PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 8, 2006
Stockholm and Rotterdam Toxics Treaty Act of 2006 - Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to provide for the implementation of three international environmental agreements: (1) the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention); (2) the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs Protocol); and (3) the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention).
Prohibits the manufacture, process, distribution for export, use, or disposal of specified Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue or amend rules related to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in order to comply with the provisions of the POPs Convention or the LRTAP POPs Protocol.
Requires a notice and comment procedure regarding the addition of a new chemical to the POPs Convention or the LRTAP POPs Protocol. Allows the Administrator to issue regulations concerning such chemicals, including prohibiting their use to protect human health and the environment in a manner that achieves a reasonable balance of social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator to publish: (1) a decision regarding the treatment of any new source categories that are not already listed under the Clean Air Act as major source categories; (2) notice of the development of action plans under the POPs Convention; and (3) a decision on whether to promulgate regulations for newly listed POPs or the status of a rulemaking if the Administrator has not made a decision about such POPs.
Requires the President to consult with and report to Congress before consenting to bind the United States to an amendment of the POPs Convention.
Requires the Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the heads other federal agencies, to participate in international efforts concerning POPs.
Prohibits the Administrator from promulgating a rule authorizing PCB manufacture, processing, or distribution activities or granting an exemption from PCB regulations under TSCA, unless they are consistent with the exemptions under the POPs Convention and the LRTAP POPs Protocol.
Prohibits the distribution for export equipment that contains more than a specified percentage of PCBs in liquid stock, except for the purpose of legal, environmentally sound waste management.
Establishes conditions for exporting chemicals listed on Annex III of the PIC Convention.
People & committees
Rep. Gillmor, Paul E. [R-OH-5] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2204-2205)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 11, 2026. 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.6421 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.6421 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.6421 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.6421 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.