PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 23, 2026
Civil Preparedness for Agroterrorism Exercise Act of 2026
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), within four years after the bill’s enactment, to conduct an exercise to enhance collective domestic prevention, response, and recovery regarding acts of agroterrorism (i.e., terrorism targeting or threatening agriculture and food systems of vital importance to national security, public health, or safety). The scenario in the exercise must involve agroterrorists transporting and deploying in the United States a biological agent (e.g., microorganism or infectious substance) capable of harming critical agriculture and food operations and must address how relevant public and private entities can coordinate to develop preparedness and mitigate widespread disruption.
Within 180 days after completion of the exercise, DHS must submit to Congress an after-action report including the findings of the exercise, plans for incorporating lessons learned into future operations, and recommended legislative actions.
People & committees
Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5900)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9394.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5900-5901)
Mr. Van Epps moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 712.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-813.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-813.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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: Oct 31, 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.9394 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.9394 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.9394 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.9394 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.