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.” 

###