When the chemical safety amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted in 2016, the late Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma stated that more than 150 outside groups supported the legislation.
The support includes manufacturers, the oil and gas industry and environmental activists, Inhofe said.
Ten years later, chemical trade groups and stakeholders have reversed course and are now urging Congress to reform the law, frustrated with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Since the amendment was implemented, chemical manufacturers have experienced delays in the EPA’s new chemical review process, which has taken longer than the allotted 90 days and impacted their businesses. Moreover, chemical stakeholders said the EPA’s guidelines are inconsistent and the risks are not science based.
The House and Senate each released draft bills. House Republicans held a committee hearing to discuss a draft bill proposal to modernize TSCA, which they released in January. The House draft targets definitions, testing authorities, reviews of new chemicals and management of existing substances, TSCA inventory nomenclature, citizen petitions as well as TSCA’s relationship with other federal laws, according to a Jan. 17 blog post by law firm Bergeson and Campbell.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on March 4 to discuss its draft reform bill, the Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2026.
The Senate’s current draft of the preliminary legislation aims to reform the EPA’s new chemical approval process, including establishing clarifying rules to make the review process safe and efficient, according to a one-page summary.
The draft rundown would also prioritize resources to create review tiers for existing, new and unique chemistries, make the review process more predictable, and allow critical substances to compete in the global marketplace.
Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said in his opening remarks at the hearing that when Congress last amended TSCA in 2016, it wanted to modernize the law to reflect the current needs and technology. However, Cramer added, the EPA’s implementation of the new chemicals program “drifted from Congress’ original mandate.”
“In practice today, it is neither reasonable nor prudent and ignores the environmental, economic and social impacts from a prolonged and uncertain approval process,” Cramer said. “In the case when the EPA does approve new, often innovative and safer chemistries, the agency imposes costly, burdensome, or even unnecessary restrictions.
Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said in his opening statement that he appreciated the provisions that address peer review, protecting bipartisan EPA programs and clarifying data requirements.
“But I do have serious concerns with other provisions, such as those that may remove dangerous chemicals from EPA review, circumvent proper scientific review, and reflect deference to industry without adequate protections for public health and the environment,” Whitehouse added.
Whitehouse also raised his issue of scientific integrity with President Donald Trump’s Restoring Gold Standard Science” executive order. The directive aims to regain and maintain trust in science and mandates that federal agencies, such as the EPA, base their decisions on “the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.”
Whitehouse said the executive order gives agency to Trump appointees beholden to the president’s industry donors and not scientists with “objective expertise” or authority to “correct scientific information.”
“Real science entails replicable, iterative methods for answering questions,” Whitehouse said. “These methods are well-established and have existed for centuries. Those best positioned to carry out these methods are scientists who have been properly trained and who do not have financial conflicts of interest. We have an obligation to protect science, and the scientists, from political interference.”
