|
Eric Swalwell on Environment
Withdrawn Democratic Presidential Challenger; CA Rep
|
|
|
Opposes existing nuclear power plants; but research fusion
Q: Do you think nuclear energy should be part of the U.S.'s decarbonizing toolbox? Do you support the construction of new nuclear energy plants? Providing federal support to keep existing ones online?
Swalwell: "I don't support nuclear energy in its current form, though I do favor more research into fusion energy. We need to look forward, not back."
Source: 2019 "Meet the Candidates" (NY Times.com)
, Apr 18, 2019
Require reporting lead in drinking water to the public.
Swalwell co-sponsored H.R.4470
Congressional Summary:
- The EPA Administrator shall, in collaboration with operators of public water systems, establish a strategic plan for outreach, education, technical assistance, and risk communication to populations affected by lead in a public water system.
- Each operator of a public water system shall identify and provide notice to persons who may be affected by lead contamination of their drinking water, and corrosivity of the water supply sufficient to cause leaching of lead
- In making information available to the public, the Administrator shall target groups within the general population that may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to lead in drinking water.
OnTheIssues Notes: This bill responds to the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In April 2014, the city of Flint (with a large minority population) switched its drinking water supply from the Detroit-based system to a river-based system, to save the city money. In August 2014, residents began complaining about water discoloration and a bad taste and odor. The city of Flint insisted the water was safe, but by 2015, high levels of lead and other contaminants were found in the water. In Oct. 2015, Flint switched back to the Detroit water supply, using an emergency loan of $7 million from the state of Michigan; that switch should slowly clear up the contaminants. The issue was still volatile enough that a Republican primary debate was held in nearby Detroit on March 3, 2016, and a Democratic primary debate was held in Flint on March 6, 2016
Source: Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act 16-HR4470 on Feb 4, 2016
Voted YES to require GMO labeling.
Swalwell voted YEA DARK Act
A BILL to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods.
Cato Institute recommendation on voting YES: President Obama quietly signed legislation requiring special labeling for commercial foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs)--plants and animals with desirable genetic traits that were directly implanted in a laboratory. Most of the foods that humans & animals have consumed for millennia have been genetically modified, by cross-fertilization. Yet the new law targets only the highly precise gene manipulations done in laboratories. Anti-GMO activists oppose the new law because it preempts more rigorous regulation. And that's exactly the goal of this bill, to the frustration of the anti-GMO crowd.
JustLabelit.org recommendation on voting NO (because not restrictive enough): Senators Roberts (R-KS) and Stabenow (D-MI) introduced a compromise bill that would create a mandatory,
national labeling standard for GMO foods. This bill falls short of what consumers expect--a simple at-a-glance disclosure on the package. As written, this compromise might not even apply to ingredients derived from GMO soybeans and GMO sugar beets. We in the consumer rights community have dubbed this the "Deny Americans the Right-to-Know" Act (DARK Act). We need to continue pressing for mandatory GMO labeling on the package.
Heritage Foundation recommendation on voting NO (because too restrictive): The House should allow [states, at their choice,] to impose [a more] restrictive labeling mandate, but prohibit the state from regulating out-of-state food manufacturers engaged in interstate commerce. Instituting a new, sweeping, federal mandate that isn't based on proven science shouldn't even be an option.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the Senate on July 7th, passed by the House on July 14th; signed by the President on July 29th
Source: Supreme Court case 16-S0764 argued on Jun 23, 2016
Page last updated: May 23, 2020