The proposed Food and Drug Administration tobacco bill currently under consideration would ban artificial flavors like cinnamon and cherry from cigarettes, but strangely gives special protection to menthol. Public health advocates wonder why menthol has been exempted from the bill, especially when it masks the harsh taste of cigarettes for beginners. A 2006 study also showed that menthol makes it harder for addicted smokers to quit. Menthol brands are also disproportionately popular among African Americans; seventy percent of blacks smoke menthols, compared to only 30 percent of whites. While African Americans smoke less than whites overall, they suffer higher rates of cancer and other tobacco-induced diseases. Despite all this, legislators believe that menthol cannot be eliminated as a cigarette flavoring under the bill because menthol is crucial to the $70 billion cigarette market. It is of particular importance to Philip Morris, which has been planning for, and driving FDA regulation of cigarettes since 1999. The watered-down terms resulted from legislators’ belief that the bill won’t pass without PM’s buy-in.
he Senate grounded the airline safety bill this week, a victim of political infighting and partisan wrangling.
“The most frustrating week I have spent in the Senate in my 24 years here,” Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who led the fight for the bill, said on the Senate floor. “It defines what the American people find so inadequate about Congress. Days go by and nothing happens.”
The only vote taken was a 49-42, nearly party-line procedural step to end debate and bring the airline safety bill to a vote. But the largely Democratic backers needed 60 votes to be successful.
It was a defeat for consumer groups and labor, which backed mandates in the bill for tougher air safety oversight and better passenger conditions. Airports also would have benefited by being able to raise more revenue.
The Federal Aviation Administration now won’t have the money to hire more air traffic controllers, who safety advocates said are overworked and under stress.
Nearly a fifth of the workforce has left the FAA since 2006, plunging the number of experienced controllers to a 16-year low, according to Patrick Forrey, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. He said 2,300 more were eligible for retirement.
“We need urgent trauma care to stop the bleeding,” Forrey said at a press conference after the Senate failed to act on the legislation.
Inaction also will delay the agency’s plan to modernize the air traffic control network by replacing radar with a satellite system.
The bill probably won’t come up again until next year. In the meantime, Congress likely will approve temporary funding, but nowhere near the amount needed to do everything the bill had intended.
Interesting development, eh? Dana Milbank has the story:
It was already shaping up to be a difficult year for congressional Republicans. Now, on the cusp of Mother’s Day, comes this: A majority of the House GOP has voted against motherhood.
On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, “Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother’s Day,” when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.
“Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote,” he announced.
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt’s request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.
It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard. Worse, Republicans are now confronted with a John Kerry-esque predicament: They actually voted for motherhood before they voted against it.
Republicans, unhappy with the Democratic majority, have been using such procedural tactics as this all week to bring the House to a standstill, but the assault on mothers may have gone too far. House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: “Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother’s Day.”
By voting against it?
If Boehner’s explanation doesn’t make much sense, he’s been under a great deal of stress lately.
Because they’re making money from it? See this article by Richard Skaff:
What do war, Congressmen, Senators, and the defense/offense industry have in common? The answer, if you haven’t already guessed is “profits.”
Conflict makes money for the military industrial complex, and the cronies they place in Congress, the Senate, and the White House.
An investigation by Ralph Forbes from American Free press reported on May 05, 2008 that more than a quarter of US senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq [1].
The report also edifies that 151 members of congress invested close to a quarter-billion dollars in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than 275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to Fedspending.org [2]. In 2004, the first full year after the current Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers-both hawks and doves invested between $74.9 million and 161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD [1]. No wonder the Democratic congress kept approving the enormous spending bills on the war, since a significant portion of it happens to end up in their deep pockets.
McCain strongly opposes it, but quite a few Republicans favor it. ThinkProgress has the story on the likely effects of the bill:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and the Pentagon have voiced their opposition to the bipartisan Webb-Hagel GI Bill by spouting fears that “too many will use it,” and it will therefore “harm” the military.
A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report analyzing the impact of the GI Bill shows that McCain is indeed “full of it.” While the report explains that troop retention will decline because some troops will take advantage of their new education benefits, the loss in retention will be entirely made up for by increased military recruits:
Literature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point — from about $40,000 to over $90,000 — implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. […]
Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.
Ignoring the conclusion of the CBO report, the Army Times prints this deceptive headline suggesting that the GI Bill will only harm the military: “CBO: Better GI Bill would cut retention 16%.”
As Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has said, the flip side of the impact on retention is that “putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.” If McCain and the Bush administration truly wanted to repair retention problems, they shouldn’t take benefits away from troops but rather — as Jon Soltz has said — “focus on the role of contractors, who continually snatch up troops, offering them up to 10 times their military pay to do a similar job in Iraq.”
Politico reports that telecom companies have “presented congressional Democrats with a set of proposals on how to provide immunity to the businesses that participated in a controversial government electronic surveillance program.” House leaders have not yet accepted the companies’ proposals, and many lawmakers are still insisting that the telecoms be held responsible for participating in the administration’s wiretapping program.
Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent has a good article on the efforts being made to bring health-insurance coverage for mental illness in line with the coverage for physical illness. As of know, the difference is shameful. His article begins:
For the estimated 60 million Americans suffering from mental illness, treatment can be an elusive and costly ordeal. Many health care plans don’t cover mental care, and those that do usually provide lesser benefits for mental disorders than for physical ailments. Co-payments, for mental patients, are usually higher. In addition, the last major federal law tackling the problem is 12 years old.
Now Congress is hoping to fix some of that. Bills passed in both the House and Senate would require most employer-based health plans to eliminate the current pay discrepancies between coverage for mental and physical conditions. Supporters say that equating the two — and thus establishing “parity” — is long overdue. Helping their push, the stigma that’s contributed to the legal discrimination has slowly faded as scientists uncover the biological and genetic causes of mental disorders.
“There is no shame in mental illness,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) said following passage of the House bill in March. “The great shame would be if Congress had not taken action.”
But much work remains. Significant disparities between the Senate and House bills have forced sponsors into informal but delicate negotiations. The saga has aligned senators of both parties, the White House, business groups and the insurance industry — all of whom support more business-friendly reforms — against House lawmakers pushing for broader patient benefits.
Except, of course, on the show 24, where they are common. But it’s a bad idea to make public policy and pass laws based on fictional TV shows. ThinkProgress:
One of the right wing’s favorite talking points to defend torture is that it could be useful in a so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario. In 2005, for example, a “senior administration official” said President Bush’s signing statement waiving a torture ban was justified because a ”ticking time bomb” could necessitate the need for torture. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently endorsed “smacking someone in the face” if he were hiding “the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles.”
But in a House Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) asked three jurists who have extensively studied interrogations if they have ever heard of such a scenario. As Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) put it, they responded with “radio silence“:
Marjorie Cohn, President, National Lawyer’s Guild: I know of one. It’s on the show 24. And that’s the only one I know of.
Phillippe Sands, University College, London: I know none other, and I’ve never seen the show 24, so I don’t even know of that one.
David Luban, Georgetown University: I have been trying to chase down true ticking time bomb cases for a couple of years. There have been a couple that have been alleged to be ticking time bomb cases. They turned out not to be true.
Watch it:
Luban said that even a “poster child” ticking bomb scenario was bogus. He described a situation where an al Qaeda member was tortured in the Phillippines, eventually confessing about a plot on U.S. airliners and the pope. But Luban said the detainee “broke” under the threat of being turned over to another country — not after torture. “When you have torture as your A option, you don’t look at your B option,” he noted.
Even torture proponents can’t think of a scenario. One of the lawyers in the hearing, David Rivkin, a former Reagan Justice Department official, defended the administration throughout the hearing. But even he couldn’t think of a scenario, saying, “I personally do not have complete proof” of a particular instance.
Like the “Do Not Call” list, which seems to have drastically reduced the telemarketing calls—and provided us the magic phrase to interrupt the introductory spiel: “Please remove me from your call list”—the “Do Not Mail” list will free us from unwanted junk mail. Those who send junk mail are, of course, fighting this initiative tooth and nail, challenging Congress with the question: “Who do you work for? The people, or the lobbyists who give you tons of money?”
But the implementation of a “Do Not Mail” list is tricky: your phone number is one thing—you either keep it or it goes inactive for a period. But your mailing address, if you move, is immediately used by someone else.
Well, perhaps not the very worst, but take a look at this story by Mike Lillis in the Washington Independent:
Congress has found a novel way to address the food crisis facing the developing world: Slash the budget for a bipartisan program providing school lunches to poor kids abroad to encourage them to remain in school.
Under a deal worked out in the last few days, required spending on the Dole-McGovern International Food for Education program was set at $60 million. That is $780 million less than proposed by the House, and $40 million less than was allocated in the expiring farm bill.
That’s Dole, as in former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), and McGovern, as in former Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.). Neither is pleased with the development, and said so in a biting op-ed this morning, also in the Post:
After stealing headlines earlier in the year, the showdown between the White House and House Democrats over the renewal of controversial domestic spying legislation has faded from public debate. (In a nutshell, the administration wants to protect the phone companies from lawsuits for their role in providing the government with client information without judicial oversight — something the Senate approved but the House has thus far rejected.)
But now comes word from the American Civil Liberties Union that House Democrats may be crafting a deal with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) to move a compromise bill. Rockefeller was one of the most vocal supporters of retroactive immunity for phone companies, which leaves groups like the ACLU spooked that any deal pushed by the West Virginian would include such a provision.
ACLU is already beating its drum of disapproval:
Make no mistake: any “compromise” that is acceptable to Senator Rockefeller and the President will undoubtedly let lawbreakers off the hook and seriously put at risk — or even end — lawsuits that may be the only way to get to the bottom of crimes that were committed by phone companies and Bush administration officials.
ACLU is urging its members to urge House leaders not to cave. And you thought it was safe to get back on the phone.
The GOP is, for whatever reasoned, terribly frightened of any sort of oversight. They prefer (at least while the White House is in GOP hands) to let the Executive go its own way without any possible hindrance. So, as ThinkProgress reports, they continue to tie the hands of investigators:
On April 23, the Senate unanimously approved the Inspector General Reform Act (S. 2324), a bill meant to enhance the independence of federal agency watchdogs.
Yet it passed only after Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) inserted a little-noticed amendment to water down the bill. His amendment deleted a provision giving the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) jurisdiction to investigate misconduct amongst senior officials. The National Law Journal reports:
Unlike all other OIGs who can investigate misconduct within their entire agency, Justice’s OIG must refer allegations against department attorneys to the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The latter office, unlike the OIG, is not statutorily independent and reports directly to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general.
In October, the House passed a similar IG bill, except that it eliminated the requirement that the Justice Department’s IG refer misconduct allegations to OPR. The White House had threatened to veto the House bill, and the Kyl amendment “was seen by many as a vehicle for the White House’s objections.”
In the past, the White House has repeatedly used OPR to block investigations. Last year, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed OPR to investigate the U.S. attorney scandal, even though it would face a conflict-of-interest by having to look into its two bosses — the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. Justice Department IG Glenn Fine objected, and eventually a joint OPR-OIG investigation was conducted.
More significantly, President Bush personally stepped in and blocked OPR from investigating the administration’s wiretapping program in 2006. CBS News reported:
The memos from OPR chief H. Marshall Jarrett to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in February, March and April of this year show that while Gonzales publicly told the Senate that OPR was investigating, Jarrett was complaining to higher-ups that he was “unable to move forward” because of the lack of security clearances for himself and six staff members.
