1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) currently circulating in the House. While I understand the desire to reduce administrative backlogs at the EPA, the current proposal to lower safety standards and shift the burden of proof is the wrong solution. The United States already lags behind our peer nations in the European Union and elsewhere in consumer protection. Reducing these protections further while we are facing a crisis of forever chemicals (PFAS) and other toxins in our water and soil is unacceptable. I urge you to consider a different approach based on two clear principles: 1. Fiscally Responsible Funding: The EPA’s current backlog is a result of underfunding. It is fundamentally unfair for American taxpayers to foot the bill for chemical safety reviews while corporate profits reach record highs. I support lifting the cap on industry fees so that the EPA is 100% funded by the companies seeking to bring chemicals to market. Like the FDA’s "User-Fee" model, the chemical industry should pay for the scientists required to ensure their products are safe. 2. Maintaining the Burden of Proof: We must not return to a "wait and see" approach to public health. The 2016 Lautenberg Act was a bipartisan achievement because it recognized that chemicals should be proven safe before they enter our homes and workplaces. Shifting the standard to require the EPA to prove a chemical is "more likely than not" to be harmful is a dangerous gate-open policy that turns our children and workers into unwitting test subjects. The people of our state deserve an environment that is at least as safe as that of our first-world peers. I am closely watching how you vote on this, and I urge you to prioritize the safety of your constituents over speed-to-market and corporate profits.