The bill
WIPPES Act
S. 1092, 119th Congress — read as touching Chemicals & Plastics.
Sponsored by
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
ID: M001176
Follow the money
The bill
S. 1092, 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
28 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
Held at the desk.
March 23, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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 masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. The WIPPES Act, a bill so cleverly crafted to make you think it's about protecting the environment, when in reality, it's just another exercise in bureaucratic busywork.
Let's dissect this monstrosity:
**New regulations:** We've got a whole new set of labeling requirements for "covered products" (read: wipes and other non-flushable items). Because, apparently, Americans are too stupid to figure out what not to flush down the toilet without explicit instructions. The bill mandates that manufacturers slap a "Do Not Flush" label on their products, because heaven forbid people use common sense.
**Affected industries:** The usual suspects – consumer goods companies, packaging manufacturers, and anyone else who dares to produce something that might end up in a sewer system. Expect the costs of compliance to be passed down to consumers, because that's how this game is played.
**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Manufacturers have 180 days to get their act together and start slapping those labels on their products. Because, you know, it takes a whole six months to design and implement new packaging. I'm sure the industry will be thrilled to absorb these costs without passing them on to consumers (wink, wink).
**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** The Federal Trade Commission gets to play cop, enforcing these regulations with all the zeal of a sleepy sloth. Penalties for non-compliance? Oh boy, you might get fined! But don't worry, it's not like anyone will actually enforce this nonsense.
**Economic and operational impacts:** This bill is a jobs program for bureaucrats and lawyers, who'll get to spend their days arguing over the finer points of label design and placement. Meanwhile, manufacturers will waste resources on compliance, and consumers will foot the bill. It's a win-win for everyone except the people who actually matter – taxpayers.
In conclusion, the WIPPES Act is a textbook example of regulatory overreach, designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist (or at least, not one that can't be solved with basic human intelligence). It's a cynical exercise in bureaucratic empire-building, and we should all be ashamed of our elected representatives for foisting this nonsense on us.
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 9 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: C001035
Top Contributors
21
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
20
ID: K000383
Top Contributors
24
ID: M000133
Top Contributors
22
ID: M001111
Top Contributors
35
ID: P000145
Top Contributors
29
ID: W000779
Top Contributors
30
ID: S001181
Top Contributors
21
ID: W000817
Top Contributors
20
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 61 nodes and 74 connections
Total contributions: $74
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
Section 2(a) requires covered entities (manufacturers, wholesalers, suppliers, retailers) to label covered products with 'Do Not Flush' labeling. Covered products include premoistened, nonwoven disposable wipes marketed as baby wipes, household or personal care wipes, antibacterial wipes, disinfecting wipes, general purpose cleaning wipes, bathroom cleaning wipes, toilet cleaning wipes, hard surface cleaning wipes, hand sanitizing wipes, makeup removal wipes, feminine hygiene wipes, adult hygien
Section 2(i)(4)(A)(ii)(II) includes wipes intended for adult hygiene (including incontinence hygiene) and body cleansing as covered products. Hospitals and health systems use such wipes for patient care, and the labeling requirement may impose costs on them if they are considered covered entities responsible for labeling or retail packaging of such wipes sold or offered for retail sale within the United States (Section 2(i)(3)).
Section 2(i)(4)(A)(ii)(II) includes wipes intended for adult hygiene (including incontinence hygiene) and body cleansing as covered products. Long-term care facilities use such wipes for resident care, and the labeling requirement may impose costs on them if they are considered covered entities responsible for labeling or retail packaging of such wipes sold or offered for retail sale within the United States (Section 2(i)(3)).
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
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 focuses on wastewater pollution prevention through labeling requirements for non-flushable products, while Project 2025's EPA section emphasizes Clean Water Act regulatory reforms, WOTUS definitions, permitting processes, and nutrient trading—none of which are 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 wastewater pollution prevention through product labeling, while the Project 2025 EPA section centers on air quality, greenhouse gas reporting, and limiting EPA authority. Both address environmental protection but target different media and regulatory approaches, resulting only a weak thematic connection."
— 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.
AI Analysis:
"The WIPPES Act focuses on reducing wastewater pollution through product labeling enforced by the FTC, while the Project 2025 EPA section concerns air quality, climate change, and limiting EPA regulatory authority. Both share a general goal of environmental protection but address different media and regulatory mechanisms, resulting in only weak thematic 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.
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.