PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 4, 2017
Safe Agriculture Production Act of 2017
This bill amends the Plant Protection Act to allow state, local, or tribal governments to use methyl bromide as a fumigant if: (1) the use is required to respond to an emergency concerning a significant economic loss of crops to pests or diseases, and (2) the Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not object to that use within a specified time period.
The bill allows this use of methyl bromide during an emergency event regardless of whether the use is registered and included in the label approved for the product by the Environmental Protection Agency under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The bill limits the amount of methyl bromide that may be used per emergency event at a specific location to not more than 20 metric tons. The aggregate amount of methyl bromide used in the United States each year may not exceed the total amount authorized under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
The bill gives USDA exclusive authority for determining which species are considered quarantine pests.
People & committees
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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.1891 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.1891 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.1891 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.1891 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.