Senate Democrats Play Hardball

[classicman2]

Fox News:

By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

Boxer, Nelson Block Vote on EPA Nominee

WASHINGTON — Though Stephen Johnson has been the acting administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency since Mike Leavitt became secretary of Health and Human Services, his opportunity to get the job permanently could be stopped by two Democratic senators.

Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida and Barbara Boxer of California expressed their "shock and disappointment" Thursday in Johnson's failure to condemn an EPA program testing the effects of pesticides on children. They said that until he agrees to cancel the program, they're placing a hold on Johnson's nomination, preventing him from getting a vote on the Senate floor.

"If EPA can get away with testing babies, infants, then they can get away with anything when it comes to human testing of toxics," said Boxer, who added that when she questioned Johnson about the program and whether he would agree to cancel it, Johnson flatly refused.

"This is sick, it's a sick, sick thing," she said.

Boxer and Nelson said the EPA's Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study offers to pay parents of a baby nearly $1,000 if they agree to expose their child to household pesticides over a two-year period. The study was being done in Duval County, Fla., in the Jacksonville area, a geographic location that appealed to the EPA because of its year-round use of indoor pesticides.

"I'm going to stand up for the health and safety of the children in my state. ... We need to be protecting children, not exposing them to pesticides," Nelson said.

The senators also suggested that the study was being conducted in a low-income, minority area where people would be more willing to participate in risky activities in exchange for money.

Holding up a can of Raid bug killer during a Thursday press conference, Boxer read the label, which warns that exposure of the product to children and pets could be harmful.

"'Avoid contact. Keep out of the reach of children. Remove pets, birds, cover your aquariums when you use this household spray.' This can of Raid is more ethical than the EPA, in my opinion," she said.

According to the EPA, CHEERS, which began in summer 2004, was suspended in November so the EPA could await an external, independent review by members of the Science Advisory Board, the Science Advisory Panel and the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. The review is expected to be completed this spring.

An outline of the study available on the EPA's Web site says participants with children under 13 months of age are not required to begin using pesticides or to change any of their regular household routines. However, it asks that researchers be permitted to visit the home every three to six months over two years, at which time they will videotape the children's activities. Parents are also supposed to keep a diary of their children's behavior, collect food and urine samples, track pesticide use in the house and put a small watch-size sensor on the child to monitor his or her activities for one week every three to six months. About 30 families were signed up for the program when it was halted.

Johnson started at the EPA in 1979 as a health scientist in the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. In a statement Thursday, the agency defended its approach, stressing that the study only involves families who already use pesticides.

The study "was designed to fill critical data gaps in our understanding of how children are exposed to pesticides and chemicals that are already found in typical household environments," the statement reads.

It added that the study "sought information to improve both risk assessment and risk management practices that would ultimately enable us to be more protective of children's health."

But Boxer compared testing on human subjects to Nazi experimentation and suggested that the Bush administration, in defiance of international standards, reversed a decision by former President Clinton to ban human testing. She added that she believes the pesticide industry was pressuring the EPA to pursue the tests.

"This program has numerous problems. To me, the most egregious: ethics 101. Testing pesticides on small children and infants is wrong. We already know it's bad for them," she said.

Boxer said that if Johnson does cancel the program — "if it is gone, never to rear its ugly, immoral head again" — then she would lift the hold on his nomination. She said that does not mean she would support his confirmation. A vote for Johnson in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled for next week.
________________________

[Pharoh]

It is part of a concerted and systematic effort to obstruct. Both have already announced they will attempt to block the nomination of Mr. Bolton as well, the only two who have done so to my knowledge. Their efforts will not prove fruitful, particularly for Mr. Nelson.

[classicman2]

Democrats Block Vote on Judicial Nominee

Democrats on judiciary panel sit out vote on Bush picks, forcing Sen. Specter to cancel proceedings.

WASHINGTON — Eight Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans attended Thursday's session to vote on the appeals court nomination of Thomas Griffith to the D.C. Circuit. No committee Democrats showed up.

Without a quorum, committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., canceled the proceedings. The committee needed 10 senators to vote on Griffith, who faced the panel in March for his nomination hearing.

"Out of deference to our colleagues who are absent here today, we will not take the time of so many other senators here who have so many other pressing items and we will terminate our session here today," Specter said in the opening minutes of the hearing.

Four of the eight missing Democrats, including Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, are part of the congressional delegation attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II. The other four committee Democrats could have attended the session but did not. Action on the nominee was delayed until next week.

"There's important business of this committee to be conducted and for those who aren't in Rome, they could have been here," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

Aides said Senate Democrats were not going to conduct their first debate and vote on a judicial nominee with their most senior committee members in Rome. Leahy is the ranking Democrat on the panel.

The Judiciary Committee schedule looms large in the ongoing confrontation over President Bush's nominees previously blocked by Democratic filibusters.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wants six nominees previously blocked by Democratic filibusters ready for a full Senate vote by the end of April. Among those six are Janice Rogers Brown for the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit and Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit. A former Senate Democrat who tried to negotiate an end to judicial filibusters in the last Congress said party activists refuse to compromise.

"The liberal, left-leaning interest groups that are right now calling the shots as far as the Senate leadership is concerned will not allow it. They do not want to vote up or down on these nominees," said Zell Miller, who appeared at the Republican National Convention last year.

Sources told FOX News that Senate GOP leaders intend to use the nominations of Brown or Owen as the vehicle for changing Senate rules to end judicial filibusters . That move, the sources said, is unlikely to occur until early May.

Democrats again vowed to stop all Senate action if Republicans forbid judicial filibusters.

"We're defending the checks and balances. We're not letting people change rules in the middle of the game. So, I think we're in for the long haul on this," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York
______________________

[Sominex]

Exxxxccceeellent!

Keep it up Boxer... keep it up

[classicman2]

Dorgan Tries to Stop 'Fast Track' Authority for Bush

WASHINGTON — A Senate Democrat is making a longshot attempt to take away from President Bush the broad trade negotiating authority that Congress gave him three years ago.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said Congress made a mistake in 2002 when it narrowly passed the "fast track" or trade promotion authority act that gives the president the power to negotiate trade agreements that Congress must approve or disapprove but cannot amend.

Late Wednesday Dorgan introduced a resolution to turn down the president's request to extend that authority.

Dorgan said fast-track authority was responsible for problems with the Central American Free Trade Agreement recently signed with the Dominican Republic and five Central American countries. He said the deal would lead to "U.S. jobs going overseas, as companies try to take advantage of low-wage labor in countries with no environmental controls."

The president in March formally requested a two-year extension of fast track, which is in effect through 2007 unless the House or the Senate rejects the extension by July 1.

Dorgan acknowledged that it will be difficult to gain a vote on his resolution because it first must be approved by the Finance Committee and there was no indication that the committee would agree to consider the issue.

Since 2002 Congress has agreed to free-trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco that were negotiated under fast-track authority. A vote on the Central American agreement could come up this spring.
__________________

[Venusian]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=676&e=7&u=/usatoday/20050408/ts_usatoday/senatedemocratshopetoblockconfirmationofunambassador

Senate Democrats hope to block confirmation of U.N. ambassador

The Bush administration's controversial choice for United Nations ambassador, John Bolton, will face tough questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week, and at least two Democrats say they will oppose his nomination.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said Thursday that she will vote no and predicted Bolton will "have trouble" getting any Democratic votes. She also said opponents "have a chance" of persuading one of the panel's Republicans to join them.

The committee has 10 Republicans and eight Democrats; a 9-9 tie vote could block Bolton's nomination.

Dan Shapiro, legislative director for Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., said Nelson will also vote no. "Sen. Nelson believes Mr. Bolton has a history of inflammatory rhetoric in speaking about international leaders and countries and as a result will be tuned out by other leaders before he opens his mouth," Shapiro said.

[SFranke]

This can of Raid is more ethical than the EPA, in my opinion.
This is like a parrot saying the mass-energy equation.

[classicman2]

Dorgan Tries to Stop 'Fast Track' Authority for Bush

WASHINGTON — A Senate Democrat is making a longshot attempt to take away from President Bush the broad trade negotiating authority that Congress gave him three years ago.

Sen. Byron Dorgan , D-N.D., said Congress made a mistake in 2002 when it narrowly passed the "fast track" or trade promotion authority act that gives the president the power to negotiate trade agreements that Congress must approve or disapprove but cannot amend.

Late Wednesday Dorgan introduced a resolution to turn down the president's request to extend that authority.

Dorgan said fast-track authority was responsible for problems with the Central American Free Trade Agreement recently signed with the Dominican Republic and five Central American countries. He said the deal would lead to "U.S. jobs going overseas, as companies try to take advantage of low-wage labor in countries with no environmental controls."

The president in March formally requested a two-year extension of fast track, which is in effect through 2007 unless the House or the Senate rejects the extension by July 1.

Dorgan acknowledged that it will be difficult to gain a vote on his resolution because it first must be approved by the Finance Committee and there was no indication that the committee would agree to consider the issue.

Since 2002 Congress has agreed to free-trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco that were negotiated under fast-track authority. A vote on the Central American agreement could come up this spring.
__________________

This one I wholeheartedly support, but there's no chance that it will succeed.

[Sominex]

"We're defending the checks and balances. We're not letting people change rules in the middle of the game. So, I think we're in for the long haul on this," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York
______________________


I love it. Keep going guys. The more obstructing you do and the more 'hard ball' you play... the more you solidfy the victory for Repubs in the White House in '08

[Pharoh]

Dorgan Tries to Stop 'Fast Track' Authority for Bush

WASHINGTON — A Senate Democrat is making a longshot attempt to take away from President Bush the broad trade negotiating authority that Congress gave him three years ago.

Sen. Byron Dorgan , D-N.D., said Congress made a mistake in 2002 when it narrowly passed the "fast track" or trade promotion authority act that gives the president the power to negotiate trade agreements that Congress must approve or disapprove but cannot amend.

Late Wednesday Dorgan introduced a resolution to turn down the president's request to extend that authority.

Dorgan said fast-track authority was responsible for problems with the Central American Free Trade Agreement recently signed with the Dominican Republic and five Central American countries. He said the deal would lead to "U.S. jobs going overseas, as companies try to take advantage of low-wage labor in countries with no environmental controls."

The president in March formally requested a two-year extension of fast track, which is in effect through 2007 unless the House or the Senate rejects the extension by July 1.

Dorgan acknowledged that it will be difficult to gain a vote on his resolution because it first must be approved by the Finance Committee and there was no indication that the committee would agree to consider the issue.

Since 2002 Congress has agreed to free-trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco that were negotiated under fast-track authority. A vote on the Central American agreement could come up this spring.
__________________

This one I wholeheartedly support, but there's no chance that it will succeed.

Want to know my feelings on this one?


BTW, I agree it had no chance.

[classicman2]

I love it. Keep going guys. The more obstructing you do and the more 'hard ball' you play... the more you solidfy the victory for Repubs in the White House in '08

:hscratch:

How can the Republican candidate make the argument of a 'do nothing Congress' when his/her party have the reins on power in that Congress?

Now you might somewhat make that argument in congressional races. I doubt if it would work.

[classicman2]

Want to know my feelings on this one?


BTW, I agree it had no chance.

I can't think of anything (off-hand) more odious to the democratic process and the separation of powers than fast track.

[Sominex]

:hscratch:

How can the Republican candidate make the argument of a 'do nothing Congress' when his/her party have the reins on power in that Congress?

Now you might somewhat make that argument in congressional races. I doubt if it would work.

Meaning that it would just further the opinion (and something the repubs are happy to foster as well) that the democrats and the "far leaning left groups" in particular are not interested in moving forward with bi-partisianship and are much more interested in obstructing anything they can.

Any bills or law not getting passed or any particular downfalls that could happen in congress over the next 4 years could get the buck passed right to those who obstructed instead of helping (dems)

--Just my opinion.

This was clearly deomnstrated when Kerry after giving his speech of "We all need to follow Preisdent Bush and put partian issues behind us and work together...." and then right away voted against Rice for Sec. of State

[classicman2]

The only thing the Democrats could do (IMO) that might back-fire at the polls is to filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee. That might get the electorate's attention.

[Sominex]

The only thing the Democrats could do (IMO) that might back-fire at the polls is to filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee. That might get the electorate's attention.

I am thinking the same thing.

[Brain Stew]

Meaning that it would just further the opinion (and something the repubs are happy to foster as well) that the democrats and the "far leaning left groups" in particular are not interested in moving forward with bi-partisianship and are much more interested in obstructing anything they can.

Any bills or law not getting passed or any particular downfalls that could happen in congress over the next 4 years could get the buck passed right to those who obstructed instead of helping (dems)

--Just my opinion.
And Republicans are bi-partisan :whofart:?

[CRM114]

I love it. Keep going guys. The more obstructing you do and the more 'hard ball' you play... the more you solidfy the victory for Repubs in the White House in '08

Who? Frist? rotfl 2008 is a LONG way away.

[JasonF]

I can't think of anything (off-hand) more odious to the democratic process and the separation of powers than fast track.

Has the Constitutionality of Fast Track been tested by the courts?

That Fox News story on the judicial committee was disgusting. Read beyond the first paragraph and you'll learn that the Democratic leadership on the committee was at the Pope's funeral, and the junior members of the Committee didn't want to proceed until their leaders return. Add to that the fact that there are 10 Republicans on the Committee, so they can get a quorom any time they want one, and it becomes clear that the piece is nothing more than an excuse to rant about filibusters.

[Sominex]

And Republicans are bi-partisan :whofart:?


I didn't say all that ;)

But when people go to the polls in 06 and 08 they may remember more clearly which side (Repubs or Dems) seemed to always be more visibly and loudly obstructing more then the other side

And given the current state of things in the country, I think people are getting more and more sick of partisan bickering that holds the country back

[dtcarson]

I love it. Keep going guys. The more obstructing you do and the more 'hard ball' you play... the more you solidfy the victory for Repubs in the White House in '08

Agreed...Whatever happened to 'working together', and 'compromise' and 'debate' and 'discussion.' This is 'Wah, we don't get what we want, so we're not playing anymore.' Then again, I can't really recall a time in the last couple decades when ranking Democrats have said something and actually meant it. Or where what they have stated actually represents reality in any way.

" participants with children under 13 months of age are not required to begin using pesticides or to change any of their regular household routines. However, it asks that researchers be permitted to visit the home every three to six months over two years, at which time they will videotape the children's activities. Parents are also supposed to keep a diary of their children's behavior, collect food and urine samples, track pesticide use in the house and put a small watch-size sensor on the child to monitor his or her activities for one week every three to six months"
"the study only involves families who already use pesticides."

Sounds like a Neilsen-family type thing.
Which does not at all equate to,
"Testing pesticides on small children and infants is wrong."

Hmm...Oh yes, there it is: "But Boxer compared testing on human subjects to Nazi experimentation" What's a Democratic sound bite without a Nazi comparison? I'll be sure to ask Anne Frank and Auschwitz Camp Victim Number 1235131 if this program is equivalent to sticking people in an oven and baking them.

'Testing pesticides on small children and infants is wrong. " Wow, a Democrat actually saying something is *wrong*. I didn't think the Party of Moral Relativism had it in them. Too bad what she said is, er, wrong as well.

The program began in summer 2004, was suspended in November.
So she's--now--complaining about a program that hasn't been active in 5 months. "Won't somebody think about the CHILDREN!?!" that is, when it's politically expedient and gives me an 'excuse' to obstruct.

[CRM114]

Please. I had to watch years of Republican congressmen mope around the Capitol slinging shit all over the place when Clinton was in office. Talk about "waaaah."

[classicman2]

Has the Constitutionality of Fast Track been tested by the courts?

That Fox News story on the judicial committee was disgusting. Read beyond the first paragraph and you'll learn that the Democratic leadership on the committee was at the Pope's funeral, and the junior members of the Committee didn't want to proceed until their leaders return. Add to that the fact that there are 10 Republicans on the Committee, so they can get a quorom any time they want one, and it becomes clear that the piece is nothing more than an excuse to rant about filibusters.

I agree.

I can't believe the Repubs are going to 'nuclear option' on a circuit court nomination in May. I would think they would wait until a SC nomination comes to the floor of the Senate. That would have much more political effect. I doubt if very many Americans are overly concerned with circuit court nominees.

BTW: I would think that fast track has been tested, but I'm not for certain. It just doesn't right to me that a trade negotiator has the right to negotiate a binding agreement that this country adheres to and the Congress of the United States doesn't have that same right - the right to amend.

[Pharoh]

Has the Constitutionality of Fast Track been tested by the courts?

I know NAFTA has been.



That Fox News story on the judicial committee was disgusting. Read beyond the first paragraph and you'll learn that the Democratic leadership on the committee was at the Pope's funeral, and the junior members of the Committee didn't want to proceed until their leaders return. Add to that the fact that there are 10 Republicans on the Committee, so they can get a quorom any time they want one, and it becomes clear that the piece is nothing more than an excuse to rant about filibusters.


I understand that you may disagree with the Republicans on the committee who are complaining, but isn't the story painting an accurate depiction of their sentiments, as well as that of the opposition's?

[dtcarson]

Please. I had to watch years of Republican congressmen mope around the Capitol slinging shit all over the place when Clinton was in office. Talk about "waaaah."

So 'slinging shit' is the same as 'not doing your job' and obstructing? And of course, since they did it, that makes it okay? An eye for an eye an all that, how Biblical of you.
For all the holier-than-thou and 'work together' claptrap Democrats attempt to spew, they sure are being hypocritical.

[CRM114]

So 'slinging shit' is the same as 'not doing your job' and obstructing? And of course, since they did it, that makes it okay? An eye for an eye an all that, how Biblical of you.
For all the holier-than-thou and 'work together' claptrap Democrats attempt to spew, they sure are being hypocritical.

So they should be good little Democrats and let the Republicans run roughshod over them? Yes sir, Mr. Republican.

[JasonF]

I understand that you may disagree with the Republicans on the committee who are complaining, but isn't the story painting an accurate depiction of their sentiments, as well as that of the opposition's?

No. It links the filibustering of judiciaal nominees to the absence of Democrats from yesterday's committee hearings. The two are unrelated. Moreover, it fails to discuss why two Republican members of the committee were absent, or even who those two Republicans were. Given that the article is putatively about the fact that the committee was two members short of a quorom, and given that the article explains why each of the eight Democrats on the committee was absent, this is an important oversight which can only be explained through journalistic incomeptence or a desire to promote an anti-Democrat agenda.

[OldDude]

Has the Constitutionality of Fast Track been tested by the courts?



What's to test? It is Congressional procedure. It guarentees a straight up/down vote without amendment or filibuster. Should we constitutionally test one Senator blocking a nomination, or 40 keeping a filibuster going to prevent the up/down vote that I think democracy calls for? Who opposes the underpinning of democracy (the vote) here? Odd, Democrats. :lol:

[classicman2]

OldDude,

If fast track is such an underpinning of democracy, why does it only apply to trade negotiation (treaties)? Why not arms treaties and all other treaties?

[OldDude]

OldDude,

If fast track is such an underpinning of democracy, why does it only apply to trade negotiation (treaties)? Why not arms treaties and all other treaties?

The vote is the underpinning of democracy. I thought that was clear, but I guess it wasn't, or my segue was too subtle.

Democracts Against Democracy: "Don't vote, OBSTRUCT!!!!!!!!!!!!"

There, is that clearer? It has the makings of a fine political slogan too.

[classicman2]

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

Since it takes 2/3 majority consent to treaties, why bring a filibuster into the argument since Senate rules require only 3/5 majority for cloture?

[OldDude]

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

Since it takes 2/3 majority consent to treaties, why bring a filibuster into the argument since Senate rules require only 3/5 majority for cloture?

I was speaking about two aspects of Dems desire to obstructionists. I reread it, and, honestly, I think my transition was crystal clear. But let me try again.

#1) Fast track still requires the same supermajority. It just says vote, up or down. Don't screw with and fine tune what the President negotiated with the other party. If you don't like it, reject it and move on. Not all bad. They told Clinton they didn't like Kyoto, 95-0, before he could even drag it in.

#2) Nominations: Anything to prevent a vote. They don't believe in one Senator, one vote. They believe only in obstructionism which will prevent voting, hence, "Democrats Against Democracy."

[classicman2]

The President has to sign or veto legislation without fine tuning.

The Congress has a different role than does the Executive. Their role is to fine tune.

[Dimension X]

" participants with children under 13 months of age are not required to begin using pesticides or to change any of their regular household routines. However, it asks that researchers be permitted to visit the home every three to six months over two years, at which time they will videotape the children's activities. Parents are also supposed to keep a diary of their children's behavior, collect food and urine samples, track pesticide use in the house and put a small watch-size sensor on the child to monitor his or her activities for one week every three to six months"
"the study only involves families who already use pesticides."

Sounds like a Neilsen-family type thing.
Which does not at all equate to,
"Testing pesticides on small children and infants is wrong."

Hmm...Oh yes, there it is: "But Boxer compared testing on human subjects to Nazi experimentation" What's a Democratic sound bite without a Nazi comparison? I'll be sure to ask Anne Frank and Auschwitz Camp Victim Number 1235131 if this program is equivalent to sticking people in an oven and baking them.

'Testing pesticides on small children and infants is wrong. " Wow, a Democrat actually saying something is *wrong*. I didn't think the Party of Moral Relativism had it in them. Too bad what she said is, er, wrong as well.

The program began in summer 2004, was suspended in November.
So she's--now--complaining about a program that hasn't been active in 5 months. "Won't somebody think about the CHILDREN!?!" that is, when it's politically expedient and gives me an 'excuse' to obstruct.
Exactly. There's a huge difference between monitoring the effects of pesticides on children and testing the effects of pesticides on children, but even in this Fox News story, they wait until eleven paragraphs in to point that out.

The AP story on this is worse, they just parrot Nelson's outright lie in their story and never describe the actual EPA study.
Fla. Senator Blocks Vote on EPA NomineeFlorida's Sen. Bill Nelson Blocks Vote on Nominee to Head Environmental Protection Agency
By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON Apr 6, 2005 — Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said Wednesday he will block a vote on President Bush's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency until he receives assurances that a pesticide study being carried out in the Jacksonville area is halted.

Nelson, a Democrat, said he was taking the action because EPA administrator nominee Stephen Johnson indicated at a hearing Wednesday that he would not cancel the two-year environmental study of infants' exposure to pesticides.

Johnson was nominated by President Bush in March to be the first career scientist in the agency's 35-year history to rise through the ranks to the top job. He would succeed former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who last month became head of the Health and Human Services Department.

According to a statement from Nelson's office, the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study is asking 60 families with infants in the Jacksonville area to volunteer for the study under which the children would be exposed to pesticides through routine spraying in their homes. Participating families will receive up to $970.

"The government should not be asking families to turn their babies into guinea pigs," Nelson said. "They should be protecting children, not exposing them to pesticides."

Under Senate rules, votes to confirm nominees can be stopped by the objection of a single senator.

Johnson, a biologist and pathologist by training, testified Wednesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Committee spokesman Will Hart said the panel still planned to vote next week on sending the nomination to the full Senate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=647588

"According to a statement from Nelson's office, the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study is asking 60 families with infants in the Jacksonville area to volunteer for the study under which the children would be exposed to pesticides through routine spraying in their homes."

Oh really?

http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm#risk
Is my family eligible to participate in the study?

Participant selection will begin in the fall of 2004. Only 60 participants will be selected. To be selected, you must:

Live in Duval County, Florida

Be a parent of a child under the age of 13 months

Maintain your normal pesticide or non-pesticide use patterns for your household. We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

What will I be asked to do?

Participants are not required to use pesticides or to change any of their regular household routines or how they normally use bug sprays (pesticides).

Allow two of our researchers to visit you at your home every 3 to 6 months for two years. If pesticides are used, notify researchers to arrange a time at your convenience to conduct study activities before and after the use of pesticides. The visit will take approximately 2 hours per day or per visit.

Videotape (the video camcorder will be provided) some of your child’s activities and keep an activity diary about your child.

Allow your child to wear a small watch size activity sensor during the study period. (Approximately 1 week every 3 - 6 months)

Help to collect some samples of food and urine. Our research staff will show you how to do this and provide you with needed supplies.

Keep track of your home pesticide and cleaning products use.

Is there any risk to me and my family?

No. You and your child will not experience any risks from participating in this study.
We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

You are not required to change any of your regular household routines.

Researchers at EPA are very sensitive to issues associated with children participating in this study. The study protocol has been reviewed and approved by four independent institutional review boards for the protection of human participants.


Talk about "disgusting." :rolleyes:

[classicman2]

Talk about "disgusting." :rolleyes:

I agree.

The Repubs are pretty disgusting. ;)

[Dimension X]

I agree.

The Repubs are pretty disgusting. ;)
I was talking about the media, but since I was taught to respect my elders (and from what I understand, they don't come much elder than you), I'll give you a :lol: instead of the -ohbfrank- you deserve. ;)

[OldDude]

I agree.

The Repubs are pretty disgusting. ;)

Yup. Everybody knows a "real" party would lie about a study to discredit the administration. Repubs are just wusses.

Hopefully, the bloggers will have a field day with the liberal media as lying patsies of the Democratic Party.

[bhk]

All I wish for this Christmas is Repubs with balls in the Senate instead of the RINOs that bend over and grab their ankles for the latest democrat "bipartisan" effort.

[dick_grayson]

I was talking about the media, but since I was taught to respect my elders (and from what I understand, they don't come much elder than you), I'll give you a :lol: instead of the -ohbfrank- you deserve. ;)

:lol:

[classicman2]

The Repubs don't lie & distort?

Please!!!

They are the masters at it.

Take a look at what your House Majority leader did/said last week.

Gander at the 'claims' they've been making about Bush's privitization scheme.

[Pharoh]

No. It links the filibustering of judiciaal nominees to the absence of Democrats from yesterday's committee hearings. The two are unrelated. Moreover, it fails to discuss why two Republican members of the committee were absent, or even who those two Republicans were. Given that the article is putatively about the fact that the committee was two members short of a quorom, and given that the article explains why each of the eight Democrats on the committee was absent, this is an important oversight which can only be explained through journalistic incomeptence or a desire to promote an anti-Democrat agenda.



