Sen Roy Blunt (the man behind the 'Protect Monsanto act') Monsanto's man in Washington - MotherJones

[Bill USA]

Sen. Roy Blunt admits to Politico that he was the perpetrator who anonymously inserted the "Monsanto Protection provision" into H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 - the appropriations bill needed to keep the Government funded through the end of this fiscal year. The provision was inserted anonymously and apparently NOBODY KNEW IT WAS IN THERE when Pres. Obama signed it (although, isn't someone supposed to know what is in a bill before it is voted on in Congress or before a President signs it? - perhaps lack of time was an element here.) in order to keep the Government from shutting down.

Note that this was the same technique used by the shifty Phil Gramm to get his infamous Commodities Futures Modernization Act (which played such a crucial role in creaating the Trickle Down - Deregulation Disasster) passed. He slipped it in as a rider to the Omnibus Funding bill - 2000 (an 11,000 page document) - a veto proof funding bill needed to keep the Government from shutting down. This bill was huge and had to be passed in a matter of a few days in Dec 2000. virtually nobody knew the CFMA was in there either.

This seems to be becoming a technique used by Republicans to get noxious legislation passed that would not stand up to an open vote in Congress.


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/04/sen-roy-blunt-monsantos-man-washington

As I reported a couple of weeks ago, a recent Senate bill came with a nice bonus for the genetically modified seed industry: a rider, wholly unrelated to the underlying bill, that compels the USDA to ignore federal court decisions that block the agency's approvals of new GM crops. I explained in this post why such a provision, which the industry has been pushing for over a year, is so important to Monsanto and its few peers in the GMO seed industry. (You can also hear my talking about it on NPR's The Takeaway, along with the senator who tried to stop it, Montana's Jon Tester, and see me on Al Jazeera's Inside Story.)

Which senator pushed the rider into the bill? At the time, no one stepped forward to claim credit. But since then, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has revealed to Politico's ace reporter David Rogers that he's the responsible party. Blunt even told Rogers that he "worked with" GMO seed giant Monsanto to craft the rider.

The admission shines a light on Blunt's ties to Monsanto, whose office is located in the senator's home state. According to OpenSecrets, Monsanto first started contributing to Blunt back in 2008, when it handed him $10,000. At that point, Blunt was serving in the House of Representatives. In 2010, when Blunt successfully ran for the Senate, Monsanto upped its contribution to $44,250. And in 2012, the GMO seed/pesticide giant enriched Blunt's campaign war chest by $64,250.

Blunt is also a magnet for PAC money from the agribusiness industry as a whole, OpenSecrets data shows. In 2012, agribiz PACs gave him $51,000—more than any other industry save for finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). In 2010, the year of his Senate run, agribiz PACs handed him over $243,000, more than any other besides the FIRE and energy industries.

(more)

[MotherPetrie]

1. I am so confused! I thought it was about protecting farmers who lost paperwork!

Or something (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2580015).

So Roy Blunt didn't insert a rider to protect farmers -- but to protect Monsanto? Gee, shocker.

I did read the rider myself and can't make heads or tails of it. I hope someone can explain this discrepancy.

[Bill USA]

2. it's meant to protect Monsanto. Here's another article on this rider that explains the rider...

I tried to make sense of Sec. 735 and I could not. I think language in all laws is crafted in legislative-ese so nobody but lawyers and lobbyists can understand it!



http://www.inquisitr.com/600758/monsanto-protection-act-now-disavowed-by-senate-appropriations-chair/

A statement of disapproval of the Monsanto Protection Act issued by Senator Barbara Mikulski’s office on Tuesday read:

“The biotech rider was originally part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill that the House Appropriations committee reported in June 2012, and it became a part of the joint House-Senate agreement completed in the fall of 2012 before Senator Mikulski became Appropriations Chairwoman.”

The release goes on to claim that the chairwoman’s first duty was to prevent a shutdown of the government. Achieving such a goal allegedly meant that she had to “compromise on many of her own priorities” to put forth a bill that could make it through the Senate and ultimately pass the house.

~~
~~

Senator Mikulski did not write the Monsanto Protection Act language into the HR 933 and does not support the GMO seeds biotech rider, according to the release. The Democratic Senator also noted that she understands the anger that Monsanto has caused.

~~

Section 735 of HR 933 reportedly states that the federal court cannot stop or intervene when GMO crops are planted or sold by biotech companies. Critics of the Monsanto Protection Act have voiced concerns about potential public health hazards the shielding of big agriculture companies.

(more)

http://rt.com/usa/protection-act-monsanto-apologizes-229/

Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation, it has been dubbed by its critics the “Monsanto Protection Act.” But even after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week.
(more)

[MotherPetrie]

3. Thanks... I have read those... and I actually don't and have never had any doubt that this

rider is about protecting the likes of Monsanto, period. It would hardly have been handled in the sneaky underhanded way it was, with liberal Senators like Mikulski expressing belated regret for their part in it, if Blount were't well aware that it would be perceived as dirty, so no other interpretation really makes sense.

I'd just like to know from what the differing viewpoints were derived.