The majority of Houston-area lawmakers in the Texas House voted against legislation intended to protect the public from toxic air pollution, a Houston Chronicle analysis of 2005 voting records has found.

The five rejected amendments would have made the state's health screening levels for pollution more strict, required companies to continuously monitor emissions and set fines for the periodic releases known as "upsets" that plague fence-line neighborhoods.

Yet 20 of 34 representatives in the eight-county region, where toxic pollution problems have been well-documented, particularly along the Houston Ship Channel, voted to table these actions.

All 20 of the dissenters are Republicans, some of them representing industrial districts such as Pasadena, Baytown and Seabrook, where people and industry exist side by side.

Typically, a party-line vote on legislation to increase regulations on industry would not be surprising. However, legislators during this year's regular session were presented with increasing evidence that toxic pollution was a problem locally and that Houston residents were more concerned than ever about its impact on health.

"These numbers are shocking when you consider the myriad of air issues facing the Houston area," said Colin Leyden, executive director of the League of Conservation Voters. The League recently reviewed votes on three of the amendments as part of its annual Scorecard; the Chronicle analysis revisited and expanded upon the group's effort.

Several local lawmakers said they voted against the amendments solely on the legislation's merits, not because they were unconcerned about pollution or influenced by industry donations.

"We can always do better. We just want to do better fairly," said Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, whose district includes the massive ExxonMobil refinery. "I do believe we should have good quality air to breathe."

In January, both the state and the Houston Chronicle released data showing several communities had levels of chemicals that could increase the risk of contracting cancer. The findings prompted community meetings and special Houston City Council hearings.

In May, days after the House vote, the 2005 Houston Area Survey revealed that nearly half of area residents considered local pollution control poor, more than any in the study's 24-year history.

Democrats who backed the amendments were banking on that momentum continuing into the session. It didn't.

The issue "was certainly brought to the forefront for Houston legislators, especially. I was hoping that there might be enough pressure building that there would be some support behind these efforts," said Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, the only Democrat to not vote to keep all five amendments in House Bill 1900, legislation that streamlines the reporting of pollution.

"You are still having to overcome industry opposition," Eiland said. "Industry still has a lot of say-so, even in areas like this, where public health and quality of life are at issue."

Rep. Toby Goodman, R-Arlington, whose tabled amendment would have lowered the levels the state uses to screen pollution's health effects, agreed.

"I didn't need many more votes. I am a mainstream Republican member and a lot of mainstream Republicans follow me," Goodman said. "I get closer than anyone else, but I still don't win. Industry is the reason you don't win, the mindset of the members of the House against further regulation, and the misguided perception that if you vote for an amendment to clean up the air and water you are some sort of liberal activist."

$600,000 in contributions

Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, who chairs the House committee on Environmental Regulation and who raised the motion to table the amendments, said his "significant contributions" from the industry had nothing to do with it.

His votes, he said, are in line with his constituents, who view the risk posed by pollution very differently than residents of east Houston.

"In the Ship Channel, these are big corporate companies that have no benefit. The people that live by those plants have no connection to them and just live there, and they view" pollution as a nuisance, Bonnen said.

"The people (I represent) work in these plants and live here," he said. "We understand these things, and we don't think they are dangerous."

Cancer risk doubted

"I have been around this all my life, I have been up to my waist in the levee which holds dredgings from out of the Ship Channel, and I don't have cancer yet," Talton said. "We've done a lot to clean it up."

In Bonnen's eyes, the amendments failed because they were impractical, knee-jerk solutions to a complex problem, and because one session is not enough time to craft legislation on any challenging topic, particularly air pollution.

"Something that gets raised of this magnitude, I don't care what it is, you are not going to get an immediate legislative response," Bonnen said. "On these issues, you have to have science and fact, but you also have to have it on the table, you have to discuss it and you have to come up with fair solutions."

The lack of support by the Houston delegation for pollution-cutting measures this year could crimp plans by Mayor Bill White, who has said he will use the Legislature as a means to improve air quality in the region.

Elena Marks, the mayor's health policy director, said the administration will work next session to change some minds.

"Ultimately, I don't think it will cut along party lines. For those for whom it is not a top priority, we have to work that much harder to educate them," she said. "I'm just not sure they have been educated on balancing out need for regulations and need for public health."