:shrug:

I think they are all part of a single larger issue. Plus, my clipping service has about 4 or 5 mentions of the story all presented in pretty much the same manner. It wasn't a FoxNews issue.

[Pharoh]

OldDude,

If fast track is such an underpinning of democracy, why does it only apply to trade negotiation (treaties)? Why not arms treaties and all other treaties?



No. They are not treaties, and therein lies your problem.

[Pharoh]

Yup. Everybody knows a "real" party would lie about a study to discredit the administration. Repubs are just wusses.

Hopefully, the bloggers will have a field day with the liberal media as lying patsies of the Democratic Party.



I don't know about any lying patsies, but as I posted earlier, this is concerted and organised effort by the Democrats in the Senate to obstruct nearly all measures.

[JasonF]

:shrug:

I think they are all part of a single larger issue. Plus, my clipping service has about 4 or 5 mentions of the story all presented in pretty much the same manner. It wasn't a FoxNews issue.

I don't think the Pope's funeral is part of the same issue as the question of whether it's appropriate to block Bush's nominees.

And FoxNews doesn't have a monopoly on journalistic incompetence.

[JasonF]

I don't know about any lying patsies, but as I posted earlier, this is concerted and organised effort by the Democrats in the Senate to obstruct nearly all measures.

How long has this concerted and organised effort by the Democrats in the Senate to obstruct nearly all measures been going on? And how many bills have been introduced in that time? How many of those have been passed? How does that compare to the passage rate in previous Senates?

[OldDude]

I don't know about any lying patsies, but as I posted earlier, this is concerted and organised effort by the Democrats in the Senate to obstruct nearly all measures.

The "lying patsies" is the media assistance in misrepresenting the facts of the EPA study which is the "basis" for the misguided obstructionism by Boxer. I'm not sure if she is a fucking idiot, knows she is lying, or both. Neither she nor the media gives a crap about truth.

[CRM114]

Neither she nor the media gives a crap about truth.

Welcome to OUR world.

[classicman2]

No. They are not treaties, and therein lies your problem.


They're a trade treaties.

[Dimension X]

Yup. Everybody knows a "real" party would lie about a study to discredit the administration. Repubs are just wusses.

Hopefully, the bloggers will have a field day with the liberal media as lying patsies of the Democratic Party.
I thought this was pretty funny. It's from something called Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=597) ("When conservatives slant the facts, the Progress Report sets them straight.").
Barbara Boxer as Erin Brockovich

It’s good to know that some senators are doing their research on President Bush’s nominees. Senator Boxer was the star of yesterday’s confirmation hearing for Stephen Johnson, Bush’s nominee to lead the EPA. She dug up information on a little-known program being sponsored by the EPA and the American Chemistry Council in Duval County, Florida.

The program targets low-income African-American families and asks parents to videotape their children crawling around a pesticide-infested environment (their homes). Scientists watch the tapes and regularly test the babies for pesticide exposure. In return, the families can keep the video camera and are paid $970 over two years.

This study, the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS (http://www.epa.gov/cheers/images/fact_sheet.pdf)) also mandates that parents not be provided information about the proper ways to apply or store pesticides, and they cannot be informed of the risks of exposure to pesticides.
Of course, if the writer had bothered to actually read the link he provided, he might have seen this paragraph belying his contention that the study "mandates that parents not be provided information about the proper ways to apply or store pesticides, and they cannot be informed of the risks of exposure to pesticides."
During each visit to the participant’s home, the research team will perform an inventory of any pesticide use in the home, discuss with the participants the importance of following label directions, check to be sure that participants are using only pesticides that are registered for use
indoors, and provide contact information for training in Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Participants who are found to have high pesticide exposures or who are inappropriately using pesticides will be contacted immediately and educated in the proper and safe use of pesticides.
If any participants are found to have elevated exposures based on measurements of pesticide metabolites in urine samples, the EPA will immediately conduct further investigations and seek measures to mitigate such exposures. This intense monitoring of the participants will help
ensure that this scientific investigation is being done in a way that also protects the health of the participants if concerns are identified.
Or maybe this one:
During the study, the field research team will perform inventories of pesticides in the study homes. The field team will determine if pesticides are being stored properly and in the original containers. The field team will discuss storage and use of pesticides in the home with the study participants to ensure that they understand label directions and precautions that should be taken when applying pesticides indoors. They will also provide contact information for training in Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Or this one:
All personnel associated with this study are trained in the proper uses of pesticide products. If a member of the study team observes or collects questionnaire data that suggests the inappropriate use of pesticides, he/she will immediately discuss proper pesticide use practices with the participant. For example, during the screening phase for the pilot study, one of the field
technicians was faced with just such a situation. Upon entering the potential participant’s home, the potential participant showed the field technician the pesticide products that had been applied in the home that morning. One of the products was clearly labeled only for outdoor use. The field technician spent a considerable amount of time educating the participant on the proper use of pesticides. The field technician also brought the matter to the attention of the field team supervisor who made the DCHD staff aware of the situation.
Well, you get the idea.

[classicman2]

There's a long history, especially in the Senate where there are a lot of rules, of the minority party using those rules in order to defeat proposals by the majority that the minority feels are not in the best interest of the country. Those favoring the majority party might call that obstructionism. Those favoring the minority party might call that the loyal opposition merely exercising its duty.

The Democrats in the Senate are simply following that tradition - nothing unusual. Outside of judicial nominees (which I believe deserve an up-or-down vote), it's business as usual in the United States Senate. In other words - it's politics.

[Pharoh]

How long has this concerted and organised effort by the Democrats in the Senate to obstruct nearly all measures been going on? And how many bills have been introduced in that time? How many of those have been passed? How does that compare to the passage rate in previous Senates?


As presently constituted, only about a week or a bit more. It is supposedly a preemptive strike against the potential use of the nuclear option. I honestly haven't followed the Senate schedule of the past week closely enough to accurately attempt to answer the second part of your post. Or are you intimating that there isn't an uptick in threats to block legislation and nominations?

This new Dem strategy is precisely why there have been talks within the last week between Senators Frist and Nelson over a compromise on judicial nominees.

[Pharoh]

They're a trade treaties.


Trade agreements are not regarded, or treated in the same manner, as treaties. Whether they should be or not is another issue.

[classicman2]

Frist & Nelson have been talking about a compromise.

My question is how are you going to fashion a compromise that both parties will accept?

Some Democrats have made it quite clear that they have a litmus test (granted they've denied having one, but we all know they do) for judicial nominees - at least Circuit Court and above.

Or are you intimating that there isn't an uptick in threats to block legislation and nominations?

I believe it has been made more public than it has in the past, but the threats have always been there - by both parties.

[OldDude]

The EPA has capitulated on the study. As mentioned above the EPA study did not expose children to pesticides. It only paid parents to record whether or not they use pesticides, and allow testing of the kids.

The children will be MUCH safer if no one knows whether the children are exposed to insecticides or how it affects them. Thanks for nothing Senator Boxer.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050408/pl_nm/environment_epa_dc
EPA Scraps Controversial Pesticide Testing Program

1 hour, 19 minutes ago Politics - Reuters


By Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday canceled a controversial program to test the effects of bug spray and other pesticides on infants after two Senate Democrats threatened to block his confirmation.



Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Bill Nelson of Florida said they would place a "hold" on the White House's nomination of acting EPA administrator Stephen Johnson unless he canceled the $9 million program.


The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study would have paid families $970 to videotape how spraying insecticides in their homes affected infants over two years.


"I am very pleased that Mr. Johnson has recognized the gross error in judgment the EPA made when they concocted this immoral program to test pesticides on children," Boxer said in a statement.


"EPA came to its senses," Nelson said, after Johnson told him that the program targeting poor minority families in Florida was "dead."


Boxer and Nelson will lift their holds, their staff said.


Questioned by Boxer at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Wednesday, Johnson said he suspended the program last year before it began pending an independent review. But he did not commit to Boxer's request to cancel it.


EPA finally capitulated to senators' request on Friday.


"I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review," Johnson, a career EPA scientist, said in a statement.


The committee will vote on Johnson's confirmation on April 13.


The EPA had defended its children's environmental exposure study as important to help the agency understand how kids are exposed to pesticides that are common in American homes.


The research project would have examined the homes of selected children in Duval County, Florida, and given participants a camcorder, children's clothes and a $970 payment.


"Information from the study was intended to help EPA better protect children," Johnson said on Friday. "EPA will continue to pursue the goal of protecting childrens' health."


The research, partially funded by the American Chemistry Council, did not require the participants to buy or use any additional pesticides than what was already in their homes.
Could the truth be mentioned any lower in the story? Well, sure, two lines.


The EPA will return the $2.1 million in partial funds to the lobbying group, Nelson said.