EPA Human Pesticide Testing & Anti-Democracy Republicans

GOP opponents of the filibuster like to claim, among other things, that it's undemocratic. But it's no surprise, of course, that the GOP is utterly hypocritical when it comes to issues of democratic process. While I could probably spend a lifetime documenting GOP hypocrisy - and while the Republicans may never be shamed by it - that won't stop me from highlighting a current egregious example.

Today, the Senate passed an amendment (proposed by Sen. Boxer) by a wide margin (60-37) prohibiting the EPA from testing pesticides on humans. What the EPA has been doing is pretty awful: They promise families some cash in order to carry out experiments, often on kids and often in low-income neighborhoods. Take this one example:

The tests include a 2002-04 study by University of California-San Diego in which chloropicrin, an insecticide that during World War I was a chemical warfare agent, was administered to 127 young adults in doses that exceeded federal safety limits by 12 times.

Lovely. But believe it or not, the typically incorrigible House also passed an amendment barring this practice, with language identical to the Senate bill. What's the problem, you ask, apart from a potential veto threat by Bush?

A nasty little thing called the conference committee. Conference committees are supposed to hammer out differences between House and Senate bills so that one bill can be presented to the President. But they've been repeatedly abused by the GOP to kill legislation even when there are no disagreements to work out. And guess who's behind this?

Ordinarily, approval by both House and Senate would ensure the language is retained in the final version of the bill. But GOP floor manager Conrad Burns, R-Mont., opposed Boxer's amendment, and as lead Senate negotiator on the bill, is well-positioned to kill it in future talks with the House.

Ahh, our good friend Conrad Burns. So one lone jerk (though probably tacitly backed by his 36 other GOP colleagues who also voted against the Boxer amendment) stands between a bill supported by majorities in both houses of Congress. Now that's democracy!

Anyhow, I could have headlined this piece "Burns Supports Testing Pesticides on Kids" and it would have been entirely accurate. While I don't expect the GOP to change course and actually allow the Boxer amendment to become law, at least we can hope that Jon Tester can turn this into a powerful issue on the campaign trail in Montana.

And even if Burnsie does back away from his conference committee trickery, he is still on record as voting against the Boxer amendment. Would you want this man protecting your children?

•  Carolina

  was 2 for 2 voting against it.  Dole and Burr.  Makes me proud.  To think of all the children we can dose  with chemicals now.  Thank you Elizabeth for all you have done on the "pro-life" front.  Things like this bill, which will insure that we continue to take advantage of young, poor children to the betterment of upper-class children everywhere.

  by chuckles1 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:23:58 PM PDT

•  Conrad Burns

  Is a disgrace to Montana and our nation. At some point in my life, I would like to have a Senator from Montana that I can be proud of, and I intend to do every possible to elect that person, Jon Testor.

  by Ed in Montana on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:25:58 PM PDT

  •  *sigh*

    Mike Mansfield must be turning over in his grave somewhere.  Montana's congressional delegation proves that evolution sometimes flows in the opposite direction.

    by Madchen on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 03:42:34 PM PDT

    •  You are so right on that!!

      Mansfield was a great man.  Need more of him around.  

      by MarCat on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 05:34:29 PM PDT

      •  I moved to Big Sky Country

        Just after Mike Mansfield retired from the Senate and Senator Lee Metcalf died. I've had to suffer through Senators John Melcher, Max Baucus and Conrad Burns each more conservative than the last. Jon Testor would be a breath of fresh air for Montana, long overdue.

        by Ed in Montana on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 07:41:01 PM PDT

•  Gregg & Sununu vote no.

  Wow.

  First they join "the lynch mob" and refuse to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution, and now they think it's ok to experiment on the poor with WWI chemical weapons.

  Do they think that being from New Hampshire automatically gives them the title of "moderate Republican"?

  Can't wait to display these votes from every rooftop come election season...  The LTEs on this one should be good too...

  by Republic Not Empire on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:30:59 PM PDT

  •  Voting Trail?

    I was wondering if there is anything on the internet that tracks a politicans votes, along with the proper framing so people can have a quick reference guide to their reprentatives.

    For example:

    John Sununu (R)NH
     * Supports Lynching: Refused to co-sponsor Resolution 39's anti-lynching amendment.

     * Supports chemical testing on children and poor: Voted NO to banning EPA from Testing...

    just a thought that I think would be helpful for people who want to know what their reps are really up to.
    

    by mhaggz on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:52:46 PM PDT

    •  Nothing with good framing

      which is a damn shame because '06 is getting closer every day, but I did come across this a few months ago, and i find it very helpful in terms of keeping tabs on my pols:

      http://www.congress.org/congressorg/megavote/

      by Republic Not Empire on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 03:01:23 PM PDT

•  I watched the whole thing

  this morning.  Burns was an ass.  He said Boxer was acting on her "emotions."  She came back and blasted him on that.  She had a great argument and was very passionate during her speech.

  I was surprised that 37 people voted against her bill, especially when the House Bill passed unanimously.  I don't know why I'm still surprised when the wingnuts vote against stuff like this.  Still hoping they'll wake up, I guess.

  I do know Santorum voted against Boxer's bill and for Burns.  So, it's one more piece of ammunition to get him with come election time next year.  The "Family Values, Life is Sacred" guy voted against a bill that would ban the EPA from accepting or conducting pesticide tests on humans, including pregnant mothers, fetuses and sick and dying newborns.  Nice, really nice Mr. Self-righteous.

  Burns' bill also passed 57 to 40.

  by Maggie Mae on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:31:46 PM PDT

  •  Burns

    Her "emotions?" Gawd, what a sexist prick. But I expect nothing less from a jerk like Burns.

    by DavidNYC on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:34:22 PM PDT

    •  No. Try greedy prick, instead

      Try $8,400 from chemical and related manufacturing firms.

      Try Monsanto, Dow, Nalco, BASF and DuPont which all have huge factories in Montana.

      by suzq on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:53:57 PM PDT

      •  This is how we beat these guys,

        both Democratic and Republican. We lay out how much special interest money they are getting alongside their votes, just as you have done. In fact, this would be a good diary, particularly if it included similar figures for all the senators that voted against Boxer and a list of the companies that are giving the money.

        Contrast this with what Howard Dean is doing with the DNC. Small donations from individual citizens: this is how we take our democracy back from the corporations.

        by Heartpine on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 05:45:39 PM PDT

  •  I watched some of this morning

    Did the Senator from North Dakota get shot down on his Indian Health amendment like I expect he did?

    by hstokes on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:44:24 PM PDT

  •  Emotions

    can turn a politician into a statesman, and can separate a party hack from a dedicated public servant. Barbara Boxer's passion on the issues is what separates her from virtually the entire Senate. Anyone who had the pleasure of seeing what a horror show she made of John Bolton's day at the Senate Foreign Affairs committee a couple of months ago knows that every day she's fighting the good fight for not just liberal America but for all Americans who care about their quality of life, from the environment to our civil liberties to keeping the troops safe.

    But it shouldn't surprise anyone that the GOP would actually vote No on this bill in serious numbers. How many Repugs refused to sign on to the Senate's apology to the surviving relativse of lynching victims, sixteen? Look at how many of those heartless pricks actually voted for that economic pimpstick known as the Bankruptcy Bill.

    Nothing the GOP does surprises me.

    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    by jurassicpork on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:06:18 PM PDT

  •  I propose that those 37 who voted against it...

    offer up their children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc etc.

    If it's so necessary to test these poisons on humans, SURELY they wouldn't have any problem allowing these tests on their own precious little 'uns, would they??

    Fucking hypocritical SOBs...

    by molls on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:21:01 PM PDT

•  I forgot

  Dr. Cat-Killer voted against her bill too.  What does that say about him?

  by Maggie Mae on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:33:09 PM PDT

•  Although It Will Never Be...

  ... even slightly sexy as a political topic, probably even here, the Republican abandonment of good faith in the conference committee process is extremely threatening to our mode of governance.

  However, should a conference committee blow out a provision both chambers have passed using identical language -- a provision saying we shouldn't intentionally dose American children with insecticide -- it will probably represent our best shot to take this corrosive problem public.

  (ObJoke: Maybe be giving kids insecticide overdoses they're trying to create new Tom DeLays...)

  by Irfo on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:36:11 PM PDT

•  Tester stopped testing pesticides on his family...

  years ago. He switched to organics.

  Read more and join the $1,000 challenge.

  by Left in the West on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:37:03 PM PDT

•  I hope the Democrats/Ethical representatives

  use this to show how Bush Corporation
  is truly manipulating the anti-abortion vote and
  use the NAY vote in advertisements against
  many who are elected due to the anti-abortion vote.

  Testing pesticides on babies one would think might cut through the denial of some of these 1 issue people.

  by Robert Oak on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:41:11 PM PDT

•  Ways to bypass conference committee

  There are ways to bypass of constrain the actions of a conference committee.  For example, the Senate could just adopt verbatim the House version of the Bill.  In that case there is no need for a conference.  

  It is also possible to adopt a motion that instructs conferees on what to do in conference.  It is non-binding, but it might be tough to go into conference and disregard the instructions of the majority in the Senate.  

  To what extent Reid and the Democrats could use these things to keep the Boxer admendment, I'm not sure.  But there are options.

  by Enoch on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:43:21 PM PDT

  •  amendments

    That only works for entire bills, most things like this are amendments to larger spending bills.  If you wanted to get this to be its own bill, you have to get the leadership to schedule it, which is another way it can just be killed by a few troglodytes.

    by SP on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:55:52 PM PDT

•  They're Trying to Help the Poor

  If this ammendment passed, it would eliminate a source of income for poor families. Why are you against the poor?

  (think I could work for Karl?)

  by Mr X on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

•  Might I suggest....

  ....that we refer to the good Senator as "DDT" Burns from now on. It's a nice double entendre.

  by Doug in SF on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:49:20 PM PDT

  •  Conrad Burns (R-DDT)

    by suzq on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:54:49 PM PDT

•  Pesticide testing?

  Anyone want to take a sucker's bet which way Bug Boy  DeLay voted on this one?

  God, I love Barbara Boxer! If we just had another 51 like her in the Senate, we'd be an all right country again.

  JP

  http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

  by jurassicpork on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:56:12 PM PDT

  •  Actually he voted

    FOR the bill, belive it or not.  Boxer even pointed that out in her speech.  The House voted unanimously for this bill.

    by Maggie Mae on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

•  Conference committee rules

  Has anyone ever proposed rule changes to the conference committee stating that:
  

  1. Any amendments approved in the same language by both houses can not be removed (deals with the above case);
     
  2. Anything not approved by either house can not be added (gets rid of pork and paybacks).
     

  This seems like a really simple solution which of course would never be passed, since the same people who use the power of conference committees would block such a bill.

  by SP on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:58:53 PM PDT

•  Don't forget the wild horses

  Burns used the same technique to insert the language allowing the slaughter of wild horses onto th appropriations bill. The legislation has been undone thanks to public outcry but there are still a lot of people angry about that.

  by elfling on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:06:26 PM PDT

•  Link to

  roll-call vote results:  here.

  by br00mhiLdA on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:10:40 PM PDT

•  There oughta be a law...

  The Senate and House should pass a rule that bars conference committees from removing language that both chambers have already agreed on as a body. That way, conference committees are only empowered to deal with the areas of disagreement, and have no power or authority over any other sections of the bill.

  by My Philosophy on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:18:40 PM PDT

•  This is a big and underreported issue

  First and Hastert have a power undreamt of by their predecessors simply because the are willing to balatantly abuse the conference committee system.  No matter how wide the margin of passage (some have been 98-2) is, if the RNC or the White House doesn't want a provision to become law, they simply have that part of the bill killed in conference committee. This is no longer Democracy but oligarchy.  

  by Magorn on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:34:09 PM PDT

•  In-Cycle Pesticide Testers

  Here is a list of the Repub Senators who are in-cycle and opposed the Boxer amendment:

  George Allen (Virginia)
  Conrad Burns (Montana)
  Orrin Hatch (Utah)
  Jon Kyl (Arizona)
  Trent Lott (Mississippi)
  Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania)
  Craig Thomas (Wyoming)
  

  by trusty on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:35:27 PM PDT

  •  Santorum the most vulnerable

    Bruns next and maybe Kyl too. Sen. man-on-dog is already in trouble back home, dont know how he will explain this one.  

    by jj32 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 03:34:38 PM PDT

•  tracking how it goes in conference

  It seems like it would be a good idea to track what actually becomes law, and how much Sen. Burns (CHEM) had to do with the outcome.  Perhaps then we could have a news story, rather than a diary, with the title "Burns Supports Testing Pesticides on Kids...But Only If They're Poor".

  by billlaurelMD on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 02:42:04 PM PDT

•  Full list of Naysayers

  Not one Democrat on the list and the only woman to vote no was Dole.

  I wish I had the time to check to see how many of these people got money from chemical companies and how much they got.  Someone got time on their hands?  ;)

  Sessions (R-AL)
  Shelby (R-AL)
  Stevens (R-AK)
  Kyl (R-AZ)
  Allard (R-CO),
  Martinez (R-FL),
  Chambliss (R-GA),
  Craig (R-ID), Nay
  Crapo (R-ID),
  Grassley (R-IA),
  Brownback (R-KS),
  Roberts (R-KS),
  Bunning (R-KY),
  McConnell (R-KY),
  Vitter (R-LA),
  Coleman (R-MN),
  Cochran (R-MS),
  Lott (R-MS),
  Bond (R-MO),
  Burns (R-MT),
  Hagel (R-NE),
  Gregg (R-NH),
  Sununu (R-NH),
  Domenici (R-NM),
  Burr (R-NC),
  Dole (R-NC),
  Voinovich (R-OH),
  Santorum (R-PA),
  DeMint (R-SC),
  Alexander (R-TN),
  Frist (R-TN),
  Cornyn (R-TX),
  Hatch (R-UT),
  Allen (R-VA),
  Enzi (R-WY),
  Thomas (R-WY),

  Those not voicing an opinion.  Don't know it they weren't there or just not voting for some reason.

  Lugar (R-IN), Not Voting
  Lieberman (D-CT) Not voting
  Bennett (R-UT), Not Voting

  by Maggie Mae on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 03:17:58 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman

    his mother died on Sunday. I'm sure he is back home in CT with his family.

    by jj32 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the info

      My thoughts go out to he and his family.  Losing a parent is a tough thing.

      by Maggie Mae on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 06:53:57 PM PDT

  •  Which brings up the logical question

    Is 36 men and 1 woman a large enough group to conduct a meaningful pesticide study on? Clearly all of them would be in favor of participating.

    by srbaxley on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 04:24:50 PM PDT

•  Interesting

  several otherwise crazy or rubber stamp Republicans like Talent, Ensign, and Coburn(!) voted "yea." I'm glad one of my senators(Isakson) voted "yea."

  by jj32 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 03:31:52 PM PDT

•  In a hat tip to the Jesus General...

  I just sent the following to Burns:

  Dear Senator Burns,
  I just wanted to thank you for your work against that jerk Boxer's attempt to limit pesticide testing on children. I say, so what if chloropicrin was a chemical warfare agent during World War 1, people now are alot tougher than those sissies. So what if the EPA was injecting kids with 12 times the safe dosage. They were low income children, and probably brown people. Kill two birds with one stone I say. Anyway, thanks for fighting those dirty libs.

  Your Friend
  Chris Hughes
  

  by chughes1614 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 04:52:36 PM PDT

•  I want to get mad over this issue, but...

  ...I can't because the Democrats had a chance to send a message with the EPA nominee and they passed him on through anyway, just because he agreed to drop his proposed program to test pesticides on young children.

  I repeat, they passed him on through just because he agreed to not do it???

  Just the fact that he wanted to do it was enough to Boltonize him and just let his nomination process lag on and on until he either moved aside or was moved aside, but they passed him because he agreed not to do it!

