A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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, known as the "Clean Ports for Commerce Act," focuses on dredging activities. It requires the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to perform advanced planning when dredging in areas with known PFAS contamination. The Secretary must identify disposal sites for the dredged materials. Additionally, the Secretary must determine how to mitigate effects on water quality and public health. The bill also requires the identification of any potential delays caused by these substances.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill requires planning to mitigate the effects of PFAS-contaminated dredging on water quality.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires the Secretary to identify potential delays and mitigation strategies for contaminated dredging.
- Scored +2
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill mandates mitigation strategies for public health risks associated with PFAS during dredging.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Public Health and Water Quality: The bill requires the Secretary to identify how they will mitigate the effects of dredging activities on water quality and public health regarding PFAS substances (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Increased Transparency Regarding Project Timelines: The requirement to identify potential delays related to the presence of PFAS substances allows for better awareness of how these substances affect activity timelines (Section 2(a)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are mentioned in the text.
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.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill requires planning to mitigate the effects of PFAS-contaminated dredging on water quality. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — The bill facilitates more orderly infrastructure maintenance by planning for dredging delays and disposal.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill mandates mitigation strategies for public health risks associated with PFAS during dredging. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — The bill addresses public health by requiring mitigation of PFAS contamination risks.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Secretary to identify potential delays and mitigation strategies for contaminated dredging.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill protects water quality in areas where port dredging activities occur.
- 6/25/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- Introduced in House