Jump to content
TedderVision

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/13/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    For immeadiate release: Following a vote within the caucus, Senator Samuel Crafts (D-CO) has been elected Senate Minority Leader and Senator Lewis Berryhill (D-NY) has been elected Senate Minority Whip. With this new leadership we all look forward to pushing policies intended to help all Americans regardless of income, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
  2. 4 points
  3. 3 points
    Senate Senator Graham Chambers (R-AR): 52% / 32% / 16% Senator Bobby Newport (D-CA): 50% / 33% / 17% Senator Amanda Willenhouse (D-CA) 53% / 34% / 13% Senator Richard Crawford (R-CO) 42% / 37% / 21% Senator Samuel Crafts (D-CO) 50% / 35% / 15% Senator Carol Armstrong (D-CT): n/a (No activity since signing in) Senator Lucille Ricardo (R-FL): 44% / 37% / 19% Senator Steven Andrews (R-FL): n/a (No activity since signing in Senator Edward Morrow (D-IL): 49% / 34% / 17% Senator Michael Madison (R-IN): 50% / 35% / 15% Senator Charles Talleyrand (R-LA): 46% / 34% / 20% Senator Elizabeth Houston (R-ME): 43% / 33% / 24% (Just joined, not as much to go on as others) Senator Calvin Ward (D-NY): 53% / 32% / 15% Senator Lewis Berryhill (D-NY): 40% / 30% / 30% Senator Barclay Calhoun (R-NC): 39% / 31% / 30% Senator Paul Kressler (D-PA): 40% / 38% / 22% Senator Nicholas Rhodes (R-SC): 46% / 31% / 23% Senator Eugene Go (R-TX): 44% / 35% / 21% Senator Kyle Fitzgerald (R-TX): 53% / 37% / 11% Senator Lincoln Reynolds (I-VT): 40% / 38% / 22% Senator Jack Doyle (R-WV): 41% / 36% / 23% House House Majority Leader Major Grant (D-RI): 57% / 31% / 12% House Minority Leader George Smith (R-TX): 51% / 31% / 18% Congressional Party Approvals Senate Democrats: 48% / 43% / 9% Senate Republicans: 48% / 44% / 8% House Democrats: 48% / 42% / 10% House Republicans: 46% / 41% / 13%
  4. 3 points
    who decides on who a maverick? People vote differently on a lot of issues. Let's be honest half of this is because a lot people want everyone to vote lockstep with the party. Most voting doesn't happen that way in the US Congress. states and issues matter. Why should a person lose their ability to swing votes because the parties cant learn how to compromise. making a maverick vote seems more like making this a uk style sim where you cant break the whip or your kicked out of the party.
  5. 3 points
    @Sovereign@LMR @RecksJust a reminder for your speeches
  6. 2 points
    Idle thoughts I want to share: In the early days of simming (like 2004-2005), there were no voting calculators. Each character counted as one Representative or one Senator for the final tally, the way they still mostly do in committees. One consequence of this is that it was easier to play a "maverick" character who often voted against the party line. If the one blue dog in the DNC or the one Ron Paul bot in the GOP voted the "wrong" way, odds are their one vote wasn't enough to tip the outcome. The party could tolerate them and let them live out their natural life. When voting calcs came in, they suddenly made mavericks into existential threats to their party. Now, typically they will swing enough votes to actually change the outcome. So they gotta be either kicked out of the party or driven out of the game. This sucks and leads to less interesting characters. It probably also drives people who are really committed to a non-mainstream ideology out of the game. I suggest something like a "maverick tag" that people can either apply to themselves, or the party leadership can apply to them. A person with the maverick tag only counts as one vote. In exchange they can get some benefit, the way that Ron Paul had hardcore supporters a lot of anonymous mainstream Republicans didn't.
  7. 2 points
    As someone who has been targeted by members of my own party for non-conformity, I believe that this may be an attempt to silence my voting power. I am, as such, wholeheartedly opposed to efforts to reduce the influence individuals have (be it by time in game, or leadership selection). If we must enact some type of backbencher penalty (which, keep in mind, I believe we already have bonuses for leadership roles), my suggestion is to give all committee members a small voting calculator bonus, less than that attributed to Chairs, floor whips, floor leaders, or PPT. It would not stack with any other bonuses, and would apply regardless of how many committees you are assigned to. In this way, the SML/SmL who controls committee assignments may ensure that party loyalists are given "more equal" representation as compared to true backbenchers. In concluding, I offer this forward as a potential solution, but I want to reiterate: I do not support moving to such a system. I believe that this may be a vindictive attempt to silence newer players who don't buy into an established clique. Thank you.
  8. 2 points
    My mistake. I will provide an update, but rest assured that I did not cheat the opposition. The result was a defeat, I merely forgot to write down the results. I will post an update here.
  9. 2 points
    Fighting disease is a bi-partisan effort. The republicans should put politics aside and help our American people
  10. 2 points
    Today I am calling on the United States Senate to bring the Nipah Response Act to the floor for a debate so we can pass the bill. I am proud to support and co-sponsor this bill because it will provide funding to the CDC to fight this dangerous disease. This is a bi-partisan issue. We must act now before we have a pandemic on our hands. We need to pass that bill.
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    Either the President doesn't have any economists on his staff or he refuses to listen, because ni economist is telling the President the out right lies he's telling the American people about his tax plan
  13. 2 points
    I hope soon President Vang gets some economists to tell him his tax plan would balloon the debt destroy social security and basically every other government program people rely on. (1/2) And our tax plan cuts taxes for the working class too while raising taxes on the wealthiest thus creating income for the government to pay down the deficit, pay for infrastructure improvement and save social security. (2/2)
  14. 2 points
    Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu is to be the first foreign leader to visit the United States under the Presidency of Paul Vang. The Department of State, through the Secretary, announced the meeting in a press release stating "Israel is a longstanding ally in the Middle East and a key partner in the War on Terror" with recent news of the Iranian regime 'firing up' its people, foreign policy experts have noted that this could be part of a larger move to send a signal to Iran. Netanyahu has visited the United States a total of 9 times since he became Prime Minister. This being a mixture of visits to powerful lobbying organization AIPAC, addresses to Congress and generic state visits. It's worth noting that this invitation extends a long tradition of visits by Israeli leaders to the United States. The visits are largely part of a wider US-Israel relationship which ranges from weapons defense, monetary aid and status in other organizations such as NATO (non-member ally). Throughout the years the United States has engaged itself in the Israel-Palestine peace process, notably during the Carter Administration. Although, as we know the conflict in the region between Israel and Palestine still rages on and many analysts expect it to be part of discussions between Netanyahu and the President. As previously mentioned, the visit will reinforce to the Iranians that the United States is still keeping a close eye on the region. Their rhetoric over previous weeks has directed much of the Iranian populace's anger towards the United States. The US-Israel Relationship can simply be summed up using the phrase coined by Former US Senator Jesse Helms, "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".
  15. 2 points
    Mr. President, I have observed this debate intently. I have also referred back to my pocket copy of the US Constitution, and believe that it is time for me to speak out against this piece of legislation. Yes, as a private citizen, I believe social media platforms are wrong to censor voices, especially when the censoring of those voices tend to be politically-driven and to advance a specific (in this case, left-wing) agenda. However, as a United States Senator, I believe it is entirely within the right of these social media firms to decide what content they want to publish. Our Constitution is clear in protecting private property. Our founding document, which I believe is divinely-inspired, is not a tool for government power, but rather a tool to enable institutions that foster innovation and economic growth. That is why I will be voting to table this piece of legislation. I yield.
  16. 2 points
    Mr. President, The gentleman from Texas ought to be ashamed. Forcing private entities to comply with speech that they don’t want to associate with is absolute government overreach. He says they can’t build the platform to have a site for conservatives who need a space safe for all unfettered speech to be allowed. I’m not going to stand here and insult their intelligence, I think they can do it. But on this bill, he’ll get no cloture from me. I yield
  17. 2 points
    Mr. President I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be read a 3rd time and passed and that motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. I yield
  18. 2 points
    *lonely member of the press in an empty room* With due respect sir, why should the press care here today what you have to say? Let's be real your a backbench senator with no real accomplishments that's not even on a committee?
  19. 2 points
    There are some questions floating around about party bans. Let me address the issue now and put it to bed. I completely understand the rationale behind party bans, in that if people mess around, then a party of players may see fit to ban them as a punishment for messing around. As an administrator and adjudicator of ensuring a fair game for all players involved, I have to weigh up whether or not they should be a thing in the game. Taking up both sides of the argument, I will say that this is a game where we build, play and ultimately act a character and it doesn't seem right that one would be punished for simply doing what the game encourages you to do. Obviously, if we refer to the case of Shiggy, which I recently ruled unable to play in the Republican Party due to an ongoing ban - I was in the Republican Party last reset before becoming a member of the administrative board so I can see why (sorry Shiggy) that it's reasonable. He was often persistently against the party line on multiple issues and even challenged a Republican administration in the Supreme Court. A bit about me. When I joined polsimming I quickly became the most hated player on what was then Virtual America which led me to be banned by both the Republican and Democratic Parties until it was ruled that these bans should not carry from reset to reset. When I became Chief Administrator and ultimately owner, I kept this policy as I do not believe that avenues should be shut off to players simply because of "mob rules" by a majority of one party or a clique of players that would otherwise make up a majority of one party. I agree that if a player fucks around majorly, they should be banned as a punishment as a deterrence from acting like a moron again. But moving forward, these bans will no longer be able to be carried from round to round, based on actions from a previous reset. I'm not interested in splitting hairs with the Republicans or deciding disciplinary actions within parties, so the current bans on players within parties will expire at the end of this round, whenever that may be. If parties decide to simply make "new bans" at the start of each round, then this will be disallowed based on the player in question never having did anything to warrant such punishment in the current round (in which he/her decides to play). This will hopefully clear up any concerns that people have with my previous ruling.
  20. 2 points
    Objection noted. I for the one encourage the gentleman from New York to research the BDS movement. This is a movement that is constantly adopting unfair double standards for Israel, and whose leaders are constantly being caught making anti-semitic comments. This is not a movement that the United States government ought to have any dealing with. Thank you.
  21. 2 points
    Major Grant thinks the government should know if you own a handgun. In the words of Pres. Reagan, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
  22. 2 points
    S. 420 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sen. Morrow, with thanks to Rep. Blumenauer, introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To provide for the regulation of marijuana products, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act”. TITLE II—REGULATION Subtitle A—Amendments To Decriminalize Marijuana At The Federal Level SEC. 201. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA. (a) Removal From Schedule Of Controlled Substances.—Notwithstanding any other provision of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Attorney General shall, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, issue a final order that removes marijuana in any form from all schedules under section 202(c) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)). (b) Conforming Amendment To Remove Legislative Deadwood.—Subsection (c) of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) is amended to read as follows: “(c) Cross Reference To Schedules Of Controlled Substances.—Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall consist of the drugs and other substances (by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated) that are set forth in the respective schedules in part 1308 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, as they may be amended from time to time, or in any successor regulation.”. SEC. 202. APPLICATION OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT TO MARIJUANA. Part A of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: “SEC. 103. APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA. “(a) General Nonapplication.—Except as provided in this section, this title and title III do not apply to marihuana. “(b) Exception: Prohibition On Certain Transportations And Shipments.—It shall be unlawful to ship or transport marihuana from any place outside a State, territory, or district of the United States, or other place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, into that State, territory, or district of the United States, or place, when such marihuana is intended by any person interested therein to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, in violation of any law of such State, territory, district, or place. “(c) Penalty.—Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”. SEC. 203. CONFORMING AND ANCILLARY AMENDMENTS. (a) Modification Of Definition Of “Felony Drug Offense”.—Section 102(44) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(44)) is amended by striking “marihuana,”. (b) Elimination Of Marijuana Penalty Provisions.—Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended— (1) in section 401— (A) by striking subsection (b)(1)(A)(vii); (B) by striking subsection (b)(1)(B)(vii); (C) by striking subsection (b)(1)(D); and (D) by striking subsection (b)(4); (2) in section 402(c)(2)(B), by striking “marihuana,”; (3) in section 403(d)(1), by striking “marihuana,”; (4) in section 418(a), by striking the last sentence; (5) in section 419(a), by striking the last sentence; (6) in section 422(d), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “marijuana,”; and (7) in section 422(d)(5), by striking “, such as a marihuana cigarette,”. (c) Removal Of Prohibition On Import And Export.—Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended— (1) by striking subparagraph (G) of subsection (b)(1); (2) by striking subparagraph (G) of subsection (b)(2); and (3) by striking paragraph (4) of subsection (b). (d) Limiting The Application Of The National Forest System Drug Control Act Of 1986 To Controlled Substances Other Than Marijuana.—The National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986 is amended— (1) in section 15002(a) (16 U.S.C. 559b(a)) by striking “marijuana and other”; (2) in section 15003(2) (16 U.S.C. 559c(2)) by striking “marijuana and other”; and (3) in section 15004(2) (16 U.S.C. 559d(2)) by striking “marijuana and other”. (e) Interception Of Communications.—Section 2516 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (1)(e), by striking “marihuana,”; and (2) in subsection (2) by striking “marihuana,”. (f) National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.—Section 709 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1708) is amended by striking subsection (j) (relating to prevention of marijuana use). Subtitle B—Federal Marijuana Licensing And Related Matters SEC. 211. FEDERAL MARIJUANA ADMINISTRATION. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: “TITLE III—MARIJUANA “SEC. 301. UNLAWFUL BUSINESSES WITHOUT MARIJUANA PERMIT. “(a) Import.—It shall be unlawful, except pursuant to a permit issued under this title by the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter in this title referred to as the ‘Secretary’)— “(1) to engage in the business of importing marijuana into the United States; or “(2) for any person so engaged to sell, offer or deliver for sale, contract to sell, or ship, in interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, marijuana so imported. “(b) Manufacture And Sale.—It shall be unlawful, except pursuant to a permit issued under this title by the Secretary— “(1) to engage in the business of cultivating, producing, manufacturing, packaging, or ware­hous­ing marijuana; or “(2) for any person so engaged to sell, offer or deliver for sale, contract to sell, or ship, in interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, marijuana so cultivated, produced, manufactured, packaged, or warehoused. “(c) Resale.—It shall be unlawful, except pursuant to a permit issued under this title by the Secretary— “(1) to engage in the business of purchasing marijuana for resale at wholesale; or “(2) for any person so engaged to receive or to sell, offer or deliver for sale, contract to sell, or ship, in interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, marijuana so purchased. “(d) Remedies For Violations.— “(1) CRIMINAL FINE.— “(A) GENERALLY.—Whoever violates this section shall be fined not more than $1,000. “(B) SETTLEMENT IN COMPROMISE.—The Secretary may decide not to refer a violation of this section to the Attorney General for prosecution but instead to collect a payment from the violator of no more than $500 for that violation. “(2) CIVIL ACTION FOR RELIEF.—The Attorney General may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief to prevent and restrain a violation of this title. “SEC. 302. PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF MARIJUANA PERMITS. “(a) Who Entitled To Permit.— “(1) GENERALLY.—The Secretary shall issue a permit for operations requiring a permit under section 301 unless the Secretary finds that— “(A) the applicant (or if the applicant is a corporation, any of its officers, directors, or principal stockholders) has been convicted of a disqualifying offense; “(B) the applicant is, by reason of business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to commence operations within a reasonable period or to maintain such operations in conformity with Federal law; or “(C) the operations proposed to be conducted by the applicant are in violation of the law of the State in which they are to be conducted. “(2) DISQUALIFYING OFFENSES.—For the purposes of paragraph (1)— “(A) GENERALLY.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B) a disqualifying offense is an offense related to the production, consumption, or sale of marijuana that is— “(i) a felony under Federal or State law, if the conviction occurred not later than 5 years before the date of the application; or “(ii) a misdemeanor under Federal law, if the conviction occurred not later than 3 years before the date of the application. “(B) EXCLUDED OFFENSES.—A disqualifying offense does not include a Federal or State offense based on conduct that— “(i) was legal under State law in the State when and where the conduct took place; or “(ii) is, as of the date of the application, no longer an offense in that State. “(b) Refusal Of Permit; Hearing.—If upon examination of any application for a permit the Secretary has reason to believe that the applicant is not entitled to such permit, the Secretary shall so notify the applicant and, upon request by the applicant, afford the applicant due notice and opportunity for hearing on the application. If the Secretary, after affording such notice and opportunity for hearing, still finds that the applicant is not entitled to a permit hereunder, the Secretary shall by order deny the application stating the findings which are the basis for the order. “(c) Form Of Application.— “(1) GENERALLY.—The Secretary shall— “(A) prescribe the manner and form of applications for permits under this title (including the facts to be set forth in the application); “(B) prescribe the form of such permits; and “(C) specify in any permit the authority conferred by the permit and the conditions of that permit in accordance with this title. “(2) SEPARATE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS.—To the extent deemed necessary by the Secretary for the efficient administration of this title, the Secretary may require separate applications and permits with respect to the various classes of marijuana, and with respect to the various classes of persons entitled to permits under this title. “(3) DISCLAIMER.—The issuance of a permit under this title does not deprive the United States of any remedy for a violation of law. “(d) Conditions.—A permit under this title shall be conditioned upon— “(1) compliance with all other Federal laws relating to production, sale and consumption of marijuana, as well as compliance with all State laws relating to said activities in the State in which the permit applicant resides and does business; and “(2) payment to the Secretary of a reasonable permit fee in an amount determined by the Secretary to be sufficient over time to offset the cost of implementing and overseeing all aspects of marijuana regulation by the Federal Government. “(e) Revocation, Suspension, And Annulment.— “(1) GENERALLY.—After due notice and opportunity for hearing, the Secretary may order a permit under this title— “(A) revoked or suspended for such period as the Secretary deems appropriate, if the Secretary finds that the permittee has willfully violated any of the conditions of the permit, but for a first violation of the conditions the permit shall be subject to suspension only; “(B) revoked if the Secretary finds that the permittee has not engaged in the operations authorized by the permit for a period of more than 2 years; or “(C) annulled if the Secretary finds that the permit was procured through fraud, or misrepresentation, or concealment of material fact. “(2) ORDER TO STATE BASIS FOR ORDER.—The order shall state the findings which are the basis for the order. “(f) Service Of Orders.—Each order of the Secretary with respect to any denial of application, suspension, revocation, annulment, or other proceedings, shall be served— “(1) in person by any officer or employee of the Secretary designated by him or any internal revenue or customs officer authorized by the Secretary for the purpose; or “(2) by mailing the order by registered mail, addressed to the applicant or respondent at his last known address in the records of the Secretary. “(g) Duration.— “(1) GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a permit issued under this title shall continue in effect until suspended, revoked, or annulled as provided in this title, or voluntarily surrendered. “(2) EFFECT OF TRANSFER.—If operations under a permit issued under this title are transferred, the permit automatically terminates 30 days after the date of that transfer, unless an application is made by the transferee before the end of that period for a permit under this title for those operations. If such an application is made, the outstanding permit shall continue in effect until such application is finally acted on by the Secretary. “(3) DEFINITION OF TRANSFER.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘transfer’ means any change of ownership or control, whether voluntary or by operation of law. “(h) Judicial Review.—A permittee or applicant for a permit under this title may obtain judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, of the denial of the application of that applicant or, in the case of a permittee, the denial of an application by the transferee of that permittee. “(i) Statute Of Limitations.