This page contains bill sponsorships in the Senate and House. Bill sponsorships indicate the topics that legislators are most interested in, and spend the most time on.

13-S802 on Apr 24, 2013

Proponent's argument for bill:(Blue Ridge Times-News, April 2013): Sen. Kay Hagan announced a bill to eliminate a "redundant and burdensome" requirement that 365,000 pesticide users get a CWA permit before spraying in or near lakes and streams. Farmers and other chemical users already have to meet stringent requirements for pesticide application under FIFRA, Hagan said, and the CWA permit only adds a duplicative, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Hagan said the "overlapping regulations" have also forced some municipalities to cut down on spraying for mosquitoes "because they don't have the manpower (to deal with the extra red tape), and they fear lawsuits."

Opponent's argument against bill: (Oregon Sierra Club newsletter Dec. 2012): Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" turned 50 this fall: it catalyzed the environmental movement [by focusing on pesticides like DDT]. Today we still face the issues she outlined in Silent Spring. Pesticide law and regulation in the US is a case study in corporate capture: beholden to the farm lobby in Congress, all the way back to the 1947 formation of FIFRA.

FACT: From 1988 to 1995, more than 65 bills were introduced in Congress to tighten pesticide regulations. None of them passed.

FACT: In the late 1990s, two separate investigations revealed that more than half of all former top-level pesticide regulators at the EPA subsequently went to work for, or were paid by, pesticide and chemical industry interests actively involved in fighting EPA efforts to protect the public from pesticides.

Also see the related House of Representatives bill H.R.935

Participating counts on VoteMatch question 8. Question 8: EPA regulations are too restrictive Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
• Topic: Environment
• Headline: Sponsored no permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams (Score: 2)
• Headline 2: No permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams (Score: 2)
• Headline 3: Pesticide law is "corporate captured" by farm lobby (Score: -2)
  
  Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.
• Headline: Sponsored no permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams (Answer: A)
• Headline 2: No permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams (Answer: A)
• Headline 3: Pesticide law is "corporate captured" by farm lobby (Answer: D)
• AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
  • A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
  • B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
  • C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
  • D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
  • E: Unsure
  
  
  
• Key for participation codes:
• Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
• Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
• Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
• Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
• Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.