Senate Democrats introduced legislation Thursday that would establish the same sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine and crack offenses.

The Fair Sentencing Act, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and nine other Democrats, would end the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties enacted in the 1980s. The bill would also trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of 500 grams of either of the substances.

The decades-old law gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. Democrats have said the law tends to disproportionately harm blacks, because crack is generally used in poorer urban communities.

“The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African Americans at six times the rate of whites and to the United States’ position as the world’s leader in incarcerations,” Durbin said in a statement. “Congress has talked about addressing this injustice for long enough; it’s time for us to act.”

The cosponsors of the bill are Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Judiciary crime and drugs subcommittee Chairman Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Judiciary panel members Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) and Al Franken (D-Min.) Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) are also cosponsors.

The House Judiciary Committee approved its version of the legislation in July. Unlike the Senate bill, the House legislation eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine and crack offenses.

The Justice Department supports Congress’s efforts to eliminate the differences between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said at a House hearing in May that the current sentencing policies are “hard to justify.”

Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney

Democrats have opened a new front on the health care reform battle: antitrust exemptions for insurance companies.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held a hearing on a measure to repeal the 1946 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which put regulation of  the health insurance industry in the hands of individual states.

Democrats complain that lax oversight has allowed the insurers to concentrate their market power. They argue that more competition in the health-insurance market would lower prices for consumers.

The Department of Justice says it supports reform, though it stopped short of endorsing any legislation. Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Christine Varney said the Department of Justice “is generally opposed to exemptions from the antitrust laws, whether they be industry-specific or general, in the absence of a strong showing of a compelling need.”

Quoting President Obama, Varney said health insurance reform would benefit both the American people and the American economy, said the Department of Justice looked forward to “working with you and your colleagues in achieving our common objectives.”

Varney at the hearing called the McCarran-Ferguson act a product of a different age in American business. The 1945 legislation reversed a 1944 Supreme Court decision that said health insurance should be regulated on the federal level.

McCarran-Ferguson created a broad antitrust exemption for insurance companies regulated by state law, rendering them immune from challenge as long as they’re not engaged in an activity deemed “boycott, coercion, or intimidation,” Varney said.

The justifications that led to McCarran-Ferguson’s passage “are no longer valid today,” she said. “It’s no longer necessary.”

She added: “The antitrust laws reflect our society’s belief that competition enhances consumer welfare and promotes our economic and political freedoms,” Varney said.

“Nobody’s above the law,” Leahy said. “I don’t know anyone who can say with a straight face that they shouldn’t be subject to the same antitrust laws.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) argued against making insurance agencies subject to antitrust laws, saying he saw “little evidence to justify a complete repeal.”

Democrats, by contrast, saw much evidence to repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, Monday’s threats by insurance companies that if health reform passed, insurance rates would go up, was evidence that health insurance companies could do just that. “When insurance agencies said on Monday night ‘we’re raising rates, they’re going up,” Durbin said, “they could get together, and fix prices; they wouldn’t be able to do that if they were subject to prosecution, would they?”

“They would not,” Varney responded.

“The health insurance agencies have thrown down the gauntlet,” Durbin replied.

Democrats say the the health insurance markets are generally dominated by one or two providers, sometimes with a single insurance provider controlling up to 90 percent of the market. With these kinds of monopolies or duopolies, the Democrats said, the insurance companies have been free to charge whatever they could.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: “Healthcare and medical insurance should be nonprofits.” She said insurers’ profits rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while “premiums have escalated dramatically.”She called Leahy’s bill “one small step to a very loud signal” to the insurance companies.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) painted a picture of the kind of market domination insurance agencies have. Whitehouse noted that in 39 states, two health insurers cover 50 percent of the market, and in nine states, only one company covers 75 percent of the market.

In Maine, Franken noted, an insurance company took the unprecedented move of suing a state to guarantee they make enough money. Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield sued the state, in what Franken called a “brazen” move, to guarantee a 3 percent profit margin that would raise insurance costs on subscribers 18.5 percent.

Hatch was not the only one to argue for keeping McCarran-Ferguson in place. Panelist Lawrence Powell, who represented the Physician Insurers of Association of America, said repealing the law would make little difference, leading to at best, the “status quo.”

“Market concentration is not always indicative of competition,” Powell said. “Another company controls 10 percent.”

This article has been corrected to reflect that the Justice Department has not taken a position on the legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has set a serious tone during his second week in the Senate as he participates in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.  But The Smoking Gun found an old letter from the comedian-turned-senator to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that harkens back to his life before the Senate.

Al Franken (NNDB)

The former comedian asked Ashcroft in the 2003 letter to contribute to “Savin’ It!” –  a book about abstinence that Franken claimed he was working on. Franken claimed that he already had several “wonderful testimonies” from other Bush officials and Republicans for a chapter called, “Role Modelin’ It!”

“Don’t be afraid to share a moment when you were tempted to have sex, but were able to overcome your urges through willpower and strength of character,” the letter said. “Be funny!”

Franken said he wanted Ashcroft to be totally honest because “kids can sense a phony a mile away.”

“Did a young woman ever think you were homosexual just because you wouldn’t have sex with her?” the letter said. “Be serious!”

The Minnesota senator ended up apologizing to Ashcroft in another letter that said the request for a personal story was an “imprudent attempt at satire.”

Senator-elect Al Franken will serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Congressional Quarterly reported this afternoon.

Al Franken (NNDB)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was temporarily holding onto the comedian-turned-politician’s seat on the panel, according to CQ. Franken, a Democrat, claimed the disputed Minnesota seat after the state supreme court ruled today that he received more votes than his Republican challenger, former Sen. Norm Coleman.

The Senate plans to swear in Franken next week following the Fourth of July holiday. In theory, Franken will give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. With a united block of 60 Democratic senators, Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could finally schedule votes on DOJ nominees Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel, Thomas Perez for the Civil Rights Division and Mary L. Smith for the Tax Division.

But Franken’s seating might not be enough to schedule votes on the nominations or push through the long-stalled Johnsen.

Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.) have been absent from Congress with severe health problems. Byrd was released from the hospital today after battling a staph infection for a month. It is unclear when he will be back to cast votes.  Kennedy is being treated for brain cancer. He has said he will try to come back to Washington this summer to work on health care legislation.

Even if one of the ailing senators is able to cast votes, the DOJ nominations could still be held up. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported the Johnsen nomination to the Senate for consideration on March 19. Byrd was present to vote in the Senate until mid-May. Kennedy was present intermittently throughout March and April to cast votes.