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.10630 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.10630 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.10630 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.10630 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 Transparency on Federal Land Act would require federal agencies to report pesticide applications on land they own or manage and make information about those applications publicly available. Reporting would begin one year after enactment. Agencies could withhold information from the public for national security reasons, and people could sue agencies that fail to report.
This Act may be cited as the Pesticide Transparency on Federal Land Act.
Beginning on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this section, not later than 5 days after the date on which a covered agency applies a pesticide on Federal land, the head of such covered agency shall report to the Administrator all information described in subsection (c) with respect to that application.
the Administrator shall establish a publicly available database to document instances in which a pesticide is applied on Federal land by a covered agency.
Information disclosed to the Administrator under subsection (b) shall not be included in the database under subsection (a) (or in any other manner disseminated to the public) if the head of the covered agency applying the pesticide involved submits a notification to the Administrator that the head of such agency has determined that such disclosure would harm the national security of the United States.
Any person may commence a civil action against a covered agency for failure to report under this section.
The term Federal land means any land owned or managed by a covered agency.
The proposal would add a new section to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It would cover federal departments, agencies, and other government bodies in all three branches, and land they own or manage.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 36. Public disclosure of pesticide use on Federal land
The term covered agency means each department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government). (2) Federal land The term Federal land means any land owned or managed by a covered agency.
Within one year after enactment, the Administrator would have to establish the public database and issue regulations implementing the new requirements.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall establish a publicly available database to document instances in which a pesticide is applied on Federal land by a covered agency.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall issue regulations to carry out this section.
Starting one year after enactment, agency heads would have to report each covered pesticide application to the Administrator within five days.
Beginning on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this section, not later than 5 days after the date on which a covered agency applies a pesticide on Federal land, the head of such covered agency shall report to the Administrator all information described in subsection (c) with respect to that application.
Reports and database entries would identify who applied the pesticide; the address and geographic coordinates; the pesticide classification and active ingredient; and the application's date and purpose.
the head of such covered agency shall report to the Administrator all information described in subsection (c) with respect to that application.
The database required under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to each application of a pesticide on Federal land— (1) the name of the entity applying the pesticide; (2) the location of the application of the pesticide, including the address and geographic coordinates; (3) the specific classification of pesticide applied, including the active ingredient; (4) the date of the application; and (5) the purpose of the application.
Within one year after enactment, the Administrator would also have to publish existing agency data of the specified types, including pesticide use proposals, subject to the national security exception.
Except as specified in paragraph (3), not later than 1 year after that date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall make any data described in subsection (c) that was compiled by a covered agency prior to the date of the enactment of this section, including pesticide use proposals, publicly available on the database established under subsection (a).
Required information could not be withheld under the existing law's section 10(b), except as specified in the proposal's national security provision. The supplied text does not reproduce section 10(b), so the full scope of that change is not established here.
Except as specified in paragraph (3), information required to be disclosed under this section shall not be considered protected from disclosure under section 10(b).
Information reported to the Administrator would have to be withheld from the database and other public release if the agency head notified the Administrator that disclosure would harm U.S. national security.
Information disclosed to the Administrator under subsection (b) shall not be included in the database under subsection (a) (or in any other manner disseminated to the public) if the head of the covered agency applying the pesticide involved submits a notification to the Administrator that the head of such agency has determined that such disclosure would harm the national security of the United States.
The withholding provision states that protection would cover only information necessary to protect national security and would not excuse reporting to the Administrator. Protection would last at most one year at a time, with renewal permitted following another agency-head determination. Its cross-reference is unclear, as noted in the limitations.
The protection from disclosure under paragraph (1)— (i) shall apply only to the information necessary to protect national security, and shall not waive the requirement to transmit information to the Administrator under subsection (b); (ii) shall apply only for a period of not more than 1 year; and (iii) may be renewed if the head of the covered agency makes a subsequent determination with respect to the application of a pesticide involved under subparagraph (A).
An agency head invoking national security protection would have to notify Congress within 30 days after notifying the Administrator. The congressional notice would describe the general basis for the decision and could be classified.
Not later than 30 days after submitting a notification under subparagraph (A), the head of the covered agency involved shall submit to Congress a notification describing the general basis of the determination described in subparagraph (A), which may be submitted in classified form.
Any person could bring a civil lawsuit against a covered agency for failure to report. A judge could award damages to a winning plaintiff, subject to the stated caps of $5,000 for each failure to report and $25,000 for any three-month period throughout which the agency failed to report pesticide use.
Any person may commence a civil action against a covered agency for failure to report under this section. The amount of damages that may be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff in such an action shall be such amount as may be determined by the judge adjudicating the civil action, but in no case shall exceed— (1) $5,000 for each instance of a failure to report; and (2) $25,000 for any 3-month period during the entirety of which the covered agency fails to report pesticide usage.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 7, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on September 28, 2026. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-07T13:39:28Z. 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 does not cover 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 does not establish the absence of earmarks 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 benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the requested definition. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 7, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI