Reality intrudes on MAHA optimism

President Ronald Reagan is alleged to have said that he didn’t know how anyone who wasn’t an actor could be President.

Well, today we saw some highly competent acting during the discussion about the pesticide rider, Section 453. It was a true tour de force.

First, Mr. Simpson from Idaho, the interior subcommittee chair, earlier in the meeting and way before we got to the amendment to remove it, claimed that the pesticide liability rider was only about federal preempting of state pesticide restrictions, like California’s. It had nothing to do with a liability shield. The MAHA moms calling his office were uninformed.

Then later, after Rep. Pingree introduced her amendment to remove the rider, he got up on his high horse.

He raised his voice, he instructed and harangued his colleagues, he belittled them saying he guessed he would have to just explain it to them one more time. Quite the performance! Don’t miss it! But it was all fluff and lies.

Then a series of Democrat members began by saying that they were not disputing him, and then they accurately disputed him. The member from Minnesota read the rider to him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was reasonably fiery. Other members revealed how the rider would block EPA from issuing new guidelines when there were new scientific discoveries of dangers. How it protects companies from lawsuits, and does not protect constituents. How it acts to prevent transparency. How the rider was written by the chemical industry for the industry. How it has been presented in earlier bills but has never previously been adopted. How everyone wants healthy communities, and we all want to know about the dangers people face when they use a product. Such information has never been withheld from consumers before.

Not surprisingly, no one mentioned what giving a liability shield to vaccines had led to during COVID.

And then there was a voice vote on the Pingree amendment to remove Section 453. Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman, determined by using his ears that the NOs prevailed.

Earlier in the meeting, when a controversial amendment was voted on (like the EPA report on PFAS in sewage sludge amendment, Section 507) there was a request by members for a roll call vote. This makes sure there is an accurate vote count, and it records for posterity how every member voted.

But surprisingly, there was no request by any of the 28 Democrats on the committee, who allegedly supported the amendment, for such a roll call. Not a peep.

Now what does that mean? It means the Democrats knew, in advance of the meeting, what the outcome of the vote would be. They were going to allow the Republicans to win this. Had they demanded that each member commit themself to a recorded position (which could be used against them in the next election) they might have achieved a majority vote to remove the rider. Members who foresaw a tight election next year might have voted with the Democrats. Instead, the Democrats allowed the Republican members to avoid having to commit themselves by name to supporting the pesticide shield, guaranteeing their side would lose the vote on the amendment. Essentially, the Democrats, like the Republicans, forsook their constituents—instead, getting some dirt to use against the other party in future. Did they get anything else? Not mentioning any names, of course.

Why is avoiding a roll call on this type of issue so important? Because who wants their constituents to know that they voted:

• to prevent people with cancer from suing pesticide companies?

• to prevent putting reasonable warnings on pesticides?

• to give Bayer and its industry accomplices a multi-billion dollar giveaway?

• to establish a precedent such that other industries too might seek similar means to avoid liability for their products?

• to give pesticide companies a green light to make their products with less concern for safety?

BTW, the vote on Section 507 (to deep six the EPA’s draft guidance on PFAS in sewer sludge, which found it a probable carcinogen, which would lead to stricter regulation) was 31-28, leaving Section 507 in the bill, preventing near term regulation of sewer sludge for PFAS. Another vote that should make these members ashamed.

I don’t want you to believe my interpretation of today’s events. I want you to watch the relevant portion of this mark-up for yourself, see what you think, and understand how the game is played. The relevant section starts about 20 seconds in. Enjoy. Or not.

This opened at 3 hrs 26 minutes earlier, but apparently it does not now. The section 453 discussion is between 3 hrs 26 mins and 3 hrs 45 mins.