A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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 sets up a compensation program for firefighters who get sick or die from toxic PFAS exposures during their service. It creates a special trust fund to pay out these claims, using money raised from taxes on PFAS manufacturers and certain PFAS-related lawsuits. Firefighters can receive base awards depending on their diagnosis, with extra money added based on their years of service. The program operates on a no-fault basis, meaning sick firefighters do not have to prove negligence to get help. It also gives families a clear process to file claims if a firefighter passes away from these health conditions.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +7
Does this raise the taxes companies pay?
The bill imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on PFAS manufacturers and on qualifying PFAS litigation awards.
- Scored +6
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Firefighters who contract severe non-cancer and cancer conditions from toxic exposures receive direct financial compensation.
- Scored +6
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill provides substantial financial support and compensation for firefighters suffering from serious PFAS-related illnesses and cancers.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Would business owners be better off under this?
PFAS manufacturers face new excise taxes and financial liabilities under the legislation.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Financial Help for Sick Firefighters: Under Section 3401(e), eligible firefighters diagnosed with certain cancers get a $250,000 base award, while those with non-cancer conditions get $50,000, helping cover major medical burdens.
-
No-Fault Claims Process: Under Section 3401(d)(2), the Secretary must accept that a firefighter's illness came from workplace PFAS exposure, meaning workers do not have to fight through complicated blame games or prove negligence.
-
Support for Families After a Death: Under Section 3401(c)(1)(B), estates or adult heirs of deceased firefighters can step in and claim compensation, ensuring families are cared for after a tragic loss.
-
Interest on Delayed Payments: Under Section 3402(b)(3), if the trust fund runs low and payouts are delayed, claimants receive their unpaid money plus 6 percent interest per annum once funding becomes available.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Possible Payment Delays or Reductions: Under Section 3402(b)(2)(A), the Secretary must ensure that payouts never exceed the money available in the trust fund, meaning payments might be cut down or prorated if funds run dry.
-
Strict Limits on Claims: Under Section 3401(f)(1), an eligible person can only receive compensation for a maximum of 1 cancer condition and 1 non-cancer condition, no matter how many health problems they actually suffer from.
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — The bill imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on PFAS manufacturers and on qualifying PFAS litigation awards. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill creates a dedicated trust fund financed by specific industry taxes to cover program costs without adding to general budget deficits. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The legislation establishes accountability and funding mechanisms linked to harms caused by toxic PFAS products.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Firefighters who contract severe non-cancer and cancer conditions from toxic exposures receive direct financial compensation. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The financial awards provide vital assistance to lower-income households facing catastrophic medical expenses from severe illnesses. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Military firefighters are explicitly covered under the definition of eligible beneficiaries. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Older retired firefighters who developed long-latency illnesses from occupational PFAS exposure are eligible for compensation. Would business owners be better off under this? — PFAS manufacturers face new excise taxes and financial liabilities under the legislation.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The legislation provides a structured no-fault claims process and allows appeals with de novo review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill establishes clear guidelines, administrative reporting, and formalized review processes for compensation claims.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill provides substantial financial support and compensation for firefighters suffering from serious PFAS-related illnesses and cancers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By taxing PFAS manufacturers and litigation settlements, the bill creates financial disincentives related to the production and release of harmful PFAS substances.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The program explicitly includes military firefighters who suffer from toxic PFAS exposures during their service.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Providing substantial lump-sum compensation to sick firefighters or their families helps alleviate severe financial hardship caused by medical crises.
- 9/16/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 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.