Congress doesn't need to pass a law per chemical, they need to firmly and clearly pass a law to follow up with what they want that bar for review to be in a way the Supreme Court is left without a doubt of what the existing laws meant to say.
The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.
I'd suggest you consider reading the laws that Congress has passed to create agencies. Congress already does this.
Congress does not simply write "This bill establishes the Department of Slinky Tossing" and lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do.
Congress would at least define this agency as responsible for launching Slinkies in a manner that is at least partially airborne for some of it's trajectory.
Now here's where things get tricky, Congress must write in immutable words that must withstand decades of scrutiny on their definition. Let's say "airborne" was used because they did not want this agency merely cradling Slinkies into the ocean, nor did Congress want the Slinkies to remain in boxes.
So in a few years of tossing Slinkies around on earth, this "Department of Slinky Tossing" partners with NASA to throw Slinkies around on Mars.
A new opportunity arises for the true linguo-contrarian looking for a gladitorial match entrenched in establishing meaning: Congress used the term "airborne". Airborne requires an object being in air. But how does one define "air"?
Did Congress intend for air to refer to the atmosphere on Earth? The gaseous atmosphere around any planet? And really, what is a planet? Could this definition of "air" be restricted to gaseous mixtures consumable by humans? Who knows!
Now we must defer to a court to decide if the breathability of air impacts the definition of the term "airborne", and if the "Department of Slinky Tossing" is allowed to toss Slinkies on Mars simply because "airborne" has been ambiguously defined in both common usage and law.
Unfortunately, the Department of Slinky Tossing is unable to defend itself by claiming that Congress continued to fund their wiggly experiments, which to the agency, suggests the agency was still within permissible bounds.
Congress' appropriations process ensures there is an opportunity every year to refuse the "Department of Slinky Tossing"'s space aspirations if inter-planetary slinky tossing is a leap too far. The Court seems to disapprove of the notion that the appropriations process is Congress allowing an agency to continue to operate as it's been running.
Ultimately, I think this ruling simply cements that language-pedants ought to spend their energy finding a fufilling hobby.
Why ask if I've read the law and then come up with a story about airborne slinkies? The Chevron case itself was an already easy to explain example: lack of clear definition of source combined with lack of clear deference to the agency to decide. If the law was just written clearly then the EPA wouldn't have changed it's interpretation of what a source is over the years. If the EPA was supposed to be able to make more blanket decisions on the matter then the law needn't halfway spell out the details in that portion and just say that instead.
A base assumption that every law comes with an implied "lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do" is certainly not something I'd want the country to just assume (and not even something I'm sure I want any law to specify outright either...)
A base assumption that every law comes with an implied "lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do" is certainly not something I'd want…
You badly misunderstand what Chevron deference was about and how it worked. This is not at all how it worked.
The text you've quoted contains GP's interpretation of how these laws in general are written and my response to that. It is not related to my understanding of the Chevron deference. Putting it in separate paragraph was supposed to make that clear so sorry if it was left ambiguous. My understanding of the Chevron defence largely stems from and concurs with the notes in the "Opinion of the Court" section of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
If you meant something else then all the same you've left no other clues to interpret what your assertion is disagreeing with or why so.
Asking you as a fellow human: do you have any hope of congress actually making pressing regulation like this while companies opt to just poison people (which they historically have done over and over again?)
The only thing that makes it pressing is congress waited ~40 years without clarifying the law and instead relying on a particular interpretation of a particular court. I don't have hope that change will now happen overnight but I do have hope it means we will not let this kind false urgency and consequences mistake repeat so much in the coming years. I'd rather we clearly set policy via our democratic branch than behold the interpretation of it to the latest courts of unelected members, even if it means one of our mistakes in that regard rears its head for a bit. Sometimes the options in life are "shit flavor 1 or shit flavor 2?" not "1 is shit so are you human in wanting option 2?"
The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.