PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 18, 2007
Compound 1080 and M-44 Elimination Act - Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the manufacture, processing, possession, or distribution in commerce of sodium fluoroacetate (known as Compound 1080 or sodium monofluoroacetate).
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to: (1) conduct an inventory to identify stocks of Compound 1080 under federal control; (2) provide for the collection and destruction of all remaining stocks of Compound 1080 and the compensation of persons (other than federal entities) who transfer stocks of Compound 1080 to the Secretary; and (3) disseminate information to the public about the ban on Compound 1080 and the collection and compensation program under this Act.
Prohibits any federal entity from using M-44. Defines "M-44" as sodium cyanide packaged in a dispenser designed to propel it when activated and any other form of sodium cyanide used for wildlife management or other animal control purposes.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4775 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4775 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4775 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4775 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.