Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to provide for improved coordination between the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes.
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill proposes amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The primary goal is to improve coordination between the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture. It requires the Administrator to work with the Secretary of Agriculture when developing pesticide risk mitigation measures. Additionally, the bill mandates economic analyses regarding the costs of these measures to various entities. It also establishes protocols for sharing agronomic data and information regarding pesticide alternatives. Finally, it outlines coordination requirements for implementing actions related to the Endangered Species Act.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill mandates that the cost of risk mitigation measures to growers be evaluated and published through an economic analysis.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires the Administrator to publish economic analyses, descriptions of data use, and determinations in the public docket.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill requires economic analyses to determine the specific costs of pesticide risk mitigation measures on growers and affected entities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Economic Transparency for Growers: The bill requires the Administrator to conduct and publish an economic analysis that determines the cost of risk mitigation measures—including changes to use requirements and labeling—to growers, State lead agencies, and other affected entities (Section 1, subsection (i)(1)(B)(i)).
-
Cost-Benefit Awareness: The proposed economic analysis must include an assessment of the costs and benefits of pesticide use, including how risk reduction might be achieved through mitigation measures (Section 1, subsection (i)(1)(B)(ii)).
-
Access to Agronomic and Alternative Data: The Administrator is required to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture to obtain agronomic use data from the Department of Agriculture and industry, as well as information regarding the availability and economic viability of pesticide alternatives (Section 1, subsection (i)(2)(A)).
-
Informed Decision-Making on Endangered Species Actions: The Administrator will coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce to review and consider options for reasonable and prudent actions and measures related to the Endangered Species Act (Section 1, subsection (i)(3)(A) and (B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Potential for Reduced Oversight via Waivers: The coordination requirements set forth in the bill can be waived or modified for specific actions if an agreement is reached between the Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the pesticide registrant (Section 1, subsection (i)(4)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill mandates that the cost of risk mitigation measures to growers be evaluated and published through an economic analysis. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill requires economic analyses to determine the specific costs of pesticide risk mitigation measures on growers and affected entities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Administrator to publish economic analyses, descriptions of data use, and determinations in the public docket.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill requires economic analyses of the costs of pesticide risk mitigation measures on growers and other affected entities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates coordination between the EPA and the Secretary of Agriculture regarding risk mitigation and Endangered Species Act actions.
- 12/2/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
- 9/26/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Mark AlfordRepublican · Missouri