PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11] · D–NJ
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 Oversight and Government Reform.
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: Jul 17, 2025. 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.1500 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.1500 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.1500 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.1500 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 · 2025-02-21 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 Building Native Habitats at Federal Facilities Act would require federal agencies to favor native plants in covered landscaping projects, subject to feasibility considerations such as cost and supply. Agencies would also have to consider potential benefits over a project's life. Turfgrass and lawn plantings would be exempt from these requirements. The proposal would extend requirements to federal contracts and subcontracts.
This Act may be cited as the Building Native Habitats at Federal Facilities Act.
(A) prioritize, as feasible with respect to cost, schedule, and product supply or a scientific, historical, or educational purpose, the use of native plants over non-native plants; and (B) consider the benefits, such as habitat creation, supporting native pollinators, providing food and shelter to insect and wildlife populations, decreasing soil erosion and landscape water usage, increasing sediment control, and controlling stormwater runoff, of using native plants over the life of the Federal project when deciding whether to use native plants.
(2) Turfgrass and lawns A Federal agency— (A) is not required to prioritize and consider turfgrass and lawn plantings as required by paragraph (1)
(c) Contractor requirements In entering into a Federal contract, the head of a Federal agency shall— (1) include the priority and consideration requirements described in subsection (b) in the contract, to the maximum extent practicable; and (2) require that any subcontract (at any tier) of that contract include those priority and consideration requirements.
Covered projects would be construction or maintenance activities carried out by a federal agency at a federal facility, involving landscape planting improvements, within a state, the District of Columbia, or a U.S. commonwealth, territory, or possession.
(2) Federal project The term Federal project means a construction or maintenance activity that— (A) is carried out— (i) by a Federal agency; and (ii) at a Federal facility (as defined in section 930(g) of title 18, United States Code); (B) involves landscape planting improvements; and (C) is located in a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
The proposal would use existing statutory definitions for covered federal agencies and native plants. Those definitions are referenced rather than reproduced.
(1) Federal agency The term Federal agency has the meaning given the term Executive agency in section 105 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Native plant The term native plant has the meaning given the term native plant species in section 101(a) of title I of division DD of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (43 U.S.C. 1732 note; Public Law 117–328).
Within 270 days after enactment, agencies carrying out covered projects would have to prioritize native plants over non-native plants, except for turfgrass and lawn plantings. This priority would depend on feasibility concerning cost, schedule, supply, or a scientific, historical, or educational purpose; it would not require native plants in every case.
(b) Federal project requirements (1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any Federal agency that carries out a Federal project shall— (A) prioritize, as feasible with respect to cost, schedule, and product supply or a scientific, historical, or educational purpose, the use of native plants over non-native plants
(2) Turfgrass and lawns A Federal agency— (A) is not required to prioritize and consider turfgrass and lawn plantings as required by paragraph (1)
Under the same project requirements, agencies would have to consider native plants' potential benefits over the project's life when choosing plants. The listed considerations include wildlife habitat, support for pollinators, reduced erosion and landscape water use, and management of sediment and stormwater. This is a requirement to consider benefits, not evidence that every project would achieve them.
(B) consider the benefits, such as habitat creation, supporting native pollinators, providing food and shelter to insect and wildlife populations, decreasing soil erosion and landscape water usage, increasing sediment control, and controlling stormwater runoff, of using native plants over the life of the Federal project when deciding whether to use native plants.
For turfgrass and lawns, agencies would be encouraged, rather than required, to consider planting native plants in appropriate areas, particularly unused areas. They would be encouraged to consider cost, schedule, supply, overall maintenance needs, and property use.
(2) Turfgrass and lawns A Federal agency— (A) is not required to prioritize and consider turfgrass and lawn plantings as required by paragraph (1); but (B) is encouraged to consider, with respect to cost, schedule, product supply, overall maintenance requirements, and property usage, the planting of native plants on appropriate areas of existing or planned turfgrass and lawns, particularly unused areas, while carrying out a Federal project.
Agency heads would have to include the planting priority and consideration requirements in federal contracts to the maximum extent practicable. They would also have to require those requirements in subcontracts at every level.
(c) Contractor requirements In entering into a Federal contract, the head of a Federal agency shall— (1) include the priority and consideration requirements described in subsection (b) in the contract, to the maximum extent practicable; and (2) require that any subcontract (at any tier) of that contract include those priority and consideration requirements.
Within 270 days after enactment, agencies with their own facility design standards or landscape and maintenance development requirements or standards would have to update them to reflect the project and contracting requirements.
(d) Update to agency-Specific design standards Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a Federal agency that maintains agency-specific facility design standards or that has landscape and maintenance development requirements or standards shall update those requirements and standards in accordance with subsections (b) and (c).
The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality would have to distribute guidance to agencies within 180 days after enactment and every two years thereafter. The guidance would address native plants in covered projects and implementation of the requirements.
(e) CEQ Guidance Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall distribute to Federal agencies guidance on— (1) the use of native plants in Federal projects; and (2) implementing the requirements of this section.
The Council's Chair would have to publish a report on its website within two years after enactment and every two years thereafter, covering at least the previous two years. Reports would include case studies of best practices, analysis of scientific or environmental findings for selected projects and any measurable impacts of native plant use, and a description of federal efforts to promote native habitats and plants.
(f) Report Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall make publicly available on the website of the Council on Environmental Quality a report on the use of native plants in Federal projects for at least the previous 2 years that includes, at a minimum, the following: (1) Case studies on best practices used in various Federal projects. (2) A general analysis of scientific or environmental findings relating to selected Federal projects, the types of plants used, and any quantifiable impacts of native plant usage in the Federal projects. (3) A description of how the Federal Government is promoting native habitats and native plant usage.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated July 17, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 21, 2025. It does not establish the bill's status after that snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-17T17:31:34Z. 2025-02-21: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2025-02-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-21. 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.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a specific exemption from its central planting requirements. This classification describes the carve-out, not its justification or economic effects.
Federal agencies handling turfgrass and lawn plantings would receive an exemption from the otherwise required native-plant priority and consideration of benefits. For those plantings, considering native plants in appropriate areas would instead be encouraged. This gives that category of landscaping special treatment within the bill's main policy; it does not establish a financial benefit to any particular supplier.
(2) Turfgrass and lawns A Federal agency— (A) is not required to prioritize and consider turfgrass and lawn plantings as required by paragraph (1); but (B) is encouraged to consider, with respect to cost, schedule, product supply, overall maintenance requirements, and property usage, the planting of native plants on appropriate areas of existing or planned turfgrass and lawns, particularly unused areas, while carrying out a Federal project.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 17, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI