Official Bill Info

• Latest Action: Sep 08, 2011 Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  I know the most recent action for this bill is as follows: "Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections." on Sep 08, 2011
• Committee Assignment: House Energy and Commerce

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  This bill has been assigned to the House Energy and Commerce committee.
• Committee Assignment: House Education and the Workforce

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  This bill has been assigned to the House Education and the Workforce committee.
• Committee Assignment: House Energy and Commerce - Health

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  This bill has been assigned to the House Energy and Commerce - Health committee.

Bill Statistics on OpenCongress

Contribution Data

Supporting Organizations

• Handcrafted Soap Makers Guild, Inc.

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  I know that the organization Handcrafted Soap Makers Guild, Inc. supports H.R.2359
• Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  I know that the organization Campaign for Safe Cosmetics supports H.R.2359
• Badger Body Care

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  I know that the organization Badger Body Care supports H.R.2359
• American Nurses Association

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  I know that the organization American Nurses Association supports H.R.2359

Opposing Organizations

• Personal Care Truth

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  I know that the organization Personal Care Truth opposes H.R.2359

Most-commented sections of the bill text

• ‘(a) In General- Beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this subchapter, each establishment engaged in the manufacture of a cosmetic intended to be marketed in the United States shall submit electronically to the Secretary, for each cosmetic manufactured in the establishment that is intended to be marketed in the United States, a statement containing-- (1 comments, Link )

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  specifically, this section of the legislation: "‘(a) In General- Beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this subchapter, each establishment engaged in the manufacture of a cosmetic intended to be marketed in the United States shall submit electronically to the Secretary, for each cosmetic manufactured in the establishment that is intended to be marketed in the United States, a statement containing--",
• ‘Nothing in this subchapter shall affect the right of a State, political subdivision of a State, or tribe to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance that is more stringent than a regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance established by this subchapter, including requiring the provision of a warning of risk, illness, or injury. (1 comments, Link )

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  specifically, this section of the legislation: "‘Nothing in this subchapter shall affect the right of a State, political subdivision of a State, or tribe to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance that is more stringent than a regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance established by this subchapter, including requiring the provision of a warning of risk, illness, or injury.",
• ‘(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this subchapter, and annually thereafter, any establishment (except for microbusinesses) engaged in manufacturing or packaging cosmetics for use in the United States shall register with the Secretary and pay to the Secretary the applicable fee, as established under the fee schedule in subsection (e). (1 comments, Link )

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  specifically, this section of the legislation: "‘(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this subchapter, and annually thereafter, any establishment (except for microbusinesses) engaged in manufacturing or packaging cosmetics for use in the United States shall register with the Secretary and pay to the Secretary the applicable fee, as established under the fee schedule in subsection (e).",
• ‘There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this subchapter for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2016.’. (1 comments, Link )

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  specifically, this section of the legislation: "‘There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this subchapter for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2016.’.",
• ‘(a) Safety Standard- (1 comments, Link )

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  specifically, this section of the legislation: "‘(a) Safety Standard-",

Highest Rated User Comments

• On July 07, 2011, by erinlee - Here we go again! Small businesses, though exempt from registration requirements and fees in this current attempt to regulate the cosmetic industry, will face increased costs for supplies, nightmarish record keeping and ingredient disclosure. These are the same issues we faced when HR5786 was proposed a year ago. Who will profit from this bill? Big lobbying groups such as EWG and CFSC. The current FDA Act, although enacted in 1938, could be enforced much better than it currently is. I don't feel a brand new piece of legislation is necessary to ensure toxic filth stays out of our cosmetics. We need better enforcement, and we need an updated database of prohibited ingredients. I feel it is borderline criminal for lobbying groups to be propagating the lie that our current cosmetic laws do nothing to ensure safe cosmetics. It couldn't be further from the truth. Scare tactic and fear mongering didn't work last year with HR5786, and won't work this year, either.

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by erinlee, a user on OpenCongress.org, on July 07, 2011, "Here we go again! Small businesses, though exempt from registration requirements and fees in this current attempt to regulate the cosmetic industry, will face increased costs for supplies, nightmarish record keeping and ingredient disclosure. These are the same issues we faced when HR5786 was proposed a year ago. Who will profit from this bill? Big lobbying groups such as EWG and CFSC. The current FDA Act, although enacted in 1938, could be enforced much better than it currently is. I don't feel a brand new piece of legislation is necessary to ensure toxic filth stays out of our cosmetics. We need better enforcement, and we need an updated database of prohibited ingredients. I feel it is borderline criminal for lobbying groups to be propagating the lie that our current cosmetic laws do nothing to ensure safe cosmetics. It couldn't be further from the truth. Scare tactic and fear mongering didn't work last year with HR5786, and won't work this year, either. "
• On July 04, 2011, by cactusandivy - Cinagro4 - Personal Care Truth will have a breakdown post shortly of what each section means. We'd love you to join us to find out what this bill really means, http://www.personalcaretruth.com Have a safe and happy Independence Day! Lisa M. Rodgers Co-Founder Personal Care Truth

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by cactusandivy, a user on OpenCongress.org, on July 04, 2011, "Cinagro4 - Personal Care Truth will have a breakdown post shortly of what each section means. We'd love you to join us to find out what this bill really means, http://www.personalcaretruth.com Have a safe and happy Independence Day! Lisa M. Rodgers Co-Founder Personal Care Truth"
• On July 04, 2011, by cactusandivy - Personal Care Truth now has a breakdown of each section. I've placed a link in the specific section comment areas. You may also visit http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/07/safe-cosmetics-act-2011-cover-table-of-contents-and-sec-611-definitions/ to click on the individual SEC links.

