News

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, announced a hearing titled From Source to Tap: A Hearing to Examine Challenges and Opportunities for Safe, Reliable, and Affordable Drinking Water . “Every American deserves access to safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water. Yet, failing infrastructure creates the potential threat of contamination in the safe drinking water that American families rely on, putting the health and safety of our communities at risk,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer. “This hearing will examine the current state of our nationwide drinking water infrastructure, how the Safe Drinking Water Act is being implemented, and the security of our water systems against cyber threats and other risks to ensure our communities are being served effectively.” Subcommittee on Environment hearing titled From Source to Tap: A Hearing to Examine Challenges and Opportunities for Safe, Reliable, and Affordable Drinking Water . WHAT: Subcommittee on Environment hearing on safe drinking water. DATE: Tuesday, February 24, 2026     TIME: 10:15 AM ET LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building  This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be live streamed online at  energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Seth Ricketts with the Committee staff at Seth.Ricketts@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Ben Mullany at  Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov .

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today's hearing titled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America's Chemical Safety Law, Strenghten Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing.

Subcommittee Chairman Palmer’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:

“Good afternoon and welcome to Ranking Members Pallone, Tonko, my colleagues, and to our witnesses for this hearing of the Subcommittee on the Environment.

“Today we will be examining a legislative proposal to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act – or TSCA.

“First enacted into law in 1976 with broad bipartisan support, TSCA provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with broad authority to regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.

“Forty years later, Congress made several improvements to TSCA with passage of the bipartisan Lautenberg Amendments in 2016.

“As we heard at our hearing last January, chemicals are central to many aspects of modern life, and a strong, U.S. chemical industry is key to our economic prosperity and national security.

“The 2016 law authorized EPA to collect user fees to help provide resources and funding but in the decade since the Lautenberg Amendments were passed, it has become clear that this important law is still not working as Congress intended and that further changes are needed to ensure chemicals are reviewed in a predictable and efficient process without undermining safety.

“The process for reviewing new chemicals – which was a significant focus of the 2016 effort – is broken. As we heard in January and will again hear from witnesses today, EPA does not meet the 90-day review deadline for the vast majority of all new chemicals submitted for EPA review. This regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult for the chemical industry to bring safer alternatives or new technology to the market in the U.S. and impacts human health and the environment by slowing the transition to safer alternatives.

“To be clear: The draft would not scrap the safety protections enacted in the 2016 Amendments and is not reopening up TSCA as a whole.

“The bill would reauthorize the fee provision for another 10 years and require increased transparency and accountability in how fees are used by EPA.

“The draft also makes targeted changes to modernize section 5 and section 6 concerning the review and regulations of new and existing chemicals, including requiring increased coordination between EPA and other agencies and prioritizing chemicals that are essential to critical manufacturing supply chains.

“Our witnesses today are: Dimitri Karakitsos, a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight who worked on the 2016 Amendments as a Senate staffer; Dr. Kimberly Wise White of the American Chemistry Council, John Carey of DSM-Firmenich, an international chemical manufacturer with significant operations in the U.S., and Professor Tracey Woodruff of the University of California, San Francisco.

“The legislation we are considering today is a discussion draft. It reflects input the Subcommittee received at our January hearing and in the months since.

“Majority staff also met with their counterparts on the minority staff half a dozen times to discuss ideas and language for this proposal, and several changes were made to the text based on input from minority staff.

“We look forward to getting additional feedback in the weeks after this hearing and hope to continue discussions with the minority on areas for bipartisan cooperation as we work on an updated draft, prepare legislation for introduction, and plan for a future markup to advance this important legislation.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing.

“The process for reviewing new chemicals – which was a significant focus of the 2016 effort – is broken. This regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult for the chemical industry to bring safer alternatives or new technology to the market in the U.S. and impacts human health and the environment by slowing the transition to safer alternatives,” said Chairman Palmer. “The bill would reauthorize the fee provision for another 10 years and require increased transparency and accountability in how fees are used by EPA.”

Watch the full hearing here.

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “Dr. White, we've had this discussion and my colleagues have opened the door, but I want to give you an opportunity to speak to how provisions in this legislative proposal today will guide EPA to focus their consideration on conditions that reasonably could be foreseen, and not just theoretical or even unlikely, because I think we're opening up potential areas that will waste time to be able to allow important chemicals to be assessed. Can you discuss that for us, please?” Dr. White: “For every single chemical that the EPA has evaluated since TSCA was modernized, they have found it to be an unreasonable risk. This has really been because of their scientific practices and principles. They have ignored submitted data. They have mischaracterized worst case exposure scenarios and not understood what exposure actually looks like when they're making decisions. And they focused on conditions of use that were not relevant or that were not really going to provide or have a specific high level of exposure. So, this has led to really flawed assessments by the agency, leading to overly conservative risk management decisions by the agency. What this new approach does is it requires the agency to focus on those conditions of use that are more likely than not to occur. So, it really helps to, again, focus the agency on looking at actual real-world scenarios for how a chemistry might be used.”

Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “For states like Iowa, where agriculture, manufacturing, including chemical manufacturing, and innovation are central to our economy, we need a regulatory system that protects human health and the environment without relying on duplicative regulation or unnecessary delays. This discussion draft refocuses TSCA on real world risk, best available science, and coordination with other federal and international regulators. It encourages safer innovation, strengthens domestic supply chains, and ensures EPA is accountable for its decisions while preserving strong protections for workers, consumers, and families.”

Congressman Gabe Evans (CO-08): “One of the processes that's used at EPA to manage and look at these chemicals and do cost benefit analysis is what's called a risk evaluation. In your experience, do EPA's risk evaluations and subsequent risk management rules provide health and safety benefits that are commensurate with the costs and burdens of the rules? And if not, what can we do to address that?” Dr. White: “EPA's risk evaluation process can be improved upon. It has a best available science and a way to vet the scientific evidence statute that it should be relying on. It has been missing the mark over the last several years. And so, there's really an opportunity to strengthen that, maintain that language.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, announced a hearing titled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing.

“Since our first hearing of this Congress, our Committee has been working to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer. “Targeted and measured reforms will increase accountability, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and safeguard the health and safety of our communities. The legislation we’ll be discussing in this hearing would support these goals and help to ensure TSCA processes are working effectively to evaluate chemical safety and support American innovation.”

Subcommittee on Environment hearing titled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing

WHAT: Subcommittee on Environment hearing to discuss legislation to modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law

DATE: Thursday, January 22, 2026

TIME: 2:00 PM ET

LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

This hearing will focus on the following bills:

• H.R.____, Discussion Draft of Legislation to Modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act

This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at energycommerce.house.gov. If you have any questions concerning this hearing, please contact Jackson Rudden at jackson.rudden@mail.house.gov. If you have any press-related questions, please contact Ben Mullany at Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled Examining the Impact of EPA’s CERCLA Designation for Two PFAS Chemistries and Potential Policy Responses to Superfund Liability Concerns.

Subcommittee Chairman Palmer’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:

“Welcome to today’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment. This year, we’ve revisited some of our country’s most important environmental laws and confronted emerging challenges in protecting our environment and promoted a regulatory climate that encourages innovation and economic growth.

“Among other things, we’ve identified shortcomings with the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act that delay newer, safer chemistries from reaching consumers; explored opportunities to revitalize brownfields sites for crucial infrastructure projects; evaluated the state of technologies to improve our recycling systems; and passed common-sense Clear Air Act reforms.

“Today, we are examining EPA’s decision last year to designate two PFAS chemistries—PFOA and PFOS—as hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as ‘CERCLA’ or the Superfund law. CERLCA was enacted in 1980 to facilitate the cleanup of the most contaminated sites around the country and to establish a scheme to hold liable for cleanup costs the parties responsible for that contamination. Superfund imposes strict, and joint and several liability on parties.

“In other words, a responsible party could be responsible for the entire cost to cleanup a contaminated site even if its contribution to the pollution was minimal. CERCLA includes exemptions as well as defenses to liability for certain parties such as ‘bona fide prospective purchasers’ and ‘innocent landowners,’ as they are referred to. However, in the context of the hazardous substance designations for PFOA and PFOS, there are concerns that the existing exemptions and defenses may not adequately protect a class of parties commonly known as ‘passive receivers’ who did not manufacture or use PFOA or PFOS, but may have acquired, used, or disposed of material containing these chemicals. Today, we will examine the impacts of potential liability for PFAS contamination on these entities. Congress has clarified and expanded liability protections before, such as by passing the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002. We will consider how concerns about PFAS liability may deter a range of economic activities and whether changes to CERCLA, or other legislative action, are needed.

“Additionally, at our March hearing on reauthorization of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Brownfields Program, we discussed the tremendous potential of the estimated 450,000 brownfields sites in our country for housing important infrastructure such as power generation, semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and data centers.

“We hope to examine whether concerns about liability for PFAS hinder the redevelopment of these sites.

“To this end, we welcome Susan Bodine, who previously served as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA during the George W. Bush Administration and then as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in the first Trump Administration, in addition to senior staff roles in both the House and the Senate.

“We are also joined by Lawrence Falbe, Chair of the International Council of Shopping Centers Environmental and Land Use Policy Committee. Mr. Falbe will share his experience on how potential PFAS contamination impacts real estate transactions for those seeking to reuse those sites.

“Next, Emily Donovan joins us a co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, a grassroots community advocacy organization focused on the presence and impact of certain PFAS in communities. We also welcome Tracy Mehan, who represents the American Water Works Association and served as EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, also during the George W. Bush Administration. I thank all of our Members and witnesses for being here, and I look forward to today’s discussion.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled Examining the Impact of EPA’s CERCLA Designation for Two PFAS Chemistries and Potential Policy Responses to Superfund Liability Concerns.

“CERLCA was enacted in 1980 to facilitate the cleanup of the most contaminated sites around the country and to establish a scheme to hold liable for cleanup costs the parties responsible for that contamination. Superfund imposes strict, and joint and several liability on parties,” said Chairman Palmer. “In other words, a responsible party could be responsible for the entire cost to cleanup a contaminated site even if its contribution to the pollution was minimal.”

Watch the full hearing here

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “CERCLA was established to hold polluters liable for the cleanup of chemical contamination that they caused. This polluter pays liability framework is helpful in many instances where there is a need for expensive environmental cleanups, so that the party that generated or released the hazardous substance can be held responsible for the associated costs. However, the liability established by CERCLA does not stop with the polluters. Under the statute’s liability framework, any person who has had incurred costs related to the remediation of hazardous substances can file suit against not just polluters, but so-called passive receivers. These passive receivers are not involved in the initial generation or discharge of hazardous chemicals, but might receive water, soil or other materials containing such substances. Given how common the use of PFAS is, the 2024 final rule designating two PFAS chemistries as hazardous substances creates a system where many passive receivers will be drawn into costly legal proceedings for contamination that they bear little or absolutely no responsibility for having created.”

Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “As the Representative from Iowa, I take seriously our responsibility to protect public health and the environment while also ensuring that federal policies are fair, clear, and feasible in Iowa. Clean water affects our farmers, our rural communities, our drinking water systems, and our local employers, as well as families. Many of the entities now worried about the circle of liability like water utilities, wastewater facilities, landfills and farmers, who responsibly apply biosolids, did not create PFAS but could still be swept up in a liability scheme that is retroactive, strict, joint, and several. Cost to passive receivers is only one piece of the problem. We should also explore options that support swift remediation and provide the liability certainty necessary for American industry to focus on solutions that allow them to continue to invest in the US, rather than endless courtroom battles. At the same time, we should be encouraging innovation and American ingenuity. Iowa agriculture is already helping lead the way with promising alternatives to PFAS, including soy-based fire suppressants made from soybean meal. These kinds of homegrown solutions can reduce reliance on legacy chemicals, create new markets for farmers, and strengthen our economy without heavy handed mandates from Washington.”

Congressman Buddy Carter (GA-01): “This is certainly an important hearing, and Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and thank you for holding it. […] We've established the fact that PFAS are used in a number of different areas and a number of different things, and consumer products and industrial purposes. And oftentimes they're used in life saving devices, electronics and firefighting foams. I'm going to touch on that in just a second, but while they're essential for everyday life and many life saving devices, its very complex nature makes the cleanup and the disposal difficult. So, I want to talk about the practicality of how we deal with this. I'm not denying we need to deal with it, I just want to talk about the practicality.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, announced a hearing titled Examining the Impact of EPA’s CERCLA Designation for Two PFAS Chemistries and Potential Policy Responses to Superfund Liability Concerns.

“We’ve heard from many stakeholders who do not produce or use PFAS, but encounter these substances passively through their essential work managing residential waste, growing food, or bringing clean water to our homes,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer. “Federal actions have caused concerns about potential liability in the wake of EPA’s designation of two PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. This hearing is an opportunity to assess the current statutory and regulatory landscape for PFAS and consider what steps Congress may need to take to respond to these concerns.”

Subcommittee on Environment hearing titled Examining the Impact of EPA’s CERCLA Designation for Two PFAS Chemistries and Potential Policy Responses to Superfund Liability Concerns.

WHAT: Subcommittee on Environment hearing to discuss the current statutory and regulatory landscape for PFAS.

