Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment,delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  A Decade Later: Assessing the Legacy and Impact of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act .  Subcommittee Chairman Griffith’s opening statement as prepared for delivery: “I am really looking forward to working with you, Ranking Member Tonko. I am hopeful we can work together on some bipartisan legislation going through this Subcommittee. SUPPORTING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING “Today is not only my first hearing as Chair of the Subcommittee, but it is the first subcommittee hearing the House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding to start the 119th Congress.  “The American people have spoken loud and clear—they’ve had enough of rising prices and a regulatory burden that threatens energy reliability, reduces American competitiveness, and in some cases, makes for stagnant economic growth.  “In general, I’ve long believed Congress needs to get back into the practice of passing regular authorizations. As Chair of this Subcommittee, it is my goal to modernize some of our major environmental laws and enable predictable, common sense, regulation.  “I’m glad we’ve hit the ground running with this hearing and hope that we have signaled our commitment to dig into the statutory language to find out where we can make the law work better for all interested parties. “To that end, today’s hearing will examine the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, or the Lautenberg Act.  “Nearly ten years ago, the Members of this Committee worked tirelessly to develop the Lautenberg Act to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, often referred to as ‘TSCA.’ “TSCA governs the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA’s, regulation of new and existing chemicals and the chain of commerce for products containing those chemicals. “This was no easy row to hoe—the Lautenberg Act made the most significant changes to TSCA since it became law in 1976. The Lautenberg Act enjoyed strong bipartisan support in this Committee before becoming law in 2016. I was proud to be part of that process. EMBRACING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION “However, nearly ten years have passed since the Lautenberg Act’s passage. Both Democrat and Republican Administrations at EPA have had the opportunity to implement the Act’s procedures for collecting new information on chemicals, reviewing new chemicals, and for regulating those that the EPA determines pose an  ‘unreasonable risk.’ And each Administration, as we will hear today, has encountered a number of challenges in implementing the Act.  “In 2023, the Government Accountability Office found that, between 2017 and 2022, EPA completed only 10 percent of the pre-manufacture chemical reviews within the time limit laid out in the Lautenberg Act.  With the ten-year anniversary of the Lautenberg Act’s passage quickly approaching, today’s hearing will provide us an opportunity to learn more about what’s working and what’s not at the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. “And it’s important that we make the most of this opportunity to create that record. Among other things, TSCA, as amended by the Lautenberg Act, governs the EPA’s processes for reviewing new chemicals or in allowing new uses for existing chemicals before those products can be sold to consumers in the United States. Chemicals are part of manufacturing methods and products that we depend on for our everyday life.  “New chemicals, utilized in a safe manner, not only lead to new products that enhance our quality of life but also are necessary for addressing crucial challenges like harnessing energy resources and treating disease. “Similarly, our economic competitiveness and national security depend on our ability to innovate and bring new technologies to market safely and efficiently. As chemicals are part of nearly every product, and new chemistries are essential to developing better products, the TSCA regulatory scheme has a profound impact across nearly every sector of our economy. New chemicals and new uses for existing chemicals must undergo EPA review.  “If these reviews don’t take place in a timely manner, our international competitors could gain an edge, and more production would likely shift overseas.  “We are fortunate to have a panel of experts joining us to help us pinpoint shortcomings with our current regulatory mechanisms and to discuss potential opportunities for reform. “Today, we will hear testimony from Mr. Chris John, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Chemistry Council, or ACC. The ACC serves as an organization of chemical companies who often engage in EPA’s regulatory process, including new chemical reviews. “Also joining us is Mr. Jeff Moody, the Vice President of Government Relations for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. He will share the experiences of refiners and manufacturers that comply with TSCA  to make the products we depend on every day.  “We are also glad to have Dr. Richard Engler. Prior to his current role as Director of Chemistry at the ACTA group, Dr. Engler served at the Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years and will be able to share more about the agency staff’s experience implementing the Act. “Additionally, Dr. Maria Doa, the Senior Director of Chemicals Policy at the Environmental Defense Fund will offer testimony. Before joining the Environmental Defense Fund in 2021, Dr. Do-A served at the Environmental Protection Agency for 30 years, working on chemical safety and TSCA.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled  A Decade Later: Assessing the Legacy and Impact of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act . Chairman Griffith issued the following statement following the hearing: “Each administration has encountered a number of challenges in implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,”   said Chairman Griffith .  “Today, the Environment Subcommittee rightly explored these issues and underscored the need to revise the EPA regulatory structure for the uses of new and existing chemicals and for products containing those chemicals.” Watch the full hearing  here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Vice Chairman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02) : “I just want start off by noting how important chemicals are to a strong economy, they are essential in making all of the products that are necessary for our modern life in the 21st century. Even the word chemicals elicits a pretty visceral negative reaction from many. But we have to remember that we have to put emotions aside and actually acknowledge that chemicals play an indispensable role in creating everything from lifesaving medical devices, to computers, smartphones, and cutting-edge military platforms. The domestic chemical industry supports hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity. And unfortunately, the prior administration poorly implemented chemical regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, putting all of this at risk. Impractical, duplicative or overburdensome regulations for existing chemicals threaten critical supply chains for the products that we all know and rely upon every single day.” Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks, M.D. (IA-02) : “This subcommittee has the responsibility of addressing the aggressive overregulation of the chemicals industry by the Biden administration, which has severely hindered American companies' ability to innovate, grow, and compete in the global market. I believe this hearing is a strong step in the right direction toward achieving that goal. Dr. Doa said that the EPA wouldn't restrict vinegar, but let me give you an example of aggressive overregulation. I'm both a former operating room nurse and a doctor. When the EPA came out with its rules on ethylene oxide, which is the source for non-steam sterilization with no alternative in place, what was the assessment of the best available science? What was the assessment and evaluation of risks and the cost? Was it better to have people have non-sterilized equipment put in their bodies, risk infection, sepsis, and death? I would say that is an example of overzealous regulation.” Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak (ND-AL) : “We all want to make America safer for our children, and I agree with my colleagues that we should always be trying to do better. But let's be clear, this change in approach from the EPA is a sea change in approach, and it creates more regulatory uncertainty and makes Americans less safe, not more safe, by pushing manufacturing overseas, jeopardizing American jobs, threatening supply chains, exposing them to intrusion by foreign adversaries, driving up costs for North Dakota farmers and ranchers, and thereby for everything that we purchase. These are real impacts and real risks for American families, and I appreciate that the EPA is taking a cumulative risk assessment of chemicals.”  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, announced subcommittee membership for the 119 th  Congress. “Today, I am proud to announce the House Committee on Energy and Commerce subcommittee assignments for the 119 th Congress,”   said Chairman Guthrie.   “Energy and Commerce Republicans are ready to hit the ground running, delivering for President Trump’s America First agenda to restore the American Dream.” The Subcommittee Rosters are as follows: Subcommittee on  Communications and Technology: Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12), Vice Chairman Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05) Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12) Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01) Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02) Rep. John Joyce (PA-13) Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01) Rep. August Pfluger (TX-11) Rep. Kat Cammack (FL-03) Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23) Rep. Erin Houchin (IN-09) Rep. Russell Fry (SC-07) Rep. Tom Kean, Jr. (NJ-07)  Rep. Craig Goldman (TX-12) Rep. Julie Fedorchak (ND-AL) Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Ex-Officio Subcommittee on  Energy: Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14), Vice Chairman Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06) Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12) Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12) Rep. August Pfluger (TX-11) Rep. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01) Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) Rep. John James (MI-10) Rep. Cliff Bentz (OR-02) Rep. Russell Fry (SC-07) Rep. Laurel Lee (FL-15) Rep. Nick Langworthy (NY-23) Rep. Michael Rulli (OH-06) Rep. Gabe Evans (CO-08) Rep. Craig Goldman (TX-12) Rep. Julie Fedorchak (ND-AL) Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Ex-Officio Subcommittee on  Health: Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01), Chairman Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02), Vice Chairman Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09) Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12) Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02) Rep. John Joyce (PA-13) Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12) Rep. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01) Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) Rep. Kat Cammack (FL-03) Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23) Rep. John James (MI-10) Rep. Cliff Bentz (OR-02) Rep. Erin Houchin (IN-09) Rep. Nick Langworthy (NY-23) Rep. Tom Kean, Jr. (NJ-07)  Rep. Michael Rulli (OH-06) Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Ex-Officio Subcommittee on  Environment: Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Vice Chairman Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05) Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01) Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06) Rep. John Joyce (PA-13) Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14) Rep. August Pfluger (TX-11) Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) Rep. Laurel Lee (FL-15) Rep. Nick Langworthy (NY-23) Rep. Gabe Evans (CO-08) Rep. Julie Fedorchak (ND-AL) Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Ex-Officio Subcommittee on  Oversight & Investigations: Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12), Vice Chairman Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09) Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02) Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02) Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14) Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12) Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01) Rep. Michael Rulli (OH-06) Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Ex-Officio Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, & Trade: Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Chairman Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01), Vice Chairman Rep. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01) Rep. Kat Cammack (FL-03) Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23) Rep. John James (MI-10) Rep. Cliff Bentz (OR-02) Rep. Erin Houchin (IN-09) Rep. Russell Fry (SC-07) Rep. Laurel Lee (FL-15) Rep. Tom Kean, Jr. (NJ-07)  Rep. Gabe Evans (CO-08) Rep. Craig Goldman (TX-12)  Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Ex-Officio ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Yesterday, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, penned a letter to Secretary Jennifer Granholm questioning the Department of Energy’s involvement in the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to prevent new offshore oil and gas production, leading to higher prices for consumers and harming U.S. energy security. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “Closing off swaths of U.S. offshore areas to energy production, as the Biden-Harris Administration reportedly intends to do, will lead to higher energy prices for American families, the loss of American jobs, and greatly diminish our country’s energy security. As the Secretary of Energy, you have an obligation to weigh in on this matter and insist on a full review of the energy security and economic impacts before any decisions are finalized. “The United States stands at an energy crossroads, facing mounting global security threats and soaring demand for power. Instead of leading the world in energy production, we’ve allowed misguided “green” policies to hamstring our potential. It’s time to unleash American energy dominance again—the federal government must become an ally, not an obstacle, to our nation’s energy security. We look forward to your prompt response to this request, no later than January 10, 2025.” Read the story  here . BACKGROUND: This morning, the Biden Administration announced that more than 625 million square miles of coastline would be off-limits for energy production. Republican Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have continuously called on the Biden-Harris Administration to end its attack on American energy production before leaving office on January 20th. The letter requests an explanation of the DOE’s involvement in the decision and whether the White House or the Department of Interior consulted with the DOE about the plans to close off access to offshore resources. Any decision to shut down access to significant American energy resources impacts U.S. energy policy and should be reviewed by the DOE. The Biden Administration’s energy policies have continued to create major harm to America’s energy production and workforce. A unilateral ban on energy production in large swaths of the U.S. coastline will have lasting impacts on American energy production and security.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) yesterday sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm urging the Department of Energy to prioritize the onshoring of our critical mineral supply chains following the Chinese Communist Party’s July 1 declaration that rare earth metals were the “property of the state.” CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage by E&E News. KEY QUOTE “Critical minerals are essential to America’s economy and to America’s capacity to manufacture goods and high-tech devices. Many critical minerals are essential to the energy sector, as they are needed to manufacture solar panels, batteries, and electrical equipment. As the DOE is aware, the CCP announced limitations on gallium, germanium, natural and synthetic graphite last October. These critical minerals are vital for our defense and energy technologies and are listed as critical and at high risk of supply disruption. On November 21, 2023, the Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter raising security concerns over the CCP limiting exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite. Your response to that letter failed to address these concerns and lacked basic information to help Members of Congress assess the risks of America’s increasing dependence on CCP controlled minerals.” [...] “The administration should prioritize the onshoring of domestic mining and processing industry for these critical minerals and materials. The answer to a lack of mining and processing is not to extend credits to companies using minerals from a major geopolitical adversary that relies on child labor and exploitation.” Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Carter asked Secretary Granholm to answer the following questions by August 13, 2024: Are you concerned by reports that the Chinese government has declared rare earth metals property of the government of China? What actions will the DOE take in response to the Chinese government’s announcement? Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of synthetic and natural graphite. Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of gallium and germanium. How will DOE work to expedite projects to ensure a secure and stable supply chain of these critical minerals and materials given these recent announcements? What actions will DOE take to mitigate potential domestic supply shortages of these minerals? Were you consulted about the Treasury Department’s decision to extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Did you advise or recommend that the White House extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Please explain. CLICK HERE to read the letter to Secretary Granholm. CLICK HERE to read the November 21, 2023, letter to Secretary Granholm raising concerns over the CCP’s decision to limit exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite.