Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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
S. 5409 is known as the Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to bring back regulations, guidance, and enforcement programs that were in effect on January 19, 2025. It blocks officials from delaying or weakening these reinstated rules without approval from Congress. The legislation also rebuilds scientific advisory boards, requires peer-reviewed science for decisions, and brings back the social cost of carbon. Additionally, it restores environmental justice programs, sets minimum enforcement funding, and gives citizens the right to sue if the agency fails to follow the law.
Yes· 3 of 15
- Scored +9
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Section 3(a) reinstates greenhouse gas emissions standards, methane rules, and the social cost of carbon to curb climate change.
- Scored +9
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill mandates the full reinstatement of environmental regulations, guidance, and enforcement programs in effect on January 19, 2025.
- Scored +6
Would children be better off under this?
Lower air pollution levels resulting from reinstated environmental standards provide direct health benefits to children.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Section 5(c) authorizes an appropriation of nearly $11 billion annually for Environmental Protection Agency duties and enforcement requirements.
- Scored -4
Is this likely to lower the price at the pump?
Mandating stringent greenhouse gas standards and the social cost of carbon could drive up compliance costs and consumer energy prices.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a) requires the immediate reinstatement of rules covering greenhouse gases, methane, mercury, and vehicle emissions that were in place on January 19, 2025. This could benefit everyday people by reducing toxic pollution in the air we breathe and protecting public health.
-
Section 6(b) requires the Administrator to prioritize monitoring, permitting oversight, and enforcement in communities that experience disproportionate pollution burdens. This directly helps overburdened neighborhoods get relief from heavy local pollution.
-
Section 7(a) gives any person adversely affected by the failure of the Administrator to comply with the Act the right to bring a civil action in a United States district court. This holds officials accountable to the people by allowing citizens to force compliance through the courts.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 5(c) authorizes an appropriation of $10,993,653,000 for fiscal year 2027 and each year thereafter to carry out EPA duties and enforcement requirements. This places a massive financial burden on taxpayers to fund the expanded agency operations.
-
Section 4(c) forces the Administrator to restore the social cost of carbon at a value of $190 in 2020 dollars per metric ton along with a 2 percent discount rate. This specific mandate could drive up regulatory compliance costs for domestic energy and industrial sectors, which may ultimately burden consumers with higher costs for goods and energy.
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 Black Americans be better off under this? — Restoring environmental justice programs helps address disproportionate pollution burdens frequently borne by minority communities. Would children be better off under this? — Lower air pollution levels resulting from reinstated environmental standards provide direct health benefits to children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Restoring environmental justice programs helps address disproportionate pollution burdens frequently borne by minority communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Section 6 prioritizes enforcement and monitoring in overburdened communities, often lower-income areas with disproportionate pollution. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reduced respiratory and cardiovascular pollutant exposure benefits older populations vulnerable to poor air quality. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Stricter vehicle emissions and air quality standards improve air quality in densely populated urban environments.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates the full reinstatement of environmental regulations, guidance, and enforcement programs in effect on January 19, 2025. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Section 3(a) reinstates greenhouse gas emissions standards, methane rules, and the social cost of carbon to curb climate change. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Stricter regulations on power plants and oil and gas operations may increase compliance costs for fossil fuel producers. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Mandating stringent greenhouse gas standards and the social cost of carbon could drive up compliance costs and consumer energy prices.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Section 6 mandates annual reports on pollution trends, enforcement actions, and published public health impact assessments. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal enforcement authorities and requires strict EPA oversight over environmental standards.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Section 3(a) reinstates key environmental and air quality standards that reduce toxic pollution, benefiting public health. Does this put more money into medical research? — Section 4(a) and (b) strengthen scientific advisory boards and mandate the use of peer-reviewed science in regulatory decisions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Section 6(a) and (b) restore environmental justice programs and prioritize monitoring and enforcement in communities experiencing disproportionate pollution burdens.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Section 5(c) authorizes an appropriation of nearly $11 billion annually for Environmental Protection Agency duties and enforcement requirements.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Section 4 reconstitutes scientific advisory bodies and requires agency decisions to be based on peer-reviewed science.
- 9/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/16/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon