Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill abolishes the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) one year after enactment. It requires the HHS Secretary to transfer ATSDR's CERCLA registry authority to an appropriate HHS component, allows transfer of assets and personnel, and directs HHS to wind up ATSDR functions during the one-year wind-up period.
Progressives stress loss of independent public-health advocacy and trust.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive legal change that abolishes a federal agency and implements many precise conforming statutory amendments while providing a basic implementation timeline and assignment of responsibilities.
This bill abolishes the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) one year after enactment.
It requires the HHS Secretary to transfer ATSDR's CERCLA registry authority to an appropriate HHS component, allows transfer of assets and personnel, and directs HHS to wind up ATSDR functions during the one-year wind-up period.
The bill makes numerous conforming statutory amendments removing ATSDR references across federal environmental and public health laws.
Abolishing an agency is a sweeping, politically salient move with complex statutory fixes and strong stakeholder resistance, reducing lawmaking prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive legal change that abolishes a federal agency and implements many precise conforming statutory amendments while providing a basic implementation timeline and assignment of responsibilities.
Progressives stress loss of independent public-health advocacy and trust.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress loss of independent public-health advocacy and trust.
Likely to view the bill unfavorably because it eliminates an independent public-health agency focused on toxic exposures.
The transfer of registry authority to HHS may not fully address concerns about independence, community trust, or sustained funding.
They would emphasize protecting affected communities and preserving scientific capacity.
Approaches the bill pragmatically: consolidation could reduce duplication, but implementation details are crucial.
Concerned about continuity of registries, legal cleanup, and protecting technical expertise during the wind-up and transfers.
Would seek implementation safeguards and cost/benefit evidence.
Likely to view the bill positively as a reduction of federal bureaucracy and consolidation of functions into HHS.
Sees abolishment as removing duplication and improving accountability under the Secretary.
Generally favors limiting standalone agencies when functions can be absorbed.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Abolishing an agency is a sweeping, politically salient move with complex statutory fixes and strong stakeholder resistance, reducing lawmaking prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress loss of independent public-health advocacy and trust.
Abolishing an agency is a sweeping, politically salient move with complex statutory fixes and strong stakeholder resistance, reducing lawma…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive legal change that abolishes a federal agency and implements many precise conforming statutory amendments while providing a basic implementation…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.