The bill
WIPPES Act
HR. 2269, 119th Congress — read as touching Chemicals & Plastics.
Sponsored by
Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]
ID: M001136
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 2269, 119th Congress — read as touching Chemicals & Plastics.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 461-463 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate.
June 23, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of congressional genius. The WIPPES Act, because what this country really needed was another acronym to confuse the masses.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require certain products (read: wipes) to be labeled with a "Do Not Flush" warning, because apparently, some people need to be told not to clog their toilets. The objective is to prevent wastewater infrastructure pollution and environmental safety issues. How noble.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates that covered entities (manufacturers, distributors, etc.) label their products with a clear and conspicuous "Do Not Flush" warning, including a symbol and notice on the packaging. It also prohibits making any representations that these products can or should be flushed. Oh, the horror! The Federal Trade Commission will enforce this section, because they have nothing better to do.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include manufacturers of wipes, distributors, retailers, and consumers who apparently need to be told what not to flush down their toilets. I'm sure the wipe industry is just thrilled about these new regulations. The stakeholders include environmental groups, wastewater treatment plants, and anyone who's ever had to deal with a clogged toilet.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is that it might actually reduce the number of wipes being flushed down toilets, which could lead to fewer clogs and less pollution in our waterways. But let's be real, people will still find ways to flush their wipes, because humans are inherently stupid.
In all seriousness, this bill is a Band-Aid solution to a larger problem. It doesn't address the root cause of why people are flushing wipes in the first place (hint: it's not just ignorance). It also creates new regulatory burdens for manufacturers and distributors, which could lead to increased costs and potential job losses.
But hey, at least we'll have more labels on our wipes now. That's definitely worth the effort and resources spent on this bill. I mean, who needs actual solutions to environmental problems when you can just slap a label on it?
Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of " Politician-itis," where lawmakers think they're solving a problem but are actually just treating the symptoms. The underlying disease is still there, and this bill does nothing to address it.
Treatment: More effective waste management infrastructure, education campaigns that actually work, and maybe, just maybe, some common sense from consumers. But hey, that's too much to ask from our esteemed lawmakers.
Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: M001225
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000398
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001068
Top Contributors
10
ID: P000597
Top Contributors
10
ID: C000059
Top Contributors
10
ID: J000298
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001110
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 63 nodes and 41 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $151,200
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
Section 2(g)(4)(A)(II) defines covered product as a premoistened, nonwoven disposable wipe composed entirely or in part of petrochemical-derived fibers, which are derived from chemicals and plastics industry; requiring labeling and prohibiting flushability claims imposes compliance costs and potential market contraction.
Section 2(g)(4)(B)(iii) includes wipes intended for personal care use on the body, including adult hygiene (including incontinence hygiene), which are used in hospitals and health systems; labeling requirements may increase costs for these institutions as purchasers of such wipes.
Section 2(g)(4)(B)(iii) includes wipes intended for adult hygiene (including incontinence hygiene), which are heavily used in long-term care facilities; labeling requirements may increase costs for these facilities as purchasers of such wipes.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The WIPPES Act addresses wastewater pollution prevention through consumer labeling requirements, which aligns with Project 2025's Office of Water goals of improving water quality and infrastructure under the Clean Water Act, though it does not directly address the specific reforms like WOTUS rulemaking or guidance document oversight emphasized in the policy."
— 428 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Personnel, Budget, and Office Restructuring l Place a political appointee in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ, regulating mobile sources) and a political appointee in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, regulating stationary sources) and give those appointees the requisite titles and authority to oversee the OTAQ and OAQPS staff. l Establish a political Chief of Staff in D.C. to manage the entire air office. l Pull the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program out of OTAQ; establish its own suboffice in D.C. (with status parallel to OTAQ and OAQPS) that is headed by a political appointee; and establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy to work together to establish RFS programs. l Require regional air offices to receive approval from OAR before moving forward with enforcement actions in order to ensure that enforcement is meeting the requirements established by regulations and is not going beyond them. OFFICE OF WATER (OW) OW is responsible for ensuring safe drinking water and restoring and main- taining oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitats for fish, plants, and wildlife. Its two main statutes include implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA)26 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).27 OW has generated a large number of expansive regulations that infringe on private property rights, most notably with the Waters of the U.S. program. Needed Reforms The overarching theme for reform is guidance on guidance. OW relies heav- ily on guidance documents that are outdated and that sometimes have been in a “deliberative” state for years. Additionally, there are significant issues surrounding OW’s holding up guidance as something more than simply guidance: as something akin to law in certain circumstances. The August 6, 2019, “Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents” memorandum28 should be strictly enforced to ensure transpar- ency as well as good governance by not letting guidance linger in draft form and by also ensuring that guidance documents are clearly just that: guidance. They do not have the effect of law and should not be treated by the office as if they did have any such effect. — 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey.
AI Analysis:
"The WIPPES Act focuses on consumer labeling for wipes to prevent wastewater pollution, while Project 2025's EPA section emphasizes regulatory reform, WOTUS definitions, CWA Section 401 efficiency, and water infrastructure funding—topics not directly addressed by the bill."
— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies
AI Analysis:
"The WIPPES Act focuses on labeling wipes to reduce wastewater pollution, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses air quality, climate change, and permitting reforms; both share a broad goal of environmental protection but target different media and regulatory mechanisms, resulting only tangential alignment."
— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.