical Safety Improvement Act, which would take the worst of all major federal environmental laws, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and make it even worse, according to months of meticulous analysis by dozens of public interest groups, legal scholars and state environment and law enforcement officials.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Vitter’s environmental voting record in Congress has a lifetime score of only 4 percent from the League of Conservation Voters.
Vitter’s record on environmental issues squares well with the wishes of the companies and industries that have largely bankrolled his campaigns. Since 2009, the petrochemical industry has been his largest benefactor, delivering nearly $600,000 to his campaign coffers, while the chemical industry and its downstream users have contributed roughly $340,000 over the same period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Vitter has a unique history when it comes to protecting toxic chemicals over public health, having almost single-handedly blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s more-than-two-decade effort to regulate the use formaldehyde, one of the most studied and highly carcinogenic chemicals in commerce today.
The National Toxicology Program classifies formaldehyde as a “known human carcinogen.” And a 30-year investigation by the National Cancer Institute that tracked the cancer deaths among a group of nearly 26,000 people who were exposed to formaldehyde in the workplace found that those exposed to elevated levels of the chemical had a 78 percent greater chance of being diagnosed with leukemia and a 37 percent increased risk of dying from lymphatic and blood cancers, compared with workers who had not been exposed.
Despite this evidence and much more documenting the real dangers of exposure, Vitter has been successful in his push for further study in an effort to delay the EPA’s attempt to regulate the cancer-causing chemical.
The senator is now the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees the EPA and its efforts to regulate toxic chemicals and improve the quality of our air, water and land, among other issues.
I’m sure that Vitter’s patrons in the petroleum and chemical sectors, for whom the EPA is a persistent thorn in the side, could hardly be more thrilled with his ascension. And to have the man who delivered for them on formaldehyde leading the charge to water down efforts to reform and strengthen the broken chemical regulation law must be a nice bonus.
Most recently, Vitter held up for weeks the nomination of Gina McCarthy to be the head of the EPA, calling further into question his commitment to an EPA that has the resources and congressional support to do its job.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., speaks with reporters following a vote in the Senate. Gillibrand’s proposal to remove military commanders from the process of reviewing sexual-assault cases was left out of the bicameral deal on the defense authorization bill, but the senator is pushing for a vote on her plan soon.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.