A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 bill is known as the EMRTAI Authorization Act of 2026. It directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to create a program to investigate, evaluate, and support ways to find and recover critical materials from contaminated sites. The Administrator can provide help such as contracts, cooperative agreements, and awards to people, as well as State, local, and Tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations. There are strict money limits on this help, capping total assistance at $10,000,000 in any fiscal year and individual assistance at $3,000,000. Applications for this help will be judged based on specific criteria like advancing domestic supply chains, supporting site cleanups, and protecting human health and the environment. Finally, the program is set to end 10 years after it is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 31
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill specifically targets the remediation of contaminated sites and requires the protection of human health and the environment.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Contaminated sites are often located near low-income communities; remediation improves their health and safety.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides funding and contracts for businesses specializing in environmental technology and recovery.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(d)(4): This provision focuses on supporting the cleanup of contaminated sites, especially those on the National Priorities List. This is a positive outcome because cleaning up polluted areas directly benefits the health and safety of nearby communities.
-
Section 2(d)(5): This criteria looks at the extent to which assistance protects human health and the environment. This is beneficial because it ensures that the projects funded by the program actively work to keep people safe from environmental hazards.
-
Section 2(b) and Section 2(d)(3): The Administrator is allowed to provide assistance to various entities to strengthen national security through domestic critical material supply chains. This is a positive step for building up domestic resources and supporting local organizations, State, local, and Tribal governments, and nonprofits through awards and contracts.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(c): The bill places strict financial limits on the program, capping total yearly spending at $10,000,000 and individual awards at $3,000,000. This could be seen as a burden or negative limitation because it restricts the amount of financial help available to fix widespread contamination issues and recover critical materials.
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 business owners be better off under this? — Provides funding and contracts for businesses specializing in environmental technology and recovery. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Contaminated sites are often located near low-income communities; remediation improves their health and safety. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly allows Tribal government entities to receive assistance for site remediation. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Targets contaminated sites which are frequently found in urban industrial corridors. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Environmental justice benefits from the cleanup of historically neglected contaminated sites. Would children be better off under this? — Cleaning up contaminated sites improves long-term environmental health for future generations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Environmental justice benefits from the cleanup of historically neglected contaminated sites. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides funding for remediation and development in rural contaminated areas. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General public health and environmental benefits. Would farmers be better off under this? — Recovery of materials from contaminated agricultural or industrial land can improve land utility. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Potential for job creation and improved local environmental health. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General environmental and public health benefits. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improved environmental health and reduction of local contamination. Would students be better off under this? — Increases research opportunities in environmental science and engineering. Would union members be better off under this? — Potential for unionized labor in remediation and construction projects. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General public health and environmental benefits. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Potential for new job opportunities in the green technology and remediation sectors. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General environmental benefits.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill specifically targets the remediation of contaminated sites and requires the protection of human health and the environment. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Supports the cleanup of contaminated sites, including those on the National Priorities List. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Critical materials recovered are often essential components for green energy technologies. Does this invest in rural communities? — Many contaminated sites are located in rural areas, and remediation brings investment to these locations. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Recovery of critical materials from waste reduces the need for environmentally damaging primary mining.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Developing domestic supply chains for critical materials contributes to economic resilience and growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Awards and contracts for recovery processes may be accessible to specialized small businesses. Is this likely to create jobs? — Support for critical material recovery projects may create specialized jobs in environmental remediation.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Establishes a program to investigate and support new processes and systems for material recovery.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Allows State and local government entities to receive assistance and awards. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands the EPA's authority to manage a new critical material recovery program.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill funds the investigation and evaluation of new methods for material recovery and environmental monitoring.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Strengthening domestic supply chains for critical materials reduces dependence on foreign imports.
- 9/16/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 9/15/2026
- 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 Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5682)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9616.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5682-5683)
- Mr. Guthrie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 9/14/2026
- Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-821.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 720.
- 7/21/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 48 - 0.
- 7/20/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 7/14/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 7/9/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio