A testy exchange at a recent hearing on a bill to reform the country's chemical regulations has driven a significant wedge between a major industry group and Democrats just as Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) prepares to move his landmark legislation.

The feud spawned from a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing earlier this month on Lautenberg's "Safe Chemicals Act" (S. 847), which would overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Responding to a question from Lautenberg, American Chemistry Council (ACC) President Cal Dooley said his organization would not provide specific legislative language as an alternative to several parts of the bill to which it objects.

The remark sparked shouting from Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin of Maryland, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, all of whom charged that ACC needed to provide specifics. Otherwise, they argued, the trade association was only working to defeat the bill (Greenwire, Nov. 17).

Two weeks after the hearing, the rift only appears to be widening.

"It's pathetic," Lautenberg said yesterday of Dooley's answer, adding that it indicated the group was closing itself off to working on TSCA reform.

"We just have a lot of work to do and we are respectfully asking them to come to this with an open mind and see if there is anything we can do," Lautenberg said.

The remark from Dooley has also sparked the condemnation of many environmental and public health advocates.

Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a large coalition of advocacy groups, penned a blog post Monday that accused ACC of trying to orchestrate a campaign pointing the finger back at Democrats.

"ACC quickly seized on the tough questioning from the Democratic senators to engage in a fierce behind-the-scenes campaign with its member companies and Senate staff, and within Washington's lobbying community, to claim it was victimized by an ambush," Igrejas wrote.

Igrejas also said ACC canceled a "long scheduled meeting" between industry and nonprofit advocacy groups where the two sides were going to review the "substantial substantive progress" of a dialogue that has been going on for several months.

"ACC has now made clear to us it will not participate in any dialogue that has anything to do with legislation moving in this Congress," Igrejas wrote.

Just as Dooley did at the hearing, Anne Kolton, an ACC spokeswoman, pushed back firmly against the accusations.

Kolton said the hearing was "disappointing" because it focused on legislation that has not changed since it was introduced. ACC did not support the bill then, Kolton noted, so it won't support it now.

More directly, Kolton took issue with the implication that ACC was not providing specifics. She said the group participated fully in recent stakeholder meetings conducted by Lautenberg and Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

"Throughout the stakeholder meetings, ACC gave specific suggestions and input, but they weren't incorporated into the bill," Kolton said.

Kolton also noted that ACC has publicly produced specific proposals, such as a prioritization tool for screening chemicals.

Kolton classified the Igrejas blog post as a "really unfortunate distraction" and a "mischaracterization" that is not productive. She declined to comment on whether ACC canceled meetings, as Igrejas alleged.

ACC supports TSCA reform, Kolton emphasized, but added that those specific changes "would be needed to attract broad bipartisan support."

But nonprofits and some Democrats still are charging that Dooley's answer revealed that ACC does not want to work with Lautenberg on the bill.

Democratic staffers on the committee were adamant that no ambush was planned and the exchange developed organically because of Dooley's response. One staffer said that when Dooley answered, "my jaw dropped," and that Dooley, a former congressman, knew how to sidestep such a question but instead used the opportunity to make clear that ACC refuses to participate in further efforts to amend the bill.

Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council said ACC is now in damage control mode.

"In my mind, Cal Dooley and ACC are seeking to deflect blame that falls on them for their poorly chosen words and unsatisfactory response to Senator Lautenberg's direct question," Rosenberg said. "They declined to engage constructively on this issue at exactly the time when Democrats are ready to move forward with legislation."

Lautenberg's bill would require chemical manufacturers to prove their substances are safe before they go on the market. It would also give U.S. EPA significantly more authority to regulate -- and ban -- substances it deems pose a threat to human health or the environment.

It remains to be seen how the rift between ACC, Democrats and green groups will affect the chances of Lautenberg's bill earning some bipartisan support. Other industry groups have been more supportive of the bill than ACC has, but Lautenberg has yet to line up any Republican backing for the legislation.

Lautenberg, however, said he is undeterred.

"We're going to persist," Lautenberg said. "We're not quitting."

The Democrat also said he plans to move forward with a markup of the bill, though he did not commit to holding it before the end of the year as he has said previously.

"We're going to do it the moment we have an opening," Lautenberg said.