"Markey battles bipartisan coalition on toxic chemical regulation" by Sylvan Lane, Globe Correspondent March 21, 2015
WASHINGTON — A Senate bill with bipartisan support might be Congress’ best shot at toxic chemical safety reform in decades. But Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, an environmental champion, opposes it, claiming it is too weak.
The bill in Markey’s crosshairs was introduced last week by Senators David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, and Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico. Its 19 cosponsors call it an essential fix to a system both parties want to repair, but Markey does not think it does enough.
Markey, too, wants to reform federal chemical regulation, but thinks the bill might be worse than the current system.
The conflict over a bill supported by lawmakers in both parties helps illustrate why it is often hard to move legislation in the current Congress. Even environmental groups are divided over the legislation.
Related: Last Lame Duck Se$$ion
Tired of the flim-fram narrative yet?
*****************
Bipartisanship is rare enough in Congress, and the Senate environment committee is no exception. Inhofe is one of the most outspoken climate change skeptics in Congress, and the committee pits Republicans from fossil fuel-rich states against Democrats from environmentalist strongholds.
“Major environmental laws do not get passed without bipartisan support,” Inhofe said in a hearing on the bill, claiming that a partisan reform effort “will ensure nothing gets done with a broken federal system.”
Called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the bill is named after the late New Jersey senator who worked with Vitter on toxic chemical reform.
Lautenberg’s widow, Bonnie, echoed Inhofe in the hearing. She praised Vitter and Udall for focusing on a passable solution and criticized Markey and Boxer for “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
--more--"
