announced a monumental agreement with the
Soviet Union whereby the Soviet Union would
purchase virtually al l surplus grain produced in
the United States. U.S. grain and food prices
escalated rapidly owing to this new demand,
causing great public skepticism about the deal,
except in the rural United States, where farm
values and incomes escalated.
Another method used by the government to
subsidize agricultural products is the combina-
tion of target prices, deficiency payments, and
mandatory acreage reduction. This approach is
used primarily for corn and wheat, the main
U.S. grain crops. Under this method, the
government sets an ideal price, or target price,
for a
COMMODITY. If the market price falls below
that target price, the government pays the
farmer the difference—that is, makes a deficien-
cy payment to the farmer. This prevents the
farmer from being forced to sell the product at a
price the government deems unfairly low, and
supports the farmer’s income during difficult
economic periods. Programs using this method
are not mandatory, so the farmer must enlist in
one to be involved. In return for a guaranteed
minimum income and price stability, the farmer
normally is required to take a specified portion
of land out of production—that is, make a
mandatory acreage reduction—at least for pro-
gram commodities.

countries. U.S. dairy producers claim that until
the other producing nations drop their subsi-
dies, it would be economic
SUICIDE for the
United States to lower subsidies.
The government also subsidizes agriculture
through nonrecourse loans. With this type of
subsidy, the government loans money to farmers
using the farmers’ future harvest as collateral.
The government sets a per-bushel loan rate at
which farmers can borrow money prior to
harvest, so that they can hold their crops for
later sale when the market price rises. The
government determines how much a farmer
can borrow by multiplying the loan rate (which is
usually equal to the government target price for
the crop) by the farmer’s base acreage (which is
determined by calculating the number of acres
the farmer planted of a target crop over several
years, and multiplying that total by the farmer’s
average yield). The crop is the collateral for the
loan, and the farmer can either repay the loan in
cash and sell the crop, or default and
FORFEIT the
crop to the government. If the market price is
lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the
farmer’s actual production rate is below the
farmer’s base acreage rate, the government’s only
RECOURSE for recouping part of its loan is to take
the collateral crop. This subsidy is used primarily

would be unable to support themselves through
market lows and weather catastrophes. Suppor-
ters often state that government support for
family farms keeps farm monopolies from
dominating production and raising prices. They
also cite the great advances in
PER CAPITA
production since the New Deal revisions in
farm policy as evidence of the success of
agriculture subsidies.
In addition, supporters point out that the
government has encouraged soil conservation
through subsidies. They point to laws such as
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608-1 et seq., 16 U.S.
C.A. § 590 et seq., which required that farmers
who received income subsidies plant soil-
conserving crops like legumes rather than soil-
depleting crops such as corn, and that farmers
use contour crop-stripping methods to hinder
soil erosion resulting from water runoff.
Opponents of agriculture subsidies say the
farm economy is overly dependent on govern-
ment, and that market forces woul d be a more
efficient and inexpensive method of regulating
production and market price. They contend
that in the 1970s and 1980s, up to 30 percent of
farmers’ incomes were made up of government
payments, primarily during years when guaran-
teed deficiency payments ballooned, and that

subsidies by 2003. The six-year period, however,
contradicted the avowed purpose of the 1996
act. The law sought to soften the blow to
farmers by increasing subsidies through the use
of market transition payments. These payments
differed from traditional subsidies because they
were not tied to commodity prices, so even if
the market prices rose, the farmers would
receive payments. In addition, the payment
schedules were almost three times higher than
the amounts paid out in previous farm bills.
Advocates of a free market without subsidies
were angered as Congress started to back away
from the basic concept of the Freedom to Farm
Act. As farm incomes started to fall in 1998,
members of both political parties agreed to
authorize additional funds for farm subsidies.
This process continued through 2001 as farmers
cited bad weather, natural disasters, and other
forces for a decline in farm income.
In addition, the 1996 law authorized a dairy
“compact” for six New England states. This
provision sets a minimum farm price for milk
consumed in the six New England states. When
federally regulated milk price s drop below the
compact price, processors are required to pay
farmers the difference. Midwest dairy farmers
have argued this is unfair because the compact
erects a trade barrier and encourages New
England farmers to overproduce milk.

average farm price for that year. The purpose of
the counter-cyclical payments is t o support and
stabilize farm income in the years when market
prices fall.
In 2008 Congress enacted law the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act (2008 Farm Act).
The act governs the majority of federal agricul-
ture and agriculture-related programs through
2012. Many of the commodity programs that
were introduced in previous farm legislation
were continued in this act, as well as the
implementation of a new average crop revenue
election program. In addition, the 2008 Farm
Act introduced a permanent disaster-assistance
program. Another major change in the act,
which reflected the changes and trends of the
United States in the move towards buying
organic products, was the establishment of
new programs to support agricultural producers
who were transitioning to organic agriculture.
The act, also provided funding to increase
research into organic agriculture.
Not only did the 2008 Farm Act implement
new programs, but it also impr oved some of the
existing programs. For example, in 2007 a
congressional committee hearing disclosed that
billions of dollars of waste,
FRAUD, and abuse were
prevalent in the then-existing Federal
CROP

payer’s money to a small group of well-off farm
businesses and landowners. Another argument
against farm subsidies is that it
DAMAGES the
economy by causing overproduction, overuse of
marginal farmland, and price inflation. Other
opponents contend that the subsidies not only
damage the United States’ trade relations, but
also that agriculture in the United States would
still thrive without the subsidies.
FURTHER READINGS
Cochrane, Willard, and Mary Ryan. 1976. American Farm
Policy, 1948–1973. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota
Press.
“Congress Passes Farm Legislation Cutting Crop Insurance
Waste by $3.4 Billion.” Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. Available online at http://oversight
.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2231; website home page: http://
oversight.house.gov (accessed September 16, 2009).
Edwards, Chris. Agricultural Subsidies Downsizing the
Federal Government. Available online at http://www.
downsizinggovernment.org/print/agriculture/subsidies;
website home page: nsizinggovern-
ment.org (accessed September 15, 2009).
“Farm and Commodity Policy: Program Provisions: Counter-
Cyclical Payments.” United States Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Briefing
Rooms.Availableonlineat />Briefing/FarmPolicy/countercyclicalpay.htm;website
home page: (access ed
September 18, 2009).

physically present at the scene of the crime.
An aider and abettor is a party to a crime and
may be criminally liable as a principal, an accessory
before the fact, or an accessory after the fact.
AID AND COMFORT
To render assistance or counsel. Any act that
deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen
enemies of the United States, or that weakens or
tends to weaken the power of the United States to
resist and attack such enemies is characterized as
aid and comfort.
Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S.
Constitution specifies that the giving of
AID AND
COMFORT
to the enemy is an element in the
crime of
TREASON. Aid and comfort may consist
of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to
provide some support; actual help or the success
of the enterprise is not relevant.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, there was a great deal of concern
expressed about terrorist “sleeper cells” in the
United States. Sleeper cells can be individual
terrorists or groups of terrorists who blend in
with society at large; they remain inactive, even
for years, until they receive orders to carry out
their mission. Some of the perpetrators of the
September 1 1 attacks belonged to such sleeper cell s.

for example, the Trading with the Enemy Act
(40 Stat. 411 as amended [1917]) suspends all
forms of trade or communication with persons in
enemy
TERRITORY. The statutory or executive
restrictions imposed under the Trading with
the Enemy Act are limited to formal periods of
war, although other authority exists permitting
the president to impose restrictions on trade or
communications with a country without a
DECLARATION of war.
Because the Trading with the Enemy Act
and similar statutes apply specifically to other
nations in times of war, their provisions do not
apply easily to dealings between citizens of the
United States and members of terrorist organi-
zations. After the
SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS were
perpetrated by terrorist organizations against
the United States, Congress enacted the Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Ap-
propriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct
TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub.
L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 277) in order to
strengthen the ability of the United States to
protect itself from terrorist activities. The USA
PATRIOT Act amended the existing statutory
provisions permitting the president to restrict
transactions and other transfers with foreign

States from traveling to or dealing with the
government of Iraq. Arch Trading Company,
Inc., a corporation based in Virginia, violated this
DECREE by completing a contract with Iraq. The
U.S. government brought criminal charges
against the company for conspiring to commit
an offense against the United States in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (2000). Despite arguments by
the company that violation of the order was not
an “offense” under federal law, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the
company could be properly charged ( United
States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087 [4th Cir.
1993]).
FURTHER READINGS
Bordwell, Percy. 2008. The Law of War between Belligerents:
A Commentary (1908). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.
Green, Leslie C. 1999. Essays on the Modern Law of War. 2d
ed. Ardsley, NY: Transnational.
Williams, Nathan. 2001. “How Has the Onset of War
Coincided with Limitations on Press Freedom
Throughout Our Nation’s History?” George Mason
Univ.’s History News Network Web site. Available online
at website home page:
(accessed August 29, 2009).
CROSS REFE RENCES
Rules of War; War.
AIDS
See ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME.
AIR POLLUTION

this duty and was required to pay
DAMAGES or
was enjoined (stopped through an
INJUNCTION
issued by a court) from engaging in the activities
that created the pollution. In determining
whether to enjoin an alleged polluter, courts
balanced the damage to the
PLAINTIFF land-
owner’s property against the hardship the
DEFENDANT polluter would incur in trying to
eliminate, or abate, the pollution. Courts often
denied injunctions because the economic dam-
age suffered by the defendant—and, by exten-
sion, the surrounding community if the defen-
dant was essential to the local economy—in
trying to eliminate the pollution often out-
weighed the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Thus, in many cases, the plaintiff was left only
with the remedy of money damages—a cash
payment equal to the estimated monetary value
of the damage caused by the pollution—and the
polluting activities were allowed to continue.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
192 AIDS
Using a nuisance action to control wide-
spread air pollution proved inadequate in other
ways as well. At
COMMON LAW, only the attorney
general or local

first to institute air-quality laws. Others, such as
Chicago and Cincinnati, passed smoke-control
ordinances in 1881, and by 1912, 23 U.S. cities
with populations of more than 200,000 had
passed smoke-abatement laws.
Though the early court cases usually
addressed polluted air as an interference with
the enjoyment of property, scientists quickly
discovered that air pollution also poses significant
health and environmental risks. It is believed to
contribute to the incidence of chronic diseases
such as emphysema, bronchitis, and other respi-
ratory illnesses and has been linked to higher
mortality rates from other diseases, including
cancer and heart disease.
The shortcomings associated with the com-
mon law remedies to control air pollution and
increasing alarm over the problem’s long-range
effects finally resulted in the development of
state and federal legislation. The first significant
legislation concerning air quality was the Air
Pollution Control Act, enacted in 1955 (42 U.S.
C.A. § 7401 et seq. [1955]). Also known as the
CLEAN AIR ACT, it gave the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare the power to undert ake
and recommend research programs for air-
pollution control. Amendments passed during
the 1960s authorized federal agencies to inter-
vene to help abate interstate pollution in limited
circumstances, to control emissions from new

Drivers in downtown
Phoenix are advised
to utilize public
transportation in
order to help reduce
the area’s high levels
of air pollution.
ª JACK KURTZ/ZUMA/
CORBIS.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
AIR POLLUTION 193
endangering public health or welfare, in partic-
ular sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
photochemical oxidants in the atmosphere.
The EPA was also granted the auth ority to
require levels of harmful pollutants to be
brought within set standards before further
industrial expansion would be permitted.
Despite the ambitious scope of the 1970
legislation, many of its goals were never attained.
As a result, the Clean Air Act was extensively
revised again in 1977 (Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat.
685 [Aug. 7, 1977]). One significant component
of the 1977 amendments was the formulation of
programs designed to inspect, control, and
monitor vehicle emissions. The 1977 revisions
also sought to regulate parking on the street,
discourage automobile use in crowded areas,
promote the use of bicycle lanes, and encourage

a number of federally sponsored studies, includ-
ing an analysis of Canada’s approach to dealing
with acid rain and an investigation of the use of
National Air Pollutant Emissions, 1970 to 2008
154.2
110.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
204.0
163.2
1970
188.4
153.5
1975
185.4
143.8
1980
176.8
134.2
1985 1990
126.8
83.9
1995
114.5
68.1
2000

terrestrial resources.” In addition, the amend-
ments provided for a controversial system of
“marketable allowances,” which authorize in-
dustries to emit certain amounts of sulfate and
which can be transferred to other entities or
“banked” for future use.
The problem ofglobal climate change is linked
to the accumulation of gases, including carbon
dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. The
1990 amendments implemented a number of
strategies to address changes in the global climate,
including the commissioning of studies on
options for controlling the emission of methane.
The amendments also contained provisions to
deal with the depletion of the ozone layer, which
shields the earth from the harmful effects of the
sun’s radiation. Though the long-term conse-
quences were hard to determine inthe early 2000s,
damage had already been seen in the form of a
“hole” in the ozone layer over Antarctica. The
destruction of the ozone layer was believed to be
caused by the release into the atmosphere of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other similar
substances. The 1990 laws included a ban on
“nonessential uses” of ozone-depleting chemicals,
and the placement of conspicuous warning labels
on certain substances, indicating that their use
harms public health and the environment by
destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Regulatory interpretation of the Clean Air

motor vehicle “greenhouse gas” emissions (pri-
marily carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
gases). The EPA announced a review of the
Clinton-era policy, then issued proposed rule
changes in December 2002 that would relax
requirements governing pollution levels and
mandatory equipment upgrades. The EPA state d
that it lacked authority to regulat e such gases. It
argued, in part, that carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases were naturally occurring sub-
stances in the atmosphere and therefore did not
constitute “air pollutants” within the meaning of
the Clean Air Act.
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), 549 U.S 497 (2007), the U.S.
Supreme Court was asked to determine whether
the EPA had the statutory authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions from new motor
vehicles; and if so, whether EPA’s stated reasons
for declining to act were consistent with the
statute. The Court narrowly decided, in a 5–4
landmark decision, that gases that cause global
warming were pollutants under the federal Clean
Air Act. The Court further held that EPA did
indeed have the statutory authority to regulate
them, and that it had acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in refusing to exercise that authority.
The long-winded controversy centered on
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, specifically,
42 USC §7521(a)(1), which states in relevant part:

enforcement was subsequently halted while a
court battle was waged over the ban. By 2008 a
clear majority of states (more than 30) had
implemented state -wide smoking bans in public
places, but legal challenges at the local level
continued across the country.
Opposition to indoor smoking bans has
come from the bar, restaurant, and
TOBACCO
industries. Commercial gr oups argue that bans
result in revenue loss, burdensome
COMPLIANCE
regulation, and even a diminished labor force.
They have achieved some success. Some city
councils rejected proposed ordinances after
heavy
LOBBYING, such as in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, and the city of Pueblo, Colorado,
was forced to suspend its ordinances following a
successful public signature drive calling for a
public
REFERENDUM in 2003.
FURTHER READINGS
Findley, Roger W., and Daniel A. Farber. 2008. Environ-
mental Law in a Nutshell. 7th ed. St. Paul, Minn.:
Thomson/West.
Jackson, Ted. 2003. “Activists Fret President’s Plan Hurts
Effort on FPL Emissions.” Palm Beach Post (February
28).
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008. “Public Place Smoking

attacks of September 11, 2001, wrought further
change on the airline industry. Just weeks after
the attacks, President
GEORGE W. BUSH signed the
Air Transportation Safety and System Stabiliza-
tion Act (ATSSSA). According to a statement
released by Pres ident Bush on September 22,
2001, the act was intended to ensure passenger
safety and to “assure the safety and immediate
stability of the nation’s commercial airline
system.” It also created financial turmoil for
nearly all the major carriers. What followed was
a period of evolution and metamorphosis that
changed the nature of flying conside rably.
Deregulation
When the first commercial airlines appeared
after
WORLD WAR I, fewer than 6,000 passengers
per y ear traveled by air. By the 1930s the Big
Four—Eastern Air Lines, United Air Lines,
American Airline s, and Trans World Airlines
(TWA)—dominated commercial air transport.
These companies had garnered exclusive rights
from the federal government to fly domestic
airmail routes, and Pan American (Pan Am)
held the rights to international routes. The
hold of these four airlines on their lucrative
CONTRACTS went virtually unchallenged until
deregulation in 1978. Even after the formation
of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in 1938,

cost of jet fuel caused airline profits to drop.
Labor strife also affected the industry in the
early days following deregulation. In 1981, after
years of working under stressful conditions
made worse by deregulation, the Professional
Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO)
called a strike, demanding shorter working
hours and higher pay. The union expected
support and cooperation from the Reagan
administration because of a sympathetic letter
that President
RONALD REAGAN had sent to
PATCO when he was campaigning for the
presidency. In the letter, he pledged to do
whatever was necessary to meet PATCO’s needs
and to ensure the public’s safety. But Reagan
ordered the strikers to return to work within
three days or be fired. Most did not return. The
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) ordered
all carriers to temporarily reduce their number
of flights by one-third. Newer and smaller
carriers found themselves increasingly unable to
gain access to lucrative routes. Rebuilding the
air traffic co ntroller force took years, during
which landing slots at the largest airports
remained restricted, and small carriers, unable
to compete, simply abandoned their attempts to
break into the larger markets.
To some extent, competitive pricing actually
had the opposite effect of what the deregulators

carriers in the middle of a trip, the dominant
company in a hub had a tremendous advantage
over the competition in influencing what carrier
a passenger would choose. By 1990 two-thirds of
Passengers preparing
to board an airplane
must discard all
liquids weighing more
than 3 ounces, a limit
enacted by the U.S.
Transportation
Security Adminis-
tration in 2006 after
an alleged liquid
bomb plot was
exposed in the United
Kingdom.
GEORGE RIZER-POOL/
GETTY IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
AIRLINES 197