Why It Matters

Hearing: House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee
Date & Time: January 22, 2026
Topic: "Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing"

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee ‘s hearing today will shape the future of U.S. chemical safety regulation, balancing public health protection against industry competitiveness.

The legislative proposal attempts to reconcile three competing priorities: updating the Toxic Substances Control Act for modern safety oversight, strengthening chemical supply chains threatened by global competition, and supporting domestic manufacturing growth.

The core conflict: Republicans argue EPA has implemented the 2016 Lautenberg Act too slowly, stalling innovation and growth. Rep. Morgan Griffith has criticized sluggish chemical reviews, while Rep. Langworthy calls current regulations "extreme" barriers to prosperity. Democrats fear any "modernization" weakens public health safeguards, with Rep. Pallone warning that industry influence could undermine protective intent.

Key stakeholders affected:

  • Chemical manufacturers seeking faster approvals and reduced compliance burdens
  • Public health advocates concerned about accelerated approval processes
  • U.S. consumers exposed to chemicals in products
  • Workers in chemical manufacturing sectors
  • Global competitors, particularly Chinese manufacturers

Critical issues being debated:

Broader Context

Congress is revisiting chemical safety as regulatory uncertainty and trade pressures mount. The EPA’s proposed changes to its risk evaluation framework mark the agency’s third attempt to revise assessment procedures, signaling ongoing disputes over evaluation methodology.

Global market pressures intensify the debate. Chinese manufacturers continue flooding markets despite overcapacity, while U.S. polyethylene exports to China hit a 16-month low amid 125% retaliatory tariffs. Global chemical production is expected to grow just 2.1% in 2025.

Regulatory fragmentation is widening. The FDA identified 51 PFAS chemicals in 1,744 cosmetic products, highlighting oversight gaps. State-level regulations continue accelerating as federal PFAS action slows.

The Agenda

Witnesses and Their Backgrounds

Kimberly Wise White of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will represent U.S. chemical manufacturing interests. The ACC is a powerful trade association whose testimony will articulate industry positions on regulatory predictability and competitiveness.

John P. Carey of dsm-firmenich will represent multinational specialty chemical corporations. The Swiss-Dutch multinational operates in nutrition, health, beauty, and fragrance sectors, offering insight into how global companies navigate U.S. regulations.

Both witnesses will advocate for TSCA modernization—specifically faster regulatory processes and policies supporting domestic manufacturing and supply chain resilience.

Between The Lines

Republicans dominate the pro-modernization camp. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA-1) introduced legislation to overturn EPA’s TCE ban. Rep. Laurel Lee (R-FL-15) has blamed overregulation for harming supply chains.

Democrats push stronger protections. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-9) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03) reintroduced the Food Chemical Reassessment Act to close food safety loopholes. Schakowsky also introduced the Safer Beauty Bill Package for cosmetics regulation.

Competitive Landscape

The chemical industry has mobilized significant lobbying resources. The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SCMA) filed extensive disclosure reports targeting TSCA implementation, EPA’s New Chemicals Program, and supply chains.

Occidental Petroleum has focused on TSCA Risk Evaluations and Lautenberg Act implementation. ORICA Australia registered to lobby on chemical supply chains and manufacturing priorities.

The Alliance for Chemical Distribution met directly with Rep. Miller-Meeks on supply chain strengthening. Public health advocates, including the Environmental Defense Fund, will counter industry positions.

The Bottom Line

The core tension: Republicans seek efficiency and growth; Democrats prioritize health protections and corporate accountability. The outcome will determine whether the U.S. chemical industry gains competitive relief or public health protections are strengthened.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article