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. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1] · R–SC
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 7, 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.10629 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.10629 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.10629 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.10629 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 · 2026-09-28 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 Pesticide Data Transparency Act would remove a restriction on government release of pesticide data that could identify individual producers, including through location information. It would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report to Congress about information newly eligible for disclosure and recommend how to publish it promptly. It would also prohibit EPA regulations and guidance that could prevent or significantly delay disclosure of the covered records.
This Act may be cited as the Pesticide Data Transparency Act.
Section 1491(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1(b)) is amended by striking the following: , but in no case may a government agency release data, including the location from which the data was derived, that would directly or indirectly reveal the identity of individual producers.
a report describing records and data barred from public disclosure under section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, but no longer barred from public disclosure as a result of the amendment made by section 2 of this Act, along with recommendations as to how the Agency may successfully compile and publicly disclose such records and data in a timely manner.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not issue, implement, or enforce any regulation, guidance document, or interpretive rule that may prevent or significantly delay the public disclosure of the records and data described in section 1491(b)
Section 2 would delete an existing prohibition on government agencies releasing data that directly or indirectly identify individual producers. The deleted language expressly includes the location from which data came. The proposal removes this particular restriction; the surrounding law is not reproduced.
Section 1491(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1(b)) is amended by striking the following: , but in no case may a government agency release data, including the location from which the data was derived, that would directly or indirectly reveal the identity of individual producers.
Within 180 days after enactment, the EPA Administrator would have to report to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The report would describe records and data previously barred from public disclosure under section 1491 that the bill's amendment would make eligible for disclosure.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing records and data barred from public disclosure under section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, but no longer barred from public disclosure as a result of the amendment made by section 2 of this Act
The report would also have to recommend how EPA could compile and publicly disclose those records and data promptly. This language requires recommendations; it does not set a deadline for publishing the underlying records.
along with recommendations as to how the Agency may successfully compile and publicly disclose such records and data in a timely manner.
Section 4 would prohibit the EPA Administrator from issuing, implementing, or enforcing regulations, guidance documents, or interpretive rules—agency explanations of legal requirements—that could prevent or significantly delay public disclosure of records and data described in section 1491(b).
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not issue, implement, or enforce any regulation, guidance document, or interpretive rule that may prevent or significantly delay the public disclosure of the records and data described in section 1491(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1(b)).
The official-actions snapshot updated October 7, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on September 28, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-07T13:47:42Z. 2026-09-28: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2026-09-28: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-28. 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 change attached to appropriations 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 carve-out, special exemption, 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 7, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI