Californians Shape Up as Force on Environmental Policy

The California ban on phthalates inspired Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to successfully push for a federal prohibition, which takes effect in February. It is a rarity -- the first time Congress has banned a chemical in decades -- and it faced stiff and well-financed opposition from Exxon Mobil, which makes one of the banned chemicals.

Even though Feinstein was not on the conference committee that resolved differences between House and Senate versions of the legislation, she worked behind the scenes to make sure the phthalates ban stayed in the final version, said Janet Nudelman of the Breast Cancer Fund, which pushed the bill.

"She made it clear that phthalates wasn't 'trade bait' between negotiators," Nudelman said. "The phthalates ban was an example of Feinstein, Boxer and Waxman literally reaching across houses to strategize and secure passage of a very controversial piece of legislation that no one thought had a chance of passing."

Boxer said the public should not expect a flood of new legislation modeled on California statutes, but rather a renewed effort to enforce existing consumer protection and workplace safety rules and environmental laws.

"It's not a question of passing new landmark laws," Boxer said. "It's a matter of getting these agencies back in gear. We have great tools, but they have not been functioning. For the past eight years, they've been sitting idle. The Californians coming, they don't have to rewrite the laws. They just have to enforce them. It's like the EPA has been asleep for eight years. The Californians are coming to wake the sleeping beauty."

Still, there will be revisions to existing laws and some new bills. Environmentalists and industry expect Waxman, Boxer, Pelosi, Sutley and the others to take on the oil and gas companies.

Barbara Sinclair, a political scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the Californians are pragmatic and mindful of overreaching. "All these folks really want to make policy change," she said. "On the other hand, they very, very much want to stay in power." The most ambitious effort is likely to be a cap-and-trade bill that will sell emissions permits to industry with the aim of reducing carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Boxer introduced a version that died after debate in June. She intends to introduce a revised version in the new Congress, probably in concert with Waxman, who had written his own climate-change bill in the last session.

Waxman and Boxer joined Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in sponsoring the Kids Safe Chemicals Act in the last Congress and plan to reintroduce it in the new year. The legislation seeks to reform chemical policy to require industry to prove chemicals are safe before they are used in commerce. Currently, the government must prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can be pulled from the market. The Lautenberg bill would put the burden on industry to prove a chemical's safety. The bill is modeled after a law in Europe but follows the same approach as a "green chemistry" law passed by California earlier this year.

Roger Martella, a former EPA general counsel who is an attorney for many corporations affected by environmental regulation, calls Waxman, Pelosi and Boxer a "trifecta" that could craft significant new government action.

"Whether at the end of the day every policy that California has gets implemented on a national level is a matter for debate," Martella said. "At the same time, we'd be foolish to ignore those stars are lining up."