PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 21, 2003
Arsenic-Treated Wood Prohibition Act - Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations prohibiting the use of arsenic-treated wood (wood treated with a pesticide that is a chromated copper arsenical or another arsenical pesticide) in the manufacture of any product that may be used for or by children or for mulch, compost, a soil amendment, certain other construction and utility uses, and additional uses as determined to be appropriate.
Requires the Administrator to conduct an assessment of the risks posed by the production, processing, and use of CCA-treated wood (wood treated with a pesticide that is a chromated copper arsenical).
Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to: (1) list arsenic-treated wood as a hazardous waste; and (2) require disposal of discarded arsenic-treated wood in a lined landfill with a leachate system and groundwater monitoring system.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator to: (1) develop and conduct an educational program to assist consumers, State and local governments, school systems, and other institutions in testing arsenic levels and making decisions concerning arsenic-treated wood containment, removal, and decontamination; and (2) establish a pilot program of grants and technical assistance to assist school systems in removal of playground and other equipment containing arsenic-treated wood and remediation activities.
Requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to report to Congress on its efforts to identify measures (including stains and sealants) for reducing children's exposure to arsenic from products or structures constructed with arsenic-treated wood that will remain in use after the prohibition established by this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2449-2450)
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3629 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3629 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3629 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3629 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.