Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 7 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
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
The Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026 aims to phase out the production and use of nonessential perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances. It establishes a 10-year timeline to eliminate these substances from various consumer products and prohibits their release into the environment. The bill creates a partnership with the National Academies to determine which uses are essential and requires annual monitoring and reporting from manufacturers and users. Additionally, it establishes Centers of Excellence to advance research into water source detection and remediation. The Act also empowers the EPA to enforce compliance through inspections, civil penalties, and criminal sanctions.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill establishes Centers of Excellence to advance research into PFAS detection and remediation.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill specifically targets legal accountability for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances in the environment.
- Scored +5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill establishes a specific Rural Center of Excellence to assist in water remediation research.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill imposes new regulatory, reporting, and fee obligations on manufacturers and users.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill imposes mandatory annual reporting and petition fees that may burden smaller companies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Phasing out nonessential uses: The bill mandates a full phaseout of nonessential uses of these substances within 10 years, which targets the elimination of chemicals from consumer products (Section 102(b)(1)).
-
Product-specific prohibitions: Certain items like food packaging, carpets, and juvenile products must be phased out within 1 year, providing faster protection from specific goods (Section s 102(b)(4)(A)).
-
Advancing scientific research: The establishment of Centers of Excellence is intended to advance detection and remediation technologies for water sources (Section 201(a)).
-
Enhanced water safety capabilities: The Centers of Excellence are tasked with developing capabilities for measuring contamination in drinking water and other environmental media (Section 201(d)(1)(A)).
-
Community engagement and notification: In cases of imminent hazard, the bill requires manufacturers to provide immediate public notice to impacted communities through accessible communication media (Section 109(c)(1)).
-
Legal recourse for damages: The bill amends laws to allow actions for personal injury or property damages caused by exposure to these substances, adjusting how statutes of repose apply to help claimants (Section 202).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Mandatory reporting requirements: Manufacturers and users are required to submit detailed annual reports including the volume, concentration, and trade names of the substances used (Section 102(a)(2)(B)).
-
Financial burdens via fees: The Act establishes requirements for annual report fees and petition fees that must be paid by manufacturers and users (Section 113(b)(2)).
-
Strict enforcement and penalties: The Administrator has the authority to issue civil penalties, which can include removing any economic benefit from the violation, as well as criminal penalties including imprisonment (Section s 107(a) and 107(c)).
-
Restrictions on product sales: The bill prohibits the sale or distribution of various products containing these substances, such as cosmetics, textiles, and apparel, within specific timeframes (Section 102(b)(4)).
-
Potential for lawsuits: The bill authorizes citizen suits, allowing individuals to commence civil actions against manufacturers, users, or the Administrator (Section 108(a)).
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill establishes a specific Rural Center of Excellence to assist in water remediation research. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill aims to reduce environmental contamination that impacts public health and water safety. Would students be better off under this? — The bill supports research opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students through the Centers of Excellence. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill facilitates water quality research which benefits population centers near the established Centers. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill imposes new regulatory, reporting, and fee obligations on manufacturers and users.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the publication of manufacturer reports for public comment and review. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill removes the automatic stay for specific chemical-related claims, allowing legal proceedings to continue against nondebtor entities.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill establishes Centers of Excellence to advance research into PFAS detection and remediation.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill specifically targets legal accountability for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances in the environment.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By facilitating legal actions regarding toxic chemical exposure, the bill may aid in addressing long-term health impacts.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill allows for the continuation of legal actions against nondebtor entities regarding persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical claims. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill imposes mandatory annual reporting and petition fees that may burden smaller companies.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The ability to pursue claims against nondebtor entities for chemical exposure may provide financial recourse for affected individuals.
- 8/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/20/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 3/19/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, 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.
- 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.
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Kelly MorrisonDemocrat · Minnesota
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
Debbie Wasserman SchultzDemocrat · Florida