Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Daily Dispatch for July 23, 2003

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

House Votes to Roll Back Key Patriot Act Provision
FDA Outlines Dangers of Drug Reimportation
House Appears Poised to Support Reversal of Media Ownership Ruling

House Votes to Roll Back Key Patriot Act Provision

"The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to roll back a key provision, which allows the government to conduct secret 'sneak and peek' searches of private property, of a sweeping anti-terrorism law passed soon after the Sept. 11 attacks," Reuters reports.

"The move would block the Justice Department from using any funds to take advantage of the section of the act that allows it to secretly search the homes of suspects and only inform them later that a warrant had been issued to do so.

"Supporters of the change say that violates both the U.S. Constitution and the long-standing common law 'knock and announce' principle -- which states the government cannot enter or search private property without first notifying the owner."

In "The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better," Senior Fellow Robert A. Levy explains why "you should be deeply troubled by the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security.

"Any attempt by government to chip away at constitutionally guaranteed rights must be subjected to the most painstaking scrutiny to determine whether less invasive means could accomplish the same ends," he adds. "The USA Patriot anti-terrorism bill does not survive that demanding test. In a free society, we deserve better."

FDA Outlines Dangers of Drug Reimportation

"In a strongly worded letter to Congress, the Food and Drug Administration has come out swinging against proposed legislation that would legalize reimportation of lower-cost pharmaceutical drugs from Canada and other countries," The Washington Post reports.

"The letter from Commissioner Mark McClellan to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce said the agency could not guarantee the safety of drugs imported from abroad, and that the bill would 'erode' the FDA's ability to oversee the nation's drug supply.

"The letter also estimates that procedures mandated by the bill to reduce the counterfeiting of pharmaceutical drugs would raise the cost of prescription drugs by $2 billion in the first year."

In "High Prices for Medication Are a Blessing for the Sick," Senior Fellow Doug Bandow writes that due to extensive research and the long time for new drugs to go through the FDA's patent process, developing new drugs is costly.

"These drugs are being developed only because pharmaceutical companies can acquire patents and then sell their drugs at a profit," Bandow writes. "Typically, only one of 5,000 to 10,000 compounds ends up as a marketable drug, and of those only 30% make money. Those few must pay for everything -- research and development, dry holes, overhead, lawsuits."

House Appears Poised to Support Reversal of Media Ownership Ruling

"In a stunning political development, the House now appears poised to support the reversal of a new rule that permits the nation's biggest TV networks to grow even larger," according to The New York Times.

"The House began debate yesterday on a spending measure that contains a provision that would overturn the new network ownership rule. Both supporters and critics of the rule say that the measure has broad bipartisan support and is likely to be approved this week."

The FCC's media ownership restrictions are relics of a bygone era, according to Cato Institute communications policy experts Adam Thierer and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. In a recent commentary, "The Big Media Boogyman," they argue that "these rules have become historic anachronisms that ignore new market conditions and the intense competition for our eyes and ears. Indeed, far from living in a world of 'information scarcity' that some fear, we now live in a world of information overload. The number of information and entertainment options at our disposal has almost become overwhelming and most of us struggle to figure out ways to filter and manage all the information we can choose from in an average day."

Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org