Legislative Update: The Government is on the Verge of Shutdown; Senate Aims for December Passage for Farm Bill

The Federal Government is Likely Going to Shut down This Weekend

As the Senate races to try and pass a continuing resolution (CR) to prevent a government shutdown on Oct. 1, the Republican-controlled House is at an impasse, unable to gain the support to move a similar stopgap measure.  With no signs of a possible breakthrough, agencies are bracing and preparing for the impacts of the impending shutdown.

In an attempt to pass a CR in the House, leaders of the House Freedom Caucus and the Mainstreet Caucus last week finalized a proposal to fund the government through Oct. 31, restore many Trump-era border policies, and cut spending by 8% for all agencies except the Departments of Defense and  Veterans Affairs and funds designated for disaster relief.  House Republicans have not been able to garner enough votes to pass the CR, and it is unlikely to make any progress in the Democratically controlled Senate.  Meanwhile, conservative Republicans continue to dig in on their demands to cut as much as 27 percent from most nondefense programs for the duration of the CR.

Senate leaders unveiled a bipartisan stopgap funding proposal on Sept. 26 in their own attempt to prevent a government shutdown, attaching it to the House-passed Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill.  The measure would keep federal agencies funded at current levels through Nov. 17, giving Congress seven weeks to pass the 12 annual spending bills. The Senate bill would include $6 billion for Ukraine and $6 billion for domestic disaster assistance, provisions that House Republicans will likely reject.  Furthermore, House Republicans are insistent on the need to include legislation to address border security, which the Senate bill does not contain.  A handful of Senate Republicans are calling for changes to the stopgap bill to ease a path in the House but at this time, House Republicans are not planning to consider the measure. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) pledged to bring his own CR to the House floor on Friday.

Having yet to move a CR this week, the House has turned to considering four of the 12 annual spending bills.  After several tries to get the Defense bill on the floor, the House was able to clear procedural hurdles and take up the bill, plus the Homeland Security, Agriculture, and State-Foreign Operations bills after some deeper cuts were made.

The Interior-Environment spending bill (H.R. 4831) is expected on the House floor next week but could see nearly $3.9 billion in additional cuts under revisions the House GOP appropriators are making.  Combined with cuts below fiscal 2023 that Simpson’s subcommittee made previously, the revisions would take total funding 22 percent below the current year, a roughly $9.5 billion reduction.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing for an immediate halt to environmental inspections, potential delays in rulemaking, and slowing further rollout of clean energy and infrastructure incentives should the shutdown be prolonged.  Administrator Michael Regan told lawmakers during a Sept. 27 hearing before the House Science Committee that the agency expects a shutdown will delay reviews of toxic chemicals, slow research into emerging contaminants of concern, and hamper the rollout of $15 billion in funding already set aside for lead service line replacements.

Controversial Senate Bill Proposing Tax on Single-use Virgin Plastic Reintroduced

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) have reintroduced the bicameral Rewarding Efforts to Decrease Unrecycled Contaminants in Ecosystems (REDUCE) Act, which would impose a 20-cent per pound fee on the sale of virgin plastic resin that is used to make single-use plastics. The bill has resurrected a contentious debate that the plastics industry had spent over $1 million to defeat two years ago. Whitehouse and Doggett assert that this fee would serve multiple purposes, including boosting the utilization of recycled plastic, financing recycling infrastructure, and holding the plastics industry more accountable for the environmental costs associated with pollution caused by plastics.

Senator Whitehouse had previously attempted to include this 20-cent tax plan in the Build Back Better initiative in 2021 but faced significant opposition from the plastics industry. With Republicans now in control of the House, the bill may face even greater resistance. The legislation would phase in the fee, starting at 10 cents per pound in 2024, increasing to 15 cents in 2025, and reaching 20 cents in 2026. It would exempt certain products and offer some exceptions for small companies. The revenue generated from this fee would be directed into a Plastic Waste Reduction Fund to support recycling infrastructure, marine debris cleanup, and addressing environmental justice concerns related to plastic production.

The Vinyl Institute and the plastics industry have criticized the bill, arguing that the tax would not achieve its environmental goals and could incentivize the use of alternative packaging materials with higher greenhouse gas footprints, reduce jobs and manufacturing competitiveness, and only increase inflationary pressure on Americans that are already being hit by high consumer costs.  While the industry supports using more recycled plastic, taxing the production of plastic would do little to increase access to recycling or the many recycling management problems in the U.S., such as improving the collection and sortation process, educating consumers, or taking other equally meaningful steps to limit plastic waste in the environment.

The REDUCE Act is cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and twenty-six members of the House of Representatives.

Regan Testifies on EPA Priorities in Reducing Lead Exposure and Defends TSCA Rulemaking

The House Science, Space & Technology Committee held a hearing on EPA Science and Technology on September 27, focusing on the critical role of science in shaping regulatory decisions. Rep. Max Miller (R-OH), who chairs the committee’s environment subcommittee, emphasized this crucial role, particularly in light of the extensive rulemaking conducted by the Biden administration’s EPA, which has promulgated 1083 rules thus far. Miller said the concern raised is that these regulations, spanning various industries and topics, must be grounded in sound scientific principles to prevent potential economic harm. While the EPA has set ambitious goals, including emissions reduction and environmental targets, there is a call for a thorough analysis of the economic and social costs associated with achieving these objectives.

Additionally, the hearing sought to address the $100 billion influx of funding the EPA received through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). While this funding has the potential to impact the economy positively, there are concerns about potential waste and misuse, highlighting the need for careful oversight and monitoring of projects funded by these resources.

Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) underscored the importance of the EPA’s research and development work in prioritizing human and environmental health and EPA’s efforts to extend its mission to environmental justice communities that have long endured pollution and health risks.

However, the larger context of the hearing involved concerns about a looming government shutdown and its potential impact on the EPA’s ability to respond to disasters, whether climate-related or man-made. Lofgren expressed worries about how the EPA would handle issues like water safety after severe storms or emergencies such as train derailments amid a government shutdown.

In his testimony, Regan emphasized that EPA is committed to science. He also testified that EPA prioritizes reducing lead exposure, including working to improve drinking water quality by developing innovative treatment methods and corrosion control treatments to reduce lead leaching. The EPA plans to improve the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, aiming to proactively remove lead service lines and protect public health more equitably. Funding from various sources, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will support the goal of replacing all lead service lines in the next decade, emphasizing technical assistance and scientific advancements to identify lead service lines more effectively.

Regan defended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program’s work on chemical reviews and rulemaking while addressing the concerns of lawmakers of both parties regarding the potential consequences of certain rules on the economy and public health.  Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) raised questions about the proposed TSCA rule to revise EPA procedures for new-chemical reviews, particularly its impact on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Semiconductor manufacturers have expressed concerns that the rule, with its heightened review mandates for PFAS, could have devastating effects on their industry.

EPA to Prioritize Five Chemicals for Evaluation Under TSCA

In December, the EPA will reveal the next five existing chemicals to be included in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) prioritization process. Michal Freedhoff, the head of EPA’s chemicals division, disclosed this plan during an address at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Chemistry Solutions Summit in Washington, D.C. She mentioned that the EPA has compiled a list of approximately 12 to 15 chemicals, from which the final five will be selected for prioritization.

Notably, the EPA intends to engage with stakeholders, including industry representatives, environmental organizations, labor unions, and governmental bodies, to gather input on which chemicals should be prioritized. They will schedule meetings to share the shortlist of chemicals and solicit information regarding their conditions of use, potential worker exposures, monitoring data, and downstream applications.

While Freedhoff did not specify the chemicals on the shortlist, she emphasized that the EPA is focusing on substances with significance in terms of climate and environmental justice. These selections are drawn from the Obama-era “work plan” of around 90 chemicals of concern, as mandated by the reformed toxics law.

This announcement departs from previous expectations, given that Freedhoff and other top EPA officials had initially said that the next round of TSCA prioritizations would begin in late 2023 or early 2024, targeting a smaller group of five to six chemicals. Freedhoff says the shift to a “rolling” model is intended to create a more manageable and resource-efficient approach for the existing-chemicals program. Ultimately, this initiative aims to streamline the prioritization process and avoid information gaps when proposing rules for chemical regulation.

Senate Aims for a December Farm Bill Passage

Democrats and Republicans remain polarized on Farm Bill proposals, creating a political tug-a-war as they vie for financial resources within the bill. Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Senator Stabenow (D-MI) highlighted the challenge of reconciling the competing ideas from both parties. “Right now we have ideas [from] Democrats that Republicans wouldn’t vote for on resources,” said Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan. “We have Republicans who have ideas that will take the conservation money, will take nutrition money …. [and] lose all the Democratic votes. That’s not viable.”

Typically, the House initiates the draft, but dysfunction in the lower chamber is pushing the Senate to take the lead. However, even if the Senate approves a package, it must still gain approval from the House, which may prove difficult as conservative lawmakers seek substantial cuts to food assistance programs.

Additionally, the allocation of $36.7 billion in conservation funding under the Inflation Reduction Act remains a contentious issue. Republicans want to integrate these funds into the overall farm bill budget, potentially for commodity assistance or other purposes, while Democrats advocate for preserving these resources for climate-related initiatives. Stabenow firmly opposes diverting climate funding, asserting that the climate crisis is the foremost threat to farmers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining these funds for climate initiatives.