Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill, the "Protect Our Clothes from PFAS Act," amends chapter 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. It strikes the second sentence of Additional U.S. Note 2 to chapter 62, thereby changing the specific requirement for when a garment is considered "water resistant." The text of the bill contains no other provisions or implementing details.
Progressives emphasize health and PFAS reduction benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive change to tariff law implemented via a precise textual amendment.
This bill, the "Protect Our Clothes from PFAS Act," amends chapter 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
It strikes the second sentence of Additional U.S. Note 2 to chapter 62, thereby changing the specific requirement for when a garment is considered "water resistant." The text of the bill contains no other provisions or implementing details.
Content is narrow and administratively simple, but standalone tariff edits often fail without committee consensus or inclusion in larger trade/omnibus legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive change to tariff law implemented via a precise textual amendment. It succeeds in specifying the exact amendment but provides little contextual or implementation detail beyond the deletion instruction.
Progressives emphasize health and PFAS reduction benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize health and PFAS reduction benefits.
Likely to view the bill positively as a targeted step to reduce PFAS use in textiles and improve consumer and environmental health.
Support hinges on the assumption that removing the sentence tightens a loophole that enabled PFAS-treated garments to qualify as "water resistant."
Views the bill as a narrow technical change with potential public-health benefits but wants clarity on legal and trade impacts.
Supportive if accompanied by regulatory guidance, economic analysis, and a clear implementation timeline.
Likely skeptical, seeing this as regulatory tinkering that may disrupt trade and impose costs on the textile sector.
Opposed unless the change is proven necessary and economically justified.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administratively simple, but standalone tariff edits often fail without committee consensus or inclusion in larger trade/omnibus legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize health and PFAS reduction benefits.
Content is narrow and administratively simple, but standalone tariff edits often fail without committee consensus or inclusion in larger tr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive change to tariff law implemented via a precise textual amendment. It succeeds in specifying the exact amendment but provides little contextu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.