Norma Torres on Environment

Don't ban single-use plastic bags

The California Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum, also known as Proposition 67, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as a veto referendum. It was approved.
• A "yes" vote supported upholding the contested legislation banning certain plastic bags that was enacted by the California State Legislature as Senate Bill 270.
• A "no" vote opposed banning certain plastic bags and enacting Senate Bill 270.
• The American Progressive Bag Alliance, an opponent of the measure, led the "No" campaign to repeal SB 270.
• Yes on 67, a coalition of environmental groups, grocers, and others, led the "Yes" campaign to uphold SB 270.
• Legislative outcome:
• AB 32 passed Senate 22-15-3 on 8/29/14; Sen. Torres voted NO; passed House 45-31-3 on 8/28/14; approved by Gov. Brown, 9/30/14

$48M for funding hybrid and zero-emission vehicles

• Existing law establishes the Air Quality Improvement Program for the purposes of funding projects related to improvement of air quality.
• The Clean Vehicle Rebate Project promotes the production and use of zero-emission vehicles and the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project to help California fleets to purchase hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses.
• This bill would loan $30,000,000 to the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project.
• This bill would loan $10,000,000 to be expended only for the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Air Quality Loan Program.
• This bill would appropriate $8,000,000 to be expended for the purposes of the enhanced fleet modernization program.

Voted YES to require GMO labeling.

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