Legislative Update: Industry Calls for Science-Based TSCA Reform and Accountable Fee Reauthorization

Industry Calls for Science-Based TSCA Reform and Accountable Fee Reauthorization

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a January 22 hearing to examine Republican proposals to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), reflecting growing concern that the 2016 TSCA reforms have not operated as Congress intended and have created regulatory backlogs and uncertainty that undermine domestic manufacturing. Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL) argued that EPA’s current approach has slowed the approval of new and safer chemistries, discouraged innovation, and weakened U.S. competitiveness at a time when global supply chains and critical manufacturing sectors are under pressure.

Republicans argued that their discussion draft was a targeted course correction rather than a wholesale reopening of TSCA, emphasizing that the proposal preserves the core safety framework enacted in 2016, clarifies statutory intent, and imposes greater accountability on the EPA. Key reforms would narrow “conditions of use” to realistic and reasonably foreseeable exposures, establish clearer timelines for EPA reviews, and reduce speculative risk assumptions that have contributed to chronic delays in new chemical approvals. Lawmakers repeatedly highlighted that EPA routinely misses the statutory 90-day review deadline for new chemicals, creating uncertainty for manufacturers.

Industry witnesses strongly supported the Republican proposal, underscoring that TSCA implementation problems are constraining investment and innovation. Kimberly Wise White, Vice President for Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), testified that Congress envisioned a science-based, predictable regulatory system, rather than the opaque, risk-averse process that has emerged since 2016. White emphasized that delays in EPA reviews discourage the adoption of newer, more sustainable chemistries and disrupt supply chains, particularly for high-volume industrial chemicals used in plastics and manufacturing. She emphasized that legislative action is necessary to clarify TSCA’s intent, strengthen scientific rigor, and restore confidence in the U.S. regulatory system.

That perspective was echoed by the Vinyl Institute, which issued a statement praising the discussion draft and the committee’s leadership. “This is an important first step towards ensuring EPA’s evaluation of existing chemicals is grounded in real‑world conditions, aligned with established federal safety standards, and guided by the best available science,” VI President and CEO Ned Monroe said. “Throughout this process, the VI and its members remain committed to constructive engagement with policymakers and EPA to support a regulatory framework that focuses on true risks, promotes consistency across federal agencies, and maintains a transparent, science‑based approach that enables both strong protections and continued innovation across the vinyl value chain.”

A central focus of the hearing was the pending expiration of EPA’s authority to collect TSCA user fees, which provide a substantial portion of funding for the agency’s chemicals program. Republicans and industry witnesses warned that allowing the fee authority to lapse would further exacerbate review backlogs and undermine EPA’s ability to meet its statutory obligations. ACC testified that reauthorizing fees offers Congress the best opportunity to resolve ongoing implementation problems and to ensure the EPA has stable, predictable resources while remaining accountable for results.

Democrats criticized the draft legislation as overly favorable to industry, but the hearing nonetheless highlighted areas of implicit agreement, including acknowledgment that EPA’s TSCA program has struggled with delays and inefficiencies. Republicans stressed that the proposed reforms are essential to restoring balance between public health protection and economic growth, ensuring that U.S. manufacturers are not driven offshore by regulatory paralysis.

Government Reopens After Spending Deal Passes All But DHS Funding

On February 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a $1.2 trillion spending package, ending a four-day partial government shutdown while leaving unresolved a contentious fight over immigration enforcement. The House narrowly approved the five-bill package (H.R. 7148) by a 217–214 vote, with a small group of Democrats joining most Republicans, following earlier Senate passage by a wide margin. The legislation finalizes long-delayed appropriations for the 2026 fiscal year, which began last October, with the notable exception of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which received only a short-term extension through February 13. DHS funding was separated from the broader package amid sharp criticism of recent immigration enforcement actions.

The spending measure combines funding for Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, Financial Services, National Security-State, and Transportation-HUD, ensuring full-year funding for all other federal agencies through September. It rejects many of the deeper nondefense spending cuts sought by the White House and some congressional Republicans, and includes guardrails that limit the administration’s ability to unilaterally downsize federal programs.

Looking ahead, lawmakers in both parties expressed skepticism that a bipartisan immigration deal could be reached before the February 13 DHS funding deadline. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD)  and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) both signaled that the compressed timeline and wide policy differences make agreement unlikely, while the White House reiterated its openness to talks without conceding on enforcement priorities. Several lawmakers have floated the prospect of another short-term continuing resolution for DHS, though conservatives have begun arguing for a full-year stopgap if negotiations fail. As a result, the immediate shutdown crisis has been resolved, but the broader funding and immigration standoff appears set to continue in the days ahead.

Permitting Legislation Stalled in the Senate

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) urged industry groups to intensify direct engagement with the Trump administration if they want long-sought environmental permitting reforms enacted into law. Speaking at a January 28 committee hearing, titled “The Federal Environmental Review and Permitting Processes, Part II,” Whitehouse argued that congressional negotiations have advanced sufficiently and that the primary obstacle now lies with the executive branch, particularly administration actions affecting wind and solar energy development. He maintained that broader industry pressure on the White House is necessary to remove barriers to a bipartisan permitting agreement.

The hearing revisited debates over reforms to the federal permitting framework governed by statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While lawmakers from both parties have expressed support for streamlining permitting to accelerate infrastructure and energy projects, Whitehouse contended that the administration’s approach to renewable energy regulation has complicated prospects for a comprehensive deal. He framed the impasse not as a partisan dispute among lawmakers, but as a constitutional tension between Congress and an executive branch he said is failing to faithfully implement the law.

Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) echoed frustrations with the pace of progress, noting that despite ongoing discussions since early 2025, consensus legislation remains elusive. Capito acknowledged the persistent challenges surrounding permitting reform but expressed cautious optimism that negotiations could still yield results. Her remarks underscored the shared interest across party lines in concluding a debate that has stretched on for years, even as disagreements with the administration continue to slow momentum.

House Advances Narrower Permitting Bills as Bipartisan Window Narrows

Key House lawmakers are advancing a new round of targeted permitting reform bills in an effort to revive momentum after the House passed the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776) last year, amid concerns that broader bipartisan legislation could stall as the congressional calendar tightens. Central to this push is the Create Expedited Reviews to Transform American Infrastructure Now (CERTAIN) Act, led by Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Gabe Evans (R-CO), which is expected to be formally introduced alongside a Senate companion and is designed to address growing disputes over permit certainty. Additional vehicles are also emerging, including forthcoming surface transportation reauthorization legislation from Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), which supporters view as a potential platform for broader infrastructure and energy permitting provisions. Separately, Reps. Josh Harder (D-CA) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) on February 3, introduced the tech-neutral Fighting for Reliable Energy and Ending Doubt for Open Markets (FREEDOM) Act, which aims to protect projects already permitted from revocation and to compensate sponsors for federal delays.

These efforts unfold against a backdrop of mounting partisan friction over energy policy and executive branch actions affecting wind and other renewable energy projects. Senate permitting negotiations have been paused by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), who are seeking assurances of a technology-neutral approach and a reversal of cancelled wind projects that courts have already overturned. Rep. Peters has warned that lawmakers may have only a narrow window—roughly three months—to reach a comprehensive deal before midterm politics harden positions, underscoring the appeal of narrower, consensus-oriented bills such as the CERTAIN Act. As outlined in its discussion draft, the CERTAIN Act would limit federal agencies’ ability to suspend permitted projects except in cases involving fraud, national security concerns, or newly identified environmental harms, positioning it as a pragmatic attempt to break the current impasse over permitting reform.

Thompson targets Valentine’s Day Release for Long-Awaited Farm Bill Draft

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) said he intends to release a public draft of a long-delayed farm bill by Valentine’s Day, though the committee has repeatedly missed earlier self-imposed deadlines. Thompson had previously aimed for a January markup, later shifting to February due to the unexpected death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and the temporary absence of Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN). The forthcoming draft is expected to closely resemble the version advanced during the 118th Congress, when the committee approved the bill with limited Democratic support. Congress has relied on successive short-term extensions rather than passing a new five-year farm bill, most recently pairing another extension with increased funding for agricultural risk management tools in the July reconciliation law.

Senate Republicans Move to Bar Future Climate Accords Without Senate Approval

After the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement formally took effect, a group of Republican senators introduced legislation aimed at preventing future administrations from rejoining similar international climate accords without explicit Senate approval. The bill, S. 3713, known as the No Climate Treaties Act, would require any international climate agreement to receive a two-thirds vote in the Senate, consistent with the Constitution’s treaty clause. It would also prohibit the use of federal funds to implement or comply with climate agreements that have not met this approval threshold.

The measure follows President Donald Trump’s decision, on his first day back in office, to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, a move that became official on January 27 and marked the second U.S. exit under his leadership. Bill sponsor John Barrasso (R-WY) argued that prior Democratic administrations had circumvented the Senate to enter costly climate agreements that he said disadvantage the U.S. economically and raise energy prices for consumers. Supporters of the legislation contend it would reinforce congressional authority over international commitments and ensure greater accountability for climate-related spending decisions.