H.R. 10790House bill · 119th CongressIn committee
To amend the Clean Air Act to require that at least one member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has demonstrated knowledge and substantial experience in the trades or industrial labor, and for other purposes.
Latest action (Oct 9, 2026) — on Energy and Commerce.
What it does
not written yetThe Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.
In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗
We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.
Discussion
23 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The committee report would settle it either way.
9
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other.
9
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
2
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
9
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
9
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
8
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
1
The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.
7
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
5
That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.
7
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
7
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests.
6
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
3
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
2
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
1
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
1
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on H.R. 10790100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user