The Republicans killed SEPA and now "they" can continue to KILL us without warning!
Subject: The Republicans killed SEPA and now "they" can continue to KILL us without warning!
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:43:59 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Mr. Helliker,
Below are two fact sheets; one from Senator Torricelli and one from Senator Boehner.
SENATOR ROBERT TORRICELLI Testimonials from School Officials and Others that Support SEPA Protecting Children and Teachers From Pesticides in School WE URGE ADOPTION OF SENATE AMENDMENT 805 Because the Facts Support It
The School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) passed the U.S. Senate in mid-June without a dissenting vote with the support of numerous industry, environmental, public interest, and education organizations. It provides protection for children, is cost-effective, and represents a workable compromise. Charges to the contrary being distributed recently simply misrepresent the facts. Numerous testimonials from school personnel and others support SEPA and the protections that it would provide:
"Since the SEPA is not contained in the House Education Bill, H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act, but is contained in the Senate bill, S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, we are writing to encourage conferees to maintain the SEPA provision. The SEPA language was developed through a negotiating process that took into account the views of divergent groups, including public health, environmental, labor, parent, pest management, chemical industry and agriculture. All major trade and public interest groups support the legislation or remain neutral after reaching an accord that comprises the delicate balance of SEPA. We believe this provision is absolutely critical to protect the balance achieved by the Senate passed SEPA and support its maintenance within the education bill agreed upon by the House/Senate Conferees." (July 18, 2001 letter from U.S. Representatives Connie Morella (R-MD), Jim Ramstead (R-MN), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), and Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) to House Republican colleagues)
Jay Vroom, president of the American Crop Protection Association, lauded the pesticide legislation as a "reasonable compromise" that allows schools to "promptly respond to emergency pest threats." (Karen MacPherson, "Prickly Fight Takes Shape Over Standards for Pesticides," Toledo Blade, August 12, 2001)
"Because of the lack of federal involvement in this area, the level of protection afforded children is varied and uneven across the county," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a Washington-based environmental group. "The passage of this legislation will provide all children across the country with a basic level of protection." (Karen MacPherson, "Prickly Fight Takes Shape Over Standards for Pesticides," Toledo Blade, August 12, 2001)
RIGHT-TO-KNOW, DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.
One of the basic provisions of the SEPA amendment is providing parents and school staff with notification of pesticide use. Fifteen states already provide some degree of notification. This provision will provide the opportunity for all parents and teachers to know about pesticide use regardless of where their school is located. The amendment simply incorporates the experience and language already used by many of the states that have operating notification programs.
Jefferson County Public Schools and Cherry Creek School District in Colorado already notify parents who have asked to be told before any pesticides are used, and officials with both districts said any additional notification requirements wouldn’t be particularly burdensome
“It’s a great idea,” Bill Johnson, the environmental manager for Jefferson County Public Schools, said of the proposed legislation. “Due to certain people’s sensitivity – real or perceived – there should be an obligation to tell.” (Stacie Oulton, “Area School Districts Back Pesticide Warnings,” Denver Post, August 14, 2001)
SCHOOL PEST MANAGEMENT PLANS ARE SOUND PRACTICE AND SAVE MONEY.
The SEPA amendment contains a definition of school pest management that was designed by the chemical industry, pest management professionals, parent and physician groups, and environmentalists. Like the disclosure or right-to-know provision, it comes from local experience. While many schools already adhere to the school pest management definition in the act, not all do.
“…. A section of the Senate bill that would set federal standards on the use of pesticides in public schools deserves to survive House-Senate negotiations.” (Editorial, “Pesticides and Playground: A Senate bill outlines controls for public schools,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 15, 2001)
Muskogee [Oklahoma] school officials said they won’t be bugged by a federal school pesticide bill. “We made most of those changes eight years ago,” said Wayne Johnson, Muskogee Public Schools director of maintenance and facilities. (Robyn Bradshaw, “Local Schools Ready for Bug Bill,” Muskogee (OK) Daily Phoenix and Times Democrat, July 21, 2001)
“We support your amendment and are committed to its passage in the U.S. Senate and its enactment into law. … Your amendment balances the need to protect school children from harmful pests in and around schools while satisfying the interests of parents who are interested in being provided information about pest treatments. Most important, however, your amendment promotes stewardship of pest management tools and the best pest management practices that we, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other groups have long endorsed, and ensures that pesticide products can continue to be responsibly used, in schools and other venues.” (June 14, 2001 letter from Robert Rosenberg, National Pest Management Association; Jay Vroom, American Crop Protection Association; Allen James, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment; Chris Cathcart, Consumer Specialties Products Association; Warren Stickle, Chemical Producers and Distributors Association; and Bill Balek, International Sanitary Supply Association; to U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli. Similar statement made in June 15, 2001 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD) and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS).
Glenn F. Smartschan, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools for the Mt. Lebanon School District in Pittsburgh, PA wrote to U.S. Senator James Jeffords (I-VT), June 13, 2001, and said, “[I understand] there are claims that the implementation of an integrated pest management program is seen by some as burdensome and expensive. At one time I would have concurred with the position. But having had the opportunity to explore this issue and implement an Integrated Pest Management Program in the district, I am convinced that the Mt. Lebanon policy implemented in June of 2000 related to integrated pest management is working very well. . . Mt. Lebanon School District’s experience with the implementation of an IPM policy has been very positive. I have found it to be manageable and no more expensive than using herbicides and pesticides. Most importantly, the community is pleased and I feel confident that I am attending to the health and safety issues of the students in the district.
