Next month the House will consider a bill to overhaul how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals. That in itself is a milestone: Despite bipartisan support for the idea, the process has been long and tortured, complicated by millions in lobbying and campaign donations. And the fight may be far from over.

For more on chemical safety and regulation, check out our issue profile on the chemical industry.

Lawmakers on both sides wield environmental issues like climate change and pipeline construction as ideological axes. But environmental and health advocates and industry backers alike agree that the regulatory regime for chemical safety needs a rewrite — though what that should look like is a matter of dispute — and each successive news story involving toxics makes the need more urgent. Nearly 40 years after the original legislation in this area, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was passed, practically no chemicals have been banned or regulated, and chemical manufacturers are dealing with an array of state laws passed because so little action was occurring at the federal level. A new issue profile from the Center for Responsive Politics aims to lay out some of the background of this contentious battle.

The latest effort is the TSCA Modernization Act, which, among other things, would give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of new and existing chemicals and make it harder for states to set tougher standards. A similar provision passed the Senate earlier this year, and the bill flew out of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing with unanimous support earlier this month. It still faces a hearing with the full committee, which is expected early next month, followed by consideration by the full House, which supporters hope will happen by the end of June.

But the bill is far from done, as more amendments and reconciliation with the Senate’s version still lie ahead. And similar bills with promising bipartisan support have failed in each of the last several Congresses. There’s a wide array of interests involved, and the tremendous pressure the chemical industry can bring which can sway even stalwart opponents.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

One case in point may be the transformation that former Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M) underwent in his last years in Congress. Udall built his reputation as a fierce environmentalist, but surprised many when he took a leading role in pushing legislation similar to the TSCA Modernization Act last Congress — legislation that was strongly endorsed by the chemical industry itself. Coincidentally or not, Udall’s transformation into someone who could work with the industry came at a point in his career when the industry suddenly began donating to his campaign committee.

Between 1997 and 2013, Udall received just $3,000 from the chemical industry, according to OpenSecrets.org data, but in the last election cycle, he raised more than $49,000 from these companies.

The chemical industry is hardly monolithic, but it is gigantic, at least in Washington’s influence world. In 2014, the industry spent more than $64.7 million lobbying Washington and in the two-year 2014 election cycle spent more than $12 million on donations to campaigns, PACs and parties. The new OpenSecrets.org issue profile on the battle to reform TSCA includes more detailed information on the industry’s biggest players and a timeline of the ongoing effort to rewrite the toxic chemical rules.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