[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 10144 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






119th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                               H. R. 10144

  To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to 
protect certain State tort law claims from Federal preemption, and for 
                            other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 24, 2026

   Ms. Mace introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to 
protect certain State tort law claims from Federal preemption, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pesticide Harm Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Environmental Protection Agency too often fails to 
        successfully incorporate the current scientific understanding 
        to protect human health and the environment from the harmful 
        effects of pesticide products, as intentioned by the Federal 
        Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et 
        seq.). Consequently, the billions of pounds of pesticides 
        approved for use annually are allowed under outdated science.
            (2) The Environmental Protection Agency registers more than 
        half, nearly 65 percent, of pesticides through conditional 
        registrations, allowing their use before full safety data is 
        reviewed.
            (3) The Environmental Protection Agency permits the 
        continued sale of pesticides remaining on store shelves, even 
        after their registration has been voided, suspended, or 
        canceled.
            (4) The Environmental Protection Agency uses emergency 
        exemptions to keep pesticides on the market for years without 
        undergoing a comprehensive registration process or complete 
        safety data that would ensure the safe use of pesticides.
            (5) The Environmental Protection Agency is prohibited from 
        requiring the disclosure of certain ``inactive'' ingredients, 
        even while ``inactive'' ingredients can account for 99 percent 
        of a pesticide product and include carcinogenic and toxic 
        chemicals.
            (6) Considering these regulatory shortcomings, State tort 
        law serves as a critical check on the Environmental Protection 
        Agency when their regulations fail to protect everyday 
        Americans. Specifically, it allows individuals harmed by 
        pesticide exposure to hold manufacturers accountable when the 
        regulatory process has failed to do so.
            (7) John Durnell was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 
        after decades of using the herbicide Roundup. Mr. Durnell sued 
        Monsanto, the producer of Roundup, in Missouri State court and 
        was awarded $1,250,000 for compensatory damages in recognition 
        of the herbicide's harmful effects.
            (8) Monsanto appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of 
        the United States, looking to overturn the outcome. On June 25, 
        2026, the Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell held that 
        the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
        prevents the State from holding such companies accountable when 
        the Environmental Protection Agency approved a pesticide label 
        without requiring a cancer warning. This defeated the legal 
        argument Mr. Durnell used to win his case in the Missouri State 
        court and eliminated a common path for individuals to hold 
        pesticide companies accountable for causing harm.
            (9) State tort law offers a fundamental check on pesticide 
        manufacturers, ensuring accountability when pesticide products 
        cause harm. Restoring the ability of victims to pursue 
        legitimate claims under State tort law, free from the hurdles 
        of inappropriate Federal preemption, is a necessary 
        precondition to protect public health and ensure that pesticide 
        manufacturers remain accountable to the individuals and 
        communities they affect.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION ON STATE PESTICIDE LABELING RESTRICTIONS.

    (a) Misbranding.--Section 2(q) of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(q)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
            ``(3) This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit 
        the placement on a pesticide or device of a warning required 
        under the tort law of a State.''.
    (b) Uniformity.--Section 24(b) of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(b)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``The previous sentence shall not be 
construed to prohibit or otherwise limit a claim related to the 
labeling or packaging of pesticides or devices under the tort law of 
any State.''.

SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING REGULATIONS LIMITING STATE TORT 
              LAW CLAIMS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit 
to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
report identifying any regulation, guidance document, or interpretive 
statement that limits or restricts a claim under State tort law 
relating to the labeling or packaging of a pesticide or device under 
section 24(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(b)), as amended by section 3(b) of this Act, along 
with any steps taken to bring such regulation, guidance document, or 
interpretive statement into compliance.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, or 
the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is 
held to be invalid, the other provisions of this Act and the amendments 
made by this Act, and the application of such provisions to any person 
or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.
                                 <all>