PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 3, 2009
Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to establish the Endocrine Disruption Prevention Program, under which the Director shall: (1) conduct and support multidisciplinary research to improve the understanding of endocrine disruption; and (2) conduct workshops and fora on health effects associated with environmental agents that may affect the endocrine system.
Requires the Director to establish an Endocrine Disruption Program Panel, which shall: (1) provide advice to the Director on the conduct and support of research; (2) evaluate existing population-level biomonitoring and biobanking surveillance and research programs and recommend changes needed to develop data on human exposures and effects to support the Program; and (3) develop a list of chemicals of concern for endocrine disruption effects and make findings with respect to such chemicals. Authorizes individuals to petition the Panel to determine whether a chemical should be listed or to revise a finding or determination based on new information.
Requires the Director, if the Panel finds that data are sufficient to determine that there is at least a minimal level of concern associated with a chemical's potential to disrupt the human endocrine system, to transmit the finding, including the routes and sources of exposure to the chemical, to each federal agency with authority to regulate the chemical. Requires each federal agency that receives such a transmission: (1) to reply to the Director describing the agency's regulatory authority, past actions in connection with the chemical, and proposed action to protect human health from the potential endocrine disruption effects of exposure to the chemical; and (2) within one year, to report on the actions taken and future actions proposed by the Agency in response to the Panel's finding.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director to establish a program to support graduate and postdoctoral training in fields related to the prevention of endocrine disruption.
People & committees
Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] · D–MA
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 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12324)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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 S.2828 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.2828 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.2828 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.2828 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.