Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Requires pesticide use reporting on federal lands to increase transparency.
The problem
Federal agencies may use pesticides on public lands without clear public disclosure. Citizens lack information about pesticide applications affecting federal property.
The proposal
Mandates federal agencies to report pesticide use, types, and locations on lands they manage and make this information publicly available.
The impact
Federal agencies must track and report pesticide data. Public gains access to pesticide information. Environmental and public health advocates gain transparency.
Citizens and advocacy groups can see what pesticides are used on public lands they own. This supports informed decision-making about land management and environmental concerns.
Transparency can encourage agencies to minimize pesticide use or switch to safer alternatives. Public scrutiny may drive more sustainable land management practices.
Communities near federal lands can track pesticide applications that might affect local water or air quality. This helps residents understand potential environmental health risks.
Centralized reporting creates a database of pesticide use on federal lands. Researchers and agencies can use this data to improve future management decisions.
Federal agencies must establish new reporting systems and staff to track pesticide use. This increases government costs and workload across multiple agencies.
Agencies managing large land areas may struggle to accurately track all pesticide applications. Implementation delays could slow other land management work.
Detailed pesticide information could be misinterpreted by the public or used to oppose necessary land management. Bad actors might use data to identify locations for illegal activities.
The bill requires reporting but may not require agencies to reduce pesticide use or switch to alternatives. Transparency alone may not solve underlying environmental concerns.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.