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—No proceeding for the suspension or revocation of a permit for violation of any condition thereof relating to compliance with Federal law shall be instituted by the Secretary more than 18 months after conviction of the violation of Federal law, or, if no conviction has been had, more than 3 years after the violation occurred. “(2) COMPROMISE.—No permit shall be suspended or revoked for a violation of any such condition thereof if the alleged violation of Federal law has been compromised by any officer of the Government authorized to compromise such violation. “SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS. “In this title— “(1) the term ‘marijuana’ has the meaning given the term ‘marihuana’ in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and “(2) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.”. SEC. 212. ADDITION OF MARIJUANA TO CERTAIN LEGAL AUTHORITIES RELATING TO INTOXICATING LIQUORS. (a) Wilson Act.—The Act of August 8, 1890 (commonly known as the Wilson Act or the Original Packages Act; 27 U.S.C. 121), is amended— (1) by inserting “, or marijuana,” after “intoxicating liquors or liquids”; and (2) by striking “such liquids or liquors” and inserting “such liquids, liquors, or marijuana”. (b) Webb-Kenyon Act.—The Act of March 1, 1913 (commonly known as the Webb-Kenyon Act; 27 U.S.C. 122), is amended— (1) by inserting “marijuana or any” after “whatsoever, of any”; and (2) by inserting “marijuana or” after “which said”. (c) Victims Of Trafficking And Violence Protection Act Of 2000.—Section 2 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (27 U.S.C. 122a) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: “(3) the term ‘marijuana’ has the meaning given the term ‘marihuana’ in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802);”; and (2) in subsections (b) and (c), by inserting “or marijuana” after “intoxicating liquor” each place it appears. Subtitle C—Other Amendments Relating To Federal Authority Regarding Marijuana SEC. 221. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. The Food and Drug Administration shall have the same authorities with respect to marijuana as the Administration has with respect to alcohol. SEC. 222. TRANSFERRING AGENCY FUNCTIONS WITH REGARD TO MARIJUANA. (a) Transfer Of Jurisdiction From Drug Enforcement Administration To Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives.—The functions of the Attorney General, acting through the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration relating to marijuana enforcement, shall hereafter be administered by the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (b) Redesignation Of Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives As Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms And Explosives.— (1) REDESIGNATION.—The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is hereby renamed the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives”. (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be deemed to be a reference to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives. (c) Redesignation Of Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau As Alcohol, Tobacco, And Marijuana Tax And Trade Bureau.— (1) REDESIGNATION.—The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is hereby renamed the “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana Tax and Trade Bureau”. (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be deemed to be a reference to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana Tax and Trade Bureau. SEC. 223. UNFAIR ADVERTISING PRACTICES. (a) In General.—It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in the business of importing marijuana into the United States, or cultivating, producing, manufacturing, packaging, or warehousing marijuana, or purchasing marijuana for resale at wholesale, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, to publish or disseminate or cause to be published or disseminated by radio broadcast, or in any newspaper, periodical or other publication or by any sign or outdoor advertisement or any other printed or graphic matter, any advertisement of marijuana, if such advertisement is in, or is calculated to induce sales in, interstate or foreign commerce, or is disseminated by mail, unless such advertisement is in conformity with such regulations, to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate (referred to in this section as the “Secretary”), as will— (1) prevent deception of the consumer with respect to the products advertised and as will prohibit, irrespective of falsity, such statements relating to manufacturing processes, analyses, guaranties, and scientific or irrelevant matters as the Secretary finds to be likely to mislead the consumer; (2) provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the products advertised, the characteristics thereof, and the person responsible for the advertisement; (3) prohibit statements that are disparaging of a competitor's products or are false, misleading, obscene, or indecent; and (4) prevent statements inconsistent with any statement on the labeling of the products advertised. (b) Nonapplication To Publishers And Broadcasters.—The prohibitions of this section and regulations thereunder shall not apply to the publisher of any newspaper, periodical, or other publication, or radio broadcaster, unless such publisher or radio broadcaster is engaged in the business of importing marijuana into the United States, or cultivating, producing, manufacturing, packaging, or warehousing marijuana, or purchasing marijuana for resale at wholesale, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate. SEC. 224. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS. The Comptroller General shall conduct a review of Federal laws, regulations, and policies to determine if any changes in them are desirable in the light of the purposes and provisions of this Act. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall make to Congress and the relevant agencies such recommendations relating to the results of that review as the Comptroller General deems appropriate. — PES: Lifts federal criminalization of marihuana, except in cases where a person crosses state lines and does or intends to sale, possess, or receive marijuana where it is illegal. Sets marijuana to same restrictions as alcohol. Redesignates the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms, and Explosives.”
  23. 2 points
    Mr. Chairman, Thank you for extending an invitation to me to discuss my bill. I want to first say I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill has received so far. In response to the question raised by the Senator from Illinois, the bill directs NASA to create a plan, along with cost estimates, for the purposes contained therein. NASA has to come up with a funding projection, after which the Congress would need to approve the plan and funding request. This bill is merely the first step. Thank you.
  24. 2 points
    Maybe there Chairwoman has a funny gif to post about our tax plan instead of anything substantial to say about it.
  25. 1 point
    De'Aaron Jones, an African American sophomore at Worthington Kilbourne High School, was shot by the Columbus PD today. De'Aaron was unarmed and was riding his bike at 9:00 pm. Deonna and Corbin, the parents of De'Aaron, said that he was at a friends house and was coming home for his curfew at 10:00 pm. The cop, Sgt. Moats, was in the area due to a call of a neighborhood disturbance and was investigating the incident. He claimed that he told the young man to stop riding his bike. The rider did not listen and instead road his bike faster. As Sgt. Moats chased him, De'Aaron reached into his pocket to which Sgt. Moats shot DeAaron. Later, it was found out that De'Aaron had headphones in his ears with his phone playing music. Protests have begun around the country as African American groups are furious with another one of their young men being unjustly killed. Opportunities to speak on behalf of racial injustice will be made available to any political figure who wishes to speak. OOC: soon to be located in the public events thread. Pro-cop groups are claiming that the young man should have listened to the cops. Opportunities to speak on behalf of the police and law enforcement will be made available to any political figure who wishes to speak. OOC: soon to be located in the public events thread.
  26. 1 point
    GOP Stand in the Way of Bipartisanship “I find it abhorrent that the majority of the Senate Republicans have sold their souls to the party line instead of doing what’s right together. In times of emergency we have set aside petty politics in order to make sure the needs of the country are met. Even with the Kansas tornado, we were able to work together. The President did similar things and we funded the relief as well. So yes i find it hypocritical to say it was right then but wrong now. The majority of GOP senators have made it clear to us and to the American people that they would rather have politics than bipartisan progress. They would rather do the Right thing than the right thing. The people of Mississippi, and the rest of the country should pay attention. When the funds run out, it was the GOP who stood in the way
  27. 1 point
    @GrahamChambers: I support debating a Congressional response to the #NipahCrisis in Mississippi. Whether taking funds from FEMA is appropriate or not should be decided by the Senate in a full-fledged debate.
  28. 1 point
    I’m calling on Senators across the chamber to bring the Nimpah Response Act to the floor. We’ve acted quickly and together on tornado relief, now we need to do the same to combat a terrible disease. Let’s get this done!
  29. 1 point
    Ward Invites Postal Workers for Sitdown Sen. Calvin Ward of New York is inviting postal workers to a meeting to discuss their frustrations and desires. “Labor unions continue to be a huge benefit to the working class family. With my time advocating for them, I have a strong desire to make sure workers are taken care of. I invite the Postal union leaders to come and sit down with me. While I can’t speak for the Vang’s Administration, it is imperative that we do what we can to avoid a strike. While an important tool, a strike would be felt nation wide, and our post workers need to know that they have an ear in Washington. I look forward to sitting down with them to find an agreeable solution.”
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    Sen. Berryhill, for himself, introduces A bill to increase the federal minimum wage. Section 1. Title 1) This bill shall be known as the “Minimum Wage Act of 2020” Section 2. Minimum Wage Increase 1) Upon passage federal minimum wage is set at $8.50 per hour. 2) Each year up to 5 years after passage the federal minimum wage will increase by the following: a) Minimum Wage will be set at $10.00 in 2021 b) Minimum Wage will be set at $11.50 in 2022 c) Minimum Wage will be set at $13.00 in 2023 d) Minimum Wage will be set at $14.00 in 2024 e) Minimum Wage will be set at $15.00 in 2025 Section 3. Enactment 1) This bill shall be enacted upon passage.
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    -From the Oval Office- -For Immediate Release-
  34. 1 point
    Senator Lucille MacGillicuddy-Ricardo (R-FL) Session Campaign Schedule 1. Tier 1 PI HQ in Wyoming (2 hours) $1 million 2. Fundraiser in California (2 hours)
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Mr. President, I believe I can clear up much of the confusion displayed by our Republican colleagues. They may allege "censorship" at the hands of tech companies. While I agree with them that there is a need to have an honest debate, even through the internet, I warn them here that their bill will do far more harm than good. Let me just explain the end results of this bill because whatever the gentleman from Texas' good intentions may be, his bill will do far more harm than good for his side. For a start, the gentleman from Texas should understand that the reason why the Internet may appear to lean against his side is simply because its users, generally speaking, lean against his side. Its just a fact that the Internet's user base is left leaning: not merely is the US left leaning, the areas with ready access to broadband AKA urban areas are left-leaning. By passing this bill, our Republican colleagues will leave their base vulnerable to the merciless nature of the left-wing internet majority. If they think there will be less censorship, they are mistaken. The opposite will in fact be true. I'm not a regular internet user, but I know many of the people on there are even more intolerant than any Third World dictator and even less fond of deviating view points. Individually, they may have little power but collectively, they will drown out any opposition. Our Republican friends should probably be thanking the tech giant CEOs for allowing their views to even reach a broader audience. If this bill is passed, there will be no hope for their opinions of ever getting through. In an instant, views to the right of Franklin Roosevelt will be virtually extinct on the internet. Mr. President, I believe strongly that the First Amendment permits every American to express their opinion, regardless of how repulsive or idiotic I may find it, and for that reason, I oppose this bill. I yield.
  37. 1 point
    Sorry to see you go, there are not enough women in this game!!
  38. 1 point
    Senator MacGillicuddy-Ricardo's reaction when hearing this comment:
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    I would like to extend a warm welcome to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Welcome to the United States! Israel is one of our greatest allies and an amazing country, and it is an honor to have the Prime Minister here!
  41. 1 point
    RT. Very poor precedent, very negligent “leadership.” Mr. Crawford should step down if he can’t accountably conduct his duties as Chairman and adhere to the Rules of the Senate. #PleaseDoYourJob
  42. 1 point
    I have no idea why you would think this, but unfortunately you're not the first person to peddle this absurd nonsense. I became President in Round 3 when Sov became an admin. I won re-election, the game reset, and I was carried over. I was NOT allowed to run for re-election again in Round 4. In fact, that was your decision. You were an admin at the time. Mac won, and I was his running mate with a different character. The game reset, we carried over again, Mac quit, and I took over. At that point, I was eligible to run again for re-election, and I did so because that's what incumbent presidents have usually done throughout history. I was just "playing the game" as you like to say.
  43. 1 point
    Mr. Chairman, I move for this bill to pass via UC I yield
  44. 1 point
    IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS Senator Houston of MAINE for herself and others (original sponsor Ms. Collins and Mr. King) submits the following, A BILL To clarify the boundary of Acadia National Park, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Acadia National Park Boundary Clarification Act”. SEC. 2. ACADIA NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY CLARIFICATION. Section 101 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended— (1) in the first sentence, by striking “In order to” and inserting the following: “(a) Boundaries.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c)(2), to”; (2) in the second sentence— (A) by striking “The map shall be on file” and inserting the following: “(c) Availability And Revisions Of Maps.— “(1) AVAILABILITY.—The map, together with the map described in subsection (b)(1) and any revised boundary map published under paragraph (2), if applicable, shall be— “(A) on file”; and (B) by striking “Interior, and it shall be made” and inserting the following: “Interior; and “(B) made”; (3) by inserting after subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1)) the following: “(b) Schoodic Peninsula Addition.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Park is confirmed to include approximately 1,441 acres of land and interests in land, as depicted on the map entitled ‘Acadia National Park, Hancock County, Maine, Schoodic Peninsula Boundary Revision’, numbered 123/129102, and dated July 10, 2015. “(2) RATIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF ACQUISITIONS OF LAND.—Congress ratifies and approves— “(A) effective as of September 26, 2013, the acquisition by the United States of the land and interests in the land described in paragraph (1); and “(B) effective as of the date on which the alteration occurred, any alteration of the land or interests in the land described in paragraph (1) that is held or claimed by the United States (including conversion of the land to fee simple interest) that occurred after the date described in subparagraph (A).”; and (4) in subsection (c) (as designated by paragraph (2)(A)), by adding at the end the following: “(2) TECHNICAL AND LIMITED REVISIONS.—Subject to section 102(k), notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this title as the ‘Secretary’), by publication in the Federal Register of a revised boundary map or other description, may make— “(A) such technical boundary revisions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to the permanent boundaries of the Park (including any property of the Park located within the Schoodic Peninsula and Isle Au Haut districts) to resolve issues resulting from causes such as survey error or changed road alignments; and “(B) such limited boundary revisions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to the permanent boundaries of the Park to take into account acquisitions or losses, by exchange, donation, or purchase from willing sellers using donated or appropriated funds, of land adjacent to or within the Park, respectively, in any case in which the total acreage of the land to be so acquired or lost is less than 10 acres, subject to the condition that— “(i) any such boundary revision shall not be a part of a more-comprehensive boundary revision; and “(ii) all such boundary revisions, considered collectively with any technical boundary revisions made pursuant to subparagraph (A), do not increase the size of the Park by more than a total of 100 acres, as compared to the size of the Park on the date of enactment of this paragraph.”. SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ACQUISITIONS OF LAND FOR ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. Section 102 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “of the Interior (hereinafter in this title referred to as ‘the Secretary’)”; (2) in subsection (d)(1), in the first sentence, by striking “the the” and inserting “the”; (3) in subsection (k)— (A) by redesignating the subsection as paragraph (4) and indenting the paragraph appropriately; and (B) by moving the paragraph so as to appear at the end of subsection (b); and (4) by adding at the end the following: “(k) Requirements.—Before revising the boundaries of the Park pursuant to this section or section 101(c)(2)(B), the Secretary shall— “(1) certify that the proposed boundary revision will contribute to, and is necessary for, the proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management of the Park; “(2) consult with the governing body of each county, city, town, or other jurisdiction with primary taxing authority over the land or interest in land to be acquired regarding the impacts of the proposed boundary revision; “(3) obtain from each property owner the land or interest in land of which is proposed to be acquired for, or lost from, the Park written consent for the proposed boundary revision; and “(4) submit to the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission established by section 103(a), the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and the Maine Congressional Delegation a written notice of the proposed boundary revision. “(l) Limitation.—The Secretary may not use the authority provided by section 100506 of title 54, United States Code, to adjust the permanent boundaries of the Park pursuant to this title.”. SEC. 4. ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION. (a) In General.—The Secretary shall reestablish and appoint members to the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission in accordance with section 103 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note). (b) Conforming Amendment.—Section 103 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended by striking subsection (f). SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. The following are repealed: (1) Section 3 of the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1178, chapter 45). (2) The first section of the Act of January 19, 1929 (45 Stat. 1083, chapter 77). SEC. 6. MODIFICATION OF USE RESTRICTION. The Act of August 1, 1950 (64 Stat. 383, chapter 511), is amended— (1) by striking “That the Secretary” and inserting the following: “SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. “The Secretary”; and (2) by striking “for school purposes” and inserting “for public purposes, subject to the conditions that use of the land shall not degrade or adversely impact the resources or values of Acadia National Park and that the land shall remain in public ownership for recreational, educational, or similar public purposes”. SEC. 7. CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN TRADITIONAL USES. Title I of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: “SEC. 109. CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN TRADITIONAL USES. “(a) Definitions.—In this section: “(1) LAND WITHIN THE PARK.—The term ‘land within the Park’ means land owned or controlled by the United States— “(A) that is within the boundary of the Park established by section 101; or “(B) (i) that is outside the boundary of the Park; and “(ii) in which the Secretary has or acquires a property interest or conservation easement pursuant to this title. “(2) MARINE SPECIES; MARINE WORM; SHELLFISH.—The terms ‘marine species’, ‘marine worm’, and ‘shellfish’ have the meanings given those terms in section 6001 of title 12 of the Maine Revised Statutes (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section). “(3) STATE LAW.—The term ‘State law’ means the law (including regulations) of the State of Maine, including the common law. “(4) TAKING.—The term ‘taking’ means the removal or attempted removal of a marine species, marine worm, or shellfish from the natural habitat of the marine species, marine worm, or shellfish. “(b) Continuation Of Traditional Uses.—The Secretary shall allow for the traditional taking of marine species, marine worms, and shellfish, on land within the Park between the mean high watermark and the mean low watermark in accordance with State law.”. SEC. 8. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND IN ACADIA NATIONAL PARK TO THE TOWN OF BAR HARBOR, MAINE. (a) In General.—The Secretary shall convey to the Town of Bar Harbor all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the .29-acre parcel of land in Acadia National Park identified as lot 110–055–000 on the tax map of the Town of Bar Harbor for section 110, dated April 1, 2015, to be used for a solid waste transfer facility. (b) Reversion.—If the land conveyed under subsection (a) is used for a purpose other than the purpose described in that subsection, the land shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States. SEC 9. PES The bill clarifies the boundaries of the Actia National Park and ensure that the federal government will not interfere with the ability of Maine clammers and wormers to earn a living and support their families. In addition, the legislation permanently reauthorizes the Acadia National Park Commission. The legislation also includes provisions to allow for the 2015 Schoodic Woods land transfer to the NPS while making clear that the 1986 boundary law remains permanent, and ensures that traditional uses of the intertidal zone are protected and harvesters’ rights upheld.
  45. 1 point
    IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS Senator Houston of MAINE for herself and others (original sponsor Ms. Klobuchar) submits the following, A Bill To prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act”. SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES. (a) Findings.—Congress finds the following: (1) In 1984, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 98–417) (referred to in this Act as the “1984 Act”), was enacted with the intent of facilitating the early entry of generic drugs while preserving incentives for innovation. (2) Prescription drugs make up approximately 10 percent of the national health care spending. (3) Until recently, the 1984 Act was successful in facilitating generic competition to the benefit of consumers and health care payers, although 86 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the United States are generic drugs, they account for only 27 percent of all expenditures. (4) Generic drugs cost substantially less than brand name drugs, with discounts off the brand price averaging 80 to 85 percent. (5) Federal dollars currently account for an estimated 38.6 percent of the $271,000,000,000 spent on prescription drugs, and this share is expected to rise to 47 percent by 2023. (6) (A) In recent years, the intent of the 1984 Act has been subverted by certain settlement agreements in which brand name companies transfer value to their potential generic competitors to settle claims that the generic company is infringing the branded company’s patents. (B) These “reverse payment” settlement agreements— (i) allow a branded company to share its monopoly profits with the generic company as a way to protect the branded company’s monopoly; and (ii) have unduly delayed the marketing of low-cost generic drugs contrary to free competition, the interests of consumers, and the principles underlying antitrust law. (C) Because of the price disparity between brand name and generic drugs, such agreements are more profitable for both the brand and generic manufacturers than competition and will become increasingly common unless prohibited. (D) These agreements result in consumers losing the benefits that the 1984 Act was intended to provide. (b) Purposes.—The purposes of this Act are— (1) to enhance competition in the pharmaceutical market by stopping anticompetitive agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers that limit, delay, or otherwise prevent competition from generic drugs; and (2) to support the purpose and intent of antitrust law by prohibiting anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry that harm consumers. SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL COMPENSATION FOR DELAY. (a) In General.—The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 26 (15 U.S.C. 57c–2) the following: “SEC. 27. PRESERVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE GENERICS. “(a) In General.— “(1) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.—The Commission may initiate a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this section against the parties to any agreement resolving or settling, on a final or interim basis, a patent infringement claim, in connection with the sale of a drug product. “(2) PRESUMPTION AND VIOLATION.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), in such a proceeding, an agreement shall be presumed to have anticompetitive effects and be a violation of this section if— “(i) an ANDA filer receives anything of value, including an exclusive license; and “(ii) the ANDA filer agrees to limit or forego research, development, manufacturing, marketing, or sales of the ANDA product for any period of time. “(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if the parties to such agreement demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that— “(i) the value described in subparagraph (A)(i) is compensation solely for other goods or services that the ANDA filer has promised to provide; or “(ii) the procompetitive benefits of the agreement outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the agreement. “(b) Limitations.—In determining whether the settling parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the fact finder shall not presume— “(1) that entry would not have occurred until the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity; or “(2) that the agreement’s provision for entry of the ANDA product prior to the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity means that the agreement is procompetitive. “(c) Exclusions.—Nothing in this section shall prohibit a resolution or settlement of a patent infringement claim in which the consideration granted by the NDA holder to the ANDA filer as part of the resolution or settlement includes only one or more of the following: “(1) The right to market the ANDA product in the United States prior to the expiration of— “(A) any patent that is the basis for the patent infringement claim; or “(B) any patent right or other statutory exclusivity that would prevent the marketing of such drug. “(2) A payment for reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed $7,500,000. “(3) A covenant not to sue on any claim that the ANDA product infringes a United States patent. “(d) Enforcement.— “(1) ENFORCEMENT.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of section 5. “(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—Any party that is subject to a final order of the Commission, issued in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), may, within 30 days of the issuance of such order, petition for review of such order in— “(i) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; “(ii) the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the ultimate parent entity, as defined in section 801.1(a)(3) of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto, of the NDA holder is incorporated as of the date that the NDA is filed with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs; or “(iii) the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the ultimate parent entity of the ANDA filer is incorporated as of the date that the ANDA is filed with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. “(B) TREATMENT OF FINDINGS.—In a proceeding for judicial review of a final order of the Commission, the findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. “(e) Antitrust Laws.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), and of section 5 of this Act to the extent that section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition. Nothing in this section shall modify, impair, limit, or supersede the right of an ANDA filer to assert claims or counterclaims against any person, under the antitrust laws or other laws relating to unfair competition. “(f) Penalties.— “(1) FORFEITURE.—Each party that violates or assists in the violation of this section shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty sufficient to deter violations of this section, but in no event greater than 3 times the value received by the party that is reasonably attributable to the violation of this section. If no such value has been received by the NDA holder, the penalty to the NDA holder shall be sufficient to deter violations, but in no event greater than 3 times the value given to the ANDA filer reasonably attributable to the violation of this section. Such penalty shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the Commission, in its own name by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, in a district court of the United States against any party that violates this section. In such actions, the United States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate. “(2) CEASE AND DESIST.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Commission has issued a cease and desist order with respect to a party in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), an action brought pursuant to paragraph (1) may be commenced against such party at any time before the expiration of 1 year after such order becomes final pursuant to section 5(g). “(B) EXCEPTION.—In an action under subparagraph (A), the findings of the Commission as to the material facts in the administrative adjudicative proceeding with respect to the violation of this section by a party shall be conclusive unless— “(i) the terms of such cease and desist order expressly provide that the Commission’s findings shall not be conclusive; or “(ii) the order became final by reason of section 5(g)(1), in which case such finding shall be conclusive if supported by evidence. “(3) CIVIL PENALTY.—In determining the amount of the civil penalty described in this section, the court shall take into account— “(A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; “(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of violations, the ability to pay, any effect on the ability to continue doing business, profits earned by the NDA holder, compensation received by the ANDA filer, and the amount of commerce affected; and “(C) other matters that justice requires. “(4) REMEDIES IN ADDITION.—Remedies provided in this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy provided by Federal law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect any authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. “(g) Definitions.—In this section: “(1) AGREEMENT.—The term ‘agreement’ means anything that would constitute an agreement under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5 of this Act. “(2) AGREEMENT RESOLVING OR SETTLING A PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.—The term ‘agreement resolving or settling a patent infringement claim’ includes any agreement that is entered into within 30 days of the resolution or the settlement of the claim, or any other agreement that is contingent upon, provides a contingent condition for, or is otherwise related to the resolution or settlement of the claim. “(3) ANDA.—The term ‘ANDA’ means an abbreviated new drug application filed under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) or a new drug application filed under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)). “(4) ANDA FILER.—The term ‘ANDA filer’ means a party that owns or controls an ANDA filed with the Commission of Food and Drugs or has the exclusive rights under such ANDA to distribute the ANDA product. “(5) ANDA PRODUCT.—The term ‘ANDA product’ means the product to be manufactured under the ANDA that is the subject of the patent infringement claim. “(6) DRUG PRODUCT.—The term ‘drug product’ has the meaning given such term in section 314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation). “(7) NDA.—The term ‘NDA’ means a new drug application filed under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)). “(8) NDA HOLDER.—The term ‘NDA holder’ means— “(A) the holder of an approved NDA application for a drug product; “(B) a person owning or controlling enforcement of the patent listed in the Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the ‘FDA Orange Book’) in connection with the NDA; or “(C) the predecessors, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, and affiliates controlled by, controlling, or under common control with any of the entities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) (such control to be presumed by direct or indirect share ownership of 50 percent or greater), as well as the licensees, licensors, successors, and assigns of each of the entities. “(9) PARTY.—The term ‘party’ means any person, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity. “(10) PATENT INFRINGEMENT.—The term ‘patent infringement’ means infringement of any patent or of any filed patent application, extension, reissue, renewal, division, continuation, continuation in part, reexamination, patent term restoration, patents of addition, and extensions thereof. “(11) PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.—The term ‘patent infringement claim’ means any allegation made to an ANDA filer, whether or not included in a complaint filed with a court of law, that its ANDA or ANDA product may infringe any patent held by, or exclusively licensed to, the NDA holder of the drug product. “(12) STATUTORY EXCLUSIVITY.—The term ‘statutory exclusivity’ means those prohibitions on the approval of drug applications under clauses (ii) through (iv) of section 505(c)(3)(E) (5- and 3-year data exclusivity), section 527 (orphan drug exclusivity), or section 505A (pediatric exclusivity) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(E), 360cc, 355a).”. (b) Effective Date.—Section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as added by this section, shall apply to all agreements described in section 27(a)(1) of that Act entered into after June 17, 2013. Section 27(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as added by this section, shall apply to agreements entered into on or after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 4. NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS. (a) Notice Of All Agreements.—Section 1112(c)(2) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (21 U.S.C. 355 note) is amended by— (1) striking “the Commission the” and inserting the following: “the Commission— “(A) the”; (2) striking the period and inserting “; and”; and (3) inserting at the end the following: “(B) any other agreement the parties enter into within 30 days of entering into an agreement covered by subsection (a) or (b).”. (b) Certification Of Agreements.—Section 1112 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following: “(d) Certification.—The Chief Executive Officer or the company official responsible for negotiating any agreement under subsection (a) or (b) that is required to be filed under subsection (c) shall execute and file with the Assistant Attorney General and the Commission a certification as follows: ‘I declare that the following is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge: The materials filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice under section 1112 of subtitle B of title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, with respect to the agreement referenced in this certification— “(1) represent the complete, final, and exclusive agreement between the parties; “(2) include any ancillary agreements that are contingent upon, provide a contingent condition for, or are otherwise related to, the referenced agreement; and “(3) include written descriptions of any oral agreements, representations, commitments, or promises between the parties that are responsive to subsection (a) or (b) of such section 1112 and have not been reduced to writing.’.”. SEC. 5. FORFEITURE OF 180-DAY EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD. Section 505(j)(5)(D)(i)(V) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(V)) is amended by inserting “section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or” after “that the agreement has violated”. SEC. 6. COMMISSION LITIGATION AUTHORITY. Section 16(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 56(a)(2)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking “or” after the semicolon; (2) in subparagraph (E), by inserting “or” after the semicolon; and (3) inserting after subparagraph (E) the following: “(F) under section 27;”. SEC. 7. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The Federal Trade Commission shall commence any enforcement proceeding described in section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as added by section 3, except for an action described in section 27(f)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, not later than 6 years after the date on which the parties to the agreement file the Notice of Agreement as provided by sections 1112(c)(2) and (d) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (21 U.S.C. 355 note). SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such Act or amendments to any person or circumstance shall not be affected. SEC. 9 PES
  46. 1 point
    In response to Senator Morrow’s request, the Chair invites Senator MacGillicuddy-Ricardo of Florida to speak before the Government Oversight Committee. @LMR
  47. 1 point
    @RNChair: Oh. @SenatorEddieMorrow tries so hard, but never quite hits the target. The Pearl Harbor Committee he references was voted into existence in September, 1945 ... nearly four years after Pearl Harbor. What is @SenatorEddieMorrow thinking?
  48. 1 point
    @GrahamChambers: I am deeply concerned that a Republican-led committee would reject such an important piece of legislation as #RightToWork.
  49. 1 point
    Congressional Schedule 117th Session: Jan. 2021 - Dec. 2022 118th Session: Jan. 2023 - Dec. 2024 119th Session: Jan. 2025 - Dec. 2026 (All sessions start dates to correspond with start date of January of that year on the game calendar. All sessions end dates to correspond with last date of December of that year on the game calendar.)
  50. 1 point
    Carol Grant Armstrong (D-CT) Name: Carol Grant Armstrong Date of Birth: 14 September 1972 Place of Birth: New Haven, Connecticut Place of Residence: New Haven, Connecticut Political Affiliation: Democratic Party FAMILY HISTORY • George Emanuel Armstrong, husband (b. 1970, m. 2004) • Isabella Ann Armstrong, daughter (b. 2005) • Washington Moore Armstrong, son (b. 2008) • Dejda Carol Armstrong, daughter (b. 2010) EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND • B.A. in Political Science, Wesleyan University (1990-1994) • Juris Doctorate, Yale Law School (1994-1997) OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY • Public Defender, New Haven, Connecticut (1997-2002) • Attorney-at-law, Reese & Proctor (2002-2006) • Connecticut State Representative (2003-2007) • U.S. Senator from Connecticut (2007-present) Carol Grant Armstrong was born on September 14, 1972, at Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut. Born the daughter of a union carpenter and a schoolteacher, Carol was a determined student. She received good grades and worked hard. Soon, she was off to Wesleyan University, where she got a degree in Political Science. Her family was only able to pay for tuition through the help of government loans. Carol worked two jobs to put herself through school. She then went on to Yale Law School, where she graduated from and went on to become a public defender in her home city of New Haven. In 2002, Carol decided she wanted to go into politics to work on the issues she had been exposed to as a college student and public defender. She became a corporate attorney so that she could have a more flexible schedule that enabled her to serve in the state legislature. In 2006, Carol decided to challenge Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate on an anti-war platform. She defeated Lieberman in the primary and then went on to narrowly defeat him in a three-way race to become the state's first female and first African-American senator. She has served in the Senate ever since.
×
×
  • Create New...