Legislative Update: House Key Procedural Hurdle to Move Forward with Reconciliation, the Farm Bill, and Seek End to the Partial Government Shutdown

House Key Procedural Hurdle to Move Forward with Reconcilation, the Farm Bill, and Seek End to the Partial Government Shutdown

House Republican leaders narrowly advanced (216-210) a procedural rule to move forward with three must-pass legislative priorities–Farm Bill, FISA reauthorization, and a Budget resolution–overcoming internal divisions through extended negotiations and last-minute concessions. After hours of negotiation, the House passed the rule, allowing the chamber to vote on each measure individually.

On April 30, the House passed a comprehensive farm bill (H.R. 7567) by a 224–200 vote, marking significant progress after months of uncertainty and the furthest advancement of such legislation since the 2018 reauthorization. The bill includes broad updates to food and agriculture programs within a budget-neutral framework, as well as a bipartisan provision to help farmers identify cost and energy savings. The bill was driven in part by concerns among lawmakers that existing policies are insufficient to address the current economic pressures facing farmers, including rising costs and rising bankruptcies. Support from moderate and rural Democrats proved critical to passage, despite ongoing concerns about reductions in food assistance programs.

The legislation’s path forward remains uncertain, particularly in the Senate, where policymakers are expected to modify controversial provisions to secure bipartisan support. Disputes over issues such as nutrition funding and climate-related agriculture programs continue to complicate negotiations. Additionally, internal Republican divisions over ethanol policy led to a decision to separate a proposal allowing year-round E15 fuel sales from the farm bill. While Senate leaders have indicated an interest in advancing their own version in the near term, longstanding partisan disagreements suggest the bill faces substantial hurdles before becoming law.
The House also approved a Senate-backed budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) in a narrow 215–211 party-line vote, clearing a key procedural hurdle for advancing approximately $70 billion in immigration enforcement funding through the reconciliation process. With both chambers now aligned on the budget blueprint, Congress can proceed with drafting filibuster-proof reconciliation legislation intended to sustain operations at immigration enforcement agencies through the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term. The resolution directs authorizing committees to produce legislative text by May 15, with the Senate expected to take the lead and the House contributing to the process. Republican leaders view reconciliation as necessary after failing to secure funding through the traditional appropriations process.

On April 30, the House approved by voice vote the Senate-passed DHS funding measure that funds all departments that don’t deal with immigration enforcement. Republicans are planning to address Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in their reconciliation bill. The vote ends the DHS shutdown which has persisted for 75 days. This week, the White House and DHS pressed for immediate Congressional action warning of an imminent inability to meet payroll obligations if Congress did not act.

Budget Battles and Policy Disputes Define Zeldin’s Week In Congress

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA) Lee Zeldin spent the week on Capitol Hill defending the Trump administration’s proposal to significantly reduce EPA funding to $4.2 billion for fiscal year 2027, a cut of more than 50 percent from current levels. Zeldin testified before the House Appropriations Committee on April 27, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment on April 28, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 29.   Across the multiple hearings, Zeldin emphasized deregulation, agency restructuring, and alignment with President Donald Trump’s priorities on energy dominance and artificial intelligence.

Budget priorities, particularly proposed cuts to water infrastructure programs, drew bipartisan scrutiny. Lawmakers questioned the administration’s plan to cut over $2.5 billion, or about 90 percent, from the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF), which support local infrastructure projects. Zeldin defended the cuts by criticizing congressional earmarking practices, characterizing members as “raiding” the funds.  He argued that the earmarking allows states to not repay the funds, and are therefore no longer “revolving” them into future loans.  Members from both parties emphasized the importance of maintaining funding for essential water systems, especially in rural communities.   House Appropriations’ Interior-Environment Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) made it a point to tell Zeldin that Congress was likely to reject these cuts. He and other members defended lawmakers’ role in congressionally directed spending, arguing that they have a better understanding of their communities’ needs.

House Appropriations Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) warned that reduced funding would leave states unable to maintain critical water infrastructure and questioned EPA’s plan for communities that suffer these failures in the water system. Zeldin defended the proposal, reiterating that the blame fell on congressional earmarks for diverting funds from core programs. DeLauro signaled that Congress would likely intervene on a bipartisan basis to restore funding levels, as it has done in the previous budget cycle.

The hearings also revealed divisions within the Republican Party over the scale of proposed EPA budget reductions. While some lawmakers supported the administration’s efforts to curb spending and roll back what they view as excess funding from recent climate and infrastructure laws, others signaled reluctance to approve deep cuts to core programs.

Ricketts Introduces TSCA Reform Bill Focusing on Existing Chemicals

Senators Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) on April 27 introduced legislation (S. 4397) to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), focusing primarily on reforms to the regulation of existing chemicals while omitting key elements central to recent bipartisan negotiations and committee discussion drafts.  Both Senators are members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW). The “Sound Science Act of 2026” seeks to streamline the chemical review process, improve scientific standards, and enhance interagency coordination. However, it notably does not renew the EPA’s authority to collect the soon-to-be-expired user fees, nor does it address longstanding concerns regarding delays in the agency’s review of new chemicals.

