TOXICS CLEANUP—Some chemical facilities have taken steps to replace dangerous chemicals with safer ones, but Congress has not yet required them to do so.

It’s taken nearly six long years, but we’re getting close to winning critical protections against chemical spills and explosions by overcoming the chemical industry’s power and influence.

Even as recent medical evidence raised new concerns about the links between toxic chemical exposures and health effects ranging from breast cancer to learning disabilities among kids, the industry beat back our calls for safer, healthier alternatives.

Even as chemical spills and explosions wreaked havoc upon the lives of thousands of people in nearly all 50 states, the industry fended off our calls to update safety standards.

And, most incredibly, after 9/11 added an entirely new dimension to the toxic threats faced by the American people, the chemical industry still was able to cynically thwart our calls for sensible action on security.

Thanks in part to members, scientists, advocates and congressional champions, we have a critical opportunity to loosen the chemical lobby’s stranglehold on Washington, D.C., and pull off an important victory. With new leadership in Congress, we have a realistic chance to win changes that will make an enormous difference across the country.

Our best hope for progress is a bill that would improve safety and security at the nation’s 14,000 chemical facilities—a bill will likely come up for a vote in fall.

Strong Opposition
The chemical industry knows as well as we do about the growing body of evidence linking toxic chemicals to a wide range of health effects.

In recent years, medical research has linked lead and mercury to developmental delays in children, dioxins to reproductive disorders in women, furans and phenols to hormonal disruptions in both men and women, and 216 chemicals to breast cancer.

Other studies have raised questions about the link between toxic chemicals and the rise in autism, and between pesticides and the early onset of puberty.

Instead of this research serving as a wake-up call to the industry, our research found some chemical companies skirting basic environmental health laws, other firms refusing to adopt safer, healthier alternatives, and the entire industry contributing to a nationwide effort to stifle congressional debate and thwart new reforms.

The good news is that after taking a closer look at 14,000 American chemical plants, manufacturers, utilities and other facilities that store and use extremely hazardous substances, we found some facilities have reduced the danger by switching to less toxic chemicals and processes or moving to safer locations—steps that have left at least 38 million people safer as a result.

But more facilities are not making the same switch when many safer alternatives exist. The problem is that the chemical lobby has fiercely and vocally opposed any attempt in Congress to move in this direction.

In fact, the chemical lobby used the pretext of 9/11 to convince the Bush administration to curtail the public’s right to know about toxic chemical releases. The lobby also spoke out in favor of a voluntary compliance code administered by the industry’s own trade association—the American Chemistry Council.

Two Close Calls
You might remember the Chemical Manufacturers of America (CMA) from the Bill Moyers exposé called “Trade Secrets.” CMA changed its name to the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and today they lobby on behalf of over 200 chemical companies. Even with all their money and inside connections, we still came close to overcoming their opposition and winning strong reforms in the last few years.

After Sept. 11, the idea of securing our nation’s chemical facilities while making our communities safer struck a chord with many members of Congress, including then-Senator Jon Corzine (N.J.). We worked with Sen. Corzine to move a bill that addressed the problem.

Our thinking was that more locks, gates and walls don’t really eliminate the source of the toxic chemical danger. Only by making a chemical facility less toxic can we truly remove the danger and make communities inherently safer in the event of an attack or accident.

Sen. Corzine introduced the bill in 2002. It won unanimous approval in the Senate and Environmental Public Works Committee. The vote took the chemical lobby by surprise, but they quickly went to work to turn things around.

They found a champion for their cause in Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), who prevented an up or down vote in the Senate. (This, despite the fact that Sen. Inhofe had earlier voted for the bill in committee.) The ACC nearly doubled its spending on lobbying the next year, when it spent $6 million.

Then in 2006, the House of Representatives again came close to voting on a bipartisan bill that would tighten up security at plants by promoting a switch to safer alternatives where feasible. And again, the chemical lobby shut the process down. This time, the chemical industry colluded with their allies to shut other representatives out of a closed-door, last-minute negotiation that replaced strong and protective legislation with weak, temporary regulations that will expire in 2009. All this happened after the strong bipartisan legislation had already been approved by the House Homeland Security Committee.

New Opportunity
As you can tell, it’s been a difficult six years for those of us concerned about toxic threats and our health. Why could this year be different?

When Democrats took control of Congress in January, they moved a few key allies of the chemical industry—including Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), who used to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee—out of leadership positions.

The new chemical plant safety and security bill is modeled on one we helped introduce and pass in the House Homeland Security Committee last year. This bill received strong support on Capitol Hill, with backing from Reps. Ed Markey (Mass.), Bennie Thompson (Miss.) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (Texas), among others.

This bill was also broadly supported by the United Steel Workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Communications Workers of America, the United Autoworkers and the Center for American Progress. Finally, we’ve gained support from key congressional leaders that will help to move the bill through Congress.

In the next months, representatives in Congress will be hearing from the same chemical industry lobbyists who have stopped progress before. I’d like to see us—and the American people—win one for a change.

To push past the chemical lobby’s power and influence we’ll need to see a groundswell of support. It’s taken us six long years to get this close. With your help, we can win an important victory.