Hearings to examine the beneficial use and regulation of chemicals.

Senate Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight

2025-10-23

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This subcommittee hearing focused on the complex landscape of chemical regulation in the U.S., exploring its implications for innovation, safety, and global competitiveness [ 00:21:16 ] . Witnesses included industry leaders from Huntsman Corporation and Boeing, alongside a public health expert from the University of California, San Francisco [ 00:21:28 ] . The discussion highlighted the tension between safeguarding public health and the environment, and fostering the necessary innovation for American industry to thrive [ 00:24:30 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Themes

Regulatory Bottlenecks and Impact on Innovation

Regulatory delays and ambiguities in the chemical approval process are stifling innovation, sometimes forcing companies to move research overseas or abandon promising materials [ 00:23:25 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. The EPA's review process for new chemicals often exceeds the statutory 90-day timeline, creating uncertainty for long-term investment decisions . This unpredictability puts the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage, especially compared to countries like China that prioritize quicker approvals and incentives for local investment . For companies like Boeing, lengthy development cycles are significantly impacted by these regulatory inconsistencies, making it challenging to integrate new chemicals and potentially delaying the adoption of safer alternatives . Senator Curtis noted that the EPA met its statutory responsibilities for chemical approvals zero percent of the time in the previous administration .

Public Health and Environmental Protection

Public servants bear the responsibility of ensuring public health, with Americans needing to trust in the safety of their environment and products . Toxic chemicals are pervasive, affecting air, water, food, homes, and workplaces, leading to measurable health tolls such as increased risks of cancer, infertility, and neurological diseases . Environmental regulations have proven highly effective in improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare costs, and boosting life expectancy . The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) aimed to strengthen protections for vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, children, and workers [ 00:30:35 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Concerns were raised about a perceived industry-friendly EPA that undermined science, missed deadlines, and prioritized deregulation over public health, particularly regarding PFAS and asbestos . Reports like "Make America Healthy Again" highlight the pervasive risks from plastics, PFAS, and pesticides, noting that microplastics carry endocrine-disrupting chemicals found even in brain tissue . PFAS, in particular, are widespread, linked to numerous health issues, and the industry has been accused of suppressing unfavorable research . The critical role of unbiased science and the need to remove corporate influence from the regulatory process were emphasized . The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) was highlighted as essential for understanding chemical toxicity, responding to environmental crises, and identifying hazards, underscoring concerns about plans to dismantle it .

Balancing Innovation and Regulation

The fundamental challenge is to regulate chemicals effectively to protect public health and the environment, while simultaneously nurturing American innovation [ 00:24:30 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. A crucial aspect of this balance is ensuring that the regulatory system evolves with modern science and promotes collaboration among relevant agencies [ 00:24:36 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Chemical manufacturers, such as Huntsman, invest significantly in research and development to produce new materials that are safer and more efficient, often replacing older, less environmentally friendly substances [ 00:23:08 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. The industry seeks regulatory certainty to drive investment and bring sustainable chemistry to market, highlighting that Europe's deindustrialization due to regulatory burdens serves as a cautionary tale . While the EPA's role is to establish safety standards, it is industry's responsibility to innovate within those parameters .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was one of concerned deliberation, demonstrating a shared understanding of the critical need for effective chemical regulation [ 00:24:27 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Despite differing perspectives on the causes and solutions for regulatory challenges, there was a palpable desire to find a balanced approach that protects public health without stifling American innovation [ 00:24:30 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. The ranking member emphasized the bipartisan nature of addressing pollution , and there was a commitment from the chair to pursue bipartisan solutions [ 01:26:15 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Overall, the discussion was constructive, focusing on the urgency of improving the current regulatory framework .