At the time, Gonzales attempted to defend the stonewalling, stating, “The president of the United States makes decisions about who is ultimately given access.” This rationale is precisely why IGs, who are statutorily independent, need the power to investigate misconduct.
Are House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and a small handful of “Blue Dog” Democrats working in secret to reverse one of the only worthwhile acts of Congressional Democrats since they were given control of Congress in 2006: namely, the refusal to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and bequeath lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty? It certainly appears that way.
Numerous reports — both public and otherwise — suggest that Hoyer is negotiating with Jay Rockefeller to write a new FISA bill that would be agreeable to the White House and the Senate. Their strategy is to craft a bill that they can pretend is something short of amnesty for telecoms but which, in every meaningful respect, ensures an end to the telecom lawsuits. It goes without saying that no “compromise” will be acceptable to Rockefeller or the White House unless there is a guaranteed end to those lawsuits, i.e., unless the bill grants amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms.
Even Capitol Hill insiders are baffled at the impetus for this new drive to capitulate. For the first times in years, the House Democratic caucus unified to take an actual stand on an issue relating to Terrorism — all but five Blue Dogs voted for the House bill and rejected the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill. Even the GOP accepted that their fear-mongering campaign around the issue had failed, as there was no public outcry demanding that the President be allowed to spy on Americans without warrants or that telecoms be allowed to break the law with impunity. Key Blue Dogs have been making impressive public statements insisting that they will not reverse their position.
Hoyer’s motives, then, appear to be two-pronged: (1) he and the House Democratic leadership simply want to grant amnesty to telecoms — they favor it — because they do not want the lawsuits relating to illegal spying to proceed to resolution; and (2) they are deferring to the tiny number of Blue Dogs who favor amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping. This article from The Hill this week specifically identifies freshman Rep. Chris Carney as demanding that the House comply with the President’s demands:
Vulnerable freshman Democrats and Blue Dogs say the issue demands action.”Overall, it’s very important,” said Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.), a freshman member of the Blue Dog Coalition who often votes against his leadership.
Carney said that a compromise should protect national security and also respect civil liberties. “I’ve been in favor of the Senate bill. We’ll see what happens,” he said.
In early March, a new campaign was announced to begin running ads in the districts of vulnerable Democratic Congressmen like Carney whose presence in Washington is worse than worthless: it’s extremely counter-productive since they essentially eliminate the entire concept of “opposition party” by continuously pressuring Democrats to enable the most radical aspects of Republican rule for their own perceived narrow political gain.Within 24 hours, close to $50,000 was raised for that ad campaign. And the poll accompanying the fundraising campaign — which asked which of five proposed Blue Dogs should be the first target — resulted in a clear win (or, more accurately, a clear loss) for Chris Carney. The ad campaign aimed at Carney is in the process of being completed (and a professional ad coordinator to oversee and finalize that process is now needed — email me if you are one or can recommend one and I’ll pass it along).
For obvious reasons, this ad campaign is now more imperative than ever. The more funds that are available to fuel the ad campaign, the more potent the impact will be — both for Carney and in terms of the message being sent generally. Those who want to donate to the ad campaign can and are encouraged to do so here.
Can’t say this wasn’t expected, but Senate Republicans killed a bill last night to extend the time-span over which workers could sue their employers for payment discrimination. The reason? Well, according to those voting against, the bill would benefit plaintiff attorneys rather than underpaid women.
Here’s Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as quoted in this morning’s New York Times:
The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases.
Both Democratic presidential candidates rushed back from the campaign trail for the vote (both voted for), while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee did not leave the trail. According to the Times, it wasn’t for being shy about weighing in:
Mr. McCain, who was campaigning in Louisiana, skipped the vote but told reporters he would have opposed the bill since it could contribute to frivolous lawsuits harmful to businesses.
Expect to hear about this vote again — probably sometime closer to November.
What in #%&^$@ has happened to the Democratic party? Look at David Sirota’s report:
In a stunning - if predictable - story, the Hill Newspaper reports that congressional Democrats are now saying that they will effectively thwart any effort to create a national health care program. Here is the key excerpt:
“Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult…Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is ‘not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.’…’Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,’ Schumer said…Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said “the money is not necessarily there right now” to enact the plans.”
I blogged earlier about this bill, and just now received this email from Drug Policy Alliance:
The first federal marijuana decriminalization bill in 25 years was just introduced in Congress. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5843, the “Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008,” which would decriminalize possession of marijuana for personal use. Please urge your representative to support this important legislation.
A deluge of messages from constituents will help members of Congress feel more confident in declaring their support for the bill. We don’t expect the bill to become law just yet, but it will help us find out which members of Congress support marijuana decriminalization and which do not. The more representatives who co-sponsor it, the more support we can show for marijuana law reform.
Last year alone the police made almost 830,000 arrests for marijuana law offenses in the United States. 89 percent of those arrests were for posssession for personal use. Those arrested were seperated from their families, branded criminals, and in many cases fired from their jobs and denied school loans and other public assistance. The arrests cost taxpayers billions of dollars and consumed an estimated 4.5 million law enforcment hours (that’s the equivalent of taking 112,500 law enforcement officers off the streets).
H.R. 5843 would make it legal under federal law for adults to possess up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of marijuana for personal use. It would also allow not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of marijuana between consenting adults. Please urge your member of Congress to support this bill.
Our executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, made a powerful case for ending marijuana prohibition in a 2004 cover story in National Review (PDF).
Sincerely,
Bill Piper
Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance
More Information
–In 1972 a special commission formed by Congress and President Richard Nixon concluded that punitive marijuana laws do more harm than good. Among other things, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse urged states and the federal government to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Twelve states eventually did, but most states and the federal government ignored the report. You can read the National Commission’s 1972 report here.
–Since 1972 twelve states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Oregon. Decriminalization generally means people caught possessing marijuana for personal use are not subjected to imprisonment for at least their first offense, although they may be subject to a small fine.
–A 2001 Zogby poll found that 61 percent of Americans oppose arresting and jailing nonviolent marijuana smokers. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 72 percent of Americans think people arrested for marijuana possession should face fines and not jail time.
–A study that examined arrest statistics for smoking or possessing marijuana in public in New York City from 1980 through 2006 found that blacks were four times as likely as whites to receive jail time for possession of marijuana. Hispanics were three times as likely. In 2002 about 2.4 percent of all marijuana users were arrested for marijuana possession. The arrest rate for blacks was 94 percent higher.
What a jerk. From the same email from Center for American Progress:
The Senate is currently considering the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, legislation that would authorize $40 million per year over five years to fund research into the possible links between breast cancer and the environment. The proposal has over two-thirds support in the Senate. But the bill’s passage has been stalled, as an anonymous senator placed a “hold” on it. On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released a statement announcing that a single senator was blocking the bill, calling it “unconscionable” that one person would “singlehandedly block our ability to have a reasonable debate on a bill.” It appears that this lone senator may be Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK) — “an obstetrician who sees patients one morning a week.” On Monday, when Reid brought the bill to the floor for a vote, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) “objected” on behalf of Coburn. In 2006, Coburn put a hold on the same bill, claiming it “would take the authority for research out of the hands of scientists and put it into the hands of politicians.” In March, the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee passed the breast cancer bill, overriding Coburn’s efforts to amend it. Scientists and Engineers For America Action Fund also assert that Coburn is the one placing the hold.
Last Thursday, “in a highly unusual move,” the Senate voted to direct the Justice Department to investigate the inclusion of an earmark in a 2005 transportation bill. The reinstatement of the $10 million earmark which had been rejected by the Senate directly benefited a key fundraiser for Rep. Don Young (R-AK), the former chairman of the House Transportation Committee. This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced she would ask the House to accept the call for a DOJ investigation, while also continuing to press for an internal inquiry by the House ethics committee. Young is “perhaps best known as the architect of the ‘bridge to nowhere,’ a project in a massive 2005 transportation bill that he named after his wife, Lu, and ’stuffed like a turkey,’ as he put it when the $286 billion bill was done.” Young’s ethics troubles — which hardly begin with the mysterious 2005 earmark — have forced him to spend more than $1 million in legal fees, doling out $238,000 on lawyers in 2008 alone. The New York Times editorial board said of Young’s latest earmark battle, “He remains incorrigible.”
A COCONUT ROAD TO NOWHERE: As chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Young visited Florida, where he “received $40,000 in campaign donations from land developers during his visit. He requited by tailoring an earmark in the 2005 transportation bill for their pet project: a cross-wetlands connection to the interstate, known as the Coconut Road Interchange, that would boost development values while abusing the environment.” The interchange was “a low priority” for county officials, but it was vitally important to Young donor Daniel Aronoff because it would have increased the value of his property. In fact, “local officials ultimately refused the money and asked Congress to let them use it for its original purpose.” The 2005 bill approved by Congress included a $10 million earmark for “widening and improvements for I-75 in Collier and Lee County” Florida. However, the bill President Bush signed redirected that $10 million for “Coconut Road interchange I-75/Lee County.” Young’s office “admitted that it may have been a staff member who altered the bill after the vote, but not to finagle it — only to somehow ‘correct’ it.” The congressman defended the earmark last week, saying, “I think it’s the right thing for the state of Florida, and you know, right now, they’re supportive of it.”
Big Oil moves to protect terrorists from having to pay restitution. (On a side note, Exxon-Mobil reported $40.6 billion in profits for 2007—naturally, though, they still need those tax credits that Bush gave them.) I wish that the US Congress was not so transparently for sale. Here’s the story:
One by one, top executives of American oil companies met privately over the last year with Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, often in his signature Bedouin tent, as they lined up contracts allowing them to tap into the country’s oil reserves.
But now, the new allies are working Capitol Hill, trying to weaken a law that threatens those deals. The Libyan government, once a pariah, and the American oil industry have hired high-profile lobbyists, buttonholed lawmakers and enlisted help from the Bush administration, all in an effort to win an exemption from a law that Congress passed in January that is intended to ensure that victims of terrorist attacks are compensated.
The law allows victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect court judgments by seizing foreign assets in the United States or money from those governments held by American companies doing business with them. If Libya loses a half-dozen court cases still pending, $3 billion to $6 billion could be at stake, according to lawyers’ estimates. [Peanuts compared to oil industry profits---why doesn't the oil industry simply give Libya the money to pay the restitution? Rather than spending money on lobbyists and members of Congress. - LG]
Congressman Barney Frank today introduced bi-partisan legislation aimed at removing federal restrictions on the individual use of marijuana (HR 5843). One bill would remove federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana, and the other (HR 5842) – versions of which Frank has filed in several preceding sessions of Congress – would allow the medical use of marijuana in states that have chosen to make its use for medical purposes legal with a doctor’s recommendation. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) joined Frank as a cosponsor of the federal penalties bill. The cosponsors of the medical marijuana bill are Rep. Paul, along with Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Sam Farr (D-CA).
Congressman Frank released the following statement explaining the legislation.
“I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute. In my view, having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes. In fact, this type of prosecution often meets with public disapproval. The most frequent recent examples have been federal prosecutions of individuals using marijuana for medical purposes in states that have voted – usually by public referenda – to allow such use. Because current federal law has been interpreted as superseding state law in this area, most states that have made medical use of marijuana legal have been unable to actually implement their laws.
Written for the man who wants to enjoy his shave. User comment: "I bought this as a gift for my fiancé, along with a wet-shaving starting kit and a safety razor. He DEVOURED this book, and finds himself reading it again and again. He finally enjoys shaving. This book has helped him figure out so many things about wet shaving, and has recommended it to all of his friends and family. Truly a great source of information for any man."
