Environment

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. – This week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding three Subcommittee Hearings. Read more below.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a hearing to discuss public safety communications in the United States.

• DATE: Tuesday, December 16, 2025
• TIME: 10:15 AM ET
• LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is holding a hearing to examine how AI and biotechnology advancements affect biosecurity and efforts to mitigate risks.

• DATE: Wednesday, December 17, 2025
• TIME: 10:15 AM ET
• LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment is holding a 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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, sent a letter to Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), demanding answers and documents that the Committee previously requested from CARB on California’s refusal to follow the law and implement the Clean Air Act as written by Congress. The Committee also requested transcribed interviews of six individuals if CARB fails to provide the previously requested information by December 5, 2025.    “The Committee’s August 11, 2025, letter requested information and documents from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) about California’s enforcement of state vehicle emission standards that disregard recent Congressional actions to disapprove waivers of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act,” said Chairmen Guthrie, Joyce, and Palmer. “Unfortunately, CARB’s responses to date have been woefully inadequate and do not satisfy the Committee’s important oversight interests in this matter.” Key excerpt from the letter: “Clean Air Act section 209(a) preempts states from adopting or attempting to enforce any emissions control standard for new motor vehicles or engines, or any condition precedent to the initial retail sale, registration or inspection of such vehicle or engine. Under section 209(b), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may waive federal preemption, allowing California to establish state motor vehicle emission standards. However, Congress passed with bipartisan support, and President Trump signed, three resolutions under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproving three waivers of preemption that the Biden-Harris Administration previously granted.” “Due to CARB’s failure to make a good faith effort to provide the requested information and documents, the Committee requests transcribed interviews with the following individuals if CARB fails to provide the requested information and documents by December 5, 2025: Lauren Sanchez, CARB Chair (from September 2025 to present); Liane Randolph, Former CARB Chair (from December 2021 to September 2025); Steven Cliff, CARB Executive Officer; Shannon Dilley, CARB Chief Counsel; Christopher Grundler, CARB Deputy Executive Officer – Mobile Sources & Incentives; and Robin Lang, Division Chief, CARB Emissions Certification & Compliance Division. “The Committee requests that these transcribed interviews be completed no later than December 12, 2025.” Background: Since President Trump signed the three Congressional Review Act resolutions into law, revoking California’s ability to set state emission standards that mandate the sale of EVs, the state cannot move forward with plans to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles. The Committee’s August 11, 2025, request sought answers about California’s apparent enforcement of the preempted standards and requested copies of related documents, such as internal guidance CARB provided to its staff, communications with other states, internal correspondence between CARB officials and the Governor’s Office and the Office of Attorney General, and other internal documents concerning CARB’s response to the disapproval of the waivers of federal preemption. The requested information and documents will help the Committee understand how California is implementing the Clean Air Act in light of the federal preemption of state emission standards, and whether the waiver authority in Clean Air Act section 209(b) should be eliminated or otherwise modified. CLICK HERE to read the full letter .

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, sent a letter to Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), requesting an assessment of available or emerging technologies and materials that could be used to supplement critical minerals in semiconductors. “Critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements are essential for technologies used in many sectors of the economy, including energy, transportation, national defense, health care, and consumer electronics,” said Chairmen Joyce and Palmer . “These minerals are vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions for several reasons, including U.S. reliance on foreign sources, as well as the rapid growth in demand for critical minerals in the U.S. and abroad.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter. The letter asks the GAO to examine: The status of domestic technologies and supplemental materials, such as critical minerals found in mine waste, tailings, or reclaimed from end-of-life batteries and electronic waste, that can serve as substitutes for foreign-sourced critical minerals from non-allied nations needed for semiconductors and energy grid or power electronics, including impacts on material and product performance. Key technological challenges to the development or adoption of these domestic supplemental and materials to advance the diversification of U.S. critical mineral sources. BACKGROUND: In May, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on ways to enhance our critical mineral supply chains. Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are committed to strengthening our critical mineral supply chains and finding solutions to reduce our reliance on foreign sources, particularly when it comes to foreign adversaries like China. The Trump Administration has also worked hard to bolster these supply chains. Critical minerals are essential to American technologies and industries, and finding innovative domestic solutions that can contribute to our independence from non-allied nations is essential as we work to onshore American innovation and strengthen our national security. ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin requesting information on how far-left organizations received billions of dollars in the final days of the previous administration through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).  “In the final days of the Biden-Harris Administration, the EPA put their far-left allies ahead of the American people, giving away Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants worth nearly $30 billion to recipients who were not equipped to receive such large amounts of funding,” said Chairmen Guthrie, Joyce, and Palmer. “By requesting documentation about this grant process from the EPA, Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce are continuing our work to root out waste, fraud, and abuse while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”  This letter follows requests sent to eight nonprofits who were awarded more than $20 billion earlier this year through the GGRF. Key excerpt from the letter: “The Committee finds the potential for financial mismanagement particularly worrisome, as some of the grantees’ previous revenues were only a small fraction of the GGRF funds they received, which raises questions about whether the grant recipients can adequately manage grant amounts that are significantly larger than their previously documented revenue.” “The Committee seeks to ensure that the federal government is a good steward of taxpayer dollars and to continue supporting EPA’s efforts in combatting waste, fraud, and abuse within the GGRF program. To assist with the Subcommittee’s investigation of GGRF and support the Administration’s efforts, the Committee requests the following documents no later than November 19, 2025: The complete grant file for the three NCIF grantees and the five CCIA grantees, including the application submitted by the organization with all supporting documentation and appendices, any additional information requested by EPA, and any memos on changes to the grant terms and conditions. The scoring breakdown and rational for each score for all the NCIF and CCIA applicants included in the final rankings lists for the top-ranked applications, including any changes to scoring or rescores and rationale for why those changes occurred. Any checklist or guidance for EPA grants employees on what steps they should be taking to conduct appropriate pre-award due diligence and to ensure all required paperwork and documentation is submitted and verified. This should include briefing materials used to advise the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Chief of Staff, General Counsel, Associate Administrator for Mission Support, and Associate Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation about the selection of NCIF grantees and CCIA grantees. Any reports received from Citibank or the U.S. Treasury regarding the account balances or transactions histories of the GGRF accounts for the three NCIF grantees and the five CCIA grantees and any of their sub-awardees. Any progress reports received from the three NCIF grantees and the five CCIA grantees. The names of all panel chairs, senior review panels, selection officials, and all individuals involved in the review panels for all the NCIF and CCIA applicants included in the final rankings lists for the top-ranked applications.” Background: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. Read More About this Ongoing Investigation: “SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny” –   Fox News “EXCLUSIVE: Key Committee Demands Docs in Biden ‘Gold Bars’ Probe” – Daily Caller ###