PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 18, 1993
Minor Crop Pesticides Act of 1993 - Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to define "minor use" as the use of a pesticide on an animal or a commercial agricultural crop or site or for the protection of public health where: (1) the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support registration; and (2) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not determined that the use presents an unreasonable adverse environmental effect. Prohibits data that relates solely to a minor use, without the permission of the original data submitter, from being considered by the Administrator to support a minor use application by another person for ten years following the submission of the data. Requires the Administrator, upon the request of a registrant, to extend the deadline for the production of residue chemistry data required solely to support a minor use pesticide up to two years subject to specified conditions. Applies the same extension conditions to data for reregistrations. Permits the Administrator, in handling the registration of a pesticide for a minor use, to waive applicable data requirements if such use does not have an adverse environmental effect. Provides for expedited review (within six months of submission) of applications to support minor use pesticide registrations. Requires the Administrator to conditionally amend a registration to permit additional minor uses even if data is insufficient if the applicant has submitted satisfactory data pertaining to the proposed minor use and amending such registration would not increase environmental risks. Authorizes the Administrator to conditionally register or amend the registration of a pesticide for a minor use if: (1) the active ingredient is being supported for reregistration; (2) the minor use was a registered use of a product that has been canceled, proposed for cancellation, or deleted as a use after December 24, 1988; and (3) the use requires only residue chemistry data for reregistration. Outlines additional requirements for conditional registrations. Directs EPA to assure coordination of minor use issues through the establishment of a minor use program. Establishes and authorizes funding for a Department of Agriculture minor use matching fund program. Requires the program to be utilized to ensure the continued availability of minor use crop protection chemicals. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. de la Garza, E. [D-TX-15] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 334 - 80 (Roll No. 475).
House roll call 475 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 334 - 80 (Roll No. 475).
House roll call 475 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10733-10734)
MODIFICATION OF MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES - Mr. de la Garza asked unanimous consent that the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 967 be modified. Agreed to without objection.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Waxman objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10490-10496, H10621)
Mr. de la Garza moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 431.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 103-784.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 103-784.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition Discharged.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA, EPA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E380-381)
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: Jan 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.967 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.967 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.967 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.967 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.