Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is blocking an EPA nomination because he wants the agency to delay establishing safety procedures for formaldehyde. Meanwhile, major emitters of the dangerous chemical have been generous contributors to the senator's reelection campaign.
Vitter met yesterday with EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who sought, unsuccessfully, to convince him to remove the hold he had placed on Paul Anastas, who has been nominated to be the EPA's assistant administrator in charge of its Office of Research and Development, reports the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
No one has a problem with Anastas, who served in environmental posts in the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. Rather, according to the Times-Picayune, Vitter wants the EPA to let the National Academy of Sciences review EPA's assessment of the risks posed by the chemical formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA, and has been linked to nasal, lung, and brain cancer, as well as leukemia. EPA says it's been studying the issue since 1997, and it's now time to issue a risk assessment and establish safety standards.
Vitter presents his position as one of concern about the risks of formaldehyde, dangerously high levels of which were last year detected in FEMA trailers housing Katrina evacuees, forcing FEMA to relocate some people to "safer housing." "Because of the FEMA trailer debacle, we need to get absolutely reliable information to the public about formaldehyde risk as soon as possible," a Vitter spokesman told the Times-Picayune. "That's why Sen. Vitter started working with a bipartisan group over a year ago to have the National Academy of Sciences weigh in."
But Vitter's stance on the issue is identical to that taken by the Formaldehyde Council Inc. (FCI), a trade group of formaldehyde producers. The group told TPMmuckraker in a statement that "an NAS review of formaldehyde has been a long-standing policy goal of the industry," and added that "FCI believes that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that formaldehyde and formaldehyde-derived products are safe when used appropriately." In addition, lobby disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker show that the group paid $30,000 to a Republican lobbying firm this year in part to win "support for a National Academy of Sciences review of scientific studies on the toxicity of formaldehyde."
It's perhaps not surprising that Vitter's and the formaldehyde industry's positions on the issue would correspond so closely. Many of Louisiana's top emitters of the pollutant are contributors to Vitter's 2010 re-election bid. According to FEC records examined by TPMmuckraker, the Louisiana senator has received $9000 from Dow Chemical's political action committee, $5000 from Monsanto's, $4000 from Exxon-Mobil's, and $2500 from the American Forest and Paper Association's. Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto are all among the top formaldehyde polluters in the state, EPA data examined by TPMmuckraker show, while both Dow and the American Forest and Paper Association are members of FCI.
Vitter's office did not immediately respond to TPMmuckraker's request for comment.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

diachronic
September 25, 2009 4:32 PM
I bet he doesn't use reusable diapers either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chucktrotter
September 25, 2009 8:09 PM
A wise man once told me..."If you think the congressman is an a..hole, go down there and get to know the people who voted for him!" AMEN! Do not assume that the "missing link" is missing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 26, 2009 11:57 AM in reply to chucktrotter
chuck,
Exactly. I've often said that a Congressman is a reflection of his constituents; think of those who constantly elect James Inhofe or Michelle Bachmann.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chucktrotter
September 26, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to JohnW1141
JohnW1:
You only listed two of the maniacal GOPers that so offend the senses of main stream Americans. Voting demographics and the story of the ignorant-uneducated constituent is obvious to those voters who bother to open their eyes. I live in Iowa and we must contend with Grassley and King. They are elected by the same voters with the same biases and an undying love for farm subsidies. I can't understand why Bachmann keeps getting reelected by my northern neighbors, but I assume it's the same basic mentality that exists in Western Iowa.I do think that one will find that most of the nut cases come from states that fall pretty-close to the bottom of the pond by most statistical evaluations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 26, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to chucktrotter
chuck,
King is a troglodyte, and Grassley is a snake, a hypocritical snake at that. Him and his family have garnered over $1 million in farm subsidies, even his grandson is feeding at the Government trough.
Anti big government programs and anti government spending my ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chucktrotter
September 26, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to JohnW1141
JohnW1:
I would say that you have them pretty-much figured out. I wish that King or Grassley would just quit identifying themselves as Iowans...It's pretty embarrassing! I'm adding a URL you may find interesting...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/08/steve-king-record/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pdxer
September 26, 2009 12:53 AM
What a miserable, pathetic, corrupt excuse for a human being.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
September 26, 2009 9:32 AM
I never ceases to amaze me how cheaply these people can be bought. They save these companies millions upon millions of dollars and get a few thousand in campaign contributions. Its pretty pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 26, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to henk
henk, I've often wondered the same thing. I think the answer might be that it is the constancy of corporate or industry association contributions that our esteemed legislators find so attractive, not the size in any given cycle. These guys and gals view individual contibutions to be not only small but inconsistent and requiring vigilant nurturing. Like so many other seemingly mysterious questions of human nature, the answer is simple laziness!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 26, 2009 11:40 AM
Of all the execrable cretins in U.S. Senate this guy must take the cake (though the competition is tough). Good god, Louisiana, get RID of this bum!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 26, 2009 12:00 PM
Vitter is obviously a member of the profession he so often patronized.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pat L
September 28, 2009 11:16 AM
Although I detest Vitter and don't care whether or not he gets smeared by this, I think that a NAS review of the EPA regulations is a great idea. There's no guarantee that the NAS is going to come down on the side of Vitter's sponsors, and it would be useful to come to some resolution of the formaldehyde issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?