Home / Recent Bills / Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Trichloroethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)".
HOUSE · HJRES 34119 CONGRESS
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Trichloroethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)".
A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal
force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in
both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Bill vs. resolution, explained →
Summary
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 34) seeks to nullify an EPA rule issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that regulates trichloroethylene (TCE), a chemical commonly used in industrial applications such as degreasing solvents, adhesives, and spot removers, and known to pose serious health risks including cancer, neurotoxicity, and reproductive harm. The EPA rule, published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 102568), establishes prohibitions and restrictions on the manufacture, processing, and distribution of TCE for certain uses, aiming to protect workers and the public from exposure. The rule is part of EPA's ongoing efforts to evaluate and manage high-priority chemicals under TSCA, which was amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in 2016 to strengthen chemical safety oversight. If enacted, this joint resolution would invoke the Congressional Review Act (CRA), specifically Chapter 8 of Title 5 of the United States Code, which allows Congress to overturn major federal regulations by passing a resolution of disapproval that, once signed by the President (or enacted over a veto), nullifies the rule and prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without new statutory authority. Proponents of the resolution argue that the EPA overstepped its authority, that the rule imposes excessive costs on businesses and could disrupt supply chains for legitimate industrial uses, and that regulatory decisions should be more closely aligned with congressional intent. Opponents contend that the rule is based on sound science, necessary to protect public health—particularly for workers and communities near industrial facilities—and that blocking it would perpetuate avoidable health risks. The resolution reflects broader tensions over the balance between environmental regulation and economic concerns, the appropriate scope of executive branch regulatory power, and the use of the CRA as a tool for legislative oversight of agency actions.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Supports the use of the Congressional Review Act to halt regulations that may not be sufficiently grounded in science or public health necessity.
+Aligns with Democratic emphasis on rigorous scientific evaluation and agency expertise in chemical safety assessments.
+Could be justified if Democrats believe the EPA rule lacks adequate consideration of economic impacts or feasible alternatives for industry.
+Reflects a commitment to ensuring that major regulations have clear congressional authorization before taking effect.
+May be supported if there are concerns about the rule's potential overreach in regulating uses of TCE that pose minimal risk.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Would block a scientifically justified rule designed to protect public health from a known toxic chemical linked to cancer, neurological damage, and reproductive harm.
−Undermines the EPA's authority under TSCA to regulate hazardous substances and protect vulnerable populations, including workers and fenceline communities.
−Contradicts Democratic priorities of strengthening environmental and public health protections, especially for communities disproportionately exposed to industrial pollutants.
−Could signal that Congress is unwilling to allow agencies to address legacy pollutants even when risks are well-documented.
−May be seen as yielding to industry pressure at the expense of long-term health and environmental safety.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Supports congressional oversight of executive branch agencies by asserting legislative authority to overturn regulations perceived as overreach.
+Aligns with Republican priorities of reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, particularly in manufacturing and chemical industries where TCE is used.
+Reflects concern that the EPA rule may impose disproportionate compliance costs on small businesses and disrupt industrial processes without sufficient congressional input.
+Uses the Congressional Review Act as a legitimate tool to check executive power and ensure regulations undergo greater scrutiny.
+Could prevent what Republicans view as economically harmful regulations that lack clear congressional authorization.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May be seen as prioritizing industry interests over public health and worker safety, potentially undermining efforts to reduce exposure to a known carcinogen.
−Could conflict with broader Republican support for environmental stewardship when it comes to protecting communities from toxic substances.
−Might discourage the EPA from addressing other hazardous chemicals under TSCA if Congress routinely blocks science-based rules.
−Could create regulatory uncertainty for businesses that rely on predictable safety standards.
−May be viewed as ignoring the scientific consensus on TCE's health risks, including links to kidney cancer and developmental toxicity.
![Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/h001086_200.jpg)