Pick your poison.

• Author: Rogers, Heather

THE GOP CONGRESS IS WORKING ON A NEW TOXIC CHEMICAL BILL. SHOULD OBAMA SIGN IT, OR WAIT FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT TO GET A BETTER DEAL?

On January g, 2014, thousands of gallons of a chemical called crude methylcydohexane methanol, or MCHM, burst from a holding tank into the Elk River in West Virginia's Kanawha Valley. The substance, a solvent used in coal processing, quickly flooded the water treatment plant directly downstream. The spill infiltrated the drinking water of 300,000 people in the Charleston area. It was the largest chemical contamination of drinking water in U.S. history. First responders, including state public health officials and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had almost no information on MCHM's toxicity to humans. As medical and chemical experts scrambled for answers, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat, hastily banned the use of tap water for anything but putting out fires and flushing toilets.

The lack of scientific knowledge about MCHM might sound like a breach of chemical safety laws, but it was perfectly legal. In fact, the current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is so lax that it does not require human health assessments for chemicals currently in commerce in the United States, of which there are more than 80,000. Since the TSCA's passage in 1976 it has never been substantially updated. The law's provisions are so inadequate that asbestos, a known carcinogen, is still legal.

At last a TSCA reform bill is making headway in Congress. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, coauthored in the Senate by New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall and Louisiana Republican David Vitter, would require the Environmental Protection Agency to test and regulate every chemical in commerce. The agency has had the power to assess and control substances it considers hazardous, but review has never been obligatory, and establishing controls has been nearly impossible due to legal constraints within the TSCA. Since the law's enactment almost four decades ago, the EPA has reviewed only about 200 chemicals and restricted just five.

Environmental organizations and health advocates are pleased with the Senate bill for its expansion of EPA power, although they're sharply critical of other provisions. It's encouraging that Udall, who helped lead the fight against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is working to overhaul the TSCA. But it's unsettling how much he and his dozen or so Democratic cosponsors are willing to give away. The bill's favoritism to industry is apparent upon seeing which Republicans are on board. Along with its coauthor, Vitter, a longtime friend to petrochemical interests, over a dozen Republicans have signed on as cosponsors, including Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, who is ever loyal to the oil and gas industry and a self-proclaimed enemy of the EPA. Inhofe is also notorious for his belief that climate change is a hoax. He chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee and is flexing his influence to hasten the bill's passage.

The American Chemistry Council, the trade organization that speaks for the industry, including major chemical companies like ExxonMobil, Dow, and DuPont, is also hyping the bill, which it helped author. The Chemistry Council spent more than ever during the 2014 election cycle. In addition to doling out over $11 million for lobbying, the group contributed millions of dollars to the campaigns of lawmakers involved in the...