Legislative Update: House Republicans Push for TSCA Overhaul

House Republicans Push for TSCA Overhaul

House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are holding a hearing on the afternoon of January 22 to advance a major rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), in what is expected to be a highly contentious debate over chemical safety regulation. Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Environment Subcommittee Chair Gary Palmer (R-AL) released draft legislation on January 15 to “modernize” TSCA by making the EPA’s review process more predictable, accountable, and supportive of domestic manufacturing, while still protecting public health.  Witnesses include Dr. Kimberly Wise White from the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The draft legislation would significantly recalibrate the EPA’s authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act by narrowing how the agency evaluates and manages “unreasonable risks” from existing chemicals, a departure from industry’s more recent focus on reforming the statute’s new-chemical review process. The proposal would replace the current requirement that EPA fully eliminate unreasonable risks with a mandate that would reduce those risks only to the extent “reasonably feasible,” as opposed to any possible risk the EPA can imagine. It would also require EPA, when issuing risk-management rules, to recognize existing occupational safety standards and to favor approaches deemed cost-effective and not creating additional health or environmental risks. In addition, the draft would prohibit EPA from imposing requirements that conflict with obligations under other federal statutes, further constraining the agency’s discretion

The Vinyl Institute and other industry groups strongly support the initiative, arguing that delays and uncertainty in EPA approvals are stifling innovation in sectors ranging from energy to health care and agriculture. Manufacturers contend that hundreds of new chemicals remain stuck in review well beyond statutory deadlines, leaving investments and new technologies in limbo. They have urged Congress to impose firmer timelines, tighten scientific standards, and reduce what they describe as unnecessary regulatory burdens that have expanded under recent administrations.

The dispute reflects a broader pendulum swing in federal chemical policy over the past decade, with Democratic administrations pressing for tougher controls on substances such as PFAS, asbestos, and solvents, and Republican and industry leaders seeking greater flexibility and faster approvals. As Congress weighs statutory changes, the EPA has also proposed regulatory revisions that would ease review requirements and reduce reporting obligations, particularly for PFAS, while the law’s current user-fee structure is set to expire at the end of September.

Ethanol, Immigration, and Tariffs Collide in House GOP Fight Over a $1.3 Trillion Minibus

House Republican leaders were still working late Wednesday, January 21, to secure the votes needed to advance a sprawling FY 2026 “minibus” spending package, after the House Rules Committee postponed action on the rule governing debate and amendments until early Thursday. With Democrats expected to oppose the rule en bloc, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) must keep nearly their entire conference unified, a task complicated by disputes among conservatives and Midwestern Republicans over policy riders and process. The package, which already totals roughly $1.25 trillion, is also set to grow further with the addition of another House-passed spending bundle covering Financial Services and National Security–State programs.  The move to combine the bills is intended to ease Senate consideration, but has also angered fiscal hard-liners.

One of the most contentious issues has been ethanol policy, where corn-state lawmakers pushed to lock in year-round sales of higher-ethanol (E15) gasoline blends and to reform refinery waiver rules, while oil-patch Republicans and refiners resisted the deal.  Representative Zach Nunn (R-IA) and others signaled they would continue pressing for ethanol certainty, possibly through a farm aid package or the upcoming farm bill, but their stance on the crucial rule vote remained uncertain.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus added another layer of complexity by demanding the opportunity to offer amendments to register opposition to provisions they dislike. Leaders were able to structure the rule to permit votes that allow members to vent frustrations without altering the underlying text in ways that could doom the package in the House or Senate.

By Thursday morning, House Republican leadership announced they had a deal with the Midwestern holdouts with promises to set up a rural energy council to further discuss the E15 issue and negotiate acceptable language by the end of February.   The Rules Committee was then able to reconvene this morning and pass the rule dividing the last four appropriations bills into two bills: the Consolidated Appropriations Act for LHHS, DoD, THUD (H.R. 7148) and the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2026 (H.R. 7147).

House Republicans are planning for the Homeland Security funding bill to be brought to the House floor on its own and will not be open to amendments, a strategy that could make passage difficult given the expectation that most Democrats will oppose it due to ICE funding. To increase leverage over wavering members, GOP leaders intend to hold back the three other appropriations bills from being transmitted to the Senate until the House approves the DHS measure. This linkage is designed to force lawmakers to accept the full four-bill package in order to keep the broader funding effort moving forward.  They will then combine the four bills with another Departments of State and Treasury funding package (H.R. 7006) that the House passed in a 341-79 vote last week .

With stopgap funding set to lapse on January 30, GOP leaders are running out of time to unify their conference and avert another partial government shutdown, underscoring how fragile the path to final passage has become.

House Republicans Advance Clean Air Act Overhaul to Ease Permitting and Emissions Rules

On January 21, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a package of seven Clean Air Act–related bills on party-line votes, reflecting a Republican push to ease what they describe as permitting bottlenecks and regulatory rigidity that threaten investment and job growth. Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) framed the effort as a long-overdue modernization of a statute that has not been substantially revised in more than three decades, contending that current rules place nearly $200 billion in economic activity and more than one million jobs at risk by slowing infrastructure, manufacturing, and energy projects.

