A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 18 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This Act, titled the "Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act," amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It expands the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding refused articles. If an article is found to present a significant public health concern, the Secretary can order its destruction. This order can be issued without providing the option to export the item. The owner or consignee must destroy the article within 90 days and pay all related costs. The Act also establishes specific requirements for due process and the timeline for new regulations.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +5
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate the destruction of certain articles.
- Scored +2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill explicitly mandates that the Secretary provide notice and the opportunity to appear and introduce testimony.
- Scored +2
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill enhances public health safety by providing the Secretary with tools to destroy articles that present significant public health concerns.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners face increased costs and the loss of export opportunities for refused articles.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill imposes direct financial burdens on owners of refused articles for the cost of destruction.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public Health Protection: The Secretary of Health and Human Services can order the destruction of articles that present a significant public health concern (Section 2(a)(1)). This prevents potentially harmful items from remaining in the commerce stream.
-
Due Process Protections: The Secretary is required to provide appropriate due process, which includes notice and the opportunity to appear and introduce testimony (Section 2(a)(3)). This ensures owners have a chance to respond to the destruction order.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Burden on Owners: The owner or consignee of a refused article is responsible for all costs associated with the destruction of the article (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Loss of Export Options: When an article is deemed a significant public health concern, the Secretary can order its destruction without giving the owner the opportunity to export it (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Strict Destruction Deadlines: Owners or consignees are required to destroy the article no later than 90 days after the issuance of a destruction order (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
New Prohibited Acts: It becomes a prohibited act to move, introduce, or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce (including export) any article that is subject to an order for destruction (Section 2(b)).
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.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate the destruction of certain articles. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill explicitly mandates that the Secretary provide notice and the opportunity to appear and introduce testimony. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires specific notice and due process procedures for the destruction of articles.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill aims to protect public health from hazardous imports that could enter interstate commerce. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners face increased costs and the loss of export opportunities for refused articles.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill imposes direct financial burdens on owners of refused articles for the cost of destruction.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill enhances public health safety by providing the Secretary with tools to destroy articles that present significant public health concerns. Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — By allowing for the rapid destruction of hazardous articles, the bill adds a layer of protection against public health threats.
- 7/21/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 7/20/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4637-4638)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4637-4638)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2715.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4637-4639)
- Mr. Guthrie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 6/18/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-705.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 613.
- 6/2/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 5/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/21/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 0.
- 5/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/13/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- 4/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/20/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 4/8/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/29/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/25/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/12/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/3/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/8/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Gus BilirakisRepublican · Florida
Kat CammackRepublican · Florida
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana
Rosa DeLauroDemocrat · Connecticut
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Mike EzellRepublican · Mississippi
Cleo FieldsDemocrat · Louisiana
Mike HaridopolosRepublican · Florida
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Julia LetlowRepublican · Louisiana
Nancy MaceRepublican · South Carolina
Gregory MurphyRepublican · North Carolina
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas
John RutherfordRepublican · Florida
W. SteubeRepublican · Florida
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas