SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
GOP Lawmakers Capitalize on Zika Threat to Pass Bill Dubbed 'Making Pesticides Great Again' Act
House Democrats and Obama administration, meanwhile, criticize bill's assault on Clean Water Act
May 25, 2016
The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Tuesday passed legislation--newly rebranded with the word "Zika" in it--that Democrats say is in fact not at all about the addressing the threat of the virus but making it easier for pesticides to contaminate the nation's waterways.
Previously called the "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act," the "Zika Vector Control Act" passed the House 258-156.
According to House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md), H.R. 897 "is nothing but a Trojan horse, with practically nothing to do with Zika."
It was sponsored by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who, as Cleveland.com reported last week, "For years [...] has tried to get Congress to change permitting requirements for pesticides sprayed near water."
The Obama administration issued a statement earlier this week saying (pdf) that it "strongly opposes" the legislation, as it "would weaken environmental protections under the Clean Water Act." Indeed, the Act's summary states that it
establishes exemptions for the following discharges containing a pesticide or pesticide residue: (1) a discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of FIFRA that is relevant to protecting water quality, if the discharge would not have occurred but for the violation or the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue contained in the discharge is greater than would have occurred without the violation; (2) stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and (3) discharges regulated under NPDES of manufacturing or industrial effluent or treatment works effluent and discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including a discharge resulting from operations concerning ballast water held in ships to increase stability or vessel biofouling prevention.
Gibbs, The Hill notes, "said it would help to eliminate a 'duplicative and unnecessary permitting regulation' that has made it more difficult for some local governments to spread for mosquitoes."
Journalist and documentary filmmaker Leighton Woodhouse, for his part, referred to the bill as "Straight up #disastercapitalism."
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.)., meanwhile, said it "is a sham."
"It is nothing but trying to weaken the environmental regulations. It exempts, a broad exemption, of toxic pesticides from the Clean Water Act," she said to PBS Newshour Monday, adding that the bill stands to "pollute our rivers and contaminate our water."
Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) spoke out against the measure on the House floor Tuesday, calling it "misguided" and "harmful."
"I am very concerned about the effect of these pesticides on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies of all our citizens, including pregnant women," Napolitano added.
Slamming the repeated iterations of the bill that threatens "to undo protections that safeguard our environment and public health," Hoyer said that to "bring the same bill back to the Floor last week and again today, renamed with 'Zika' in the title, is one of the most egregious displays of dishonesty I've seen while serving in the House."
"It is an act that seeks to provide political cover for Republicans who refused to act on President Obama's urgent request for funding to address the Zika outbreak in a serious way. House Republicans might as well bring this bill to the Floor and rename it the 'Making Pesticides Great Again' Act, because in truth it would remove virtually all federal oversight concerning the use of chemical pesticides to ensure they do not end up in our water supply," he charged.
The bill also met outrage from Natural Resources Defense Council's government arm, which tweeted:
The Associated Press notes that the Obama administration's statement "stopped short of threatening a veto" of the bill.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Tuesday passed legislation--newly rebranded with the word "Zika" in it--that Democrats say is in fact not at all about the addressing the threat of the virus but making it easier for pesticides to contaminate the nation's waterways.
Previously called the "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act," the "Zika Vector Control Act" passed the House 258-156.
According to House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md), H.R. 897 "is nothing but a Trojan horse, with practically nothing to do with Zika."
It was sponsored by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who, as Cleveland.com reported last week, "For years [...] has tried to get Congress to change permitting requirements for pesticides sprayed near water."
The Obama administration issued a statement earlier this week saying (pdf) that it "strongly opposes" the legislation, as it "would weaken environmental protections under the Clean Water Act." Indeed, the Act's summary states that it
establishes exemptions for the following discharges containing a pesticide or pesticide residue: (1) a discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of FIFRA that is relevant to protecting water quality, if the discharge would not have occurred but for the violation or the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue contained in the discharge is greater than would have occurred without the violation; (2) stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and (3) discharges regulated under NPDES of manufacturing or industrial effluent or treatment works effluent and discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including a discharge resulting from operations concerning ballast water held in ships to increase stability or vessel biofouling prevention.
