Legislative Update: House Taking the Lead in the Budget Reconciliation Process

House Taking the Lead in the Budget Reconciliation Process

After a 12-hour markup on February 13, House Republicans are advancing a budget reconciliation bill that would set the stage for their domestic policy agenda, but intraparty divisions remain over spending cuts, tax policy, and strategy.  On February 17, Senate Republicans took a procedural vote to begin debate on their budget resolution, which allocates $342 billion for border security, defense, and the Coast Guard over four years.  It would also make changes to federal energy policy and is fully offset by cuts in mandatory spending.  The Senate approach, backed by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), would wait to do tax reform later in the year through a second reconciliation bill.

However, House GOP leadership opposes this approach, insisting on their “one bill” strategy of a broader reconciliation measure, which includes $300 billion for security and defense, $4.5 trillion in tax reform, $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, and a $4 trillion debt ceiling increase. House leadership believes that the chamber’s narrow majority and internal divisions make passing two separate reconciliation bills unrealistic.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump significantly boosted the House’s version status by announcing his endorsement of the House GOP’s one-bill strategy.  The House version pushes forward the administration’s number one objective–to get a tax bill done that includes permanency for the expiring Trump tax cuts and addresses the President’s and members’ new priorities.  Despite this, Thune has decided to proceed with the Senate plan,  being worked in the background in case the House cannot get the necessary votes to pass the resolution.

Additional fiscal issues will likely need be worked out, such as spending cuts and the scope of tax provisions.  These additions may prolong the reconciliation process and lead to the House needing to revise its resolution before drafting the final bill.

The Senate is expected to pass its budget resolution later this week following a vote-a-rama on amendments.  Meanwhile, House Republicans plan to vote on their budget resolution early next week. Before the reconciliation bill can be written, both chambers must agree on a unified budget resolution.

Congressional Republicans and Industry Groups Call for EPA to Scrap IRIS Regulatory Framework

Republican lawmakers–Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)–have introduced the No IRIS Act ( H.R. 1415, S. 623) to prohibit EPA from using IRIS assessments for rulemaking, enforcement, or regulatory actions. Rep. Gorthman argued that the IRIS has a history of issuing assessments that contradict industry expertise rather than relying on sound science.  Sen. Kennedy criticized the Biden administration’s use of IRIS, claiming it was weaponized against the chemical industry and caused regulatory overreach.  Representatives Jake Ellzey (R-TX), Julie Letlow (R-LA), and Michael Guest (R-MS) are also cosponsors of the bill.

The Vinyl Institute and a coalition of over 80 industry groups, led by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), urged the Trump EPA to disband the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). They argue that the system’s hazard assessments are overly conservative, lack scientific rigor, and are not suited for regulatory use. In a January 27 letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the groups called for prohibiting IRIS risk values in regulatory decisions, dissolving the program, and empowering a Science Advisor to oversee risk assessment activities.  Industry critics argue that IRIS fails to meet scientific standards, lacks transparency, and has been labeled “high-risk” by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) since 2009.

Trump EPA Upholds Biden’s Chemical Risk Framework as Court Battle Moves Forward

The Trump administration is defending the EPA’s 2024 TSCA framework rule This comes after a divided D.C. Circuit panel denied the administration’s request to delay oral arguments in the case, United Steelworkers et al. v. EPA, which is set for March 21. The administration had requested a 90-day delay to allow political appointees time to review the rule, but the court found no “extraordinary cause” to justify postponement.

The rule, which revises the 2017 Trump EPA framework, mandates that chemical risk evaluations consider all substance uses rather than a use-by-use approach. It also prohibits excluding chemical uses from risk assessments, reversing Trump-era policy. Industry groups, environmentalists, and unions are challenging the rule from different perspectives, with petitioners arguing that EPA’s evolving interpretation of TSCA is now less relevant after the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limits judicial deference to agency interpretations.

The Justice Department has reiterated its defense of the the previous administration’s TSCA framework rule, arguing that the EPA interpretation ensures risk evaluations align with statutory requirements, including consideration of all conditions of use. While TSCA grants EPA some discretion in defining conditions of use, the agency asserts that it cannot exclude any conditions that meet the statutory definition and must apply either qualitative or quantitative methods as appropriate.

Additionally, the EPA defends its “whole chemical” approach, arguing that TSCA’s text and legislative history support assessing a chemical substance holistically rather than making separate risk determinations for individual uses. The agency has rejected trade group claims that Congress intended for the EPA to disregard certain uses to meet deadlines or streamline risk evaluations.  The agency has also rebutted challenges to its expanded definition of “potentially exposed or susceptible populations” (PESS) and has dismissed industry and labor concerns about personal protective equipment (PPE) in risk evaluations, emphasizing that it does not assume PPE use and that any challenge should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Trump Announces EPA Leadership

President Donald Trump has formally nominated several officials to lead key EPA offices, including the Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Water, all of whom previously served in the first Trump administration.  These appointments signal a continuation of Trump-era deregulatory policies, with nominees expected to reverse or weaken several of the Biden administration’s overreaching environmental rules.

Sean Donahue has been nominated to lead EPA’s Office of General Counsel, where he will oversee legal counsel on regulations, enforcement, and international law. He previously served in EPA’s Administrator’s Office and the Office of Land and Emergency Management and most recently worked in environmental permitting and compliance for a solar energy company.

Aaron Szabo has been nominated to lead EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, where he is expected to drive rollbacks of Biden-era climate and air pollution rules, including greenhouse gas standards, ozone regulations, and renewable fuel policies. Szabo previously served as senior counsel at the White House Council on Environmental Quality and worked for the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, and Boeing.

Jessica Kramer has been nominated to lead EPA’s Office of Water, where she is expected to scale back Biden’s Clean Water Act policies and further define federal jurisdiction over water regulations. She previously served as water counsel for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and advocated for Superfund liability waivers related to PFAS contamination.

EPA Removes Environmental Justice Provisions from West Virginia Carbon Storage Rules 

EPA removed environmental justice (EJ) references from West Virginia’s carbon storage well permit program, reversing language included in a Biden-era rule that granted the state primary authority (primacy) over Class VI carbon capture and storage (CCS) wells. The revised rule, signed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on February 18, 2025, eliminates provisions that required well owners and operators to conduct EJ reviews as part of the permitting process.

While much of the rule remains unchanged, the administration’s decision to remove EJ language reflects its opposition to EJ-focused policymaking. Despite these changes, whether West Virginia will still honor its previous commitments to environmental justice reviews is unclear.