A real review of the Monsanto Protection Act

 “If the circumstances were otherwise, I should veto the bill. Even so, I cannot permit this legislation to become effective without registering my protest against the attachment to this bill of an irrelevant and unwarranted rider… This system of attaching riders to bills relating to a wholly different subject has been used by former Congresses in a number of notable cases. Such abuses of sound legislative procedure have been protested by many former Presidents, and the practice has been condemned by sound opinion. It is noteworthy that the Constitutions of many States require that a proposed law shall relate to only one subject… All that remains to me is to permit the act to become a law without my signature. I am doing this with two earnest objections. The first is against the practice of attaching extraneous riders to any bill.”

• President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, addressing The Public Debt Act of 1943 (which allowed national debt authorization to gear up for WWII)

On Tuesday, President Obama signed the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act of 2013. There has been much political hay made about the President slipping the Act in while the country and media were distracted with the equality in marriage arguments before the Supreme Court. However, this is not really the case. The opposition is not to the bill as a whole, its to a rider attached to the bill known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, or known to the opposition as the Monsanto Protection Act. The full text of the Provision is below:

13 SEC. 733. In the event that a determination of non

14 regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the

15 Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated,

16 the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any

17 other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower,

18 farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary

19 permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to

20 necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with sec-

21 tion 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which

22 interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduc-

23 tion, continued cultivation, commercialization and other

24 specifically enumerated activities and requirements, in-

25 cluding measures designed to mitigate or minimize poten-

1 tial adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the

2 Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated

3 status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able

4 to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and

5 carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner:

6 Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only

7 for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to com-

8 plete any required analyses or consultations related to the

9 petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That

10 nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the

11 Secretary s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of

12 the Plant Protection Act.

First, as always, lets cover a little background. In legislative procedure, a rider is an additional provision added to a bill, often having little connection with the subject matter of the bill. Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision that would not pass as its own bill. Occasionally, a controversial provision is attached to a bill not to be passed itself but to prevent the bill from being passed. I will be doing a post later about riders and amendments, to go into greater detail. I think they are one of the most dangerous risks to the future fiscal health of the country.

Riders are most effective when attached to an important bill, such as an appropriation bill, because to veto or postpone such a bill could delay funding to governmental programs, causing serious problems. When the veto is an all-or-nothing power as it is in the United States Constitution, the executive must either accept the riders or reject the entire bill. The practical consequence of the custom of using riders is to constrain the veto power of the executive.


 

That is what happened in this case. The bill helped the government avoid a March 27 shutdown. It was absolutely necessary, so it was a no lose scenario for the Republicans. Once the rider was attached, either their corporate sponsor got what they paid for (and by paid, I of course mean their campaign contributions) or the President vetoed the bill and they could blame him for a government shut down. Often overlooked, is the fact that HR 933, the bill that Obama signed, was rushed through Congress and onto his desk. Most, if not all, of the Congressmen who voted for it didn't know about the provision. I would wager that not one Congressman read the bill in its entirety. In fact, there was almost no time to read the final version before the vote. With the government shut-down approaching, the President had no real option.

To counteract riders, 43 of the 50 states have provisions in their state constitutions allowing the use of line-item vetoes so that the executive can veto single objectionable items within a bill, without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill. The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed to allow the President of the United States to have the same authority that those state governors have. However, the Supreme Court struck down the act as unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York. Thus, President Obama had only the choice to veto the entire bill, and shut down the government, or sign it with the rider attached. The lesser of two evils, he chose to sign it.

Realistically, there is no real long-term impact. The Provision will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations and can address the Sequestration. However, it sets a terrible precedent. Corporations, already given too much power and authority, and dubbed by some “too big to jail,” can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it makes the suggestions that court challenges are a privilege, not a right. I will say that, realistically and Constitutionally, Congress does not have the right to limit the power of the judiciary. Judicial review is a check and balance on the legislative. However, addressing it at all is a 'shot across the bow' to the judiciary, to let them know their once sacrosanct authority has limits.

In conclusion, I guess my perspective is to say- Let's all calm down. Yes, this sets a bad precedent. But realistically, there is no long term harm from this bill. It will expire at the end of the fiscal year. And it's not something that we shouldn't expect. Corporations have too much power. They make large campaign contributions and can literally write legislation to hand-off to elected officials. Our. System. Is. Broken. I think you can take from the tone of this blog that I've already reached that conclusion, I hope you will too. The one benefit of the hoopla surrounding this legislation is that people are waking up and seeing the system for what it is.

© Robert Cheek, 2013