Gibbs, The Hill notes, "said it would help to eliminate a 'duplicative and unnecessary permitting regulation' that has made it more difficult for some local governments to spread for mosquitoes."
Journalist and documentary filmmaker Leighton Woodhouse, for his part, referred to the bill as "Straight up #disastercapitalism."
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.)., meanwhile, said it "is a sham."
"It is nothing but trying to weaken the environmental regulations. It exempts, a broad exemption, of toxic pesticides from the Clean Water Act," she said to PBS Newshour Monday, adding that the bill stands to "pollute our rivers and contaminate our water."
Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) spoke out against the measure on the House floor Tuesday, calling it "misguided" and "harmful."
"I am very concerned about the effect of these pesticides on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies of all our citizens, including pregnant women," Napolitano added.
Slamming the repeated iterations of the bill that threatens "to undo protections that safeguard our environment and public health," Hoyer said that to "bring the same bill back to the Floor last week and again today, renamed with 'Zika' in the title, is one of the most egregious displays of dishonesty I've seen while serving in the House."
"It is an act that seeks to provide political cover for Republicans who refused to act on President Obama's urgent request for funding to address the Zika outbreak in a serious way. House Republicans might as well bring this bill to the Floor and rename it the 'Making Pesticides Great Again' Act, because in truth it would remove virtually all federal oversight concerning the use of chemical pesticides to ensure they do not end up in our water supply," he charged.
The bill also met outrage from Natural Resources Defense Council's government arm, which tweeted:
The Associated Press notes that the Obama administration's statement "stopped short of threatening a veto" of the bill.
The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Tuesday passed legislation--newly rebranded with the word "Zika" in it--that Democrats say is in fact not at all about the addressing the threat of the virus but making it easier for pesticides to contaminate the nation's waterways.
Previously called the "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act," the "Zika Vector Control Act" passed the House 258-156.
According to House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md), H.R. 897 "is nothing but a Trojan horse, with practically nothing to do with Zika."
It was sponsored by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who, as Cleveland.com reported last week, "For years [...] has tried to get Congress to change permitting requirements for pesticides sprayed near water."
The Obama administration issued a statement earlier this week saying (pdf) that it "strongly opposes" the legislation, as it "would weaken environmental protections under the Clean Water Act." Indeed, the Act's summary states that it
establishes exemptions for the following discharges containing a pesticide or pesticide residue: (1) a discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of FIFRA that is relevant to protecting water quality, if the discharge would not have occurred but for the violation or the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue contained in the discharge is greater than would have occurred without the violation; (2) stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and (3) discharges regulated under NPDES of manufacturing or industrial effluent or treatment works effluent and discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including a discharge resulting from operations concerning ballast water held in ships to increase stability or vessel biofouling prevention.
Gibbs, The Hill notes, "said it would help to eliminate a 'duplicative and unnecessary permitting regulation' that has made it more difficult for some local governments to spread for mosquitoes."
Journalist and documentary filmmaker Leighton Woodhouse, for his part, referred to the bill as "Straight up #disastercapitalism."
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.)., meanwhile, said it "is a sham."
"It is nothing but trying to weaken the environmental regulations. It exempts, a broad exemption, of toxic pesticides from the Clean Water Act," she said to PBS Newshour Monday, adding that the bill stands to "pollute our rivers and contaminate our water."
Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) spoke out against the measure on the House floor Tuesday, calling it "misguided" and "harmful."
"I am very concerned about the effect of these pesticides on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies of all our citizens, including pregnant women," Napolitano added.
Slamming the repeated iterations of the bill that threatens "to undo protections that safeguard our environment and public health," Hoyer said that to "bring the same bill back to the Floor last week and again today, renamed with 'Zika' in the title, is one of the most egregious displays of dishonesty I've seen while serving in the House."
"It is an act that seeks to provide political cover for Republicans who refused to act on President Obama's urgent request for funding to address the Zika outbreak in a serious way. House Republicans might as well bring this bill to the Floor and rename it the 'Making Pesticides Great Again' Act, because in truth it would remove virtually all federal oversight concerning the use of chemical pesticides to ensure they do not end up in our water supply," he charged.
The bill also met outrage from Natural Resources Defense Council's government arm, which tweeted:
The Associated Press notes that the Obama administration's statement "stopped short of threatening a veto" of the bill.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.