PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 1, 2009
School Environment Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to require each local educational agency (agency) of a school district to implement an integrated pest management (IPM) program that: (1) applies to school buildings and school grounds; (2) establishes an IPM coordinator within the agency; and (3) follows an IPM plan for addressing school pest problems.
Prohibits agencies or schools from using: (1) pesticides other than nontoxic or least toxic (as defined in this Act) pesticides; or (2) synthetic fertilizers. Permits an agency or school to use: (1) a least toxic pesticide as part of the IPM program only as a last resort and only if the area or room treated is unoccupied or not in use; and (2) only natural organic fertilizers.
Authorizes a school to use a pesticide otherwise if: (1) the school or agency determines that a pest in the school or on school grounds cannot be controlled after having used the IPM program and least toxic pesticides and it is a public health emergency; (2) the IPM coordinator approves of the application of the pesticide product; (3) the area or room treated is vacant during the application and for 24-hours after the application; (4) the application is made by a certified pesticide applicator; and (5) the school notifies the parents or guardians of each student 24 hours before application of the pesticide. Sets forth requirements for such notification.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a National School Integrated Pest Management Advisory Board to: (1) establish uniform standards and criteria for developing IPM; and (2) develop standards for the use of least toxic pesticides in schools.
Requires the Administrator to: (1) appoint an official for school pest management within EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs to coordinate the implementation of IPM programs in schools; and (2) publish an IPM plan and a list of products containing the least toxic pesticides and restrictions on their use.
Requires each agency, state pesticide lead agency, and the Administrator to create school environments that are protected from pesticides that drift from treated land to school grounds.
Establishes the Integrated Pest Management Trust Fund. Requires the Administrator to provide grants to agencies to implement IPM systems.
People & committees
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · 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 Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.4159 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.4159 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.4159 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.4159 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.