PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 20, 2008
Kid-Safe Chemicals Act of 2008 - Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to require each manufacturer of a chemical substance distributed in commerce to submit to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): (1) a statement certifying that the substance meets required safety standards or that there is insufficient data to make such determination; and (2) all reasonably available information concerning the substance not previously submitted. Requires manufacturers to update such information at least every three years or at any time new information becomes available on a substance's toxicity.
Requires manufacturers to provide chemical safety information upon the Administrator's request.
Prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution in commerce of a chemical substance if the Administrator determines that the manufacturer has failed to comply with this Act or that the substance does not meet applicable safety standards. Authorizes the Administrator to prohibit a specified use of a chemical substance in consumer products if the use of the product in the home results in human exposure that does not meet the safety standard.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator to: (1) publish a priority list that categorizes all chemical substances distributed in commerce; (2) develop a priority list for making safety determinations of at least 300 chemical substances; (3) determine whether a manufacturer has established that its priority-list substances meet applicable safety standards; (4) arrange for the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct a biomonitoring study to determine the presence of a chemical substance in human cord blood if the Administrator determines that it may be present in human blood, fluids, or tissue; (5) implement animal testing alternatives; (6) create market incentives for the development of safer alternatives to existing chemical substances; (7) establish an Interagency Science Advisory Board on Children's Health and Toxic Substances; (8) cooperate with international efforts to monitor chemical substances; and (9) create a database to share information on the toxicity and use of, and exposure to, chemical substances and provide public access to such data.
People & committees
Rep. Solis, Hilda L. [D-CA-32] · D–CA
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 House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.6100 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.6100 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.6100 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.6100 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.