Sean Casten (D-IL)
Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026. It forces the Environmental Protection Agency to bring back all environmental rules, guidance, and enforcement programs that were in place on January 19, 2025. It stops the President and the EPA Administrator from delaying or weakening these reinstated rules without an Act of Congress. The legislation also requires the EPA to base its decisions on peer-reviewed science and to bring back specific advisory committees. Furthermore, it sets funding and reporting requirements for enforcement and restores environmental justice programs. Finally, it allows people affected by failures to comply with this Act to bring a civil action in a United States district court.
Yes· 3 of 32
- Scored +10
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The legislation fully restores all clean air, hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter, and environmental justice protections in effect on January 19, 2025.
- Scored +9
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The bill mandates the immediate reinstatement of stringent greenhouse gas emission standards, methane regulations, and vehicle greenhouse gas limits.
- Scored +7
Would children be better off under this?
Children benefit significantly from reduced air pollution and improved health standards protecting respiratory and cardiovascular health.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners in regulated industries such as energy and manufacturing face increased compliance costs and strict regulatory mandates.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reinstatement of Clean Air and Environmental Rules: Section 3(a) requires the EPA to reinstate regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, methane, mercury and air toxics, particulate matter, and vehicle emissions that were in effect on January 19, 2025. This is positive because it forces the agency to uphold standards that protect public health and limit dangerous pollution.
-
Support for Vulnerable Communities: Section 6(b) requires the EPA to prioritize monitoring, permitting oversight, and enforcement in communities that experience disproportionate pollution burdens. This is a positive step for people living in heavily polluted areas because it directs resources where they are needed most to reduce health disparities.
-
Right to Hold Officials Accountable: Section 7(a) gives any person adversely affected by the EPA Administrator's failure to comply with the Act the right to bring a civil action in a United States district court. This is positive because it gives citizens a direct tool to hold government officials accountable to the law.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Increased Government Spending: Section 5(c) authorizes an appropriation of $10,993,653,000, or whatever sums are needed, for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter to carry out the EPA's duties. This could be viewed as a negative outcome by taxpayers because it requires a massive amount of federal funding that must be supported by appropriations.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill prioritizes environmental justice programs and pollution enforcement in overburdened communities, which frequently include minority populations. Would children be better off under this? — Children benefit significantly from reduced air pollution and improved health standards protecting respiratory and cardiovascular health. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by industrial pollution benefit from the prioritized enforcement and public health assessments. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income communities often bear disproportionate pollution burdens, which the bill specifically targets for priority enforcement. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with pre-existing disabilities, particularly respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, benefit from lower air pollution levels. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from reduced health risks associated with air pollution and improved enforcement of environmental protection laws. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors, who are particularly vulnerable to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses from pollution, benefit from stricter air quality rules. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents dealing with vehicle emissions, power plant pollution, and particulate matter benefit directly from reinstated clean air standards. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants living in low-income or industrial neighborhoods often experience higher environmental burdens and benefit from targeted enforcement. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged adults experience lower health risks associated with hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Native American communities benefit from stronger federal environmental protections and restored enforcement of clean air standards. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents near oil and gas operations benefit from reinstated methane and volatile organic compound emission standards. Would women be better off under this? — Women, including pregnant individuals, benefit from reduced exposure to toxic air pollutants and hazardous emissions. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from long-term environmental protections and reduced climate change risks mandated by the bill. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers benefit from protections against severe environmental degradation and climate impacts affecting agriculture. Would men be better off under this? — Men benefit generally from improved public health standards and cleaner environmental conditions. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from cleaner air, water, and healthier living environments. Would students be better off under this? — Students benefit from healthier environments and strengthened scientific integrity standards in public policy. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans residing in communities heavily impacted by pollution benefit from prioritized environmental monitoring and health protections. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans living in heavily polluted industrial or urban areas benefit from improved air quality and environmental health enforcement. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners in regulated industries such as energy and manufacturing face increased compliance costs and strict regulatory mandates.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The legislation fully restores all clean air, hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter, and environmental justice protections in effect on January 19, 2025. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill mandates the immediate reinstatement of stringent greenhouse gas emission standards, methane regulations, and vehicle greenhouse gas limits. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — By restoring rigorous greenhouse gas rules and the social cost of carbon, the bill supports the transition toward cleaner energy sources. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Stricter regulatory controls on power plants and oil and gas operations impose higher compliance standards on fossil fuel production.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill establishes a private right of action enabling citizens adversely affected by noncompliance to bring civil actions in federal court. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires annual enforcement reports, public health impact assessments, and cumulative impacts analysis for regulatory decisions. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes mandatory federal environmental baselines and restricts the executive branch from weakening reinstated rules without an Act of Congress. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill preserves the authority of states to adopt and enforce environmental standards that are more protective than federal law.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill reinstates and enforces rigorous clean air and environmental standards that protect public health and reduce illness burdens. Does this put more money into medical research? — The legislation mandates reliance on peer-reviewed science and restores scientific advisory bodies to guide environmental decisions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill prioritizes environmental monitoring, permitting oversight, and enforcement in vulnerable communities experiencing disproportionate pollution burdens.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The legislation requires the EPA to base its regulatory decisions strictly on peer-reviewed science and restores scientific advisory committees.
- 9/17/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Kathy CastorDemocrat · Florida
Mike LevinDemocrat · California
George LatimerDemocrat · New York
James McGovernDemocrat · Massachusetts