PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 7, 1994
Farm Viability and Pest Management Improvement Act of 1994: A National Program for Pesticide Reduction - Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a pesticide reduction council in each EPA region. Directs the Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out specified activities with respect to assessing and approving integrated pest management systems and pesticide reduction plans and goals and implementing programs to assist farmers in adopting such systems. Requires the Administrator to reduce or restrict the use of pesticides that contribute significant health and environmental risks or to amend labels of such pesticides in regions where goals of this Act have not been met. Requires the Administrator to set quantitative goals for reducing or eliminating the use of nonagricultural pesticides and carry out plans to achieve such goals within six years. Directs Federal agencies to establish pesticide reduction goals and to implement integrated pest management systems. Requires the Secretary to determine the percentage of food purchases throughout the United States that are organically produced. Directs Federal agencies to develop procurement plans that ensure that the percentage of an agency's purchase of organically produced food meets or exceeds such percentage, and meets or exceeds twice such percentage, within three and six years of this Act's enactment, respectively. Directs the Secretary and the Administrator to establish a national pesticide use recordkeeping and reporting system for agricultural and nonagricultural applications. Imposes penalties for violations of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Repeals certain existing pesticide recordkeeping requirements. Directs the Secretary to ensure that the goal of: (1) all pest and weed management research and extension activities within the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative Extension Service is the development and transfer of technology related to integrated pest management systems that reduce pesticide use; and (2) pest management research by the National Research Initiative in the areas of plant systems and natural resources and environment is development of biological, cultural, and other nonchemical methods of pest control that reduce pesticide use. Requires the Secretary to adopt regulations establishing priorities and resource allocations for competitive grants research in integrated pest management systems. Allocates at least ten percent of Agricultural Conservation Program funding for the integrated crop management program.
People & committees
Rep. McKinney, Cynthia A. [D-GA-11] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2205)
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 26, 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.5270 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.5270 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.5270 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.5270 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.