Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Finds safer replacements for PFAS chemicals used in many products.
The problem
PFAS chemicals contaminate drinking water and persist in the environment, raising health concerns. Industries need alternatives but lack clear guidance.
The proposal
The bill requires research and development of safer alternatives to PFAS chemicals in manufacturing and consumer products.
The impact
Manufacturers, water utilities, consumers, and public health officials are affected. Implementation costs may increase product prices while reducing contamination risks.
Reducing PFAS exposure could lower risks of cancer, liver damage, and immune system problems. Clean drinking water benefits families nationwide.
PFAS chemicals don't break down naturally and accumulate in soil and water. Finding alternatives prevents long-term environmental damage.
Requiring alternatives encourages companies to invest in new technology and safer chemical solutions. This creates research jobs and competitive advantages.
Preventing PFAS pollution is cheaper than cleaning contaminated water supplies later. States save millions in treatment expenses.
Developing and using alternative chemicals costs money. Companies may pass these costs to consumers through higher prices for everyday items.
Some industries rely heavily on PFAS in manufacturing. Finding viable replacements takes time and may disrupt production temporarily.
Replacement chemicals haven't been fully tested for safety. Rushing to switch could introduce new environmental or health risks.
If U.S. companies face stricter requirements than foreign competitors, they may lose market share to international manufacturers.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 9394
Civil Preparedness for Agroterrorism Exercise Act of 2026
HR 1342
Stopping Political Discrimination in Disaster Assistance Act
HR 10132
ARTICLE ONE Act
HR 10122
STORM FORTIFIED and Wildfire Prepared Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.