The proposal arrives amid ongoing congressional efforts to revisit TSCA and industry stakeholders have pushed for reforms to ensure more predictable and timely reviews, particularly under TSCA Section 5, which governs new chemicals. While Ricketts’ bill emphasizes improvements to existing chemical evaluations, it avoids direct changes to the new chemicals program, a central issue for manufacturers and a focal point of prior legislative drafts. The omission of fee authority renewal is especially significant, as those fees fund a substantial portion of the EPA’s chemical review activities and are widely viewed as a must-pass component of any reform package.

Substantively, the bill proposes narrowing the scope of EPA risk evaluations for existing chemicals under TSCA Section 6, including requiring the agency to regulate chemicals only to the extent necessary to minimize risk, rather than eliminate it entirely. It also reintroduces cost considerations into regulatory decisions, directing EPA to prioritize cost-effective measures and account for existing regulatory frameworks, such as those enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Additional provisions would limit the types of exposures EPA can consider in risk assessments, require interagency review of draft evaluations, and mandate regular updates to alternative testing methods for chemicals.

The Vinyl Institute and other industry groups, such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC), support the legislation, advocating that it strengthens scientific rigor and regulatory predictability. The proposal represents a constructive step toward ensuring regulatory decisions are grounded in consistent, high-quality science and real-world risk assessments.   The VI argues that TSCA was designed to be science-based and workable–not a parallel regime that assumes worst-case hypotheticals or ignores existing protections.

EPW Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) has been working on a draft bipartisan TSCA reauthorization bill that was released in February and followed with a hearing in March. With bipartisan negotiations ongoing and the deadline for renewing EPA’s fee authority approaching by the end of September, Rickett’s bill adds some complexity to an already challenging legislative effort and a limited legislative calendar.

EPA to Update TSCA Risk Reporting Guidance and Resume Data Reviews

The EPA has committed to updating its guidance under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e), which governs when companies must report information about chemicals that may pose a “substantial risk.” The update will, for the first time, include guidance on how companies should evaluate and report results from new approach methodologies (NAMs), reflecting advances in alternative testing methods. EPA also plans to resume annual reviews of submitted risk data, reinforcing the role of these reports as an early warning system for identifying potential chemical hazards.

These commitments come as EPA seeks renewal of its authority to collect such data from companies, with the current authorization set to expire. The agency emphasized that Section 8(e) notifications are critical for enabling timely risk assessments and regulatory action, while stakeholders, including industry representatives, have called for clearer and more modernized guidance.

Congress Pursues Incremental Permitting Changes as Broader Deal Falters

Federal permitting reform remains fragmented and uncertain, with bipartisan negotiations continuing but facing significant political and policy headwinds. The pathway forward is increasingly likely to rely on incremental, sector-specific measures rather than a comprehensive package.  In the Senate, discussions led by members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have been complicated by disputes over the Administration’s handling of renewable energy permitting. Democrats, including Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM), continue to warn that perceived favoritism toward fossil fuel projects—combined with delays or cancellations of wind and solar projects—could undermine support for any comprehensive permitting deal. Lawmakers have made clear that bipartisan agreement will depend on assurances that permitting decisions are applied evenly across energy sources, and several have indicated that progress is unlikely without demonstrable movement on stalled renewable projects.

On the House side, lawmakers have begun advancing more targeted permitting reforms amid growing skepticism that a broader deal can be reached this Congress. A notable example is the bipartisan “CERTAIN Act” (H.R. 8308), introduced by Scott Peters (D-CA) and Gabe Evans (R-CO), which aims to increase regulatory certainty for approved projects. The bill would limit federal agencies’ ability to revoke or alter permits after issuance, tighten timelines, and streamline interagency coordination. It also includes provisions to constrain judicial and administrative actions that could delay projects, reflecting a growing emphasis on “authorization certainty” as a central pillar of reform.

The House has previously passed more sweeping reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but Senate leaders have not yet advanced comparable legislation or outlined a clear path forward. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee leadership, including Chair Shelley Moore Capito, continues to pursue a bipartisan framework, though no formal bill has been introduced. At the same time, competing priorities—including appropriations, national security legislation, and election-year dynamics—are crowding the legislative calendar and limiting bandwidth for complex permitting negotiations.

Meanwhile, the White House is soliciting proposals from technology firms, researchers, and other stakeholders to modernize and accelerate federal permitting and environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. Through a new “Permitting Innovators Call for Solutions” led by the Council on Environmental Quality, the Administration is seeking tools such as artificial intelligence, workflow automation, and digital platforms to streamline what it views as outdated and fragmented review processes. This effort aligns with President Donald Trump’s broader push to expedite infrastructure approvals and improve efficiency across agencies.