Several of the measures focus on how states are treated when they fail to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards due to pollution beyond their control. Legislation sponsored by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) (H.R. 6409) and Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO) (H.R. 6387)would broaden the definition of “exceptional events” and “foreign-source pollution” to include natural disasters and wildfire smoke, shielding states from penalties when air quality deteriorates for reasons they cannot regulate.

Another high-profile bill (H.R. 6373) introduced by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) would allow the president to waive emissions offset requirements for advanced manufacturing and critical minerals facilities on national security grounds, an approach Republicans say is needed to speed domestic supply chains. The committee rejected an amendment requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to certify that such waivers would not harm public health.

Additional measures approved by the committee would narrow the types of facility modifications that trigger new Clean Air Act permits (H.R. 161) and would remove EPA’s obligation to conduct duplicative environmental reviews when projects are already subject to scrutiny under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (H.R. 6398). Republicans argued these changes would cut red tape and accelerate construction timelines.

Finally, two bills would adjust how air quality standards are updated by requiring EPA to issue implementing guidance alongside any new standards (H.R 4214) and by extending the review cycle from five to 10 years (H.R. 4218). Supporters said the longer timeframe would give states more certainty and flexibility to meet federal requirements before facing compliance actions, while critics cautioned that slower updates could delay protections as science and pollution patterns evolve.

Administration Targets Affordability by Rebalancing the Single-Family Housing Market

President Donald Trump and the administration have zeroed in on responding to the housing affordability pressures facing American families, arguing that institutional investors have contributed to rising home prices by crowding out individual buyers in the single-family market. By directing federal housing and financial agencies to prioritize owner-occupants over large investment firms and by strengthening oversight of investor activity.  At the World Economic Forum in Davos Trump highlighted his administration’s new restrictions on large institutional investors in the U.S. single-family housing market, “Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters,” said Trump.”

Previous to his speech, the  President announced that he had signed a sweeping Executive Order aimed at shifting the single-family housing market away from large institutional investors and back toward individual homebuyers, a move that could indirectly support increased housing construction by stabilizing demand for owner-occupied homes. By directing federal housing and finance agencies to stop approving, insuring, or securitizing transactions in which large investors acquire single-family homes, the order seeks to reduce investor-driven competition for existing housing stock, thereby improving the ability of families to purchase homes and giving builders a clearer market signal to produce housing aimed at owner-occupants rather than rental portfolios.

In parallel, the order instructs the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission to review and, where appropriate, challenge institutional acquisitions that may limit competition in the single-family rental market. Finally, the White House is directed to develop legislative proposals to codify these investor restrictions, while President Trump has also ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities to reduce borrowing costs.

Together, these steps aim to expand the pool of qualified homebuyers and improve affordability, which typically increases absorption rates for new housing. Higher absorption and reduced investor competition create stronger incentives for private developers to increase housing starts, particularly in the single-family and starter-home segments that have been most constrained in recent years.

STB Rejects Initial UP-NS Merger Application Ruling it is Incomplete

The U.S. Surface Transportation Board on rejected Union Pacific’s proposed $85 billion merger with Norfolk Southern after determining that the railroads’ December 19 filing failed to meet the agency’s information requirements. In a January 15 decision, the board ruled that the application was incomplete because it did not include key projections on market share or a sufficient analysis of how the transaction would affect competition. As a result, the STB declined to proceed with a substantive review and returned the filing to the companies.

The decision comes as the board prepares to apply the more stringent merger standards adopted in 2001, which require regulators to examine whether large rail consolidations would enhance or undermine competition across the national freight network. By rejecting the filing without prejudice, the STB left the door open for Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern to resubmit a revised application once the missing data and analysis are provided.  UP and NS have until February 17 to inform the STB whether they plan to resubmit.  A revised application is due in the docket no later than June 22, 2026.

New WOTUS Approach Aims to Cut Costs and Speed  Infrastructure Development

The Trump administration is moving quickly to finalize a narrower definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA), arguing that the current framework imposes unnecessary costs, delays, and uncertainty on farmers, landowners, and infrastructure developers. Under the proposal, federal oversight would be scaled back for many streams and wetlands, reducing the need for permits and mitigation fees that can significantly raise the cost of building homes, power plants, data centers, and transportation projects. Administration officials contend that the existing system forces property owners to hire consultants and navigate complex regulatory reviews, while the revised rule would provide a more stable and predictable framework that lowers compliance costs and accelerates economic activity.

EPA and its Republican allies are also framing the rollback as an affordability measure for households and businesses, particularly as the administration seeks to ease inflationary pressures. The agency maintains that a clearer, more limited definition of federally regulated waters will keep dollars in the pockets of families, farmers, and small businesses by preventing them from being drawn into costly permitting regimes for features such as isolated or intermittent wetlands. Supporters in Congress and industry view the changes as essential to speeding up infrastructure investment, reducing legal risk, and allowing capital to flow more efficiently into housing, energy, and industrial projects without being stalled by overlapping and often ambiguous federal requirements.  Beyond cost and efficiency, the administration argues that the proposal appropriately returns authority to states and Tribes, which it says are better positioned to manage local water resources than federal regulators in Washington.