PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 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 H.R.10109 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 H.R.10109 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 H.R.10109 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 H.R.10109 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Wildfire Event Contract Prohibition Act would bar contracts tied to wildfire events from trading or clearing—processing and settling trades—through registered entities under the Commodity Exchange Act. It would affect traders and the registered entities offering those contracts. It would also require a federal review of existing legal tools for addressing wildfire-related betting misconduct and a report to Congress.
This Act may be cited as the Wildfire Event Contract Prohibition Act.
no agreement, contract, transaction, or swap involving a matter described in clause (ii) (or any index, measure, value, or data related thereto, or occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency based thereon) may be listed or made available for clearing or trading on or through a registered entity.
shall conduct a review of existing Federal criminal and civil authorities relating to conduct undertaken for the purpose of influencing, exploiting, or profiting from a wildfire event through an event contract or other wager.
a report describing the findings of the review and any legislative recommendations.
Section 2 would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit listing or making covered wildfire agreements, contracts, transactions, or swaps available for trading or clearing on or through a registered entity. The prohibition would apply despite other provisions of the amended section and would also cover related indexes, measures, values, data, and contingent outcomes.
Section 5c(c)(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a–2(c)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no agreement, contract, transaction, or swap involving a matter described in clause (ii) (or any index, measure, value, or data related thereto, or occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency based thereon) may be listed or made available for clearing or trading on or through a registered entity.
The proposed prohibition would cover any wildfire event, including whether and where it starts, how long it lasts, its intensity, size, spread and containment, and resulting evacuations, injuries, deaths or property damage.
The matter referred to in clause (i) is any wildfire event, including the ignition, occurrence, location, duration, intensity, size, spread, containment, evacuation resulting from, injury or death caused by, or property damage resulting from a wildfire.
Section 3 would express Congress's view that wildfire event contracts create improper financial incentives, may undermine trust in emergency decisions, and offer opportunities to exploit significant information unavailable to the public. It would also declare that federally regulated markets should not facilitate gambling on wildfire destruction. These are stated policy judgments, not demonstrated effects.
It is the sense of Congress that— (1) wildfire event contracts create an improper financial incentive to profit from the ignition, spread, duration, and destructive effects of a wildfire; (2) such contracts may undermine public confidence in emergency-response decisions and create opportunities to exploit material nonpublic information concerning wildfire conditions, incident operations, evacuation orders, or containment activities; (3) federally regulated markets should not facilitate gambling on the destruction of homes, businesses, natural resources, or communities;
The sense-of-Congress section would also express the view that the bill and its amendment do not override state laws regulating or prohibiting gambling or gaming.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(4) nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act preempts a State law that regulates or prohibits gambling or gaming.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Attorney General would have to review existing federal criminal and civil legal powers addressing conduct intended to influence, exploit or profit from wildfire events through contracts or other wagers. The review would require consultation with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman, the Agriculture and Interior secretaries, and other federal agency heads the Attorney General considers appropriate.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of such other Federal agencies as the Attorney General determines appropriate, shall conduct a review of existing Federal criminal and civil authorities relating to conduct undertaken for the purpose of influencing, exploiting, or profiting from a wildfire event through an event contract or other wager.
The review would assess existing laws applicable to people who intentionally cause, attempt to cause or agree with others to cause a wildfire to influence or profit from a contract or wager. It would also examine laws applicable to trading based on significant, nonpublic wildfire information, including information about fire behavior, emergency response, evacuation or containment.
(1) Federal criminal and civil authorities applicable to an individual who intentionally causes, attempts to cause, or conspires with another person to cause a wildfire for the purpose of influencing the outcome of, or profiting from, an event contract or other wager; (2) Federal criminal and civil authorities applicable to an individual who trades on the basis of material nonpublic information relating to a wildfire event, including information regarding ignition, fire behavior, incident response, evacuation, or containment;
The review would examine whether existing laws on conspiracy, assisting wrongdoing, fraud, market manipulation, money laundering, forfeiture of property and illegal gambling apply to that conduct. It would also assess federal agencies' ability to investigate and pursue conduct involving offshore prediction markets, digital assets or other cross-border ways of placing or facilitating wildfire wagers.
(3) the applicability of Federal conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, fraud, market-manipulation, money-laundering, forfeiture, and illegal gambling authorities to conduct described in paragraphs (1) and (2); (4) the ability of Federal agencies to investigate and pursue conduct involving offshore prediction-market platforms, digital assets, or other cross-border means of placing or facilitating wagers on wildfire events;
The review would examine obstacles to coordination among federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, and wildfire response personnel. It would assess whether further legislation is needed, including stronger penalties, powers to require forfeiture of property, reporting duties or information-sharing powers. This requirement calls for an assessment; it does not itself enact those additional measures.
(5) barriers to coordination among the Department of Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal land-management agencies, State and local law enforcement agencies, and wildfire incident-management personnel; and (6) whether additional legislation, including enhanced penalties, forfeiture authorities, reporting requirements, or information-sharing authorities, is necessary to deter and prosecute such conduct.
Within 30 days after completing the review, the Attorney General would have to report its findings and any legislative recommendations to the House Judiciary and Agriculture committees and the Senate Judiciary and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry committees.
Not later than 30 days after completing the review required under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing the findings of the review and any legislative recommendations.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated August 26, 2026, records introduction in the House on August 17, 2026, and referral that day to the Agriculture and Judiciary committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-26T14:31:14Z. 2026-08-17: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2026-08-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment, special exemption or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 26, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI