Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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
Requires the Chemical Safety Board to have at least one member with trades or industrial labor experience.
The problem
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board may lack direct knowledge of how workers in trades and industrial jobs experience chemical hazards and safety issues firsthand.
The proposal
Amends the Clean Air Act to mandate that at least one board member has demonstrated knowledge and substantial experience working in trades or industrial labor positions.
The impact
Affects the Chemical Safety Board's composition and decision-making. Workers in trades and industrial sectors may gain better representation in chemical safety investigations and recommendations.
Board members with trades experience understand actual workplace conditions and hazards. This firsthand knowledge can make safety recommendations more practical and effective for real workers.
Workers' input can help identify safety gaps that office-based experts might miss. This could lead to recommendations that better protect people in hazardous jobs.
Having someone on the board who understands workers' concerns builds confidence in the board's investigations. Workers may be more likely to report hazards to an agency that includes people like them.
Trades workers understand what safety measures are actually doable on job sites. This helps the board recommend solutions that companies can realistically implement.
One member cannot represent all trades and industrial sectors. Their single perspective may not cover chemical hazards across diverse industries like construction, manufacturing, and utilities.
A board member with active or recent industry ties might be influenced by their former employer's interests. This could bias investigations or weaken safety recommendations.
The bill doesn't define what 'substantial experience' means or set specific experience requirements. This vagueness could lead to inconsistent hiring practices or legal challenges.
Adding a new type of member might require different recruitment processes and longer hiring timelines. This could delay filling board positions during critical safety investigations.
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.
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.