This post is part of the Killer Couch Chemicals series about efforts in California to pass legislation that would ban toxic brominated and chlorinated flame retardant chemicals for use in furniture and bedding. On September 12th in Sacramento, the bill, AB 706, The Crystal Golden-Jefferson Furniture Safety and Fire Prevention Act (Leno, D-San Francisco) failed passage on the floor of the California State Senate. The bill will be reconsidered by the Senate in 2008. What follows is an account of the events that lead up to this year's failed passage.
Post-mortem. It's a term I learned while working as a technical writer in the software industry. As the name implies, it's a process that takes place after a project has ended, or is considered "dead" to determine what could be improved upon during the next software release cycle. I haven't thought about post-mortems for a couple of years. At least not until 3:30 a.m. on the morning of September 12, after I watched California Assembly Bill 706 fail to get the votes needed to pass off the Senate floor. The bill is, essentially, dead. Or in a coma anyway until 2008.
So how did such an important environmental health bill end up on life support? To answer that one we'll need to look at some of the events that occurred in the weeks leading up to the September 12 vote.
I began to worry when, on August 30th, the bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. The suspense file is sort of a legislative Bermuda Triangle in which bills can be "disposed of" because, ostensibly, they cost the state too much money to pass. In the case of AB 706, however, the Senate Appropriations Committee's own analysis of the bill states, "All costs are to be reimbursed by fees, penalties, or the manufacturer, as specified." If there was no state cost associated with the bill, why was it held on suspense?
Major California newspapers asked the same question and concluded that politics, rather than policy played a role in that decision. The Sacramento Bee said AB 706 went "up in smoke" because "[Assemblyman Mark Leno] has had the temerity to challenge one of the Senate's own -- Carole Migden, D-San Francisco -- for her seat next year." The San Francisco Chronicle said, "there is no excuse for letting political motives and petty retributions supersede the public interest." The Los Angeles Times called AB 706 as "must-pass" bill and then later said the political infighting "becomes everyone's business when lawmakers kill worthy bills out of spite."
AB 706 had been held on suspense, presumably to die, at the direction of Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata. This happened despite the fact that just one year ago Senator Perata was the author of California Senate Bill 1379 a bill that establishes the first bio-monitoring program in the country that will document the bio-accumulation of chemicals in humans. SB 1379 is a fantastic bill and one which my organization vigorously supported. AB 706 is a logical next step to a bill like SB 1379. Why bother measure chemical burdens in humans if you don't intend to do something about preventing the exposures?
That is a good question, isn't it? On September 10th, a group of mothers with their babies and concerned citizens gathered outside Senator Perata's district office in Oakland to ask that very question and urge him to release the bill to the floor for a vote. With news cameras rolling Perata's district director announced that AB 706 was exactly the kind of bill that Senator Perata supports and that it was being released to the floor. The assembled crowd cheered. We left the rally buoyed by having been a part of the democratic process. See, all we have to do is tell our leaders what's important to us and they will listen. Right?
Despite the public decree to the contrary, the democratic leaders in California did everything BUT help AB 706 get off the Senate floor. Yes, the bill was released, but it was not brought up for a vote until nearly 7 p.m. the following day, after being skipped over by the leadership on the Senate's agenda, or "file order." This pushed the first vote into a later timeslot -- leaving us precious little time to see where the votes stood and to change minds, if necessary.
After the first vote, the bill was down four. After the second vote at 10 p.m, we were down two. The final vote came at 3 a.m. on the morning of the 12th: 19 Ayes, 20 Noes. We needed 21 votes for passage.
So how did such a vitally important bill like AB 706 get put into deep freeze? How could a bill that had the support of furniture makers, fire fighters -- not to mention the public -- fail to get voted out? Honestly, after seeing the insane circus that happens the last day of session -- dozens, if not hundreds of lobbyists perched outside the chamber waiting for the vote -- I now know how naïve it was for me to believe that bills become law on their merits alone. I knew a lot of hard work would be required. But I learned the hardest part of it all is to swim against the tide of politics that sometimes prevent good policies from getting through.
Somehow, Democratic politicians have forgotten that it is women and mothers who put them in office. When a bill that protects mothers and their kids from toxic, hormone-mimicking, cancer-causing contaminants at virtually no state cost gets kicked to the curb, somebody needs to start asking what the hell ever happened to our democracy. According to the post-mortem, the reason AB 706 failed to pass was, to borrow from the Chronicle and the Times, "petty retributions" whereby "lawmakers kill worthy bills out of spite."
Other posts in this series:
"The Couch CAT-astrophe," by Arlene Blum