In Indiana, Monroe County Community School Corporation (MCCSC) began implementing an IPM program in 1995 that decreased the school’s pest management costs by $6,000 in two years and now the program reports a 35 percent reduction in costs. This program was developed by a partnership including MCCSC, Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Purdue University’s Cooperative Extension-Entomology Department.
"The reality is that IPM has worked in schools across the country for almost a decade. I'll be happy to provide, upon request, geographically diverse district representatives who will speak to the success of their IPM programs, and to their cost effectiveness. . .I write you today to urge your support for the School Environmental Protection Act, as contained in the Senate Education Bill. I do so in the spirit of protecting school children and staff from unnecessary risks related to exposure to pesticides." Robert Kusel, Member of the Board of Education, East Prairie District #73, Skokie, IL.
----------------------------------------------------------
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH) Making Schools Safer for "Cockroaches, Flies, Rats, and Weeds": Why Local School Leaders Oppose the Torricelli Pesticides Mandate November 26, 2001
As congressional negotiators put the finishing touches on a bipartisan education reform bill in the coming days, they will decide whether or not to accept an amendment by Sen. Bob Torricelli (D-NJ) - strongly opposed by local school leaders - that would slap America's public schools with a new, unjustified, federal mandate.
Senate Amendment 805, which would force local school districts to implement pest management plans, was adopted by the Senate as an amendment to the education reform bill by unanimous consent - five days after the final bill was adopted. The House version of the bill included no such amendment.
The provision faces serious opposition from groups representing the nation's local school leaders and local school boards. Recent news reports have said it best:
"Opponents argue that many school districts already take steps to limit the use of pesticides and student exposure to chemical bug-killers. They say the legislation would establish an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, create more paperwork and cost school districts money." (McFetters, "School Pesticide Bill Debated," Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, August 12, 2001)
"School officials worry that the proposal would be another unfounded mandate shoved down their throats and would drain already scarce financial resources for maintenance work. They also complain that the requirements would create mountains of unnecessary paperwork for time-strapped employees." (McGuire, "Congress Considers Rules on School Pesticides," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, September 3, 2001).
"The National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators, who oppose the measure, complain that it will cost too much, create unnecessary paperwork and make schools safer for cockroaches, flies, rats and weeds." (Lowy, "Concern Grows Over School Pesticide Use," Scripps-Howard News Service, August 14, 2001; emphasis added)
LOCAL SCHOOL OFFICIALS BLAST PESTICIDES PROVISION
Marshall Trammell, chairman of the Chesterfield County, VA school board, recently blasted the pesticide provision as a "one-size-fits-all solution to an issue that should merit some flexibility for local school districts." (McFetters, "School Pesticide Bill Debated," Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, August 12, 2001)
Michael J. Vanairsdale, an assistant school superintendent in Fulton County, GA, called the provision "a solution in search of a problem," noting that school districts already take steps to make schools as safe for children as possible without a federal mandate requiring them to do so. (McFetters, "School Pesticide Bill Debated," Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, August 12, 2001)
"I think it's safe to say this would create a pretty big headache for us," James Simmons, an assistant superintendent with the Conway public school system in Arkansas, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. "We would really have to drastically change the way we schedule the use of our buildings." (McGuire, "Congress Considers Rules on School Pesticides," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, September 3, 2001).
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION IN HOUSE
The amendment faces bipartisan opposition in the House. A number of House Democrats, including Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX), the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, are publicly opposed.
Rep. Marion Berry (D-AK) told the Associated Press that the proposal is ill-conceived. "These chemicals that we're talking about have been approved by the EPA," Berry said. "We're going to totally impede our schools from doing effective pest management? That, to me, seems like that would lead to more problems than anything else." (Associated Press, September 3, 2001)
The Associated Press (July 18, 2001) also named Rep. Eva Clayton (D-NC) as having concerns. Clayton reportedly "said she shares Goodlatte's concerns that the regulations have not had a full public airing."
FEDERAL REVIEW PROCESS SIDE-STEPPED?
The amendment was not reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency until it had passed the Senate. The U.S. Department of Education was never given an opportunity to review the provision.
George Wichterman of the American Mosquito Control Association told a congressional subcommittee chaired by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) that the pesticides amendment would impair efforts to prevent mosquito-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus and St. Louis Encephalitis. (Associated Press, July 18, 2001)
The chairman of a congressional panel with jurisdiction over the issue, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), has led Democrats and Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee in opposition to the pesticides provision. Goodlatte and colleagues point out that the amendment has never been subjected to the proper scrutiny or review by federal agencies and congressional panels. "We're going to fight this thing tooth and nail," Goodlatte told the Associated Press (AP, July 18, 2001).
ANOTHER REQUIREMENT ON STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
The Environmental Protection Agency has it right. "We believe current federal authorities, which inclide a combination of rigorous scientific and regulatory review under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), as well as voluntary partnerships to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM), are adequate to provide a safe school environment for children, and therefore additional legislative authority is unnecessary."
Under this amendment, if states decide to opt out of this program, they are opting out of all of the Integrated Pest Management programs within EPA -- which all 50 states participate in! This is one more hoop Congress will impose on states that are trying to control pests in an effective and cost efficient manner.
PROTECT THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE POISON "INDUSTRY" PROFITS!
Respectfully, Stephen L. TvedtenIf you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.