S. 175: A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides.

113th Congress · introduced 2013-01-29 · Agriculture and Food · Latest: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2013-01-29 · official record
Who proposed it: Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides.

Plain summary

Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to provide that no permit shall be required for: (1) the use of a pesticide that is registered or otherwise authorized for use under such Act; (2) the use of a biological control organism for the prevention, control, or eradication of a plant pest or noxious weed that is in accordance with the Plant Protection Act; or (3) the conduct of any other plant pest, noxious weed, or pest control activity conducted in accordance with the Plant Protection Act.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides.

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS] · 14 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Thune (R-SD), John Barrasso (R-WY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Boozman (R-AR), Deb Fischer (R-NE), James E. Risch (R-ID)

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (2)

Authorization: A law that creates or continues a government program and says what it may do, often with a suggested spending ceiling. An authorization alone does not provide money; a separate appropriation does.
Bill: A proposed law. It becomes law only if it passes the legislature and is signed by the president or governor (or a veto is overridden).

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113s175.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/s>

Record fed-us-cong113-s175 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113