PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
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: Oct 16, 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.10542 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.10542 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.10542 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.10542 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 · 2026-09-24 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 Combating Pasture Mealybug Act would require a federal study of the country's readiness to combat pasture mealybugs. It would examine economic impacts on livestock and commercial crops, along with preparedness and response capabilities. The Agriculture Secretary would publish the findings and recommend possible legislative and administrative actions.
This Act may be cited as the Combating Pasture Mealybug Act.
shall conduct a comprehensive study on the current state of United States preparedness and response capabilities to combat the pasture mealybug.
(B) the economic impact of the pasture mealybug across the United States livestock industry, including cattle, horses, bison, sheep, goats, and other susceptible animals, such as domestic wildlife; and (C) the economic impact of the pasture mealybug on crops produced for commercial purposes, such as turf, grass, sod, and sugarcane.
and make publicly available, a report— (1) detailing the findings of the study under this section; and (2) providing recommendations for legislative and administrative actions to improve the ability of the United States to combat pasture mealybug.
The bill's findings describe pasture mealybugs as invasive insects that damage plants and threaten grazing land, hay, and crops. These statements explain the bill's rationale; they are not results of the proposed study.
Congress finds the following: (1) Pasture mealybugs (Heliococcus summervillei and Heliococcus novovillei) are invasive insects whose young feed on plants, stunting the plant development by depositing honeydew and saliva that cripples plants’ immune systems and photosynthesis capabilities.
(3) The removal of productive land for grazing and hay, and the infestation and spread to crops, poses a tremendous economic and ecological threat to States.
If enacted, the bill would require the Agriculture Secretary to conduct the preparedness study within 90 days after enactment. The study would assess the pest's movements, confirmed U.S. detections, and economic impacts on livestock and commercial crops.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture (in this section referred to as the Secretary) shall conduct a comprehensive study on the current state of United States preparedness and response capabilities to combat the pasture mealybug.
(1) Current threat assessment An analysis of the current threat posed by pasture mealybug to the United States, including— (A) the migratory patterns and confirmed detections of the pasture mealybug within the United States; (B) the economic impact of the pasture mealybug across the United States livestock industry, including cattle, horses, bison, sheep, goats, and other susceptible animals, such as domestic wildlife; and (C) the economic impact of the pasture mealybug on crops produced for commercial purposes, such as turf, grass, sod, and sugarcane.
The study would review U.S. capacity to limit the pest's spread and control its population. It would identify states with detections and analyze technologies and best practices for preventing spread.
(2) Containment and control technique capabilities A review of the capacity of the United States to contain the spread and control the population of the pasture mealybug, including— (A) the States in which pasture mealybug has been detected; and (B) an analysis of technologies and best practices to prevent the spread of pasture mealybug.
The study would evaluate systems for monitoring and detecting pasture mealybugs, including testing capabilities, laboratory facilities, and how public and private reporting of suspected cases works together.
(3) Surveillance and detection systems An evaluation of current pasture mealybug surveillance and detection systems, including— (A) the adequacy of diagnostic capabilities and laboratory infrastructure; and (B) the integration of public and private sector reporting mechanisms for suspected cases of pasture mealybug.
The study would examine existing emergency response plans, coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, and resources available for rapid containment and control.
(4) Emergency response plans An examination of existing emergency response plans for pasture mealybug infestations, including— (A) the coordination mechanisms between Federal, State, and local agencies; and (B) the availability of resources for rapid containment and control efforts.
The study would identify research needs involving new tools to detect the pest, alternative control methods, and genetic research into its vulnerabilities, including natural biological controls.
(5) Research and development needs Identification of critical research and development needs to enhance pasture mealybug prevention, control, and containment, including— (A) new diagnostic tools; (B) alternative control methods; and (C) genetic research into pasture mealybug vulnerabilities, including natural biological controls.
The study would assess cooperation with affected countries and recommend stronger partnerships to establish and maintain biological barriers against the pest.
(6) International cooperation An assessment of the effectiveness of current international cooperation efforts with affected countries and recommendations for strengthening such partnerships to establish and maintain biological barriers.
The Secretary would have to consult agricultural producers and industry associations, including livestock and affected crop representatives; wildlife management agencies; scientific experts; and state and local agricultural officials.
(c) Stakeholder consultation In conducting the study under this section, the Secretary shall consult with relevant stakeholders, including— (1) agricultural producers and industry associations, including livestock and impacted crop commodity representatives; (2) wildlife management agencies; (3) scientific experts in biology, chemistry, entomology, ecology, and botany; and (4) State and local agricultural officials.
Within six months after enactment, the Secretary would have to submit a report to the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and make it public. The report would explain the study's findings and recommend legislative and administrative actions; the requirement to recommend actions would not itself implement them.
(d) Report to Congress Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, and make publicly available, a report— (1) detailing the findings of the study under this section; and (2) providing recommendations for legislative and administrative actions to improve the ability of the United States to combat pasture mealybug.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:49Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. 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 provision or policy 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; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment 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: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI