The Bill That Wouldn't Die - aka PACT Act

[PsychoHazard]

The live webcast is on right now:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/livewebcast.cfm

They haven't gotten to PACT yet, they're still arguing over the definition of "journalist" for S. 448, Free Flow of Information Act of 2009. I expect they'll argue what the definitions of "free" "flow" and "information" are next. This might take a while. :lol:

[RRK]

Kind of funny how Specter said at the beginning that we all know what the votes are so basically don't filibuster with amendments.

[PsychoHazard]

Kind of funny how Specter said at the beginning that we all know what the votes are so basically don't filibuster with amendments.

Yeah, but they can never get through a session without a filibuster or something. I'm pretty sure it's a genetic adaptation for political survival or something. :lol:

[RRK]

They just mentioned the PACT act. They said they want to move the "cigarette trafficking act" out. I don't know what that means.

[PsychoHazard]

They just mentioned the PACT act. They said they want to move the "cigarette trafficking act" out. I don't know what that means.

I think that means that they want to get it out of committee and onto the senate floor. At this rate, they still might not get to it today though, and even if they do it might not get on the senate agenda before the end of session.

[RRK]

OK they are on to it now. Two other members want to be listed as sponsors.

Thats it out of committee.

The only amendment was that they think it is awesome.

[LaZeR]

See Sig. They are just elected & paid for crooks. Hold on to your wallets folks.

[RRK]

At least I don't have to listen to those old dudes blab anymore.

[NorSnuser]

I would like to know what the full amendment was. We'll have to see if we can see the bill that will go to the floor. It still might not make it through the session due to time constraints, but unfortunately nobody really opposes the bill or apparently wanted to amend it in a more rational way. Nor did they talk about what it will cost to enact. It could die later due to budgetary issues.

[RRK]

I think it was just to add two more members as sponsors.

[PsychoHazard]

GovTrack still only has the original version:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s111-1147

Hopefully they'll update it before it goes to a vote so we can see what changes (if any) were made. As originally written, it's really flawed.

[NorSnuser]

Yeah, RRK, that's possible. But I've seen bills change too much in the past between the committee and going to the floor. They should post the bill as it will appear on the floor in the next few days. I am amazed that funding for enforcement of this bill wasn't discussed. It will be expensive (and very difficult) to fully enforce.

You can only hope there is some rational debate on the floor, and you can be sure that funding will be brought up at some point. Has anyone seen a cost projection analysis for this bill? When the bill hits the floor we can always ask our senators to vote no because it is too costly without guaranteed revenue.

[LaZeR]

Don't remember if its been mentioned in here but you do realize that the major US Tobacco companies support this bill.

Some trade association members of the Coalition to Stop Contraband Tobacco include NACS, AWMA, FMI, NATO, NATSO, PMAA and SIGMA. Altria Client Services, a division of Altria Group, is also a member of the coalition on behalf of Philip Morris USA and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.

Of course anything to prevent people from getting to the safer and better alternatives such as Swedish Snus. :roll:

[PsychoHazard]

Yeah, RRK, that's possible. But I've seen bills change too much in the past between the committee and going to the floor. They should post the bill as it will appear on the floor in the next few days. I am amazed that funding for enforcement of this bill wasn't discussed. It will be expensive (and very difficult) to fully enforce.

You can only hope there is some rational debate on the floor, and you can be sure that funding will be brought up at some point. Has anyone seen a cost projection analysis for this bill? When the bill hits the floor we can always pound on our senators to vote no because it is too costly without guaranteed revenue.

I don't know how much revenue it's going to generate, but it's going to cost a lot more than they think. The bill calls for the appropriation $8.5 million annually for enforcement between 2010 and 2014, totalling about $34 million over those 4 years. In the grand scheme that doesn't sound like much, but there's going to be a lot of peripheral costs as well. The Postal Service estimates that shipping tobacco constitutes approximately $35–$40 million of revenue annually, which means they are now going to lose between $140 million and $160 million over those 4 years. Small mail order tobacco businesses are going to either have to shut down, or find a way to comply with the new laws, which is going to cost a lot of money, thereby raising their overhead significantly. I also expect it to cause a lot more people to quit for financial reasons, which is going to lose the government more money. Overall, this is going to be a money pit, and it's really not going to do much to stop the illegal black market cigarette traffic. Most of that is not done through the mail or over the internet.

[PsychoHazard]

Here's a link to the amendment to PACT:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/legislat...8-PACT-Act.pdf