PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 30, 1996
Children's Environmental Protection Act of 1996 - Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to state U.S. policy regarding the adequacy of protection of children and other vulnerable subpopulations from exposure to environmental pollutants. Defines "vulnerable subpopulations" to include children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, and other subpopulations identified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as likely to experience elevated health risks from environmental pollutants. Directs the Administrator to: (1) work with each State, including by making grants, to develop a family right-to-know initiative requiring disclosure of the details of application of a pollutant in a public area accessible to children, State reports of such information, and provision of data for a nationwide survey; (2) identify and make publicly available a list of hazardous substances and pesticides commonly used in schools and parks; (3) create a list of substances with high hazard risks; (4) develop and issue an EPA-approved warning sign and label for posting in such areas; and (5) prohibit a school or park from using any pollutant on the high hazard risk list. Directs the Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and Human Services to: (1) coordinate and implement research studies of the physiological and pharmacokinetic differences in the effects and toxicity of pesticides and other pollutants on children and other vulnerable subpopulations; (2) conduct surveys and research to document differences between children and adults with respect to exposure; and (3) report to the Congress. Directs the Administrator to evaluate environmental health risks to children and vulnerable subpopulations in all risk assessments and characterizations, environmental or public health standards, or general regulatory decisions and develop and use a separate assessment with respect to vulnerable subpopulations. Requires a report to the Congress. Requires public availability, subject to restrictions, of information concerning any test of a pesticide, pesticide residue, or other pollutant to determine potential levels of exposure or health effects. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11993)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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 S.2179 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 S.2179 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 S.2179 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 S.2179 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.