Participants

Transcript

Good morning, and welcome to our subcommittee hearing this morning.  I'd like to begin by thanking our three witnesses, and we'll talk a little bit more about you in a minute.  My thanks to the ranking member.  I'm not sure if you've followed the news, but it's kind of a big deal he's here today.  He was a little bit busy yesterday, and we're going to test his voice after speaking for almost 24 hours.  So, ranking member, thanks for being with us this morning.   Well, our hearing this morning impacts the regulation on environment for new and existing chemicals, a subject that lies at the intersection of innovation, safety, and U.S. competitiveness.  Today, we'll hear from both sides of a chemical equation, from the Huntsman Corporation, represented by their chief executive officer, Mr. Peter Huntsman,   And Boeing represented by Dr. Gwen Gross, Senior Technician Fellow in Compositions and Chemical Technology and Chief Chemist.  And Dr. Tracy J. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, UCSF, Professor and Director of Program on Reproductive Health   and the environment and members of the National Academy of Medicine.  And I'll allow our ranking member perhaps to introduce her just a little bit more in the remarks, but I'll just say a few minutes myself about our other two witnesses.  Mr. Huntsman and Dr.  Gross bring critical perspective   Mr. Huntsman leads a company whose core business is the development of new chemicals that enables the development of safer, more efficient, and more effective products in the United States.  Dr.  Gross represents a major customer of those materials, an aerospace manufacturer whose ability to incorporate new chemistries into aircraft is essential to maximizing the safety and the performance of aircraft and maintaining American competitiveness.   Together, their perspectives embody the essential relationship between chemical manufacturers and their customers, those who depend on chemical innovation to drive American industry forward.
Every day, American chemical manufacturers like Huntsman invest billions of dollars in research and development to produce new materials that can reduce emissions, improve safety, and maintain U.S. industrial competitiveness.  These new chemicals enable lighter, stronger, and more efficient products to reach the market, from cars to aircraft to medical devices.   However, regulatory delays and ambiguities in the chemical approval process can stifle that innovation, forcing companies to move research overseas or abandon promising materials altogether.  That's not good for our workers, our consumers, or the environment.   On the other end of the supply chain are manufacturers like Boeing, companies that rely on those new chemicals to build world-class products that meet our highest safety standards.  Dr.  Gross and her team work every day to integrate next-generation replacement materials into aircraft, a lengthy approval process including, in this example, EPA, the addition to FAA, and Department of Defense.  When the regulations guiding chemical approvals change faster,   than the relevant agencies can deliver the chemical approvals or certifications, companies like Boeing are caught in a difficult position, hamstrung by a process that may actually prevent safer or more effective replacement chemicals from ever reaching the final products.  Those regulatory bottlenecks can ripple across the entire aerospace supply chain, impacting thousands of suppliers and hundreds of thousands of workers.   Our challenge, therefore, is not whether to regulate chemicals.  Of course, we must regulate.  But how do we do so in a way that protects public health and the environment without stifling American innovation?  We must ensure that our regulatory system keeps pace with modern science, supports collaboration between EPA and other relevant agencies, and gives both chemical manufacturers and their customers the certainty that they need to invest, produce, and compete globally.
America cannot lead in advanced manufacturing if our innovators do not have a chemical approval process that works.  Thank you for joining us today, and I look forward to hearing from all three of our witnesses, and I'll yield to the ranking member.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations.  This is, I believe, our first hearing of the subcommittee, and you're in your first term, so this is your first holding that gavel.  So there we go.  All right.  It's a pleasure to work with you.  Thank you.  Today, we're here to discuss how we regulate toxic substances and chemical safety.   As public servants, we have a responsibility to ensure that while we work to create good-paying jobs for working families, our highest priority must be protecting public health.  Americans need to be able to trust that the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the products they use in their homes, their workplaces, their communities are safe for themselves and their families, and that their long-term health and safety takes priority over short-term profits.   Pollution isn't partisan and addressing it is our shared responsibility.  That trust is placed here with this subcommittee and with the agencies we oversee, the Environmental Protection Agency.   In 2016, I worked with members of this committee to amend the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act, which we know as TSCA.  That legislation required the EPA to develop a new framework to evaluate the risks of new and existing chemicals and to regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk of human or environmental health.  And that process was implemented during the first Trump administration.   But during that time, an industry-friendly EPA undermined science, delayed action on chemicals like PFAS, missed statutory deadlines for existing and new chemicals, according to the EPA's own inspector general, and prioritized deregulation over public health.  Now the second Trump administration is picking up where the first left off.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up