

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.