After a historic committee vote to advance legislation that would overhaul the country's chemical regulations, it remains unclear whether there is a path for the bill to clear the full Senate -- let alone the House -- before the end of the year.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee cleared New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg's "Safe Chemicals Act" last week. The measure would overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, shifting the burden to manufacturers to prove their substances are safe before they enter commerce. That responsibility currently falls to EPA.

At the markup, Lautenberg offered a more than 170-page amendment that public health advocates have touted as the "sweet spot" between their and industry's positions (Greenwire, July 25).

But despite the amendment, Lautenberg failed to get any Republican votes at the markup, and Democrats are well aware that to be successful on the floor, they are going to need help from the other side of the aisle.

"We're looking for some Republican co-sponsors right now, and we don't have any," Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in an interview. "Anyone who wants that bill to come up would need Republicans because we need to overcome a filibuster."

Boxer added that she would "love to see it hit the floor," but panel ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) flatly said that it won't fare well there.

"It may make it to the floor, but it dead ends at the floor," said Inhofe, who hosted a series of stakeholder meetings on TSCA reform last year.

Lautenberg remained optimistic the bill would make it to the floor. He told E&E Daily this week he is "anxious" to move the legislation and plans to push for action in September. The Democrat also took to the chamber's floor yesterday to make a plea for Republicans to sign on.

"It's time to take action," Lautenberg said. "The health of our children is at stake. And I hope that my colleagues across the chamber will stand up and say, 'Yes, you're right.'"

It is unclear where Lautenberg's talks with Republicans stand. The Democrat had held negotiations with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), but Vitter expressed disappointment that the committee moved forward with a markup when it did, calling it a "step backward."

Vitter had previously said he was committed to working on new language, but he did not support Lautenberg's compromise amendment.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), another member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told E&E Daily that he was "discouraged" by the markup but still committed to working toward TSCA reform.

There is also the possibility that, now that it has moved out of committee, Lautenberg could appeal to other Republicans who may be supportive of his cause. In the past, Democrats have noted that Republican women -- such as Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as well as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- may be more amenable to signing on to the legislation than Republican men on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, who has been involved in the stakeholder discussions, pointed out that both Lautenberg and Boxer have said that they are open to more changes to the bill to attract Republican support.

He also noted that "there is quite a bit of interest" in moving the legislation, pointing to Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York -- two members of the chamber's leadership -- backing the bill.

"I do think there are still some prospects for further movement this year," he said. "We are certainly arguing that making further progress this year -- garnering some bipartisan support -- can only help going into the next Congress."

Denison has also pointed out that opinions on the compromise legislation are mixed among industry players. The American Chemistry Council, the industry's main trade association, forcefully came out against it, arguing that significant portions still need to be reworked.

But other trade groups, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association and American Cleaning Institute, have offered less chilly responses.

"This language really does represent the sweet spot," Denison said. "And [the more] folks in industry actually look at the language, the more positive they are about it."

Reporter Jason Plautz contributed.