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by cactusandivy, a user on OpenCongress.org, on July 04, 2011, "Personal Care Truth now has a breakdown of each section. I've placed a link in the specific section comment areas. You may also visit http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/07/safe-cosmetics-act-2011-cover-table-of-contents-and-sec-611-definitions/ to click on the individual SEC links."

Highly Rated Blog Articles

• StormSister Spatique®: This Week in DC - July 23, 2012 by noreply@blogger.com (Becky Sturm) - Please take just a few minutes to send a message to your Representative to let him or her know that the business community supports the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R. 2359), strong legislation that protects consumers and ...

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by noreply@blogger.com (Becky Sturm) on July 23, 2012, "Please take just a few minutes to send a message to your Representative to let him or her know that the business community supports the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R. 2359), strong legislation that protects consumers and ..." (/url?q=http://stormsisterspatique.blogspot.com/2012/07/this-week-in-dc.html&sa=U&ei=HA0PUNu1JcK82wW_moHQDw&ved=0CBwQmAEwAA&usg=AFQjCNHZakEifocKHIPPGPXVvYNVqwDLUQ)
• Non-toxic Nails in the North Shore (Chicago) | Wren - May 08, 2012 by Amanda - These elements are part of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R.2359), co-sponsored by our district's Congresswomen Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Tell Congress to fix our broken cosmetic laws here. May 8, 2012 · 0 · eco-friendly, health, non-toxic

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by Amanda on May 08, 2012, "These elements are part of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R.2359), co-sponsored by our district's Congresswomen Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Tell Congress to fix our broken cosmetic laws here. May 8, 2012 · 0 · eco-friendly, health, non-toxic " (/url?q=http://www.ecowren.net/2012/non-toxic-nails-in-the-north-shore/&sa=U&ei=SzmsT_jzMaeBsgKq1MCfAg&ved=0CD8QmAEwBg&usg=AFQjCNE0HJM4DTOYdyci9ZSYadRkP2HT9Q)
• Congressman Touts Legislation During Visit To Clark Business ... - May 07, 2012 by atomtabloid - In 2011, Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced “The Safe Cosmetics Act” (H.R. 2359), which was backed by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and several other ...

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by atomtabloid on May 07, 2012, "In 2011, Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced “The Safe Cosmetics Act” (H.R. 2359), which was backed by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and several other ..." (/url?q=http://njtoday.net/2012/05/07/congressman-touts-legislation-during-visit-to-clark-business/&sa=U&ei=tSfiT53LKITm2gXivOXkCw&ved=0CEUQmAEwCQ&usg=AFQjCNEERZcPbf9HHbhi4_-3ZacMIq6xmg)

Highly Rated News Articles

• The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R. 2359): Implications for the Cosmetics Industry - May 30, 2012 by Mondaq - Regulation of the cosmetics industry has garnered significant national attention in recent months. On March 27, 2012, nine months after legislators introduced the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, H.R. 2359, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives ..

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by Mondaq on May 30, 2012, "Regulation of the cosmetics industry has garnered significant national attention in recent months. On March 27, 2012, nine months after legislators introduced the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, H.R. 2359, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives .." (http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/179436/Healthcare+Food+Drugs+Law/The+Safe+Cosmetics+Act+Of+2011+HR+2359+Implications+For+The+Cosmetics+Industry)
• Congressman Touts Legislation During Visit To Clark Business - May 07, 2012 by NJ TODAY - introduced “The Safe Cosmetics Act” (H.R. 2359), which was backed by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and several other consumer and public health advocacy groups. The bill would require full disclosure of ingredients and give the FDA the ...

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by NJ TODAY on May 07, 2012, "introduced “The Safe Cosmetics Act” (H.R. 2359), which was backed by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and several other consumer and public health advocacy groups. The bill would require full disclosure of ingredients and give the FDA the ..." (http://njtoday.net/2012/05/07/congressman-touts-legislation-during-visit-to-clark-business/)
• PR for Preservatives? - April 30, 2012 by Happi - “I don’t see the extremist bill (H.R. 2359, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011) going anywhere, nor the industry bill going anywhere and so, ultimately, nothing will happen,” observed Steinberg. “But if nothing happens, there will be more state legisla

  Clicking this will add the following text:

  As noted by Happi on April 30, 2012, "“I don’t see the extremist bill (H.R. 2359, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011) going anywhere, nor the industry bill going anywhere and so, ultimately, nothing will happen,” observed Steinberg. “But if nothing happens, there will be more state legisla" (http://www.happi.com/articles/2012/05/pr-for-preservatives)