  How stupid are they?  Yes, I'm disappointed in Boxer as well for confirming the guy!

  So, when I see issues like this come up, I think back to the Democrats confirming a guy who "wanted" to test pesticides on infants, and I think to myself, both sides are to blame here.

  by independentchristian on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 05:05:49 PM PDT

•  Why test on humans?

  Has anyone explained exactly why the chemical companies want to use human subjects in their tests? Presumably they are already conducting grisly animal studies. I have some speculations, but has anyone officially or otherwise explained this?

  by Vegend on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 05:37:09 PM PDT

  •  Human tests are needed

    Because people and animals are biochemically are not identical, so that animal tests are a filter, but imperfect.

    by phillies on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 07:40:27 PM PDT

    •  I think it is more complex than this

      Thanks for your reply, but the cost of human experiments is so much greater than animal experiments that I think more is involved. In risk assessment, correction factors are used to correct for differences between species. A factor of 10 is commonly used to set exposure limits based upon animal tests. Use of humans may avoid this correction permitting limits ten times greater. Just my thought, though. Cheers. Sorry for the delay.

      by Vegend on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 08:57:33 PM PDT

•  Is this Conrad Burns the same

  as the Mr. Burns on the Simpsons? Honest to god the similarities between the two are almost comical.

  Conrad Burns (R-Simpsons).

  Exxxxxcellent.  

  by Heartpine on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 05:41:13 PM PDT

•  A Montanan

  Here in Montana we have two very worthy candidates on the Demo ticket who will beat "Lock Step" Burns in 2006.  John Morrison, our Sec. of State, and Jon Tester.  This here will be the contest to watch, and I think that Morrison will win. Old Lock Step lied in his last election when he narrowly defeated our present governor (Schweitzer),and libelous smeared a disabled veteran and let his office manager in Gt. Falls take the fall.  Nothing sticks to the slim ball, absolutely nothing.

  by Sammy Shezam on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 07:19:48 PM PDT

•  In the end

  either you do a controlled test on a limited number of children with careful observation, or you do an uncontrolled test on vast numbers of children at a later date.  Your call.  But pretending that you are not making the choice is not reality based politics.

  When the Salk polio vacine was produced, the first thing that happened after it was tested was that each member of the developing research group had it administered to their own children.

  The observation (above in comments) that "X was a chemical warfare agent" is not meritorious.  This is a dosage and path of administration issue, starting with the large numbers of people who have been suffocated with dihydrogen oxide and the small number of people who have expired due to a surplus of carbon dioxide in the local atmosphere.  The two agents are both vital to life.  Unless you have too much, or in the wrong place.

  by phillies on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 07:37:03 PM PDT

  •  Not true

    Actually, these tests are not being done to make people safer.  EPA Administrator Steve Johnson testified during his Senate confirmation that due to computer models and animal studies, EPA does not need human studies to protect public health.

    In fact, these studies are being done so that the pesticide industry can argue for weaker standards.  In July 1998, EPA became aware of the practice and announced:

    "EPA is deeply concerned that some pesticide manufacturers seem to be engaging in health-effects studies on human subjects as a way to avoid more protective results from animal tests under the new Food Quality Protection Act. The government has in place very stringent standards that apply to federally funded research to ensure the protection of human subjects. EPA will be asking its independent Science Advisory Board to apply these same standards to pesticide data submitted to EPA by companies for review. No human test data has been used by EPA for any final decisions about acceptable levels of pesticide under the new food safety law. The protection of public health from adverse effects of pesticides can be achieved through reliance on animal testing and use of the highest ethical standards."

    http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/1998/december/epastmt.htm

    Under the Bush Administration, that "deep concern" seems to have disappeared.

    by trusty on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 07:44:37 AM PDT

•  Now That's Democracy!

  So one lone jerk ....stands between a bill supported by majorities in both houses of Congress.

  I guess all that rhetoric about stuff "deserving an up or down vote" is reserved for right-wing ideologues facing life-time appointments to the Federal courts.

  by Litz on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 08:10:13 AM PDT