PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-231.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 17, 1994
Provides that, until January 1, 1995, it shall not be a misuse to use any pesticide product in a manner inconsistent with specified Federal regulations governing worker protection and pesticide safety that are subject to a compliance date of April 15, 1994. Makes this delay in compliance inapplicable to specific worker protection requirements that appear directly on the label of the pesticide product. Permits workers, until January 1, 1995, to enter areas treated with a pesticide product during the restricted entry interval specified on the product label to perform tasks related to the production of agricultural plants if the agricultural employer ensures that: (1) no hand labor activity is performed; (2) no entry is allowed for the first four hours following the application of the product; (3) no entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed on the product labeling has been reached; and (4) the personal protective equipment specified on the product labeling for early entry is provided in clean and operating condition to the worker. Authorizes employers, for irrigation work for which the only contact with treated surfaces is to the feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, to provide coveralls and chemical resistant gloves and footwear instead of specified protective equipment. Provides that, until January 1, 1995, crop advisors shall not be considered workers or handlers and shall not be subject to Federal regulations governing worker protection and pesticide safety requirements. Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) develop and distribute pesticide safety training materials that convey, at a minimum, information set forth in specified Federal regulations; and (2) assist the appropriate Federal, State, and tribal agencies in implementing required pesticide safety training programs.
People & committees
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-231.
Became Public Law No: 103-231.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S3804)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S3804)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1507-1508)
Mr. de la Garza asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2624-2625)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S2624-2625)
Introduced in Senate
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: Feb 5, 2024. 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 S.1913 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 S.1913 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 S.1913 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 S.1913 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.