DATE: Thursday, December 18, 2025

TIME: 10:00 AM ET

LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be live streamed online at energycommerce.house.gov. If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Jackson Rudden with the Committee staff at Jackson.Rudden@mail.house.gov. If you have any press-related questions, please contact Ben Mullany at Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a hearing titled Examining Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains . “Producing critical minerals here at home is essential for our economic and national security. We cannot allow the supply chains for critical minerals used in products like AI chips, cell phones, missiles, and fighter jets to be controlled by China, particularly the processing and refining phases of the supply chains,” said Chairman Palmer. “In today’s hearing, our witnesses were clear that Congress must take steps to build an environment enticing for domestic investment—including streamlining the permitting process—to help ensure that critical minerals can be mined, processed, and refined domestically.”  Watch the full hearing here .   Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12): “The US has the second longest timeline for a mine to be approved, and we’ve heard anecdotes of projects waiting decades for approval to break ground or begin operations. Why is it that approvals of projects in the U.S., whether it be a mine or a processing, refining, or recycling facility for critical minerals take so long in the U.S?” Mr. Herrgott: “One of the main reasons is lack of coordination amongst the various agencies that are involved in the permitting process. Most mining projects will require a variety of permits. We’ve had member companies that have had mines that require over 90 permits.” Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02): “Critical Minerals are the backbone of a modern economy and a modern military, from semiconductors to advanced weapons systems. Today, the U.S. imports between 50 percent and 82 percent of the critical minerals we need. So where are they coming from? It’s been mentioned plenty of times here – they’re coming from China. That’s not good. Our national security, our national industrial base, our economic future is dependent on supply chains we don’t control and from regimes we cannot trust. And why? Well, mostly because our laws and regulations have made it virtually impossible to open up new mines in this country, and even, even when we do mine, we still have to ship the raw materials overseas just to get them refined because we’ve offshored our processing capabilities.” Congressman Randy Weber (TX-14): “The U.S. once led the world in producing and refining rare earth elements but ceded that position to China in the 1980s. Today, China controls roughly 90 percent of global rare earth processing and has already demonstrated a willingness to restrict exports and thus, as one of you mentioned, affect the market. This leaves the U.S. dangerously exposed. If China were to halt exports entirely, think of that scenario. Where would we turn to secure the materials vital to our energy infrastructure and national security?” Ms. Hunter: “So, a total export ban would be devastating to the U.S. economy. We would need to rely on domestic sources if we can get them online, and then have them be processed into the final products that need to be qualified by manufacturers, and turn to allies as much as possible, countries with which we share national security priorities.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled Examining Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains . Subcommittee Chairman Palmer's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled 'Examining Ways to Enhance Our Domestic Mineral Supply Chains.' “Today’s hearing addresses the crucial challenge that the U.S. is facing—how to decouple and derisk ourselves from China and other foreign adversaries and build critical mineral supply chains within the U.S. Our country has been blessed with abundant natural resources and the world-changing technology needed to harness those resources. Unfortunately, however, we have become over reliant on other nations to supply and process critical minerals. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to examine how to increase capacity and resilience in American critical mineral supply chains again. “Critical minerals are used in items we use every day like smart phones, computer hard drives, televisions, batteries, and lightbulbs. They are also used in elements of our electrical grid and have defense applications. “The U.S. used to be the leading producer and refiner of many critical minerals, including rare earth elements. By the late 1990s, however, most of this industry dissolved and moved overseas. According to a review in the United States Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024, the U.S. was 100 percent import reliant for 12 of the 50 critical minerals on the 2022 critical minerals list and more than 50 percent import reliant for an additional 29. “This predicament we find ourselves in is not a new problem, but a problem that has been many years in the making. So how did we get here? It is a combination of things—including burdensome permitting and other regulations, uncertainty in commodity pricing, market manipulation, and an increasingly litigious society. This has made our domestic environment unattractive to investors and companies as a result. For example, getting domestic processing and refining facilities up and running is an extremely long process—it can take 10 to 20 years for new processing plants and smelters to become operational. That is in addition to the lengthy mine development process in the U.S., which is the second-longest mine development timeline in the world. Because of this burdensome red tape, companies are not incentivized to invest domestically, so instead they invest abroad. “Moreover, even when U.S. companies operate mines in the U.S., the hesitancy to invest in domestic processing and refining facilities has put us in a position where our foreign adversaries monopolize other parts of the supply chain. For example, in 2019, one rare earth mine in the U.S. sent 98 percent of its raw materials to China because the U.S. lacked the capacity to process those minerals domestically. As a result, we must import our own product back from China after it is processed, but China’s recent export bans on several rare earth elements critical to the U.S. make this nearly impossible. “I cannot convey the seriousness of this issue enough. This is an economic issue and an issue of national security. We as a nation must ensure that we have access to these materials and the ability to process them without reliance on foreign adversaries, including China. “I want to applaud President Trump for declaring a national energy emergency on day one of his presidency, emphasizing that the U.S.’s identification, production, and refining of critical minerals are inadequate to meet domestic needs. Since then, President Trump has signed several executive orders related to critical minerals—including ordering immediate measures to increase American mineral production. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration on the mission to increase the capacity and resilience of domestic critical mineral supply chains. “I also want to thank our witnesses for joining us today to share their expertise and guide our discussion about the challenges in building domestic critical mineral supply chains and the opportunities we have to improve our domestic supply chains moving forward.” ###