A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Held at the desk.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- Awaiting House
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This Act, known as the "Wastewater Infrastructure Pollution Prevention and Environmental Safety Act" or the "WIPPES Act," requires certain products to include specific labeling. It mandates that covered products, such as certain premoistened nonwoven wipes, must display a "Do Not Flush" label and symbol on their packaging. The law sets specific rules for how these labels must appear on different types of packaging, including cylindrical, flexible film, rigid, and bulk packaging. It also prohibits companies from claiming these products can be flushed. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with enforcing these rules against unfair or deceptive practices.
Yes
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The Act aims to prevent pollution in wastewater infrastructure by preventing the flushing of non-biodegradable wipes.
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The Act enhances consumer protection by requiring clear, high-contrast warnings against flushing certain products.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The Act increases federal power by establishing mandatory labeling standards and preempting state-level requirements.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The Act reduces states' rights by preempting state and local laws regarding product labeling for these items.
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The Act imposes new compliance and labeling costs on manufacturers and retailers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Consumer Awareness: By requiring the "Do Not Flush" label and symbol to be displayed in a clear, conspicuous, and high-contrast manner, consumers will be more easily able to see and read these warnings during purchase and use (Section 2(b), 2(c)).
-
Clearer Information on Packaging: The Act ensures that for different types of containers, such as cylindrical packaging or flexible film, the labeling is placed where it is reasonably visible to the user each time a wipe is dispensed (Section 2(b)).
-
Standardized Product Information: The law provides specific requirements for how labels must be sized and how much contrast they must have to ensure an ordinary individual can read them under customary conditions (Section 2(c)).
-
Prevention of Deceptive Claims: The Act prevents covered entities from making express or implied representations that these products can or should be flushed (Section 2(d)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Compliance Burdens for Entities: Covered entities—which include manufacturers, wholesalers, suppliers, or retailers—must follow specific, detailed rules regarding the placement, size, and contrast of labels across various packaging types (Section 2(b), 2(c), 2(i)).
-
Regulatory Requirements for Bulk Products: For products sold in bulk at retail, the "Do Not Flush" notice and symbol must appear on both the outer packaging and the individual packaging contained within (Section 2(b)(5)(A)).
-
Federal Preemption of State Laws: States and their political subdivisions are prohibited from establishing or continuing any "Do Not Flush" labeling requirements that are not identical to those found in this Act (Section 2(h)).
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 Act aims to prevent pollution in wastewater infrastructure by preventing the flushing of non-biodegradable wipes.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The Act enhances consumer protection by requiring clear, high-contrast warnings against flushing certain products.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The Act imposes new compliance and labeling costs on manufacturers and retailers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The Act increases federal power by establishing mandatory labeling standards and preempting state-level requirements. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The Act reduces states' rights by preempting state and local laws regarding product labeling for these items.
- 3/24/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 3/22/2026
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1521-1522; text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S1521-1522)
- 9/19/2025
- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cruz with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 119-63.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 166.
- 5/21/2025
- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 3/27/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Susan CollinsRepublican · Maine
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts