Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), filibustered for over 14 hours last night, in an attempt to force the Senate to take action on gun control. Murphy’s filibuster, which was sparked by the recent mass shooting in Orlando, ended when the Senate leaders agreed to allow a vote on universal background checks and closing a recently-under-fire loophole that allows people on the terror watchlist to purchase guns.

I am prepared to stand on the Senate floor and talk about the need to prevent gun violence for as long as I can. I’ve had #Enough

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 15, 2016

Murphy’s monumental efforts–it was the 9th longest filibuster since 1900–were even joined by a few Republican Senators, specifically Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, along with 38 of Murphy’s fellow Democrats. Each of these senators asked Murphy “questions” to give him a break from talking, although he still wasn’t able to use the bathroom or sit down. Here’s the full list of senators who joined the cause:

*UPDATED*
List of Senators who joined @ChrisMurphyCT as of 01:00am ET#filibuster#holdthefloorpic.twitter.com/pbTqvs8EFI

— Kasia (@KasiaMikurda) June 16, 2016

Murphy and his colleagues stayed remarkably on message during the 14-hour filibuster, often telling the stories of victims of gun violence. Murphy repeatedly invoked the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook in his home state, Connecticut–he even ended his stand by telling the story of one of the little boys killed in shooting. Check out that powerful clip:

There are concerns from both sides over the ideas, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), that Murphy was advocating for. Not allowing people who are on the no-fly list to purchase guns gives more credence to that list, despite the fact that there’s a lot of criticism about how inaccurate it is. After all, we’ve all heard stories about kids who end up on the no-fly list because they share a name with a terrorist. And while a four-year-old certainly has no need for a gun, overall due process concerns are fair.

History may look back on Murphy’s stand as more of a political victory than a policy one. He took a strong, visible stand to advocate for a much-needed change to this nation’s gun policies–and got people talking in the process.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Chris Murphy’s Gun Control Filibuster Lasts for Over 14 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Everyone uses cosmetics, lotions, soaps, and other personal care items as a part of daily life, and we trust that those products are safe. But who actually determines whether or not a personal care product is safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over the regulation of personal care products, however, the Agency continues to follow outdated guidelines that don’t reflect recent scientific breakthroughs. In an attempt to change this outdated system, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1014) to the Senate in April. The proposed bill is a bipartisan initiative and has the backing of many cosmetic and personal care product companies and the support of advocacy groups such as the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®). Read on to learn about current personal care products regulation, attempts for reform, and the status of the Personal Care Products Safety Act.

Personal Care Products Regulation in the U.S.

Personal care products were first brought under the umbrella of the FDA with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which provided for federal authority over such products. However, which products are defined as personal care products and which are defined as drugs is a nuanced question. According to the FDA, there’s no clear distinction under the law, but there are generalities that the agency uses to designate the category various products fall into. According to the FDA:

Under the law, some of the products commonly referred to as “personal care products” are cosmetics. These include, for example, skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants. Some, however, are regulated as drugs. Among these are skin protectants (such as lip balms and diaper ointments), mouthwashes marketed with therapeutic claims, antiperspirants, and treatments for dandruff or acne.

Some personal care products can meet the definitions of both cosmetics and drugs when that product has two intended uses. For example, a shampoo is a cosmetic because its intended use is to cleanse the hair. An antidandruff treatment is a drug because its intended use is to treat dandruff. Consequently, an antidandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug, as it is intended to cleanse the hair and treat dandruff.

Regulations on drugs are obviously stricter than those on personal care products–understandably so– but there are some concerns over the ways that those personal care products are regulated.

What’s lacking from the FDA regulation of personal care products?

Guidelines that govern the FDA’s policies on personal care products haven’t been updated since the 1938 law that gave the Agency the authority to regulate these products. Yet, the science behind these products has evolved rapidly over the same time period. We now know more information about chemicals that could potentially be harmful. Additionally, many products contain new man-made chemicals, and the Agency should have policies in place that reflect the current state of the science governing these products.

Currently, the FDA cannot issue recalls of personal care products that it deems to be harmful. It can only recommend voluntary recalls, which critics are concerned aren’t strong enough to adequately remove dangerous products off the shelves in a timely fashion.

The lack of testing guidelines for personal care products are another area of concern for health advocates. Currently, the FDA doesn’t have the authority to mandate testing of ingredients before they go on the market, with one exception: color additives and no health studies or pre-market testing are required. Instead, the cosmetic industry is largely self-regulated through an organization known as the Cosmetics Ingredient Review (CIR). However, many advocacy organizations also question the efficacy of that group, particularly when it comes to CIR’s banning of substances. In the 36 years since its inception, the regulatory group has only 11 chemicals for use in personal care products, a stark contrast to the hundreds banned by European Union regulators.

Advocacy groups are also concerned over the labeling laws currently in place for personal care products. Currently, full ingredient disclosure isn’t required, which many criticize as a major loophole with regards to transparency and patient safety. There’s also no requirement for contact information, so people who may suffer from adverse reactions to products can’t always figure out how to get in touch with the manufacturer to report the problem.

Overall, the process for FDA approval of personal care products is significantly less strict than the process the Agency uses to approve drugs and medications.

What is the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

The Personal Care Products Safety Act would help remedy many of the regulatory loopholes cited above. and would give the FDA the regulatory authority it needs to issue recalls, improve testing guidelines, and require more stringent labeling.

Further, this legislation would mandate that the FDA take a proactive approach to ensuring that chemicals used in personal care products are safe by requiring that the FDA test and review at least five chemicals each year. The bill also lays out the first group of chemicals that would be reviewed, all of which have been subject to recent controversy. According to Senator Feinstein’s release on the act, that first group consists of:

Diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotions;

Lead acetate, which is used as a color additive in hair dyes;

Methylene glycol/formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments;

Propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; and

Quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers

Additionally, the Personal Care Products Safety Act would require manufacturers of personal care products to register with the FDA. It would remove the protected status of “coal tar,” a carcinogen found in some hair dyes that currently is permitted as long as there are proper warning labels. It would also direct the FDA to come up with a list of “Good Manufacturing Practices” to guide producers.

The new programs and regulations instated by the bill would be funded by collecting user fees from personal care product manufacturers–this is a similar process FDA uses for the review and approval of prescription drugs.

Why is the Personal Care Products Safety Act particularly important for women?

While Americans use an average of roughly 10 personal care products each day, that number isn’t split up by sex. Women in particular use an average of 12 products, exposing themselves to 168 unique chemical ingredients each day. This puts women at a higher risk when it comes to being harmed by untested or unsafe chemicals. SWHR recognizes the impact that the Personal Care Product Safety Act, if it passes, will have on women’s lives and health. SWHR stated in support:

Women use these products daily, and safer, better-regulated personal care items means healthier women and families. SWHR commends this step towards advancing women’s health and the health of all Americans who use these products.

Where is the Personal Care Products Safety Act in the Legislative Process?

As of right now, the legislation has only been introduced into the Senate–it has a long way to go before it becomes a law. But there is some good news: the bill has bipartisan support, which in today’s political climate is certainly rare. Senators Feinstein and Collins are the original sponsors, but they’ve since been joined by four additional co-sponsors: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

In addition to the SWHR, many other advocacy groups support the Personal Care Products Safety Act, including the Endocrine Society, the Environmental Working Group, and HealthyWomen.

Who Doesn’t Support the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

There are some who don’t agree with the tenants laid out in the Personal Care Products Safety Act. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has brought forth concerns that a greater concentration on testing means that there will be more testing on animals.

Others that disagree with the push for new regulations include members of the personal care products industry, including the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (ICMAD) which says that it “places too large a burden on small business, stifles innovation in the cosmetics and personal care industry, and does not provide appropriate and significant national uniformity.”

Conclusion

The Personal Care Products Safety Act has a very long way to go before it could be enacted. But it reflects common sense approaches to regulating the personal care industry that haven’t been updated in almost 75 years. In order to ensure the health of all, particularly those who use these products on a regular basis, we need to make sure that there’s accountability and transparency in what goes into our personal care products.

If you would like to support the legislation, click below.

Resources

Primary

Society for Women’s Health Research: SWHR Proudly Supports Personal Care Products Safety Act

U.S. Senate: Personal Care Products Safety Act

GovTrack: S. 1014: Personal Care Products Safety Act

FDA: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: Are All “Personal Care Products” Regulated as Cosmetics?

Dianne Feinstein: Senators Introduce Bill to Strengthen Personal Care Product Oversight

Additional 

Harvard School of Public Health: Harmful, Untested Chemicals Rife in Personal Care Products

Environmental Working Group: Why This Matters–Cosmetics and Your Health

FDA Law Blog: Proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act Would Significantly Expand FDA Authority over Cosmetics

Washington Monthly: Beauty Tips for the FDA 

Women’s Voices for the Earth: Will the New Personal Care Products Safety Act Make Cosmetic Ingredients Safe?

The Huffington Post: New Bill Would Require FDA To Regulate Ingredients In Cosmetics & Personal-Care Products

PETA: Proposed Law Likely to Mean Tests on Animals for Cosmetics Ingredients in U.S.!

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Right now there’s a controversy over emails in the U.S. government. It all started with the news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email address to conduct her job in the State Department. However, the controversy has continued with politicians and prominent figures from both sides of the aisle coming out in support or condemnation, and raising what could have been an interesting conversation about the use of email in our government.

In terms of Clinton’s emails, it’s unclear whether or not what she did was technically illegal. However, it’s definitely frowned upon, especially in light of the scrutiny that Clinton herself levied against the private email accounts used in the Bush Administration. That being said, Clinton has now turned over many pages of her correspondence, roughly 55,000 pages worth. Some of the criticism toward Clinton has to do with concerns that the American people still don’t have full information over the terrorist attack against the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. However, Representative Aaron Schiff (D-CA) has said that the committee looking into the Benghazi incident got everything they asked for from Clinton, and that there was nothing that they found probative.

Colin Powell, another former Secretary of State, has also come to Clinton’s defense, explaining with regard to his emails:

I don’t have any to turn over, I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. And, in fact, a lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the state.gov domain. But I don’t know if the servers at the State Department captured those or not. They were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign. So I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.

It’s not just her predecessors who are weighing in on this debate. While some Democrats have shown strong support, others have urged her to give an explanation for why her personal account was used during that period. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), for example, declared that Clinton needs to explain exactly what happened with the email mix up, and emphasized that continued silence would just hurt her moving forward.

On the other hand, some Republicans have taken advantage of the confusion and controversy to slam the likely 2016 presidential candidate. That’s to be expected, of course, but some have also taken the opportunity to prove how different they are than Clinton–and presumably by extension, all Democrats. The most obvious example is Senator Lindsey Graham, who on “Meet the Press” this week told everyone “I don’t email. No, you can have every email I’ve ever sent. I’ve never sent one.”

In some ways I suppose that’s not that surprising. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post pointed out, 15 percent of American adults don’t use the Internet. That being said, Graham is also on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, so his admission that he doesn’t use email could definitely be considered troublesome.

Graham wasn’t the only Republican figure who proclaimed that he shies away from e-mail. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) of 2008 election fame explained that he doesn’t use e-mail because:

I’m afraid that if I was emailing, given my solid, always calm temperament that I might email something that I might regret. You could send out an email that you would regret later on and would be maybe taken out of context And frankly, I don’t have any trouble communicating with my constituents without it.

This entire debate truly strikes me as odd, because what could have actually been a productive discussion about the ethics of communicating with private or business email addresses has sparked a lot of other, significantly less productive talking points. Besides feeding into the incredibly inane Benghazi speculation that seems like it will go on forever, our politicians are now bragging about their detachment from technology. Are we suddenly going to have all the potential 2016 candidates proclaiming whether or not they use e-mail? It’s a pretty ubiquitous tool that most of us use in daily life–I don’t think it’s really a political position.

I’ve long thought that the 2016 elections were going to be particularly nasty–even nastier than 2008 and 2012 in many ways. I think we’re starting to see the beginning of what will be a lot of highly publicized debates over, quite frankly, nothing of consequence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Clinton Email Controversy: Here Comes the Partisan Bickering appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules appeared first on Law Street.

The nation has been waiting for the Senate’s 6,000 page report on the use of torture during the War on Terror since an investigation began in 2009. However, a series of stumbling blocks–including tampering by the CIA and large redactions by the Obama administration–have continually pushed back the public release date. The Senate’s frustration is clear, and there’s no way to know when this crucial report will finally be released.

The Senate Torture Report 

The controversy revolves around a report that the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote on potential abuses of the detention and interrogation program during the Bush administration’s War on Terror. Those who have seen the report say that it is damning proof that the CIA used cruel tactics, including water-boarding, against detained terror suspects. The report also concludes that these tactics did not produce any useful intelligence information, and that CIA officials lied to Congress during multiple hearings on the subject. However, the committee was not unanimous in this conclusion. The committee’s Republicans came out strongly against the report, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) referred to the investigation as a “mistake.”

CIA reaction to the report

CIA employees are having a slight panic attack. As one not-so-eloquent headline puts it, “CIA Employees Worry They’ll Be Shafted After Torture Report’s Release.”

The primary concern of those who participated in the detention program is that they could potentially be prosecuted for torturing suspected terrorists. It is unclear whether or not this could ever happen. CIA Director John Brennan seems to be unsure, and political leaders are not providing much information either. President Barack Obama made it clear when he came into office that he would not be prosecuting Bush administration officials for their role in the detainment program, but that was five years ago.

This kind of concern over the report might explain why the CIA tried to impede the investigation.

CIA tampered with Senate computers

Last week, Brennan admitted that the CIA had accessed computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee. CIA employees tampered with the investigation and deleted files from the computers.

According to an inquiry by the CIA’s inspector general, Five agency employees, two attorneys, and three information technology staff members gained access to emails written, sent, and received by members of the Senate committee.

This is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Watch Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) list the laws that the CIA may have broken:

That speech from Feinstein took place on March 11. Brennan did not actually admit that Feinstein was correct until July 31 after an internal inquiry.

Back in March, just a few hours after Feinstein’s speech, Brennan promptly dismissed any claim that the CIA had hacked Senate computers, saying “nothing could be further from the truth.” He claimed that such hacking was “beyond the scope of reason.” Brennan has had to walk back that statement in the past few days and has apologized to Feinstein.

Feinstein has recognized but not accepted the apology. Many Senators have expressed shock and anger at this violation of the separation of powers. Some, including Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) are even calling for Brennan’s resignation.

The only person who seems to be defending Brennan is the man who appointed him to his current position. At a recent press conference, Obama defended Brennan, claiming that he had “full confidence” in the CIA leader. Obama further stated:

Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the I.G. report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

Critics of Brennan still contend that he should be fired, not just for this offense but for prior offenses, including his involvement in a drone program that has killed American citizens. Brennan will come under even more fire when the committee’s report comes out. At that point, he will probably have to defend his agency against charges of torture and illegal spying.

What’s going on with the report now?

The report was sent to the Obama administration after Senate completion in April for a declassification review. During such a review, the administration and other federal agencies redact parts of the report they believe could compromise national security or the safety of CIA agents. Obama can redact anything from a single word to an entire section.

The executive branch completed this process on July 2 and submitted the reviewed report to the Senate. Feinstein has complained that there were “significant redactions” in the new version of the report. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not satisfied and has withheld release of the report until they discuss these redactions with the executive branch. Anonymous sources have told VICE News that the redacted sections of the report that discuss forms of torture, the living conditions of detainees, and the intelligence gained from torture.

Congress and Obama will have to spend a significant amount of time resolving these issues before releasing the report to the public, and the status of the CIA tampering is still up in the air. This is a controversy with a lot of angry players; but when the report is finally released it will certainly be illuminating.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Justin Norman via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release appeared first on Law Street.